This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
LT2 will make it. They'll modify the requirements if the game continues to change in this direction. They obviously have for WR's as there are some great ones who aren't getting the nod.
Today's RBs carry the ball more than RBs did 20 years ago. It's not that we're living in the age of RBBC, it's that from 1998 until about 2007 we saw more heavy-carry backs than had been seen in the NFL before or since. Bettis may or may not make it, but Tomlinson will definitely get in. Steven Jackson will have a good shot if he stays healthy and the Rams stop sucking; similarly with MJD and Peterson.
'Sienna2012 said:
Don't c how it's too early for McCoy but not rice. Don't c how mjd is a probably but sjax is doubtful. I feel like people forget how good he is cuz he's been on such a crappy team his whole career. Over a span when workhorse backs have been rare, he's been one of the few. Sure he gets nicked, but he produces year in and year out. I think 7 (or maybe 8 now) straight 1000 yard seasons. Guys been a stud. Imagine what he might have done and how he'd be thought of if he was a member of the greatest show on turf instead of Faulk
No way is SJax a Hall of Famer. Great career, not HOF worthy IMO. Guys like he and Frank Gore are very very good but aren't going to get in unless someone like Fred Taylor gets a nod, then maybe.
McCoy and Rice still have plenty of time, but MJD and SJax? Nope.
Sjax and Gore >CuMart, imo.
MJD is 26. He just won a rushing title. He has plenty of time.
Thomas Jones, Fred Jackson, Kevin Faulk? Be serious. Jones has 1 pro bowl, no all-pros, only two top-5 rushing performances (best, #3 in 2009), not much in the way of receiving yardage, not in the top 20 in career rushing yardage. No way.Fred Jackson is 30 and he's never finished in the top 10 in rushing yardage or TDs.The only thing Kevin Faulk has going for him is that he shares genetic material with Marshall Faulk.
They were both my opinion, I dont think anyone is aware of any actual criteria required to be a HoF, but I feel like Thomas Jones despite what a lot of people think has done a lot, for a lot of teams - and I think it was enough to make him a HoF. FJax and Faulk are a lot more of a stretch to me, but its similar situation.
What has Thomas Jones done "for a lot of teams" other than lose his starting job to Michael Pittman twice? He played for a lot of teams because he really wasn't very good.The other two are just absurd. Make a case for them if you think they belong.
Thats ok, you can just disagree with me I dont really care.As far as TJones goes, I think:2004: 948 rushing, 427 receiving, 1375 total2005: 1335 rushing, 143 receiving, 1478 total2006: 1210 rushing, 154 receiving, 1364 total2007: 1119 rushing, 217 receiving, 1336 total2008: 1312 rushing, 207 receiving, 1519 total2009: 1402 rushing, 58 receiving, 1460 total2010: 896 rushing, 122 receiving, 1018 total59 TDs in those 7 years, with 3 different teams. I mean hes no world beater but I think its safe to say that almost 1000 rushing yards for 7 years straight, or over a 1000 total yards for 7 years are both pretty impressive, to me at least.
He had a decent career, but he's nowhere near Hall of Fame material.
Oh my...I am an ACC fan and a Jets fan (and Jones did his best in/with both)...but I would not vote him a HOF'er if my life depended on it...he makes that RB class of 2000 excellent, but not a HOF RB on his own...look at his stats compared to Martin (consistency especially and he loses right there).
Wow, really? I stand corrected, he also has time.T.Jones, F.Jackson, K.Faulk, E.James, T.Barber? Forget it.
Tiki would if he played out his career. Ricky Williams would have too. But their early retirements ruin their resume. You can definitely make a case for Edge, but I think his resume is about the same or a little worse than Tiki's.'zed2283 said:
And there's your problem. You realize we're talking about the HOF, right? I realize the luster has faded a bit on the HOF, but not to the point where anyone should even ironically utter Thomas Jones' name. Wow.'Run It Up said:
lol...this is a testament to how bad Curtis Martin is as a HoFer."Heck, if Martin is a HoF back, what about Thomas Jones?"
