Cory Dillon (1 Viewer)

[comfortably numb]

Lets say he has 2-4 more years of the smiliar year he had this past season.

What do you think?

Current Stats

Attempts 2618

Yards 11,238 currently 14th ALL TIME

RUSH TD's 80 currently 18th

Rush avg 4.3 YPC

1 Super Bowl ring

1997 Cincinnati Bengals 233 1129 4.8 10 TD's

1998 Cincinnati Bengals 262 1130 4.3 4 TD's

1999 Cincinnati Bengals 263 1200 4.6 5 TD's

2000 Cincinnati Bengals 315 1435 4.6 7 TD's

2001 Cincinnati Bengals 340 1315 3.9 10 TD's

2002 Cincinnati Bengals 314 1311 4.2 7 TD's

2003 Cincinnati Bengals 138 541 3.9 2 TD's

2004 New England Patriots 345 1635 4.7 12 TD's

2005 New England Patriots 209 733 3.5 12 TD's

2006 New England Patriots 199 812 4.1 13 TD's

 

[David Yudkin]

This has been discussed in conction with other HOF candidates and I think most will say no.

And IMO Dillon won't last another 2-4 years at his 2006 level of production as he would have to play until he's 34-36 and the chances of that happening with that workload and that many TDs is pretty remote.

On a side note, I read toay in the Boston Herald that their impression was that Dillon seemed like a decent bet to be cut. While I don't see that as clearly as they do, that could make a difference in his numbers as well.

 

[redman]

He's a stronger candidate than many, and I'm impressed by the fact that he did this for so many years on inferior Bengals teams, and that his all-time rushing yards ranking (14) is higher than his rushes ranking (15), which means that he generally compares favorably to his all-time league leading peers. Still, there's not a lot that's compelling about his career outside of his numbers and the inferiority of the teams he played for early on, so it's definitely debateable as to him.

 

[ptsteelers]

Funny thing is, I never would have even considered him for the HOF.

NOT saying he is not worthy, not saying he is either (for I haven't looked over his stats), but it just hit me as weird, that I never even thought of him as a candidate until I seen this topic.

Hmmmm

Now I have to go think.

 

[David Yudkin]

IMO, the way to really evaluate this is to look at a list of players from his era and then see how many other guys should get in before him. In Dillon's case, that should be quite a few (probably too many). Plus Dillon held the label of being a malcontent which probably won't help any.

Dillon probably is deserving, as 1200-1300 yards rushing for the Bengals was probably on par with 1700-1800 yards rushing on far better teams, but we can't debate what could have been had he been on a different team.

 

[CalBear]

Dillon hasn't scored many TDs. If he retired today he would have no chance. I think that he could start to get into the conversation if he catches Jim Brown in rushing yardage (needs about 1050 yards), which would put him at #8 overall. Everyone above Jim Brown is in the Hall or will be. Dillon would have the weakest case due to low TDs and weak receiving numbers.

My bet is "no."

 

[David Yudkin]

Dillon hasn't scored many TDs. If he retired today he would have no chance. I think that he could start to get into the conversation if he catches Jim Brown in rushing yardage (needs about 1050 yards), which would put him at #8 overall. Everyone above Jim Brown is in the Hall or will be. Dillon would have the weakest case due to low TDs and weak receiving numbers.My bet is "no."

One more year like this past one and Dillon will crack the 100 TD barrier. All the players that have hit that milestone have made it so far.Dillon in NE: 39 in 43 gamesDillon in CIN: 50 TD 107 gamesDillon will likely suffer from playing on a team that ranked 27th, 31st, 21st, 32nd, and 28th in scoring in a 5 of 6 year stretch.

 

[Horrorshow]

Although Dillon's resume is a little light on touchdowns he should be at least considered as Hall of Fame material - especially if he can overtake Jim Brown's rushing total with another 1,100 or so yards and move into 8th place all time.

Another Championship probably wouldn't hurt his cause either but as has already been mentioned Corey's career might be running on borrowed time.

Tbh I'm surprised that after his huge year in 2004 and subsequent decline in '05 that he was able to bounce back this season with a nice campaign that saw him post more rushing yards, more rushing touchdowns and a +0.6 improvement on his YPC average. Perhaps CD can surprise us again in '07 with another solid season - with or without the New England Patriots?

Bear in mind that only three men since 1960 - John Riggins, John Henry Johnson and Franco Harris have had 1k rushing campaigns at the age of 33 or above...

 

[Sam Quentin]

he's real borderline IMO

playing in an offensive era will hurt him when compared to the all-timers...

 

[RC94]

How many Pro Bowls has he been to?

 

[Horrorshow]

How many Pro Bowls has he been to?

Four selections. 1999 - 2001 & 2004.

 

[acefootball]

If it was the "hall of very good", then I would say yes. To me the hall of fame should be for those who dominated the era they played in and I just don't see or feel that with Dillon.

ETA: I think a player like I.Bruce kind of falls into the same slot, his numbers will be worthy when he retires.......but I don't think people will remember him as a dominant player, just an extremely good one.

 

[CalBear]

If it was the "hall of very good", then I would say yes. To me the hall of fame should be for those who dominated the era they played in and I just don't see or feel that with Dillon. ETA: I think a player like I.Bruce kind of falls into the same slot, his numbers will be worthy when he retires.......but I don't think people will remember him as a dominant player, just an extremely good one.

Bruce has one of the top WR seasons of all time on his resume (119 receptions, 1781 yards, 13 TD), as well as a huge role in a Super Bowl win (6 receptions for 162 yards and a TD). He's also currently #7 in yardage and is likely to be #3 and possibly #2 before his career is over. He is a much stronger Hall candidate than Dillon, who has never finished in the top 5 RBs for fantasy points, and only finished in the top 5 for rushing yards twice (highest, #3 in 2004). Dillon is also likely to be passed in yardage by at least Edge and Tomlinson before he is eligible for the Hall, and possibly Alexander as well.

 

[cobalt_27]

he's real borderline IMOplaying in an offensive era will hurt him when compared to the all-timers...

He's not even a borderline candidate, imo. Good RB, but not even in the HOF neighborhood.

 

[cobalt_27]

IMO, the way to really evaluate this is to look at a list of players from his era and then see how many other guys should get in before him. In Dillon's case, that should be quite a few (probably too many). Plus Dillon held the label of being a malcontent which probably won't help any.



Dillon probably is deserving, as 1200-1300 yards rushing for the Bengals was probably on par with 1700-1800 yards rushing on far better teams, but we can't debate what could have been had he been on a different team.

I've never understood this logic. Can you name a RB who was every working in a bad system, and he was getting X number of yards and then moved on to a superior team and began exploding for X + 500 yards over any sustained period of time? I think RBs like OJ, Dickerson, Sanders, and others have established pretty conclusively that, if you've got the talent, you can be a 1700-1800 yard back on awful teams.Those are HOF RBs. Corey Dillon isn't. And, I certainly wouldn't want to start a precedent of making up "Bengal-adjusted" stats to justify a player's entry.

 

[David Yudkin]

If it was the "hall of very good", then I would say yes. To me the hall of fame should be for those who dominated the era they played in and I just don't see or feel that with Dillon. ETA: I think a player like I.Bruce kind of falls into the same slot, his numbers will be worthy when he retires.......but I don't think people will remember him as a dominant player, just an extremely good one.

Bruce has one of the top WR seasons of all time on his resume (119 receptions, 1781 yards, 13 TD), as well as a huge role in a Super Bowl win (6 receptions for 162 yards and a TD). He's also currently #7 in yardage and is likely to be #3 and possibly #2 before his career is over. He is a much stronger Hall candidate than Dillon, who has never finished in the top 5 RBs for fantasy points, and only finished in the top 5 for rushing yards twice (highest, #3 in 2004). Dillon is also likely to be passed in yardage by at least Edge and Tomlinson before he is eligible for the Hall, and possibly Alexander as well.

