Better HoF credentials (1 Viewer)

[thesurfshop19]

Who do you think has better credentials for the pro football Hall of Fame between these two Broncos, Terrell Davis or Rod Smith?

In other words, who of the two do you feel is more deserving of consideration for the Hall? This doesn't mean you think either of them should necessarily get in, only who you think has a better case.

(I'm not specifically asking who has the better chance to get in, since we really have nothing to do with that.)

The breakdown is below (thanks to pro-football-reference.com for the numbers):

Terrell Davis

--1,655 rushing attempts (48th all-time)

--7,607 rushing yards (39th all-time)

--60 rushing TDs (35th all-time)

--Led Broncos in rushing yards 4 straight years and 5 total (1995-1998, 2001)

--3-time Pro Bowler (1996, 1997, 1998), 1998 NFL MVP

--8 post-season games (142 yards, 1.50 TD per game); SB32 MVP

--Has the 2 most prolific rushing seasons in NFL history including playoffs (1997, 1998)

--Holds the league record for most rushing yards in a 3-year span (1996-1998)

--Retired due to injuries (and possibly Clinton Portis )

Rod Smith

--797 receptions (15th all-time)

--10,877 receiving yards (16th all-time)

--65 receiving TDs (35th all-time)

--Led Broncos in receiving yards 9 straight years (1997-2005, active streak)

--3-time Pro Bowler (2000, 2001, 2005)

--13 post-season games (66 receiving yards, .46 TD per game); probably SB33 MVP runner-up

--Has been the leader and heart of the Broncos for the last several years

--Has the reputation as one of the better blocking WRs in the league

--Still playing and accumulating numbers

So, who do you go with? One was possibly the best player in the league for 3 years but not much more than that. The other's been a very good, if not great, player for 9 years with a good chance to tack on 2-4 more years worth of stats.

 

[SoFresh&SoClean]

Terrell Davis.

 

[thesurfshop19]

Terrell Davis.

For me, it was Rod Smith (despite my avatar). But it's really close IMO. I don't know if TD really had a long enough peak, despite just how good it was and the postseason numbers, to really justify putting him in the same HoF as Emmitt Smith and Barry Sanders.I don't think Rod Smith will get in either, but since he's still playing and has a shot at a 3rd ring, I think he may have a better case once it's all said and done.

Let's see how this one turns out.

 

[Blackjacks]

TD without a doubt. The hall is for great players not very good one's. TD,although his career was shortened, was a great player. No disrespect to Rod Smith but I just don't put him up there with other great wr's. This is just my opinion but TD was GREAT and that's what I think gets you in the hall.

 

[Hunterbeer]

TD without a doubt. The hall is for great players not very good one's. TD,although his career was shortened, was a great player. No disrespect to Rod Smith but I just don't put him up there with other great wr's. This is just my opinion but TD was GREAT and that's what I think gets you in the hall.

I sort of agree here. I do not think either will, or should, get in, but I like the credentials of TD more. He was a GREAT player, albeit for only a short period of time. Rod Smith has been very good only.

 

[B Maverick]

Being 39th all time in rushing and only having 7600 yards doesnt get you in the hall of fame. TD was great for 3 years and good for 5. He doesnt belong in the Hall of Fame.

Rod has better credentials being top 15 and still improving as he plays. If he gets to top 10 he has a better shot then TD

 

[David Yudkin]

--Holds the league record for most rushing yards in a 3-year span (1996-1998)

There have been 8 time when a RB has accumulated 5,000+ rushing yards over a 3-year period . . .Terrell Davis 96-98 5296 (112.68 ypg)Eric Dickerson 84-86 5160 (112.17 ypg)Eric Dickerson 83-85 5147 (111.89 ypg)Barry Sanders 95-97 5106 (106.38 ypgBarry Sanders 96-98 5097 (106.19 ypg)Shaun Alexander 03-05 5011 (104.4 ypg)Earl Campbell 79-81 5007 (106.53 ypg)Earl Campbell 78-80 5081 (110.46 ypg)Those players benefitted from more games played per season, as there have been others with higher ypg averages over 3-years . . .O.J. Simpson 72-74 4945/42 = 117.74 ypgJim Brown 63-65 4853/42 = 115.55 ypgJim Brown 58-60 4113/36 = 114.25 ypgAs for the poll, Davis was great but didn't last and will get hurt by many other Denver RB stepping in and putting up big numbers. Smith had some strong seasons and was a consistent performer, although I am not sure he belongs in the pantheon of all-time greats. So neither would get my vote.

 

[Blackjacks]

Being 39th all time in rushing and only having 7600 yards doesnt get you in the hall of fame. TD was great for 3 years and good for 5. He doesnt belong in the Hall of Fame.

