i mentioned earl campbell above, after sayers...
you make some excellent points, and are helping me to rethink a position that isn't as cut and dry as i thought...
whether longevity is the right position or not, i think it is one that has been used historically and traditionally (i think a player like campbell is best example for RB exception, which is why i cited him)...
i didn't realize davis and campbell were so close in career numbers (regular season)...
i do think all pro awards are clearly significant, multiple ones all the more impressive...
there must be some RBs with none...
so once davis got his first one, BY THAT MEASURE, he would be one up on some HoFers...
you could get two all pros in two seasons... again, if that is all a player did, i don't think that is enough of a body of work to be HoF worthy (and you agreed, just want to address the specific issue of all pro awards vs. longevity)...
davis did have ONE other good season outside his best three (rookie)... 1,100 rushing yards & 7 rushing TDs, 49 receptions 350+ receiving yards and 1 receiving TD...
campbell had TWO other good seasons outside his best... with 1,300+ yards and 10/12 rushing TDs...
and imo, campbell is pushing the envelope in terms of lack of a longer body of work... davis would push the envelope further...
incidentally, what kind of percentage (maybe expressed as a range, estimate doesn't need too rigorous a degree of precision) would you assign his chances of induction...
i think it is higher after rethinking things, but would still be interested in casting a wider net of opinions on this matter...
not to put too fine a point on it, but we seemed to agree and disagree on some things... you agreed it wasn't likely to get in based on two years (!!), but didn't completely rule it out... so if four years is almost as good as five (three elite years plus one or two more, respectively), and three is almost as good as four.. at some point i think your argument does hit some kind of wall in terms of a LOWER BOUND OF LONGEVITY and (lack of) durability... not saying the wall is razor thin with clearly identifiable demarcations on one side or the other... but conversely, difficulty in describing what is ultimately a subjective standard (there are of course no rules about how long you have to have played, let alone at a high level) is not the same as saying it doesn't exist...
the example i used, which was probably a ridiculous hypothetical, but just for the purposes nailing down the point about whether factoring longevity into the "equation" should ever be COMPLETELY thrown out, was a player that has two incredible seasons, or one 4,000 yard season... if that latter, that would presumably lead to an "all pro" season... one, would be one more than some HoFers... by that rationale, do they belong?
speaking of equations, i think it makes it more interesting that it is to a degree a subjective process, debated by sports writers (maybe peers should be included, like fellow HoFers?)... it would be boring if making certain pre-defined criteria summarily led to HoF inclusion as a formality, through mere formulaic application.
thanx for the opportunity to exchange ideas...
First off, exchanging ideas with you is always a pleasure.
Second off, I could see someone making the HoF based on a single season. Imagine, say, if Detroit after its 0-16 season had kept its team entirely unchanged with the exception of adding an RB. Let's say that RB rushed for 4,000 yards and 60 TDs and Detroit went 19-0. Now let's say the RB retired after the season and Detroit went 0-16 again the year afterward. In such a crazy-absurd hypothetical, I would say the RB was absolutely a Hall of Famer, no question at all in my mind. I mean, that one player is the difference between a guaranteed win and a guaranteed loss. He showed he was more valuable than any other 11 guys combined. Or, for an even more extreme example... if we agree that 10,000 yards is a good benchmark for a HoF career, then what if someone rushed for 10,000 yards in a single season? Would you keep him out of the hall because he didn't stick around for 4 more years getting 200 yards a year after that?
Third off, I never argued that Davis belonged because of "lowest common denominator syndrome". I wasn't saying that Davis has more All-Pros than the worst HoFer, so Davis should be in the HoF. I was saying that Davis has more All-Pros than HALF OF THE PLAYERS IN THE HALL. This isn't a case where Davis just edges out the biggest mistake the Hall made at the position (that'd be Hornung, for those wondering at home, although Riggins- aka "fat Lynn Swann"- gets honorable mention), this is a case where Davis clearly stands right in the thick of the HoF pack. Only 16 RBs have earned 3 first team AP All Pros. Comparing that to an RB with one 1AP award is silly. There have been over a hundred RBs with just one 1AP, the huge majority of whom are not in the Hall. There have been 16 RBs with three 1APs, only three of which aren't in the hall (one because everyone recognizes his awards were a joke, one because he played in an 8-team league, and Davis).