As mentioned several times in countless threads, I personally don't think Dillon has a great shot but if he were to scroung out two more Bettis like seasons it's not 100% out of the realm of at least consideration.As for Bruce, other than his monster season (which by the way was a year when many WR had monster seasons), his career numbers are strong but his yearly totals are good but not awe inspiring.Ignoring 1995, Bruce did not rank in the Top 5 in receptions again, ranked in the Top 5 in receving 3 times, and only once ranked in the Top 5 in receiving TD. Plus the past 7 years he hasn't even been the best receiver on his own team.I'd put Bruce in the borderline category too. I don't see Bruce being much different than Jimmy Smith or Rod Smith, and I have a hard time giving them the nod either.HOF voters are going to have to sift through a bunck of borderline players in the next 10 years or so.

 

[David Yudkin]

IMO, the way to really evaluate this is to look at a list of players from his era and then see how many other guys should get in before him. In Dillon's case, that should be quite a few (probably too many). Plus Dillon held the label of being a malcontent which probably won't help any.



Dillon probably is deserving, as 1200-1300 yards rushing for the Bengals was probably on par with 1700-1800 yards rushing on far better teams, but we can't debate what could have been had he been on a different team.

I've never understood this logic. Can you name a RB who was every working in a bad system, and he was getting X number of yards and then moved on to a superior team and began exploding for X + 500 yards over any sustained period of time? I think RBs like OJ, Dickerson, Sanders, and others have established pretty conclusively that, if you've got the talent, you can be a 1700-1800 yard back on awful teams.Those are HOF RBs. Corey Dillon isn't. And, I certainly wouldn't want to start a precedent of making up "Bengal-adjusted" stats to justify a player's entry.

I believe that history would have viewed Dillon differently had he played on another franchise for the peak of his career. We could say that about many other players, but in this particular case the Bengals were so poor that they often abandoned the run in the second half because they were so often behind. In some seasons (three by my count) where Dillon WAS the offense and defenses could basically scheme for him and force the team to beat them with other players.Was Dillon's performance in his first season a fluke . . . basically garnering career highs in rushing yards, ypc, rushing yards per game, and TD all in the same season? As I mentioned above, his TD scoring rate doubled with the Pats. Is all that a coincidence?

As for your question on RBs improving in different environments, part of the problem is that decent RBs don't typically move around very much. But here are some guys that overall seem to have increased their production from one team to the next:

Bettis from STL to PIT

Faulk from IND to STL

Dunn from TB to ATL

Byner from CLE to WAS

Holmes from BAL to KC

Hearst from ARI or CIN to SF

ASmith from BUF to NE

Watters from PHI to SEA

I also think there are similar examples going in reverse--where guys went from great situations to not as good situations (Portis to WAS, Droughns to CLE, etc.). So I don't think that is far fetched to think that the team a player is on *COULD* impact his career numbers.

 

[cobalt_27]

IMO, the way to really evaluate this is to look at a list of players from his era and then see how many other guys should get in before him. In Dillon's case, that should be quite a few (probably too many). Plus Dillon held the label of being a malcontent which probably won't help any.



Dillon probably is deserving, as 1200-1300 yards rushing for the Bengals was probably on par with 1700-1800 yards rushing on far better teams, but we can't debate what could have been had he been on a different team.

I've never understood this logic. Can you name a RB who was every working in a bad system, and he was getting X number of yards and then moved on to a superior team and began exploding for X + 500 yards over any sustained period of time? I think RBs like OJ, Dickerson, Sanders, and others have established pretty conclusively that, if you've got the talent, you can be a 1700-1800 yard back on awful teams.Those are HOF RBs. Corey Dillon isn't. And, I certainly wouldn't want to start a precedent of making up "Bengal-adjusted" stats to justify a player's entry.

I believe that history would have viewed Dillon differently had he played on another franchise for the peak of his career. We could say that about many other players, but in this particular case the Bengals were so poor that they often abandoned the run in the second half because they were so often behind. In some seasons (three by my count) where Dillon WAS the offense and defenses could basically scheme for him and force the team to beat them with other players.Was Dillon's performance in his first season a fluke . . . basically garnering career highs in rushing yards, ypc, rushing yards per game, and TD all in the same season? As I mentioned above, his TD scoring rate doubled with the Pats. Is all that a coincidence?

As for your question on RBs improving in different environments, part of the problem is that decent RBs don't typically move around very much. But here are some guys that overall seem to have increased their production from one team to the next:

Bettis from STL to PIT

Faulk from IND to STL

Dunn from TB to ATL

Byner from CLE to WAS

Holmes from BAL to KC

Hearst from ARI or CIN to SF

ASmith from BUF to NE

Watters from PHI to SEA

I also think there are similar examples going in reverse--where guys went from great situations to not as good situations (Portis to WAS, Droughns to CLE, etc.). So I don't think that is far fetched to think that the team a player is on *COULD* impact his career numbers.

I like all the names you threw out there. But, I think the common theme with each one of them is that the switch to the new team was also accompanied by either (a) a pretty significant increase in the workload or (b) a rather unremarkable increase in productivity. And, none of them really improved by the magnitude of X+500 that you were projecting out for Dillon on a better team with one exception...Priest Holmes would be the most compelling "study" case in this list. But, the problem with him is that he was never the featured back in BAL, getting 233 carries in his best year. Without throwing the numbers in a calculator, it looks like he averaged at least 100 more carries when he got to K.C., and projecting out his '98 season in Baltimore, he would've run for about 1500 yards with the added carries.

ETA: I don't disagree that teams/system can have an effect. I actually have no doubt that it would in most cases. I just don't think it's on the magnitude that you generously hypothesized for Dillon.

 

[CalBear]

As for Bruce, other than his monster season (which by the way was a year when many WR had monster seasons), his career numbers are strong but his yearly totals are good but not awe inspiring.

Ignoring 1995, Bruce did not rank in the Top 5 in receptions again, ranked in the Top 5 in receving 3 times, and only once ranked in the Top 5 in receiving TD. Plus the past 7 years he hasn't even been the best receiver on his own team.

I'd put Bruce in the borderline category too. I don't see Bruce being much different than Jimmy Smith or Rod Smith, and I have a hard time giving them the nod either.

I don't much like the "if you ignore the #2 all-time season in receiving yards, his numbers look pedestrian" logic. This is a guy who had one of the best WR seasons of all time, and had a long and very productive career. Neither Jimmy Smith nor Rod Smith is in the top 10 in receiving yards or TDs, and Jimmy's already retired and Rod isn't going to get there either (even if he comes back). Bruce has more receptions per game, yards per game, and TDs per game than either of the Smiths, and given a couple more years of at least decent production, is going to be above almost every Hall of Fame receiver in most receiving categories, which is not something either of the Smiths can say.

 

[Despyzer]

When I ask myself about potential HOFers, the first criteria that a player has to pass is "Was he the best player at his position at any point in his career?"

With only a small handful of seasons where he was even in the top five of any meaningful category for runners, I would say No.

Also, is it possible for us to have ONE thread discussing the Hall of Fame where some dope doesn't trot out "Hall of Very Good" as if this was the most clever comment in the world?

 

[David Yudkin]

As for Bruce, other than his monster season (which by the way was a year when many WR had monster seasons), his career numbers are strong but his yearly totals are good but not awe inspiring.

Ignoring 1995, Bruce did not rank in the Top 5 in receptions again, ranked in the Top 5 in receving 3 times, and only once ranked in the Top 5 in receiving TD. Plus the past 7 years he hasn't even been the best receiver on his own team.