Rod has better credentials being top 15 and still improving as he plays. If he gets to top 10 he has a better shot then TD

I think Art Monk has alot better #'s but his long avg. career is what keeps hurting him. There isn't a WOW involved. I agree with what David said somewhat and I personally don't think Terrell will get in but if it was up to me he would because I thought he was GREAT.

 

[David Yudkin]

To further illustrate how dominant the Denver rushing attack has been . . .

1995 Davis 4.7 ypc, TD every 33.9 carries

1996 Davis 4.5 ypc, TD every 26.5 carries

1997 Davis 4.7 ypc, TD every 24.6 carries

1998 Davis 5.1 ypc, TD every 18.7 carries

1999 Gary 4.2 ypc, TD every 39.4 carries

2000 Anderson 5.0 ypc, TD every 19.8 carries

2001 Anderson 3.9 ypc, TD every 43.8 carries

2002 Portis 5.5 ypc, TD every 18.2 carries

2003 Portis 5.5 ypc, TD every 20.7 carries

2004 Droughns 4.5 ypc, TD every 45.8 carries

2005 Anderson 4.2 ypc, TD every 19.9 carries

2005 Bell 5.3 ypc, TD every 21.6 carrries

Overall, I don't see much of a dropoff since Davis retired. That won't help his cause once he's HOF eligible.

 

[thesurfshop19]

To further illustrate how dominant the Denver rushing attack has been . . .

1995 Davis 4.7 ypc, TD every 33.9 carries

1996 Davis 4.5 ypc, TD every 26.5 carries

1997 Davis 4.7 ypc, TD every 24.6 carries

1998 Davis 5.1 ypc, TD every 18.7 carries

1999 Gary 4.2 ypc, TD every 39.4 carries

2000 Anderson 5.0 ypc, TD every 19.8 carries

2001 Anderson 3.9 ypc, TD every 43.8 carries

2002 Portis 5.5 ypc, TD every 18.2 carries

2003 Portis 5.5 ypc, TD every 20.7 carries

2004 Droughns 4.5 ypc, TD every 45.8 carries

2005 Anderson 4.2 ypc, TD every 19.9 carries

2005 Bell 5.3 ypc, TD every 21.6 carrries

Overall, I don't see much of a dropoff since Davis retired. That won't help his cause once he's HOF eligible.

The obvious difference here is that TD and Clinton Portis are the only Denver RBs to really handle the load by themselves. You went directly to the "per carry" numbers to make your point to intentionally distance yourself from this.TD's 1998 season was essentially Anderson and Bell's 2005 season combined, by one person. Surely you see that as more impressive, since it's one guy taking the entire beating and one guy to count on throughout the season. (Similar arguments for the 3-year span thing; give the older guys more games, maybe their bodies break down. If they play 8 playoff games 3 years, that's more mileage that isn't even "counted" in these numbers.)

All this said, I don't think I'd put either in the Hall. TD wasn't long enough and Rod Smith just wasn't great enough. Again, I'm more interested in who's closer to the Hall. Is sustained very good-ness better than flash-in-the-pan excellence?

 

[Ghost Rider]

Being 39th all time in rushing and only having 7600 yards doesnt get you in the hall of fame.

Does running for 4956 yards in your entire career get you in? If not, please start the campaign to have Gale Sayers banished from the Hall.

To further illustrate how dominant the Denver rushing attack has been . . .

1995 Davis 4.7 ypc, TD every 33.9 carries

1996 Davis 4.5 ypc, TD every 26.5 carries

1997 Davis 4.7 ypc, TD every 24.6 carries

1998 Davis 5.1 ypc, TD every 18.7 carries

1999 Gary 4.2 ypc, TD every 39.4 carries

2000 Anderson 5.0 ypc, TD every 19.8 carries

2001 Anderson 3.9 ypc, TD every 43.8 carries

2002 Portis 5.5 ypc, TD every 18.2 carries

2003 Portis 5.5 ypc, TD every 20.7 carries

2004 Droughns 4.5 ypc, TD every 45.8 carries

2005 Anderson 4.2 ypc, TD every 19.9 carries

2005 Bell 5.3 ypc, TD every 21.6 carrries

Overall, I don't see much of a dropoff since Davis retired. That won't help his cause once he's HOF eligible.

Steve Young put up just as good a numbers in the SF offense after Joe Montana left. Does that diminish what Montana did when he was there?Also, since Davis, how many of those Denver RB's led the league in rushing, was a dominant postseason RB, won a regular season MVP award or won a Super Bowl MVP award?

 

[David Yudkin]

Does running for 4956 yards in your entire career get you in? If not, please start the campaign to have Gale Sayers banished from the Hall.