Martin is obviously a better HOF candidate than, say, Art Monk. Really, I don't see the argument against Martin at all. He wasn't flashy enough? He didn't mouth off enough? All he did was pile up rushing yards, year in and year out. If you want to compare him against another recent RB induction, Martin finished in the top 3 in rushing yards as many times as Thurman Thomas, had better yearly TD numbers, and finished with more than 2000 more yards. Or Marcus Allen, who only finished in the top 3 in rushing yards once and ended with 1500 fewer yards than Martin. Here are the last five RBs inducted into the HOF:Marshall FaulkEmmitt SmithThurman ThomasBarry SandersMarcus AllenMartin fits right into the middle of that group; he can't touch Faulk, Smith, or Sanders, but he's more deserving than Thomas or Allen. (Both of whom I think are legit HOFers).So now we've inducted six RBs since Y2K, one every two years. That doesn't seem like an outrageous pace given how short RB careers tend to be.
It's interesting that you put Rice over Jackson, since Jackson had better numbers than Rice at this point in his career.
He was never dominant (and neither was Allen besides 1 season and I don't think he should be in the HOF either). Thurman Thomas led the league 4 straight years in YFS. Martin led the league in rushing 1 time and he required leading the league in carries as well to obtain that.While Martin played I would easily take Sanders, Smith, LT, TD, and Faulk over him. At their peaks (a 3-5 year stretch) I would take Holmes, Alexander, Portis, Green and I am sure a few others that I am forgetting over him. He isn't even a top 5 RB of his era so no way should he be in the HOF - especially over someone like Cris Carter.Using the most undeserving players as a benchmark for the HOF is a poor way of justifying who else should get in. Martin was awesome at not fumbling but that is about the only amazing thing about Martin's career that I can think of.
Martin averaged 4.6 yards per carry when he led the league in rushing. Doing that at age 31 is remarkable. Sanders, Smith, LT, TD, and Faulk may all have been better, but they're not all peers, and three are in the Hall of Fame, one more is a lock, and the other had his career cut short by injury.Obviously he was a top-5 RB of his era, because he finished in the top-3 more often than most of the guys you list. Alexander, really? Alexander had basically two seasons out of 9 where he outplayed Martin, and Martin was hurt in one of those. Ahman Green had one out of 12. At this point you're just making #### up.
I think I basically agree with how you've broken down the potential candidates.I wasn't sure about C.Martin at all, and was surprised that he got in this quickly. I wasn't sure about Bettis either, but I think Martin getting in now makes Bettis a lock.All the rest of these guys, from Edge on down, are no's. Except for the active players.
How are they not peers? They had significant, productive, portions of their careers overlap with Martin. It isn't like we are comparing Payton or Dickerson with Martin.I would take Alexander's production from 2002-2005 over any 4 year stretch in Martin's career. Martin doesn't come close to that level of play and for a RB 4 years of dominance is often literally a career. I can say the same for Green's 5 year stretch from 2000-2004. The only thing Martin has on these guys is he doesn't fumble as much. On top of this, Martin's 4.01 rushing average is below the 4.07 rushing average for non-QBs in the league while he played.
They aren't all peers of each other; they overlapped with Martin but not all of them overlapped at the same time. Sanders retired in 1998, TD's three good years ended in 1998, Smith's last good year was 1999. Faulk's run was 1994-2001, 2001 was LT's rookie season. So Martin had 4 years of overlap with four of that group, 2 years of overlap with 2, and 5 years of overlap with only one.
Part of the reason that Martin is a deserving Hall of Famer is precisely that productive RB careers are typically short. How about the 6-year period from 1999 to 2004 when Martin led the league in rushing once and was #2 twice? Green from 2000-2004 had one second place and one fourth place (not as good as Martin's 2000-2004), and Alexander had one first place and one second place (to Martin).The thing Martin has on those guys is that you could choose 2001-2004, or 1995-1998, or 1998-2001, and all of those would be competitive runs involving multiple Pro Bowls and top-tier rushing yardage performances.
They overlapped more than that - but I am not going to quibble over a year or two. However, saying those guys aren't his peers is disingenuous. It is pretty difficult to find RBs whose careers completely overlap. I would think that an average career's worth of overlap would be sufficient to be considered peers.
From 1999-2004 Martin was the leading rusher - but was 2nd in YFS behind Faulk. Martin only slightly beats out James in both categories - but needed 15 more games to do it. Also, out of the top 10 rushers during that time frame he had by far the most carries - but only beat Eddie George and Ricky Williams in YPC. He is the epitome of a compiler.If you think Martin deserves it than I hope you think Bledsoe deserves the HOF as well.Bledsoe is top 10 all time in passing yards, from 1994 to 1998 only Favre threw for more yards, he lead the league in yardage once (and had to lead the league in attempts - just like Martin). They are similar players. They played a long time, took a lot of attempts, but their rate stats are poor and were never considered one of the top 2-3 RBs in the league.It isn't that Martin wasn't flashy - it was that he was never dominant. When your career YPC is lower than league average when you played how great are you really?