I'd put Bruce in the borderline category too. I don't see Bruce being much different than Jimmy Smith or Rod Smith, and I have a hard time giving them the nod either.

I don't much like the "if you ignore the #2 all-time season in receiving yards, his numbers look pedestrian" logic. This is a guy who had one of the best WR seasons of all time, and had a long and very productive career. Neither Jimmy Smith nor Rod Smith is in the top 10 in receiving yards or TDs, and Jimmy's already retired and Rod isn't going to get there either (even if he comes back). Bruce has more receptions per game, yards per game, and TDs per game than either of the Smiths, and given a couple more years of at least decent production, is going to be above almost every Hall of Fame receiver in most receiving categories, which is not something either of the Smiths can say.

IMO, Bruce will be this generations Art Monk when you consider that the bar has been raised in terms of average WR production in the past 10-15 years. Yes, Bruce's numbers are better but are still comparible:Monk:

Top 5 fantasy seasons: 0

Top 10: 2

Top 15: 4

Top 20: 7

Top 25: 10

Bruce:

Top 5: 1

Top 10: 4

Top 15: 5

Top 20: 8

Top 25: 9

While we're at it . . .

Rod Smith:

Top 5: 3

Top 10: 3

Top 15: 5

Top 20: 6

Top 25: 8

Jimmy Smith:

Top 5: 1

Top 10: 3

Top 15: 6

Top 20: 8

Top 25: 9

I agree that Bruce's totals are better than either of the Smith's--but not by leaps and bounds. And no matter how you slice it, Bruce benefitted from playing on the most prolific passing teams of its generation.

 

[CalBear]

IMO, Bruce will be this generations Art Monk when you consider that the bar has been raised in terms of average WR production in the past 10-15 years.

It's certainly possible that Bruce will miss the Hall. I'm just saying his case is way better than either Corey Dillon's or Jimmy Smith's.

 

[David Yudkin]

IMO, Bruce will be this generations Art Monk when you consider that the bar has been raised in terms of average WR production in the past 10-15 years.

It's certainly possible that Bruce will miss the Hall. I'm just saying his case is way better than either Corey Dillon's or Jimmy Smith's.

I personally would not vote for any of the players mentioned, but Bruce would be the highest on the pecking order of those that didn't make it. Of course, the HOF has yet to approach me to offer any voting priviledges, so for now your vote counts the same as mine.

 

[Pat Patriot]

When I ask myself about potential HOFers, the first criteria that a player has to pass is "Was he the best player at his position at any point in his career?"

With only a small handful of seasons where he was even in the top five of any meaningful category for runners, I would say No.

Also, is it possible for us to have ONE thread discussing the Hall of Fame where some dope doesn't trot out "Hall of Very Good" as if this was the most clever comment in the world?

When I think of Hall of Fame, I am looking for Greatness. Some see longevity as part of greatness, I dont. I never look at # of Pro Bowls (plus it has turned into a popularity contest). I look at All Pros. That means you were voted the best at your position that year.I felt that Bettis was a stat compiler and never the best at his position. I was corrected in that he did achieve All Pro status for 1 year.

To me, you should decide NOW if Dillon is a HOF back. The fact that he might compile 1000 yards over the next 2 seasons to pass Jim Brown shouldnt play into it. I think Dillon was a real hard runner and good back and looked like a GREAT back the one big year he had with the dominant Pats of 2004. However, I dont think he is that tough of a decision. Not a Hall of Famer. Then again, maybe I judge too hard because I dont think Bettis is a Hall of Famer either.

I dont even think Ike Bruce is a borderline case. No to the Hall of Fame for him. Again, a good receiver that had a great year but I dont look at Isaac Bruce and see greatness.

 

[Tau837]

When I ask myself about potential HOFers, the first criteria that a player has to pass is "Was he the best player at his position at any point in his career?"

With only a small handful of seasons where he was even in the top five of any meaningful category for runners, I would say No.

Also, is it possible for us to have ONE thread discussing the Hall of Fame where some dope doesn't trot out "Hall of Very Good" as if this was the most clever comment in the world?

When I think of Hall of Fame, I am looking for Greatness. Some see longevity as part of greatness, I dont. I never look at # of Pro Bowls (plus it has turned into a popularity contest). I look at All Pros. That means you were voted the best at your position that year.I felt that Bettis was a stat compiler and never the best at his position. I was corrected in that he did achieve All Pro status for 1 year.

To me, you should decide NOW if Dillon is a HOF back. The fact that he might compile 1000 yards over the next 2 seasons to pass Jim Brown shouldnt play into it. I think Dillon was a real hard runner and good back and looked like a GREAT back the one big year he had with the dominant Pats of 2004. However, I dont think he is that tough of a decision. Not a Hall of Famer. Then again, maybe I judge too hard because I dont think Bettis is a Hall of Famer either.

I dont even think Ike Bruce is a borderline case. No to the Hall of Fame for him. Again, a good receiver that had a great year but I dont look at Isaac Bruce and see greatness.

FYI, Bettis was All NFL twice--1993 and 1996. IMO Bettis is clearly worthy of the HOF. I agree with you about Dillon.

 

[Pat Patriot]

When I ask myself about potential HOFers, the first criteria that a player has to pass is "Was he the best player at his position at any point in his career?"

With only a small handful of seasons where he was even in the top five of any meaningful category for runners, I would say No.

Also, is it possible for us to have ONE thread discussing the Hall of Fame where some dope doesn't trot out "Hall of Very Good" as if this was the most clever comment in the world?

When I think of Hall of Fame, I am looking for Greatness. Some see longevity as part of greatness, I dont. I never look at # of Pro Bowls (plus it has turned into a popularity contest). I look at All Pros. That means you were voted the best at your position that year.I felt that Bettis was a stat compiler and never the best at his position. I was corrected in that he did achieve All Pro status for 1 year.

To me, you should decide NOW if Dillon is a HOF back. The fact that he might compile 1000 yards over the next 2 seasons to pass Jim Brown shouldnt play into it. I think Dillon was a real hard runner and good back and looked like a GREAT back the one big year he had with the dominant Pats of 2004. However, I dont think he is that tough of a decision. Not a Hall of Famer. Then again, maybe I judge too hard because I dont think Bettis is a Hall of Famer either.

I dont even think Ike Bruce is a borderline case. No to the Hall of Fame for him. Again, a good receiver that had a great year but I dont look at Isaac Bruce and see greatness.

FYI, Bettis was All NFL twice--1993 and 1996. IMO Bettis is clearly worthy of the HOF. I agree with you about Dillon.

Thank you. I was wrong about the number but did say I was proven wrong that at least once (twice I guess) Bettis was thought of as being the best in the game. I am surprised by that because I personally never thought he was elite. Maybe it was because the Patriots almost ALWAYS shut him down.

 

[Tau837]

Hard to tell how much longer Dillon will play. If he never played another game, he'd be eligible for the HOF in 2012. The first problem for Dillon is that all of these RBs are or will become eligible before Dillon:

Thurman Thomas - eligible now and likely in this year IMO

Emmitt Smith - eligible in 2010 and a lock to make it first ballot

Jerome Bettis - eligible in 2011 if he does not play again

Curtis Martin - eligible in 2011 if he does not play again

Marshall Faulk - eligible in 2011 if he does not play again

I think all of those guys will make it, and deservedly so. Dillon will become eligible between that group and the next generation including Tomlinson, Alexander, James, and anyone else who may emerge. He won't compare favorably against recent HOF RBs, nor against the HOF RBs on the horizon.

And I didn't even mention guys like Terrell Davis and Ricky Watters. I don't think either of them will or should make it, but I do think Watters is more worthy than Dillon.