For the 487th time, comparing players from long reaching eras is never a fair fight for either player involved.In today's game, there are a lot fewer RB to have 5,000 or fewer rushing yards that are legut HOF candidates than there were in the 60s. If Davis produced what he did in the 60s, he'd have gotten in, too. How many RB had 4,956 rushing yards at the time Sayers played? I believe there were a dozen give or take one or two.I'm not saying Sayers was a great selection, only that in context it makes much more sense than comparing someone from 40 years ago to a player much closer to this generation.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Does running for 4956 yards in your entire career get you in? If not, please start the campaign to have Gale Sayers banished from the Hall.

For the 487th time, comparing players from long reaching eras is never a fair fight for either player involved.

I know that. I was being a wiseacre. However, Davis was just as dominant over a short span as Sayers was. And his postseason success is hard to ignore. I am not saying he should absolutely make it, but I think he deserves a lot more consideration than many seem to want to give him.

 

[beachbum]

rod smith

his all-time rankings in receptions, yards and TDs will move up in the next year(s) and by the end of his career he will garner serious consideration from the HOF (particularly if the Broncos win another SuperBowl during his career)

 

[SoFresh&SoClean]

rod smith

his all-time rankings in receptions, yards and TDs will move up in the next year(s) and by the end of his career he will garner serious consideration from the HOF (particularly if the Broncos win another SuperBowl during his career)

What if they add TO??

 

[dgreen]

Davis was just as dominant over a short span as Sayers was.

Sayers was named the all-time NFL halfback in 1969 (NFL's 50th anniversary) and is a member of the NFL's 75th Anniversary Team. TD was named as one of four RBs to the All 90s Team and it's debateable whether he'd rank 3rd or 4th on that list.

Sayers was dominant for 5 years. Sayers' down year in that stretch was 1968 when he was only 5th in the league in rushing, but he only played 9 games. TD was dominant for 3-4 years, depending on if you count his rookie season.

Sayers was all-NFL five straight years. Not sure about TD, but I'd guess he was 2 or 3 times.

And, for some reason, people like to leave out the little fact that Sayers is likely the best kick returner of all time.

 

[David Yudkin]

Does running for 4956 yards in your entire career get you in? If not, please start the campaign to have Gale Sayers banished from the Hall.

For the 487th time, comparing players from long reaching eras is never a fair fight for either player involved.

I know that. I was being a wiseacre. However, Davis was just as dominant over a short span as Sayers was. And his postseason success is hard to ignore. I am not saying he should absolutely make it, but I think he deserves a lot more consideration than many seem to want to give him.

For the record, I typically argue both sides of the fence in these types of threads. On many occasions I have gone to bat FOR Davis, but ultimately on longevity I think he will have a problem getting in.

 

[David Yudkin]

Also, since Davis, how many of those Denver RB's led the league in rushing, was a dominant postseason RB, won a regular season MVP award or won a Super Bowl MVP award?

Sure, the replacement backs did not get the same accolades as Davis did, but consider the numbers each posted as a starting RBavis: 109.7 total yards, 0.8 TD per gameAnderson: 103.4 total yards, 1.0 TD per gameGary: 107.0 total yards, 0.6 TD per gamePortis: 138.0 total yards, 1.1 TD per gameDroughns: 119.3 total yards, 0.7 TD per gameGriffin: 91.0 total yards, 0.8 TD per gameBell (in games with 12+ carries): 87 total yards, 0.7 TD per gameThat looks pretty close to plug and play in my book. Davis was obviously the workhorse and had more years at the helm than the others, but I would not say it's a difference of epic proportions.

 

[thesurfshop19]

And, for some reason, people like to leave out the little fact that Sayers is likely the best kick returner of all time.

I've made it clear that I don't necessarily think TD should get in the Hall, but I'd say that more people overlook that Davis is by far the best postseason RB of all time than they do Sayers's kick returning ability.

 

[thesurfshop19]

Also, since Davis, how many of those Denver RB's led the league in rushing, was a dominant postseason RB, won a regular season MVP award or won a Super Bowl MVP award?

Sure, the replacement backs did not get the same accolades as Davis did, but consider the numbers each posted as a starting RBavis: 109.7 total yards, 0.8 TD per game

Anderson: 103.4 total yards, 1.0 TD per game

Gary: 107.0 total yards, 0.6 TD per game

Portis: 138.0 total yards, 1.1 TD per game

Droughns: 119.3 total yards, 0.7 TD per game

Griffin: 91.0 total yards, 0.8 TD per game

Bell (in games with 12+ carries): 87 total yards, 0.7 TD per game)

That looks pretty close to plug and play in my book. Davis was obviously the workhorse and had more years at the helm than the others, but I would not say it's a difference of epic proportions.

More than anything, these numbers tell me why Davis retired. Clinton Portis is just a monster out there (system notwithstanding), and he'll just be turning 25 at the beginning of the 2006 season.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Davis was just as dominant over a short span as Sayers was.