As for Campbell vs. Davis... both RBs had 5 good seasons. They had their 3-year dominance (with the 1APs, MVPs, OPoYs, etc). They also had a fourth year attached to the 3-year prime (Campbell had 1530/10 with a whopping TEN FUMBLES in his 4th season; Davis had 1480/8- in two fewer games- with just 5 fumbles as a rookie). Campbell had 1983, where he put up 1500/12. Terrell Davis had 8 games in 2001 (where he ranked 6th in rushing yards per game) plus his 8-game postseason resume. If you add those two 8-game stretches, you get a 16-game "season" of 1841/12 rushing and 200/0 receiving- far better than Campbell's fifth good season.
Even if you want to go with the "Campbell had 5 years, Davis only had 4, therefore Campbell wins on longevity" argument... If you count Davis's prime as the 61 games in his first 4 seasons and the 8 playoff games, you've got a 69 game prime. If you count Campbell's 5 good seasons plus the playoffs, you've got an 82 game prime. In Davis's 69 games, he produced 8734 yards and 73 scores. In Campbell's 82 games, he produced 8784 yards and 71 scores. Those numbers are basically identical
except for the fact that Campbell took 5 years to accumulate them, while Davis only took 4. You're acting like that's a negative for Davis (because Campbell had an extra year of longevity), but I look at it differently. Given two guys with comparable production, the guy who did it in fewer games is more worthy of enshrinement. An RB with 8,000 yards in 12 seasons is a scrub. An RB with 8,000 yards in 6 seasons is a stud. Davis's per-game stats in those 4 seasons work out to 126.6 yards and 1.06 scores. Campbell's per-game stats over his 5-seasons work out to 107.1 yards and 0.87 scores. And Campbell was averaging fewer yards per carry and fumbling twice as frequently, to boot.
I think the big problem here is that you're completely ignoring Terrell Davis's playoff numbers. That's silly. Playoff performances shouldn't count less- if anything, they should count *MORE* because the games are single-elimination and because the quality of defenses faced is higher. Even if you don't count them extra, adding playoff numbers to regular season numbers leaves Terrell Davis easily outpacing Earl Campbell. In fact, as I've shown, Davis produced more in his 4 years than Campbell did in his 5! The awards are essentially a wash (3 first team AP All Pros each, 4 "major awards" each- OPoY, MVP, SBMVP). Outside of that (prime production and awards), what does each RB have? Well, Campbell has 3 more seasons of 600/2 production, while Davis has 2 more seasons of 250/2 production... and two SB rings. Seems like a win for Davis to me.
Despite my reputation as a numbers guy, I really don't think numbers tell the whole story of Davis vs. Campbell. I don't think the comparison is quite as cut-and-dried as all that. I do think, however, that the hall has plenty of room for both of them, and that both are equally deserving of enshrinement. The Tyler Rose was pretty much the franchise for Houston, while TD was the last piece of the puzzle for Denver. Both were comparable in their raw dominance over the rest of the league (both in terms of raw statistics and also in terms of comparisons to their peers). Campbell has his famous punishing running style. Davis has his SB rings and postseason brilliance. In terms of dominance, Chase ranks Davis 8th and Campbell 13th if you include the playoffs (he ranks Campbell 10th and Davis 13th if you don't). Given that there are 26 modern era backs in the hall, both should be considered very solid hall selections.
My thoughts exactly.
) from this being far more realistic... which (unless the mayans were right) won't be long...
* does a ring matter that much?i realize that it did in SOME CASES (does lynn swann even sniff the HoF, based on marginal career numbers, if not part of PIT dynasty)... marino's place wasn't in doubt... sanders, campbell, OJ & dickerson never won...
My post above however, gives my opinion on the chances of TD being inducted by the writers.