I just can't see a scenario in which he will compare favorably to his peers at RB.

Obviously, I voted no.

 

[David Yudkin]

Here are the games with Bettis vs NE . . .

Rushes, rushing yards, receiving yards, total TD

28-80-12-0

12-48-0-0

8-35-0-0

15-65-0-1

13-43-(-1)-0

25-67-7-0

9-8-0-1

17-64-1

 

[Pat Patriot]

Here are the games with Bettis vs NE . . .Rushes, rushing yards, receiving yards, total TD28-80-12-012-48-0-08-35-0-0 15-65-0-113-43-(-1)-025-67-7-09-8-0-1 17-64-1

Is that why I always thought Bettis was WAY overrated?

 

[Iron Mike Tomczak]

QUOTE(David Yudkin @ Jan 24 2007, 09:59 PM)

Here are the games with Bettis vs NE . . .

Rushes, rushing yards, receiving yards, total TD

28-80-12-0

12-48-0-0

8-35-0-0

15-65-0-1

13-43-(-1)-0

25-67-7-0

9-8-0-1

17-64-1

Is that why I always thought Bettis was WAY overrated?

Those are the most meaningless stats ever.

What does it matter that NE and Pitt played tough games vs each other.

Career#s +----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| TOTAL | 192 | 3479 13662 3.9 91 | 200 1449 7.2 3 |

Rookie Season

Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| 1993 ram | 16 | 294 1429 4.9 7 | 26 244 9.4 0 |

Sick rookie numbers

Among the league's all-time top 50

Rushes: 4

Rushing yards: 5

Rushing TDs: 10t

Yards from scrimmage: 13

Rush/Receive TDs: 22t

HOF NO DOUBT!

Your points are foolish. That is all.

"EDIT" About Corey DIllon, if he plays 4 more years I think hes a shoe in. 1-2 years..very iffy.

 

[The Hank]

QUOTE(David Yudkin @ Jan 24 2007, 09:59 PM)

Here are the games with Bettis vs NE . . .

Rushes, rushing yards, receiving yards, total TD

28-80-12-0

12-48-0-0

8-35-0-0

15-65-0-1

13-43-(-1)-0

25-67-7-0

9-8-0-1

17-64-1

Is that why I always thought Bettis was WAY overrated?

Those are the most meaningless stats ever.

What does it matter that NE and Pitt played tough games vs each other.

Career#s +----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| TOTAL | 192 | 3479 13662 3.9 91 | 200 1449 7.2 3 |

Rookie Season

Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| 1993 ram | 16 | 294 1429 4.9 7 | 26 244 9.4 0 |

Sick rookie numbers

Among the league's all-time top 50

Rushes: 4

Rushing yards: 5

Rushing TDs: 10t

Yards from scrimmage: 13

Rush/Receive TDs: 22t

HOF NO DOUBT!

Your points are foolish. That is all.

"EDIT" About Corey DIllon, if he plays 4 more years I think hes a shoe in. 1-2 years..very iffy.

 

[Pat Patriot]

QUOTE(David Yudkin @ Jan 24 2007, 09:59 PM)

Here are the games with Bettis vs NE . . .

Rushes, rushing yards, receiving yards, total TD

28-80-12-0

12-48-0-0

8-35-0-0

15-65-0-1

13-43-(-1)-0

25-67-7-0

9-8-0-1

17-64-1

Is that why I always thought Bettis was WAY overrated?

Those are the most meaningless stats ever.

What does it matter that NE and Pitt played tough games vs each other.

Career#s +----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| TOTAL | 192 | 3479 13662 3.9 91 | 200 1449 7.2 3 |

Rookie Season

Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| 1993 ram | 16 | 294 1429 4.9 7 | 26 244 9.4 0 |

Sick rookie numbers

Among the league's all-time top 50

Rushes: 4

Rushing yards: 5

Rushing TDs: 10t

Yards from scrimmage: 13

Rush/Receive TDs: 22t

HOF NO DOUBT!

Your points are foolish. That is all.

"EDIT" About Corey DIllon, if he plays 4 more years I think hes a shoe in. 1-2 years..very iffy.

1. I stated that IMO, he was WAY overrated. I am a Pats fan. I have seen every Patriots game for the past 20 years. I have not seen every Steelers or Rams game (although I have had Sunday ticket for 5 years). Yudkin was validating that his poor play against the Pats is part of how my opinion on him was formed.2. Bettis is like a baseball player that I always thought was WAY overrated. I didnt start watching Baseball until 1975 so I never saw the best moments of Carl Yastrzemski growing up. I saw him make the last out in the 2 most important Red Sox games of my childhood. Many of Yaz's stats were accumulated over a 23 season career. Each of the bolded stats that you quote for Bettis were of the accumulated variety. I dont give many points just for playing a long time and building up stats. I watch enough games that I generally trust my eyes to tell me if a player is great. I never thought Bettis was great. Maybe I only saw his crappy games throughout his career. Who knows.

3. Dillon has played enough years. He's either a HOF'er or he isnt. What is he going to do over the next 2-4 years other than accumulate meaningless stats? I dont think he is a HOF'er BTW.

Gale Sayers is a HOF'er and he doesnt rate in the top 50 in probably any category. You could tell that just by watching him play. If medicine was better when he played and he hung on for 3-4 years of 400-600 yards per year, that wouldnt have made him more of a HOF'er.

 

[Voice Of Reason]

No

 

[Sinrman]

Dillon hasn't scored many TDs. If he retired today he would have no chance. I think that he could start to get into the conversation if he catches Jim Brown in rushing yardage (needs about 1050 yards), which would put him at #8 overall. Everyone above Jim Brown is in the Hall or will be. Dillon would have the weakest case due to low TDs and weak receiving numbers.

My bet is "no."

One more year like this past one and Dillon will crack the 100 TD barrier. All the players that have hit that milestone have made it so far.Dillon in NE: 39 in 43 games

Dillon in CIN: 50 TD 107 games

Dillon will likely suffer from playing on a team that ranked 27th, 31st, 21st, 32nd, and 28th in scoring in a 5 of 6 year stretch.

That's exactly why I think it's a shame that he likely won't get in, or at least get a look or two for the HoF. He played his butt off for years on a craptastic Bungles team that just refused to build a good team around him (sounds a lot like my Lions and Barry Sanders during the 90's). His team hurt his chances...

 

[comfortably numb]

Dillon hasn't scored many TDs. If he retired today he would have no chance. I think that he could start to get into the conversation if he catches Jim Brown in rushing yardage (needs about 1050 yards), which would put him at #8 overall. Everyone above Jim Brown is in the Hall or will be. Dillon would have the weakest case due to low TDs and weak receiving numbers.

My bet is "no."

One more year like this past one and Dillon will crack the 100 TD barrier. All the players that have hit that milestone have made it so far.Dillon in NE: 39 in 43 games

Dillon in CIN: 50 TD 107 games

Dillon will likely suffer from playing on a team that ranked 27th, 31st, 21st, 32nd, and 28th in scoring in a 5 of 6 year stretch.

That's exactly why I think it's a shame that he likely won't get in, or at least get a look or two for the HoF. He played his butt off for years on a craptastic Bungles team that just refused to build a good team around him (sounds a lot like my Lions and Barry Sanders during the 90's). His team hurt his chances...

I also think this will be the case with Dillon.

 

[David Yudkin]

QUOTE(David Yudkin @ Jan 24 2007, 09:59 PM)

Here are the games with Bettis vs NE . . .

Rushes, rushing yards, receiving yards, total TD

28-80-12-0

12-48-0-0

8-35-0-0

15-65-0-1

13-43-(-1)-0

25-67-7-0

9-8-0-1

17-64-1

Is that why I always thought Bettis was WAY overrated?