Sayers was named the all-time NFL halfback in 1969 (NFL's 50th anniversary) and is a member of the NFL's 75th Anniversary Team. TD was named as one of four RBs to the All 90s Team and it's debateable whether he'd rank 3rd or 4th on that list.

Sayers was dominant for 5 years. Sayers' down year in that stretch was 1968 when he was only 5th in the league in rushing, but he only played 9 games. TD was dominant for 3-4 years, depending on if you count his rookie season.

Sayers was all-NFL five straight years. Not sure about TD, but I'd guess he was 2 or 3 times.

And, for some reason, people like to leave out the little fact that Sayers is likely the best kick returner of all time.

And, for some reason, people always want to leave out how dominant Terrell Davis was in the playoffs. I don't think it is unfair to say he is the most dominant postseason running back ever.

For the record, I typically argue both sides of the fence in these types of threads. On many occasions I have gone to bat FOR Davis, but ultimately on longevity I think he will have a problem getting in.

I think he will, too.

Also, since Davis, how many of those Denver RB's led the league in rushing, was a dominant postseason RB, won a regular season MVP award or won a Super Bowl MVP award?

Sure, the replacement backs did not get the same accolades as Davis did, but consider the numbers each posted as a starting RBavis: 109.7 total yards, 0.8 TD per game

Anderson: 103.4 total yards, 1.0 TD per game

Gary: 107.0 total yards, 0.6 TD per game

Portis: 138.0 total yards, 1.1 TD per game

Droughns: 119.3 total yards, 0.7 TD per game

Griffin: 91.0 total yards, 0.8 TD per game

Bell (in games with 12+ carries): 87 total yards, 0.7 TD per game)

That looks pretty close to plug and play in my book. Davis was obviously the workhorse and had more years at the helm than the others, but I would not say it's a difference of epic proportions.

And how many of those running backs could handle the workload over an entire season without getting hurt, missing multiple games or being spelled by another running back? Heck, even when Portis had that great season back in 2003, he still missed several key games down the stretch due to injury.

You are using Griffin, who has had two great NFL games to date, and Bell, who cannot handle the workload as a featured back, as examples, when neither has ever been the featured back or proven they can carry the load for more than a game or two at a time? That is like saying that Lamont Jordan was better than Curtis Martin when he was a Jet because Jordan had a better YPC (despite Martin having a ton more carries and being the featured back).

Davis had more of a workload than any of those guys ever did in the regular season and still dominated in the playoffs.

 

[dgreen]

Davis was just as dominant over a short span as Sayers was.

Sayers was named the all-time NFL halfback in 1969 (NFL's 50th anniversary) and is a member of the NFL's 75th Anniversary Team. TD was named as one of four RBs to the All 90s Team and it's debateable whether he'd rank 3rd or 4th on that list.

Sayers was dominant for 5 years. Sayers' down year in that stretch was 1968 when he was only 5th in the league in rushing, but he only played 9 games. TD was dominant for 3-4 years, depending on if you count his rookie season.

Sayers was all-NFL five straight years. Not sure about TD, but I'd guess he was 2 or 3 times.

And, for some reason, people like to leave out the little fact that Sayers is likely the best kick returner of all time.

And, for some reason, people always want to leave out how dominant Terrell Davis was in the playoffs. I don't think it is unfair to say he is the most dominant postseason running back ever.

Really? I generally hear two things about TD: he was dominant when healthy and was great in the postseason. I don't hear many people forget about that. I mean, it was just seven years ago. I hope people can remember that far back.

 

[Assani Fisher]

I don't think R Smith should even get close. I think its a close call with TD.

 

[Hunterbeer]

Does running for 4956 yards in your entire career get you in? If not, please start the campaign to have Gale Sayers banished from the Hall.

For the 487th time, comparing players from long reaching eras is never a fair fight for either player involved.

I know that. I was being a wiseacre. However, Davis was just as dominant over a short span as Sayers was. And his postseason success is hard to ignore. I am not saying he should absolutely make it, but I think he deserves a lot more consideration than many seem to want to give him.

This may be the silliest statement I've ever heard. Davis on the best day of hislife could not hold a candle to Sayers. Sayers did EVERYTHING and did it with a flash and style that only Barry Sanders ever came close to matching. In yards per game (rushing, receiving, and return) over his brilliant five year period, Sayers put up this:1965 -- 162.29

1966 -- 174.50 (this is just SICK!)

1967 -- 129.92

1968 -- 162.56

1969 -- 106.21

Davis' best two years were

1998 -- 139.06

1997 -- 135.80

So in Davis' best year, he could not even touch Sayers third best season. In fact, he was ove 20 yards behind him. Davis had four good years, Sayers five. Three of Sayers five good years were better than anything Davis did. Three times in his five year stretch, Sayers averaged more yards per carry than Davis did in his best season. And Davis had a HOF QB to keep the pressure off of him. Sayers had nobody. This is not even close.