They did overlap more than that, but in the other years they overlapped, Martin was clearly better than Faulk, TD, and Smith. So if you want to say that Martin and TD were peers for seven years, that's fine, but Martin was clearly better than TD for four of those years. He was clearly better than Emmitt for five of the 10 years they overlapped. He was clearly better than Faulk for seven of the 11 years they overlapped.
Wrong. Monk is the epitome of a compiler; racking up career stats without any notable yearly performances. Compilers don't lead the league in rushing.
If Bledsoe won a Super Bowl he'd be in, whether you think that's appropriate or not. His career-ending stats aren't as good as Martin's (he's behind Vinny Testaverde, for Pete's sake--Martin is behind only Smith, Payton, and Sanders) and his yearly rankings aren't as good as Martin's. But he's not that far from being a HOFer (though he has zero chance).
What no one has mentioned yet either is that Edge looked like the best RB in the NFL from the get go and did for 3 or 4 years before tearing his ACL. I think you have to give him a lot of credit for the career he had after that. I think he's as close to borderline as a RB gets right now.'Jerry Lawler said:
Based on what?
Monk set the NFL record for receptions in a season that stood for nearly a decade and ended his career #1 on the all time receiving list and has 3 rings. I can't see how that isn't a notable career with no notable yearly performances. His 106 receptions were achieved on 485 attempts and 286 completions. Harrison is the current record holder whose 143 receptions came on 591 attempts with 392 completions. I guess, if Harrison's 143 receptions isn't a notable performance then Monk's 106 isn't either.
Yeah, I think Bledsoe is nothing more than average but at least you are consistent with your analysis.
my impressions of watching them play. This is not a statistical arguement, purely subjective. IMO, Gore and SJax have produced more highlight type of runs that make you say, "wow" than Martin ever has.
Ah, I should have realized that the appropriate way to judge HOF candidates is "moleculo numbers." Whatever those are.
Receptions are not a production stat. Monk was only fourth in receiving yards that year (one of his 3 top-10 performances, none better than #3). If you're going to give Monk credit for his receptions, you have to give Martin credit for being third in career rushing attempts (Monk is now 12th, and only held the record for one season).And incidentally, Monk didn't end his career #1 on the all-time reception list (let alone the all-time receiving list). He set the record, and got injured the next year, which was the same year that Jerry Rice beat the record.
A WR still needs to beat his coverage in order to compile receptions and in the vast majority of cases a reception comes with positive production. Any person on this board could take 20 carries in an NFL game. However, I doubt there are many at all that could line up as a WR and catch 5 passes. There is no one you have to beat to take a handoff.
Yeah, fine; do you think Keyshawn Johnson, Brett Perriman, Terance Mathis, and TJ Houshmandzadeh deserve spots in the Hall? That's a sampling of WRs who have managed 106+ receptions since Monk did. Like Monk, none of them came close to leading the league in receiving yardage when they got those numbers. Contrast that with Harrison's 143, where he not only shattered previous reception records, he also led the league by over 350 receiving yards.
Of course not - but the passing game has changed significantly since the early-mid 1980s. 106 isn't some magic number but at the time it was an NFL record and a record that stood for quite a while. Martin's best rushing season has been bested by Michael Turner, Ahman Green, Gerald Riggs, Larry Johnson (twice), Jamal Anderson, Ricky Williams, Shaun Alexander, and Jamal Lewis. I don't think any of them are HOFers either.
When do you think we'll see someone beat Martin's record of 10 consecutive seasons of 1000+ rushing yards? (Shared with Barry Sanders).
I don't think Martin is as deserving as Thomas and Allen.Thomas led the league in yards from scrimmage four times. He was 1st team All Pro twice, won the regular season MVP and helped his team to four Super Bowls.Allen led the league in rushing yards once, yards from scrimmage twice, rushing touchdowns twice and total touchdowns twice. He was 1st team All Pro twice, and was a Super Bowl MVP.Martin ended up with more yards, but Thomas and Allen both finished with slightly higher yards per carry. As others have mentioned, when I watched Martin I never thought I was watching the best of the best. When Thomas and Allen were at their peaks it was obvious they were among the best of the best.