Those are the most meaningless stats ever.

What does it matter that NE and Pitt played tough games vs each other.

Career#s +----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| TOTAL | 192 | 3479 13662 3.9 91 | 200 1449 7.2 3 |

Rookie Season

Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| 1993 ram | 16 | 294 1429 4.9 7 | 26 244 9.4 0 |

Sick rookie numbers

Among the league's all-time top 50

Rushes: 4

Rushing yards: 5

Rushing TDs: 10t

Yards from scrimmage: 13

Rush/Receive TDs: 22t

HOF NO DOUBT!

Your points are foolish. That is all.

"EDIT" About Corey DIllon, if he plays 4 more years I think hes a shoe in. 1-2 years..very iffy.

1. I stated that IMO, he was WAY overrated. I am a Pats fan. I have seen every Patriots game for the past 20 years. I have not seen every Steelers or Rams game (although I have had Sunday ticket for 5 years). Yudkin was validating that his poor play against the Pats is part of how my opinion on him was formed.2. Bettis is like a baseball player that I always thought was WAY overrated. I didnt start watching Baseball until 1975 so I never saw the best moments of Carl Yastrzemski growing up. I saw him make the last out in the 2 most important Red Sox games of my childhood. Many of Yaz's stats were accumulated over a 23 season career. Each of the bolded stats that you quote for Bettis were of the accumulated variety. I dont give many points just for playing a long time and building up stats. I watch enough games that I generally trust my eyes to tell me if a player is great. I never thought Bettis was great. Maybe I only saw his crappy games throughout his career. Who knows.

3. Dillon has played enough years. He's either a HOF'er or he isnt. What is he going to do over the next 2-4 years other than accumulate meaningless stats? I dont think he is a HOF'er BTW.

Gale Sayers is a HOF'er and he doesnt rate in the top 50 in probably any category. You could tell that just by watching him play. If medicine was better when he played and he hung on for 3-4 years of 400-600 yards per year, that wouldnt have made him more of a HOF'er.

I tend to think that Bettis was a good back and had 3 or 4 excellent seasons and a bunch of middle of the road ones. I happen to think of him as a compiler that will benefit by playing as long as he did, and I tend to agree that longevity does not necessarily equal greatness.I think that the Dillon/Bettis comparison is an intersting one, especially since some people feel Bettis has to be considered a mortal lock. Here are their numbers through 10 seasons played:

BETTIS

149 games played

2873 carries

11542 rushing yards

4.02 ypc

62 rushing TD

177 receptions

1277 receiving yards

7.21 ypr

3 receiving TD

12819 yards from scrimmage

65 combined TD

1677.50 fantasy points

DILLON

150 games played

2618 carries

11241 rushing yards

4.29 ypc

82 rushing TD

244 receptions

1913 receiving yards

7.84 ypr

7 receiving TD

13154 yards from scrimmage

89 combined TD

1848.40 fanasy points

From my perspective, Dillon has been statistically BETTER than Bettis has at the same point in their careers.

Bettis went on to play 3 more seasons, averaging 706 rushing yards, 57 receiving yards, and just under 10 TD a season in those years.

So basically the argument FOR BETTIS is that he went on to play 3 more years that by all standards would be considered mediocre seasons for a RB by HOF standards (unless averaging 760 total yards and 10 TD is HOF worthy).

While I still don't think Dillon passes the litmus test for greatness (either he was or he wasn't and having to debate it almost by default means he wasn't), if Dillon hangs on and plays 2 more seasons posting the same marginal totals that Bettis did, I don't see why Bettis would be a lock and Dillon would not even get consideration.

 

[Tau837]

QUOTE(David Yudkin @ Jan 24 2007, 09:59 PM)

Here are the games with Bettis vs NE . . .

Rushes, rushing yards, receiving yards, total TD

28-80-12-0

12-48-0-0

8-35-0-0

15-65-0-1

13-43-(-1)-0

25-67-7-0

9-8-0-1

17-64-1

Is that why I always thought Bettis was WAY overrated?

Those are the most meaningless stats ever.

What does it matter that NE and Pitt played tough games vs each other.

Career#s +----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| TOTAL | 192 | 3479 13662 3.9 91 | 200 1449 7.2 3 |

Rookie Season

Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| 1993 ram | 16 | 294 1429 4.9 7 | 26 244 9.4 0 |

Sick rookie numbers

Among the league's all-time top 50

Rushes: 4

Rushing yards: 5

Rushing TDs: 10t

Yards from scrimmage: 13

Rush/Receive TDs: 22t

HOF NO DOUBT!

Your points are foolish. That is all.

"EDIT" About Corey DIllon, if he plays 4 more years I think hes a shoe in. 1-2 years..very iffy.

1. I stated that IMO, he was WAY overrated. I am a Pats fan. I have seen every Patriots game for the past 20 years. I have not seen every Steelers or Rams game (although I have had Sunday ticket for 5 years). Yudkin was validating that his poor play against the Pats is part of how my opinion on him was formed.2. Bettis is like a baseball player that I always thought was WAY overrated. I didnt start watching Baseball until 1975 so I never saw the best moments of Carl Yastrzemski growing up. I saw him make the last out in the 2 most important Red Sox games of my childhood. Many of Yaz's stats were accumulated over a 23 season career. Each of the bolded stats that you quote for Bettis were of the accumulated variety. I dont give many points just for playing a long time and building up stats. I watch enough games that I generally trust my eyes to tell me if a player is great. I never thought Bettis was great. Maybe I only saw his crappy games throughout his career. Who knows.

3. Dillon has played enough years. He's either a HOF'er or he isnt. What is he going to do over the next 2-4 years other than accumulate meaningless stats? I dont think he is a HOF'er BTW.

Gale Sayers is a HOF'er and he doesnt rate in the top 50 in probably any category. You could tell that just by watching him play. If medicine was better when he played and he hung on for 3-4 years of 400-600 yards per year, that wouldnt have made him more of a HOF'er.

I tend to think that Bettis was a good back and had 3 or 4 excellent seasons and a bunch of middle of the road ones. I happen to think of him as a compiler that will benefit by playing as long as he did, and I tend to agree that longevity does not necessarily equal greatness.I think that the Dillon/Bettis comparison is an intersting one, especially since some people feel Bettis has to be considered a mortal lock. Here are their numbers through 10 seasons played:

BETTIS

149 games played

2873 carries

11542 rushing yards

4.02 ypc

62 rushing TD

177 receptions

1277 receiving yards

7.21 ypr

3 receiving TD

12819 yards from scrimmage

65 combined TD

1677.50 fantasy points

DILLON

150 games played

2618 carries

11241 rushing yards

4.29 ypc

82 rushing TD

244 receptions

1913 receiving yards

7.84 ypr

7 receiving TD

13154 yards from scrimmage

89 combined TD

1848.40 fanasy points

From my perspective, Dillon has been statistically BETTER than Bettis has at the same point in their careers.

Bettis went on to play 3 more seasons, averaging 706 rushing yards, 57 receiving yards, and just under 10 TD a season in those years.

So basically the argument FOR BETTIS is that he went on to play 3 more years that by all standards would be considered mediocre seasons for a RB by HOF standards (unless averaging 760 total yards and 10 TD is HOF worthy).

While I still don't think Dillon passes the litmus test for greatness (either he was or he wasn't and having to debate it almost by default means he wasn't), if Dillon hangs on and plays 2 more seasons posting the same marginal totals that Bettis did, I don't see why Bettis would be a lock and Dillon would not even get consideration.

1. Bettis was All Pro 2 times, Dillon 0.2. Not a great measure, but some voters may consider that Bettis made the Pro Bowl 6 times, Dillon 4.