For those wondering, some of the greats of the game who got in for both productivity AND longevity, their best combined yards per game were:

1975 -- OJ Simpson 160.21

1963 -- Jim Brown 152.21

1977 -- Walter Payton 151.50

1975 -- OJ Simpson's 2,000 yard season -- 148.07

1997 -- Barry Sandes 147.38

Clearly Sayers achievemnets as a returner helped him. He retired with seven NFL return records.

 

[CanadianNFLJunkie]

TD without a doubt. The hall is for great players not very good one's. TD,although his career was shortened, was a great player. No disrespect to Rod Smith but I just don't put him up there with other great wr's. This is just my opinion but TD was GREAT and that's what I think gets you in the hall.

This is why I don't think NEITHER belongs (yet). It's the Hall of Fame not the Hall for the good players. TD was a very good RB, but he didn't last long enough to be considered great. Smith has a better chance to get in but I don't think he'll put up big number for more than one more season.

 

[thesurfshop19]

TD without a doubt. The hall is for great players not very good one's. TD,although his career was shortened, was a great player. No disrespect to Rod Smith but I just don't put him up there with other great wr's. This is just my opinion but TD was GREAT and that's what I think gets you in the hall.

This is why I don't think NEITHER belongs (yet). It's the Hall of Fame not the Hall for the good players. TD was a very good RB, but he didn't last long enough to be considered great. Smith has a better chance to get in but I don't think he'll put up big number for more than one more season.

This sums it up pretty well.The specifics of the case weren't really that interesting to me. The real reason for this poll was to answer the question, "absent of both, which would you prefer, greatness or longevity?"

Looks like it's about as close as you can get.

 

[thesurfshop19]

This may be the silliest statement I've ever heard. Davis on the best day of hislife could not hold a candle to Sayers. Sayers did EVERYTHING and did it with a flash and style that only Barry Sanders ever came close to matching.

I think you have some very good and fair points in here, but Terrell Davis was the main reason the Broncos won 2 Super Bowl championships.I also don't know if it's necessarily fair to include return yardage in Sayers's totals -- few all-purpose backs in the modern game also return kicks. It's a different enough era that the numbers may not necessarily be comparable.

 

[Tau837]

I addressed the Sayers-Davis comparison back in January:

I think Davis has just as strong a case as Sayers did

I must disagree.From Pro Football Hall of Fame:

Gale Eugene Sayers. . .Kansas All-America. . .Exceptional break-away runner. . .Scored rookie record 22 TDs, 132 points, 1965. . .Led NFL rushers, 1966, 1969. . .Named all-time NFL halfback, 1969. . . All-NFL five straight years. . .Player of Game in three Pro Bowls. . .Career totals: 9,435 combined net yards, 4,956 yards rushing, 336 points. . . NFL lifetime kickoff return leader. . .Born May 30, 1943, in Wichita, Kansas.

Gale Sayers burst upon the pro football scene in 1965 with the kind of an impact that the sport had not felt in many years. It is difficult to imagine a more dynamic debut than the one he enjoyed as a rookie. In his first heavy pre-season action, he raced 77 yards on a punt return, 93 yards on a kickoff return, and then startled everyone with a 25-yard scoring pass against the Los Angeles Rams.

In regular season, he scored four touchdowns, including a 96-yard game breaking kickoff return, against the Minnesota Vikings. And, in the next-to-last game, playing on a muddy field that would have stalled most runners, Gale scored a record-tying six touchdowns against the San Francisco 49ers. Included in his sensational spree were an 80-yard pass-run play, a 50-yard rush and a 65-yard punt return. For the entire season, Gale scored 22 touchdowns and 132 points, both then-rookie records.

Quiet, unassuming, and always ready to compliment a teammate for a key block, Sayers continued to sizzle in 1967 and well into the 1968 season. Then, in the ninth game, Sayers suffered a knee injury that required immediate surgery.

After a tortuous rehabilitation program, Gale came back in 1969 in a most spectacular manner, winding up with his second 1,000-yard rushing season and universal Comeback of the Year honors. But injuries continued to take their toll and, just before the 1972 season, Gale finally had to call it quits.

In his relatively short career, he compiled a record that can never be forgotten. His totals show 9,435 combined net yards, 4,956 yards rushing, and 336 points scored. At the time of his retirement he was the NFL's all-time leader in kickoff returns. He won All-NFL honors five straight years and was named Offensive Player of the Game in three of the four Pro Bowls in which he played.