3. Bettis was considered a leader on his teams, including a Super Bowl winner. Dillon played on a Super Bowl winner, but was not considered a leader on that team or any other.

4. IMO Bettis will get more credit than typical backs including Dillon for compiling, because he did it as a big back with a bruising style not normally conducive to long, productive careers.

5. Bettis was offensive ROY in 1993; comeback POY in 1996; and Walter Payton Man of the Year in 2001. Not like winning MVPs, but still awards Dillon doesn't have. Bettis was also voted Steelers MVP 3 times; I'm not aware of Dillon ever being voted his team's MVP.

 

[Banger]

Very good career and if he were on a decent team for the 1st 2/3 of his career he might have made it. It's unfortunate that he had to spend so many years playing for the worst team in the league. They were truly awful.

 

[MarshallRob]

The Patriots failure to to beat the Colts last week probably killed any chance Dillon had of making the Hall of Fame. If Dillon's not a borderline Hall of Famer he's at least approaching the borderline as his career winds down. The ultimate goal in any sport is to win a championship and HOF voters have been very generous to dynasties as seen by the large number of guys in the Hall who played for the 50's Browns, 60's Packers, and 70's Dolphins and Steelers. There are also at least a few players who've primarlily made it thanks to some tremendous postseason performances, Lynn Swann being the obvious example. Another ring and a big Super Bowl performance from Dillon might well have have gotten him (and some other Patriots) over that borderline.

Issac Bruce came up in the discussion earlier and I wouldn't discount the fact that he's one of the few players who's caught a Super Bowl winning TD. If he finishes his career with over 1000 receptions and in the top 3 in receiving yards as well, that's a strong resume.

 

[David Yudkin]

QUOTE(David Yudkin @ Jan 24 2007, 09:59 PM)

Here are the games with Bettis vs NE . . .

Rushes, rushing yards, receiving yards, total TD

28-80-12-0

12-48-0-0

8-35-0-0

15-65-0-1

13-43-(-1)-0

25-67-7-0

9-8-0-1

17-64-1

Is that why I always thought Bettis was WAY overrated?

Those are the most meaningless stats ever.

What does it matter that NE and Pitt played tough games vs each other.

Career#s +----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| TOTAL | 192 | 3479 13662 3.9 91 | 200 1449 7.2 3 |

Rookie Season

Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| 1993 ram | 16 | 294 1429 4.9 7 | 26 244 9.4 0 |

Sick rookie numbers

Among the league's all-time top 50

Rushes: 4

Rushing yards: 5

Rushing TDs: 10t

Yards from scrimmage: 13

Rush/Receive TDs: 22t

HOF NO DOUBT!

Your points are foolish. That is all.

"EDIT" About Corey DIllon, if he plays 4 more years I think hes a shoe in. 1-2 years..very iffy.

1. I stated that IMO, he was WAY overrated. I am a Pats fan. I have seen every Patriots game for the past 20 years. I have not seen every Steelers or Rams game (although I have had Sunday ticket for 5 years). Yudkin was validating that his poor play against the Pats is part of how my opinion on him was formed.2. Bettis is like a baseball player that I always thought was WAY overrated. I didnt start watching Baseball until 1975 so I never saw the best moments of Carl Yastrzemski growing up. I saw him make the last out in the 2 most important Red Sox games of my childhood. Many of Yaz's stats were accumulated over a 23 season career. Each of the bolded stats that you quote for Bettis were of the accumulated variety. I dont give many points just for playing a long time and building up stats. I watch enough games that I generally trust my eyes to tell me if a player is great. I never thought Bettis was great. Maybe I only saw his crappy games throughout his career. Who knows.

3. Dillon has played enough years. He's either a HOF'er or he isnt. What is he going to do over the next 2-4 years other than accumulate meaningless stats? I dont think he is a HOF'er BTW.

Gale Sayers is a HOF'er and he doesnt rate in the top 50 in probably any category. You could tell that just by watching him play. If medicine was better when he played and he hung on for 3-4 years of 400-600 yards per year, that wouldnt have made him more of a HOF'er.

I tend to think that Bettis was a good back and had 3 or 4 excellent seasons and a bunch of middle of the road ones. I happen to think of him as a compiler that will benefit by playing as long as he did, and I tend to agree that longevity does not necessarily equal greatness.I think that the Dillon/Bettis comparison is an intersting one, especially since some people feel Bettis has to be considered a mortal lock. Here are their numbers through 10 seasons played:

BETTIS

149 games played

2873 carries

11542 rushing yards

4.02 ypc

62 rushing TD

177 receptions

1277 receiving yards

7.21 ypr

3 receiving TD

12819 yards from scrimmage

65 combined TD

1677.50 fantasy points

DILLON

150 games played

2618 carries

11241 rushing yards

4.29 ypc

82 rushing TD

244 receptions

1913 receiving yards

7.84 ypr

7 receiving TD

13154 yards from scrimmage

89 combined TD

1848.40 fanasy points

From my perspective, Dillon has been statistically BETTER than Bettis has at the same point in their careers.

Bettis went on to play 3 more seasons, averaging 706 rushing yards, 57 receiving yards, and just under 10 TD a season in those years.

So basically the argument FOR BETTIS is that he went on to play 3 more years that by all standards would be considered mediocre seasons for a RB by HOF standards (unless averaging 760 total yards and 10 TD is HOF worthy).

While I still don't think Dillon passes the litmus test for greatness (either he was or he wasn't and having to debate it almost by default means he wasn't), if Dillon hangs on and plays 2 more seasons posting the same marginal totals that Bettis did, I don't see why Bettis would be a lock and Dillon would not even get consideration.

1. Bettis was All Pro 2 times, Dillon 0.2. Not a great measure, but some voters may consider that Bettis made the Pro Bowl 6 times, Dillon 4.

3. Bettis was considered a leader on his teams, including a Super Bowl winner. Dillon played on a Super Bowl winner, but was not considered a leader on that team or any other.

4. IMO Bettis will get more credit than typical backs including Dillon for compiling, because he did it as a big back with a bruising style not normally conducive to long, productive careers.

5. Bettis was offensive ROY in 1993; comeback POY in 1996; and Walter Payton Man of the Year in 2001. Not like winning MVPs, but still awards Dillon doesn't have. Bettis was also voted Steelers MVP 3 times; I'm not aware of Dillon ever being voted his team's MVP.

We're on the same side when it comes to Dillon. My post was more intended for people who look solely at Bettis' career totals and insist he has to get in based on that. If Dillon hangs around for a couple more seasons, he should be very close to Bettis in total rushing yards, will have more yards from scrimmage, far more TD, and over 100 TD.Even with all that I don't see him as a HOFer but a case certainly could be made for him. While your points on Bettis certainly are big positives in his candidacy, if he retired after 10 seasons, would we be debating about whether he was a HOFer or not? IMO, we wouldn't be, as he would have ranked a lot farther on the career totals food chain.

 

[Tau837]

QUOTE(David Yudkin @ Jan 24 2007, 09:59 PM)

Here are the games with Bettis vs NE . . .

Rushes, rushing yards, receiving yards, total TD

28-80-12-0

12-48-0-0

8-35-0-0

15-65-0-1

13-43-(-1)-0

25-67-7-0

9-8-0-1

17-64-1

Is that why I always thought Bettis was WAY overrated?

Those are the most meaningless stats ever.

What does it matter that NE and Pitt played tough games vs each other.

Career#s +----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| TOTAL | 192 | 3479 13662 3.9 91 | 200 1449 7.2 3 |

Rookie Season

Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| 1993 ram | 16 | 294 1429 4.9 7 | 26 244 9.4 0 |

Sick rookie numbers

Among the league's all-time top 50

Rushes: 4

Rushing yards: 5

Rushing TDs: 10t

Yards from scrimmage: 13

Rush/Receive TDs: 22t

HOF NO DOUBT!

Your points are foolish. That is all.

"EDIT" About Corey DIllon, if he plays 4 more years I think hes a shoe in. 1-2 years..very iffy.

1. I stated that IMO, he was WAY overrated. I am a Pats fan. I have seen every Patriots game for the past 20 years. I have not seen every Steelers or Rams game (although I have had Sunday ticket for 5 years). Yudkin was validating that his poor play against the Pats is part of how my opinion on him was formed.2. Bettis is like a baseball player that I always thought was WAY overrated. I didnt start watching Baseball until 1975 so I never saw the best moments of Carl Yastrzemski growing up. I saw him make the last out in the 2 most important Red Sox games of my childhood. Many of Yaz's stats were accumulated over a 23 season career. Each of the bolded stats that you quote for Bettis were of the accumulated variety. I dont give many points just for playing a long time and building up stats. I watch enough games that I generally trust my eyes to tell me if a player is great. I never thought Bettis was great. Maybe I only saw his crappy games throughout his career. Who knows.

3. Dillon has played enough years. He's either a HOF'er or he isnt. What is he going to do over the next 2-4 years other than accumulate meaningless stats? I dont think he is a HOF'er BTW.

Gale Sayers is a HOF'er and he doesnt rate in the top 50 in probably any category. You could tell that just by watching him play. If medicine was better when he played and he hung on for 3-4 years of 400-600 yards per year, that wouldnt have made him more of a HOF'er.

I tend to think that Bettis was a good back and had 3 or 4 excellent seasons and a bunch of middle of the road ones. I happen to think of him as a compiler that will benefit by playing as long as he did, and I tend to agree that longevity does not necessarily equal greatness.I think that the Dillon/Bettis comparison is an intersting one, especially since some people feel Bettis has to be considered a mortal lock. Here are their numbers through 10 seasons played:

BETTIS

149 games played

2873 carries

11542 rushing yards

4.02 ypc

62 rushing TD

177 receptions

1277 receiving yards

7.21 ypr

3 receiving TD

12819 yards from scrimmage

65 combined TD

1677.50 fantasy points

DILLON

150 games played

2618 carries

11241 rushing yards

4.29 ypc

82 rushing TD

244 receptions

1913 receiving yards

7.84 ypr

7 receiving TD

13154 yards from scrimmage

89 combined TD

1848.40 fanasy points

From my perspective, Dillon has been statistically BETTER than Bettis has at the same point in their careers.

Bettis went on to play 3 more seasons, averaging 706 rushing yards, 57 receiving yards, and just under 10 TD a season in those years.

So basically the argument FOR BETTIS is that he went on to play 3 more years that by all standards would be considered mediocre seasons for a RB by HOF standards (unless averaging 760 total yards and 10 TD is HOF worthy).

While I still don't think Dillon passes the litmus test for greatness (either he was or he wasn't and having to debate it almost by default means he wasn't), if Dillon hangs on and plays 2 more seasons posting the same marginal totals that Bettis did, I don't see why Bettis would be a lock and Dillon would not even get consideration.

1. Bettis was All Pro 2 times, Dillon 0.2. Not a great measure, but some voters may consider that Bettis made the Pro Bowl 6 times, Dillon 4.

3. Bettis was considered a leader on his teams, including a Super Bowl winner. Dillon played on a Super Bowl winner, but was not considered a leader on that team or any other.

4. IMO Bettis will get more credit than typical backs including Dillon for compiling, because he did it as a big back with a bruising style not normally conducive to long, productive careers.

5. Bettis was offensive ROY in 1993; comeback POY in 1996; and Walter Payton Man of the Year in 2001. Not like winning MVPs, but still awards Dillon doesn't have. Bettis was also voted Steelers MVP 3 times; I'm not aware of Dillon ever being voted his team's MVP.

We're on the same side when it comes to Dillon. My post was more intended for people who look solely at Bettis' career totals and insist he has to get in based on that. If Dillon hangs around for a couple more seasons, he should be very close to Bettis in total rushing yards, will have more yards from scrimmage, far more TD, and over 100 TD.Even with all that I don't see him as a HOFer but a case certainly could be made for him. While your points on Bettis certainly are big positives in his candidacy, if he retired after 10 seasons, would we be debating about whether he was a HOFer or not? IMO, we wouldn't be, as he would have ranked a lot farther on the career totals food chain.

I agree Bettis was not a HOFer after 10 years. And I know the next argument someone will make is that it shouldn't make a HOFer to stick around for a few more seasons with a lighter workload... but he did lead the team in rushing in 2003 and 2004, and was a leader of their Super Bowl team in 2005. And his 29 TDs over those 3 seasons were certainly important to the team. Plus, he made another Pro Bowl and got his ring.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Nope. Dillon has been a very good RB for most of his career, but rarely great.

 

[David Yudkin]

Plus, he made another Pro Bowl.

This is why a lot of the fluff about players can sometimes not mean a whole lot. Yes, to the letter of the law, Bettis did make the 2004 Pro Bowl. But IIRC, it was after 3 other players backed out. So sure, he made it, but it's not like he was one of the top couple of choices.The following received credit for being AFC Pro Bowl RBs in 2004 . . .Curtis MartinLaDainian TomlinsonEdgerrin JamesCorey DillonRudi JohnsonJerome Bettis

 

[Iron Mike Tomczak]

QUOTE(David Yudkin @ Jan 24 2007, 09:59 PM)

Here are the games with Bettis vs NE . . .

Rushes, rushing yards, receiving yards, total TD

28-80-12-0

12-48-0-0

8-35-0-0

15-65-0-1

13-43-(-1)-0

25-67-7-0

9-8-0-1

17-64-1

Is that why I always thought Bettis was WAY overrated?

Those are the most meaningless stats ever.

What does it matter that NE and Pitt played tough games vs each other.

Career#s +----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| TOTAL | 192 | 3479 13662 3.9 91 | 200 1449 7.2 3 |

Rookie Season

Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| 1993 ram | 16 | 294 1429 4.9 7 | 26 244 9.4 0 |

Sick rookie numbers

Among the league's all-time top 50

Rushes: 4

Rushing yards: 5

Rushing TDs: 10t

Yards from scrimmage: 13

Rush/Receive TDs: 22t

HOF NO DOUBT!

Your points are foolish. That is all.

"EDIT" About Corey DIllon, if he plays 4 more years I think hes a shoe in. 1-2 years..very iffy.

1. I stated that IMO, he was WAY overrated. I am a Pats fan. I have seen every Patriots game for the past 20 years. I have not seen every Steelers or Rams game (although I have had Sunday ticket for 5 years). Yudkin was validating that his poor play against the Pats is part of how my opinion on him was formed.2. Bettis is like a baseball player that I always thought was WAY overrated. I didnt start watching Baseball until 1975 so I never saw the best moments of Carl Yastrzemski growing up. I saw him make the last out in the 2 most important Red Sox games of my childhood. Many of Yaz's stats were accumulated over a 23 season career. Each of the bolded stats that you quote for Bettis were of the accumulated variety. I dont give many points just for playing a long time and building up stats. I watch enough games that I generally trust my eyes to tell me if a player is great. I never thought Bettis was great. Maybe I only saw his crappy games throughout his career. Who knows.

3. Dillon has played enough years. He's either a HOF'er or he isnt. What is he going to do over the next 2-4 years other than accumulate meaningless stats? I dont think he is a HOF'er BTW.

Gale Sayers is a HOF'er and he doesnt rate in the top 50 in probably any category. You could tell that just by watching him play. If medicine was better when he played and he hung on for 3-4 years of 400-600 yards per year, that wouldnt have made him more of a HOF'er.