Though not clearly stated above, Sayers was ROY in 1965.Sayers was Michael Vick electric. His career averages:

- 5.0 yards per rush (Davis 4.6)

- 11.7 yards per catch (Davis 7.6)

- 14.5 yards per punt return

- 30.6 yards per kickoff return

- 27.8 yards per completion (but only 6.2 yards per attempt)

Sayers had tremendous impact on special teams, as well as in both the running and passing games on offense. Davis didn't have quite the same overall impact. And, frankly, from the averages shown above, Sayers appears to have been more talented, though I realize it is difficult to compare across eras, offenses, etc.

Sayers played only 2 games in each of his last 2 seasons, unable to overcome injury. So he effectively played only 5 seasons, and he was named All Pro each time. In contrast, Davis played 3 great seasons, 1996-1998. He was All Pro in each of those seasons. But as a rookie, while very impressive for a first year RB, he was not one of the top backs in the NFL. IMO, as great as he was in the next 3 seasons, 3 great seasons makes less of a case than 5 great seasons.

Also, Sayers career was truly done after his 5 year run, as he was able to play only a total of 4 more games over the next 2 seasons. Davis may have actually hurt his case by lingering longer, playing a total of 20 more games over 3 additional seasons after his injury.

I'm not really sure what to think of Sayers being named "All Time NFL halfback" in 1969, but it sounds like an honor that transcends single season awards. I don't recall Davis ever receiving such an award.

And IMO it also does not help Davis's case that Gary, Anderson, Portis, and Droughns have looked so great in the same offense. It certainly raises at least the possibility that Davis's numbers were at least aided by an amazing offensive line/system. In particular, it hurts that Gary went on to play poorly elsewhere, and Portis, while not playing poorly, did not play at the same elite level when he moved on.

I feel that Sayers deserves to be in and Davis does not. And I expect the voters will ultimately agree on Davis.

Davis clearly benefitted from playing in one of the best rushing attacks in NFL history. He also played with one of the few best QBs in NFL history. And a HOF TE.One player other than Sayers made the Pro Bowl during the 5 seasons he was healthy: Mike Ditka, once. And consider that there were only 16 teams in the league then, so it was easier to make it. Even Ditka only had one good season during Sayers' career. And there was no one else on the offense to give him much help.

There is no doubt that Sayers was more HOF worthy than Davis. None.

As to whether people "forget" about Davis's postseason accomplishments, are you kidding me? That is the only reason he is ever in a HOF conversation.

As to the thread subject, it is an interesting decision. I don't think either of them will or should make it. I think Davis is a great example of a short career that falls just short, and Rod Smith is an example of a long career that falls just short. I don't see how one can be deemed closer than the other, but if that is the case I assume it would be Davis, since postseason accomplishments can tend to carry more weight.

 

[Koya]

Does running for 4956 yards in your entire career get you in? If not, please start the campaign to have Gale Sayers banished from the Hall.

For the 487th time, comparing players from long reaching eras is never a fair fight for either player involved.In today's game, there are a lot fewer RB to have 5,000 or fewer rushing yards that are legut HOF candidates than there were in the 60s. If Davis produced what he did in the 60s, he'd have gotten in, too. How many RB had 4,956 rushing yards at the time Sayers played? I believe there were a dozen give or take one or two.

I'm not saying Sayers was a great selection, only that in context it makes much more sense than comparing someone from 40 years ago to a player much closer to this generation.

Aside from the fact that players had far shorter seasons, less plays a game and a completely different brand of offensive football, there is NO doubt that Sayers is not only a very solid HoF member, but one of the best. He simply did things on a football field over 5 years that NO one had EVER done before - and no one has done since. He was Barry, maybe better, decades ago. The guy made moves on pursuing players that were BEHIND him, completely out of view. There has probably never been a runner with better vision ever - and quite probably, there has never been a better runner. Ever.

If you want, find some tape... it is the only thing that can possibly convince someone how utterly amazing Sayers was.

 

[Chase Stuart]

This may be the silliest statement I've ever heard. Davis on the best day of hislife could not hold a candle to Sayers. Sayers did EVERYTHING and did it with a flash and style that only Barry Sanders ever came close to matching. In yards per game (rushing, receiving, and return) over his brilliant five year period, Sayers put up this:

1965 -- 162.29

1966 -- 174.50 (this is just SICK!)

1967 -- 129.92

1968 -- 162.56

1969 -- 106.21

Davis' best two years were

1998 -- 139.06

1997 -- 135.80

So in Davis' best year, he could not even touch Sayers third best season. In fact, he was ove 20 yards behind him. Davis had four good years, Sayers five. Three of Sayers five good years were better than anything Davis did. Three times in his five year stretch, Sayers averaged more yards per carry than Davis did in his best season. And Davis had a HOF QB to keep the pressure off of him. Sayers had nobody. This is not even close.