I tend to think that Bettis was a good back and had 3 or 4 excellent seasons and a bunch of middle of the road ones. I happen to think of him as a compiler that will benefit by playing as long as he did, and I tend to agree that longevity does not necessarily equal greatness.I think that the Dillon/Bettis comparison is an intersting one, especially since some people feel Bettis has to be considered a mortal lock. Here are their numbers through 10 seasons played:

BETTIS

149 games played

2873 carries

11542 rushing yards

4.02 ypc

62 rushing TD

177 receptions

1277 receiving yards

7.21 ypr

3 receiving TD

12819 yards from scrimmage

65 combined TD

1677.50 fantasy points

DILLON

150 games played

2618 carries

11241 rushing yards

4.29 ypc

82 rushing TD

244 receptions

1913 receiving yards

7.84 ypr

7 receiving TD

13154 yards from scrimmage

89 combined TD

1848.40 fanasy points

From my perspective, Dillon has been statistically BETTER than Bettis has at the same point in their careers.

Bettis went on to play 3 more seasons, averaging 706 rushing yards, 57 receiving yards, and just under 10 TD a season in those years.

So basically the argument FOR BETTIS is that he went on to play 3 more years that by all standards would be considered mediocre seasons for a RB by HOF standards (unless averaging 760 total yards and 10 TD is HOF worthy).

While I still don't think Dillon passes the litmus test for greatness (either he was or he wasn't and having to debate it almost by default means he wasn't), if Dillon hangs on and plays 2 more seasons posting the same marginal totals that Bettis did, I don't see why Bettis would be a lock and Dillon would not even get consideration.

10 TDs a season in your last 3 years is pretty respectable, no?And to finish 9 shy of 100 TDs is hall of fame worthy.

I agree that Dillon gets consideration, and whats more, he will make it a shoe in if he stays healthy for a few more years. 100 TDs is equivilant to winning 300 games as a pitcher in MLB its a life time achievement award. Unless the unthinkable happens to Dillon, in 2 years he should hit the 100 TD mark, with his yardage totals and SuperBowl ring (dont think that doesnt carry weight), I think he Will make it. Ricky Watters should make it too, with 92 TDs a Superbowl ring, 5 pro bowls, and 13th all time rushing stats.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Plus, he made another Pro Bowl.

This is why a lot of the fluff about players can sometimes not mean a whole lot. Yes, to the letter of the law, Bettis did make the 2004 Pro Bowl. But IIRC, it was after 3 other players backed out. So sure, he made it, but it's not like he was one of the top couple of choices.The following received credit for being AFC Pro Bowl RBs in 2004 . . .Curtis MartinLaDainian TomlinsonEdgerrin JamesCorey DillonRudi JohnsonJerome Bettis

Thank you. That is yet another reason why I think number of pro bowls made should not be given much consideration when discussing someone's Hall of Fame worthiness.Didn't Steve McNair make it last year, despite having a pretty average year? I think he was like the 7th or 8th choice in the AFC, but made it when numerous other QB's had to drop out.

 

[CalBear]

I have a response to the "Hall of Very Good" comments, and it's relevant to the Dillon vs. Bettis comparison.

Yes, it's not the Hall of Very Good. It's also not the Hall of Top Players. It's the Hall of Fame.

fame –noun

1. widespread reputation, esp. of a favorable character; renown; public eminence: to seek fame as an opera singer.

2. common estimation or opinion generally held of a person or thing; reputation.

We are stat geeks, so we focus on stats, but a significant portion of what goes into Hall of Fame decisions is how famous the player is. (Reference: Joe Namath, Lynn Swann).

Bettis is very recognizable. Bettis has TV commercials. Bettis has his own nickname, for cryin' out loud. Your mom knows who Bettis is. Corey Dillon? Who's that?

 

[David Yudkin]

I have a response to the "Hall of Very Good" comments, and it's relevant to the Dillon vs. Bettis comparison.

Yes, it's not the Hall of Very Good. It's also not the Hall of Top Players. It's the Hall of Fame.

fame –noun

1. widespread reputation, esp. of a favorable character; renown; public eminence: to seek fame as an opera singer.

2. common estimation or opinion generally held of a person or thing; reputation.

We are stat geeks, so we focus on stats, but a significant portion of what goes into Hall of Fame decisions is how famous the player is. (Reference: Joe Namath, Lynn Swann).

Bettis is very recognizable. Bettis has TV commercials. Bettis has his own nickname, for cryin' out loud. Your mom knows who Bettis is. Corey Dillon? Who's that?

To be clear, I am not disagreeing with you . . . but Bo Jackson had everything you just mentioned and then some. Is he a HOFer?

 

[switz]

1997 Cincinnati Bengals 233 1129 4.8 10 TD's 1998 Cincinnati Bengals 262 1130 4.3 4 TD's 1999 Cincinnati Bengals 263 1200 4.6 5 TD's2000 Cincinnati Bengals 315 1435 4.6 7 TD's 2001 Cincinnati Bengals 340 1315 3.9 10 TD's 2002 Cincinnati Bengals 314 1311 4.2 7 TD's 2003 Cincinnati Bengals 138 541 3.9 2 TD's 2004 New England Patriots 345 1635 4.7 12 TD's 2005 New England Patriots 209 733 3.5 12 TD's 2006 New England Patriots 199 812 4.1 13 TD's

When has a single year of his been tops in ANY category? He's been and will be seen as an average NFL RB.

 

[switz]

I have a response to the "Hall of Very Good" comments, and it's relevant to the Dillon vs. Bettis comparison.

Yes, it's not the Hall of Very Good. It's also not the Hall of Top Players. It's the Hall of Fame.

fame –noun

1. widespread reputation, esp. of a favorable character; renown; public eminence: to seek fame as an opera singer.

2. common estimation or opinion generally held of a person or thing; reputation.

We are stat geeks, so we focus on stats, but a significant portion of what goes into Hall of Fame decisions is how famous the player is. (Reference: Joe Namath, Lynn Swann).

Bettis is very recognizable. Bettis has TV commercials. Bettis has his own nickname, for cryin' out loud. Your mom knows who Bettis is. Corey Dillon? Who's that?

To be clear, I am not disagreeing with you . . . but Bo Jackson had everything you just mentioned and then some. Is he a HOFer?

Both Bettis and Bo deserve to be in the HOF before Dillon. And that doesn't mean either of them deserve to be in the HOF at all.

 

[Sidewinder16]

I have a response to the "Hall of Very Good" comments, and it's relevant to the Dillon vs. Bettis comparison.

Yes, it's not the Hall of Very Good. It's also not the Hall of Top Players. It's the Hall of Fame.

fame –noun

1. widespread reputation, esp. of a favorable character; renown; public eminence: to seek fame as an opera singer.

2. common estimation or opinion generally held of a person or thing; reputation.

We are stat geeks, so we focus on stats, but a significant portion of what goes into Hall of Fame decisions is how famous the player is. (Reference: Joe Namath, Lynn Swann).

Bettis is very recognizable. Bettis has TV commercials. Bettis has his own nickname, for cryin' out loud. Your mom knows who Bettis is. Corey Dillon? Who's that?

A survey of current inductees should tell anyone that being a HOFer isn't all about the stats. It's as much about the impact you had on the game of football in the public eye. I would include name recognition as a factor in weighing what kind of impact a player had on the game.

You can dissect Namath's stats all you want and, rightfully IMO, conclude that he was more often than not an average passer (at best), but when he came through with his Super Bowl guarantee and proved the AFL belonged in the same league as the NFL...well, to say that was huge to the game of football would be an enormous understatement.

Again, the HOF voters have shown that they are willing to look beyond numbers on paper.