For those wondering, some of the greats of the game who got in for both productivity AND longevity, their best combined yards per game were:

1975 -- OJ Simpson 160.21

1963 -- Jim Brown 152.21

1977 -- Walter Payton 151.50

1975 -- OJ Simpson's 2,000 yard season -- 148.07

1997 -- Barry Sandes 147.38

Clearly Sayers achievemnets as a returner helped him. He retired with seven NFL return records.

Well this guy was pretty good too:1994: 154.81

1995: 146.75

1996: 124.69

1997: 130.06

1998: 147.31

 

[Hunterbeer]

This may be the silliest statement I've ever heard.  Davis on the best day of hislife could not hold a candle to Sayers.  Sayers did EVERYTHING and did it with a flash and style that only Barry Sanders ever came close to matching.  In yards per game (rushing, receiving, and return) over his brilliant five year period, Sayers put up this:

1965 -- 162.29

1966 -- 174.50 (this is just SICK!)

1967 -- 129.92

1968 -- 162.56

1969 -- 106.21

Davis' best two years were

1998 -- 139.06

1997 -- 135.80

So in Davis' best year, he could not even touch Sayers third best season.  In fact, he was ove 20 yards behind him. Davis had four good years, Sayers five.  Three of Sayers five good years were better than anything Davis did.  Three times in his five year stretch, Sayers averaged more yards per carry than Davis did in his best season.  And Davis had a HOF QB to keep the pressure off of him.  Sayers had nobody.  This is not even close.

For those wondering, some of the greats of the game who got in for both productivity AND longevity, their best combined yards per game were:

1975 -- OJ Simpson 160.21

1963 -- Jim Brown 152.21

1977 -- Walter Payton 151.50

1975 -- OJ Simpson's 2,000 yard season -- 148.07

1997 -- Barry Sandes 147.38

Clearly Sayers achievemnets as a returner helped him.  He retired with seven NFL return records.

Well this guy was pretty good too:1994: 154.81

1995: 146.75

1996: 124.69

1997: 130.06

1998: 147.31

Yes, Brian Mitchell was a very good football player. Though I do believe there is a difference between a guy who does it primarily as a RB (in other words does it on almost every play) versus a guy who does it mostly on returns, there is no denying that for a five-year stretch Mitchell gave the Washington Redskins a huge advantage in special teams and was a major weapon. Thought you had me, didn't you?

 

[thesurfshop19]

Yes, Brian Mitchell was a very good football player. Though I do believe there is a difference between a guy who does it primarily as a RB (in other words does it on almost every play) versus a guy who does it mostly on returns, there is no denying that for a five-year stretch Mitchell gave the Washington Redskins a huge advantage in special teams and was a major weapon.

Thought you had me, didn't you?

My guess is that he wasn't interested in "having" you ... but rather in pointing out that the numbers you posted, while interesting, are almost by design misleading.TD Hall proponents generally use Sayers as an example where you can get into the HoF without having true longevity. The only way the "Sayers > TD, therefore TD not in Hall" argument works is if you feel that Sayers is the worst existing player in the Hall (and thus any player worse than him shouldn't get in).

Otherwise, it's just one part of an overall argument as to whether Davis deserves to get in. Sayers was more electrifying and has better numbers and was easily the better talent. But Davis was the main reason the Broncos won two Super Bowls.

Again, I'm not sure that either Davis or Rod Smith should be in the Hall. That issue wasn't particularly interesting to me, as I was more curious as to how people feel about the "great for a short time" vs. "very good for a long time" argument in the absence of the ideal "great for a long time". I picked these particular players since they're from the same team, played together, and both will probably not make it but will get a few fringe votes.

 

[PMENFAN]

I think TD has the better credentials, but I don't think either should get in, but both have an outside shot, and I'd say they're about equal.

I've never thought TD was that good. ANY RB will put up those numbers when you're rarely hit until you're 5 yards downfield w/ your shoulders square. Look at the numbers w/ the Broncos attack after he left. Yes, many of the season are w/ 2 backs. So what? IT's still the same hole opening. The one down year was, I believe, when they lose Brown and Zimmerman, and Schlereth the next year.

Also, anybody who would compare TD to Gayle Sayers never saw Gayle Sayers run. He's in because of his greatness, not because of the numbers. Was TD returning kicks and punts? TD have 6 TD's in a game? Gayle is, to me, what the HOF should be, great players, not statistical compilations.

Again, 2 halls shold be there, one for greatness, and one for statistical compiilation. I'm not saying compilation is anything to sneeze at, but it's a reflection on luck.

 

[PsychoMan]

I think TD has the better credentials, but I don't think either should get in, but both have an outside shot, and I'd say they're about equal. 

I've never thought TD was that good.  ANY RB will put up those numbers when you're rarely hit until you're 5 yards downfield w/ your shoulders square.  Look at the numbers w/ the Broncos attack after he left.  Yes, many of the season are w/ 2 backs.  So what?  IT's still the same hole opening.  The one down year was, I believe, when they lose Brown and Zimmerman, and Schlereth the next year. 

Also, anybody who would compare TD to Gayle Sayers never saw Gayle Sayers run.  He's in because of his greatness, not because of the numbers.  Was TD returning kicks and punts?  TD have 6 TD's in a game?  Gayle is, to me, what the HOF should be, great players, not statistical compilations. 

Again, 2 halls shold be there, one for greatness, and one for statistical compiilation.  I'm not saying compilation is anything to sneeze at, but it's a reflection on luck.

I know what you mean. I always thought people would never put Emmitt Smith at the top of their all-time RB list if he hadn't played for the great Dallas teams for so long. When I think of a great statistical complilation, I think of Emmitt. When I think of someone great, I think of Barry. Either way, they both deserve to get in.I think TD is a bit of both (for his short career). Sure, he was on a great team, but he had some of the best seasons and post-seasons that any RB ever had. He also did break a lot of tackles; it wasn't just that he ran through huge holes all the time. I would call him great for the few seasons he was healthy, and I think he deserves to be in.

 

[PMENFAN]

He also did break a lot of tackles; it wasn't just that he ran through huge holes all the time. I would call him great for the few seasons he was healthy, and I think he deserves to be in.

He broke a lot of tackles, because he was always square when he got hit. Most backs break tackles in that situation. Davis didn't suck, he was an above average back, but I think his statistical achievement came from running behind a line anchored by Brown, Zimmerman, Nalen and Schlereth. That's 3, hall of famers, and one very good tackle. Also he had Eddie Mac and Rod Smith blocking downfield. He was in RB heaven, and that's evidenced by the numbers from Gary and Anderson that followed him.

 

[Hunterbeer]

Yes, Brian Mitchell was a very good football player.  Though I do believe there is a difference between a guy who does it primarily as a RB (in other words does it on almost every play) versus a guy who does it mostly on returns, there is no denying that for a five-year stretch Mitchell gave the Washington Redskins a huge advantage in special teams and was a major weapon.

Thought you had me, didn't you?

My guess is that he wasn't interested in "having" you ... but rather in pointing out that the numbers you posted, while interesting, are almost by design misleading.TD Hall proponents generally use Sayers as an example where you can get into the HoF without having true longevity. The only way the "Sayers > TD, therefore TD not in Hall" argument works is if you feel that Sayers is the worst existing player in the Hall (and thus any player worse than him shouldn't get in).

Otherwise, it's just one part of an overall argument as to whether Davis deserves to get in. Sayers was more electrifying and has better numbers and was easily the better talent. But Davis was the main reason the Broncos won two Super Bowls.

Again, I'm not sure that either Davis or Rod Smith should be in the Hall. That issue wasn't particularly interesting to me, as I was more curious as to how people feel about the "great for a short time" vs. "very good for a long time" argument in the absence of the ideal "great for a long time". I picked these particular players since they're from the same team, played together, and both will probably not make it but will get a few fringe votes.

Hmm, I thought it was trivia, but it only helps prove my point. Despite not getting the punt return opportunities and playing in a lower scoring era (thus fewer KR opportunities), Sayers STILL managed to put up more yards per game than the man with the most return yards in NFL history.My point was for the short career thing that Sayers had five great years. Davis had four. Sayers averaged more yards per carry over both their careers and their primes. Sayers averaged more yards per reception over both their careers and their primes. And Sayers did not have the benefit of a HOF QB, a HOF TE and one of the great offensive lines in the history of football to aid him like Davis did.

This is a no-brainer. Sayers was an all-time great and there is no way Davis should even be mentioned in the same breath with him.

 

[Red Herring]

The poll and the question are 2 different animals, but:

TD has the better credentials now, Smith will have the better creds if he can continue his production for at least 2-3 more years.

Neither belongs in the hall though. Forget arguements about other players in the hall, different eras, etc. They are who they are, and played when they played. TD needed Smith's longevity, Smith would need TD's statistical dominance to get in.

Granted comparisons between different sports are tenuous at best, but I'll forge on anyway: Orel Hershiser was more dominant over a short span than any pitcher had ever been, Jim Rice was very good for a long, long time. Do either of them deserve to be HOFers? No.

Long and short, HOF creds (IMHO) include either being the best at your position for a long time, or being the very best to ever play your position (ala Sayers or, say, Kofax)

 

[Jason Wood]

I think Terrell Davis showed greatness while healthy but didn't do it long enough. I know his supporters point to Gayle Sayers but that's still a stretch IMHO.

In Rod Smith's case, while his career numbers have been impressive, he's in THE era of receivers and, as several other threads have shown of late, he's never been among the elite at his position at any point in his career. There are too many Smith contemporaries that will get consideration ahead of him for him to have a real chance at induction.