Herschel Walker (1 Viewer)

[Tau837]

I always thought it was funny that the NFL acknowledged Warren Moon's CFL numbers but refused to admit that Walker and Flutie had USFL careers. Of course, this is the same league that put down the USFL but were quick to grab the Sam Mills of the world when the league folded.

Moon doesn't need his CFL accomplishments to make the NFL HOF. Here are his current NFL ranks:Among the league's all-time top 50

Pass attempts: 4

Completions: 4

Passing yards: 4

Passing TDs: 5

Now consider that he only played 36 games in his last 5 seasons, and his last season was in 2000. So his accomplishments have held up quite well.

He was also a 9-time Pro Bowler.

So citing Moon (or Kelly, Young, etc.) as evidence for this question is not meaningful. Thus far, no one's USFL or CFL stats have contributed to earning entry into the NFL HOF. I don't see that changing.

 

[Tau837]

As for Sayers, I happened to repost this old post in the Terrell Davis HOF thread earlier today, when someone attempted to use Sayers as a case for Davis to make the HOF:

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.

...

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

 

[Norseman]

I hate Mike Lynn!

 

[Tau837]

The only reason it's called that is because of the AFL. It's the NFL Hall of Fame by all accounts, just look who runs it.

No one has been or will ever be inducted into the HOF in all or in part due to performance in the CFL or USFL. Including Walker.

Let's review how he performed in the NFL. 2 Pro Bowls. 2 1000 yard rushing seasons.

Among the league's all-time top 50:

Rushes: 25

Rushing yards: 26

Rushing TDs: 33t

Yards from scrimmage: 25

Rush/Receive TDs: 39t

Sorry, but this isn't even close.

 

[4thAndForever]

Pre Bush hype...it was often said that he was the best college RB ever. I also liked the stories that talked about how he never lifted weights and only did pushups and situps.

I read that too, and it's miraculous if it's true. Dude was jacked.

 

[Bri]

No,I can't remember when but there were several times I felt like he was under-utilized. Some folks believed there was a conspiracy and held him responsible for the USFL and that's why he wasn't used as much in the NFL. I thought it was wacky.In many people's opinions signing him was gigantic and the turning point in which the NFL would have to admit that this was a league to be reckonned with. His career is a shame(like Marcus) because I think talent-wise he was one of the greatest backs ever in the NFL so I'd have loved to see them get the ball more. Talent will get ya drafted but it won't get ya into the Hall.

 

[Bri]

Pre Bush hype...it was often said that he was the best college RB ever.  I also liked the stories that talked about how he never lifted weights and only did pushups and situps.

I read that too, and it's miraculous if it's true. Dude was jacked.

seen this mentioned too

 

[Bri]

The only reason it's called that is because of the AFL. It's the NFL Hall of Fame by all accounts, just look who runs it.

No one has been or will ever be inducted into the HOF in all or in part due to performance in the CFL or USFL.

I don't really disagree but yet I feel Warren Moon should be the exception.

 

[Tenderknee]

Herschel had Emmitt Smith like numbers where he scored a rushing TD practically every game. That was against elite college level caliber players. The example I would choose to use to illustrate that this was the common assumption by even the pro back offices is that Steve Young was not picked up by a team needing a QB. If the talent level was comparable in both leagues, Steve Young's success there would be worthy enough for a starting gig in the NFL for teams like the Rams, but only teams like Tampa Bay were willing to take a shot with him. In fact the better players were already leaving for the NFL and Herschel had an extra year playing against the scraps.If you add his USFL numbers and give them NFL weight, then I can see making a case. He had the number of carries, and games played, and perhaps even the scoring. But when you look at his NFL numbers, players like Chris Warren, Billy Sims, and Thurman Thomas had just as good stats if not better. And they played a bigger part of their clubs success, while Herschel led the Cowboys to crap.You can make a very good argument for Herschel, but my feeling is that his numbers in the USFL were very inflated due to the lack of talent in that league, and they also played more games, and to add that to his NFL numbers is like adding college stats. So throw away those numbers like you throw away the wasted years that Priest Holmes sat on the bench, and would you consider Priest Holmes a HOF running back? I don't. They both were a product of their system. Dallas could only run when Herschel was there, so he got the rock a lot. His numbers were barely Pro Bowl caliber. If I had to select a back to start a team with, would I ever consider choosing him?...definitely. Would I be happy choosing him if I could choose from all the Pro Bowl running backs?....probably not.When you think about how good he could have been, that is not good enough. You have to see it, and know he was the best at that time. Herschel wasn't even considered the best at that time. He was just an enigma. Guys like Bo Jackson and Herschel never put it all together while playing at the highest level. But Bo Jackson split time in the backfield with HOF Marcus Allen who was still in his prime. So what did Hershel do besides run the ball a lot for teams? The only year he did great in helping a winning team, it was more a matter of Randall Cunningham leading the way, and having a second running back on the team to help him carry the load.Herschel is just not worthy of the HOF. Some other that are in there are not either, but that is not a reason for lowering the standards. If he came out before the last few bad years, he would have gone up against a guy like Eric Dickerson, who is by far a more accomplished, and dominating runner. Mike Anderson is a yardage compiler too, but he is not HOF material, although his stats might be equivalent to Herschel's. A player who benefits from a system, and does not put up the stats to impress over a period of time is not worthy of entering the HOF.

 

[Csonka4life]

On stats alone Ed Podolack and Mike Alstott deserve induction if stats were what gets you into the hall(If Sayers 4000 is a measuring stick). But it's the french word of J'nsequois(indescribeable) is the reason why Sayers is a hall of famer and William Andrews and George Rogers will never be. As for Walker he should make it as an oldtimer as he would surely have had the stats if he played exclusively in the NFL.....

 

[DrJ]

Sayers:65- 7th in attempts, 2nd in rushing yards, and 2nd in rushing TD's. His 20 rushing/receiving TD's is still a rookie record, I believe - and that was a 14 game season.66 - 3rd in attempts, 1st in rushing yards, and 2nd most rush TD's. 67 - Missed 1 game. He was 7th in rushing attempts, 3rd in rushing yards, and 4th in rushing TD's.68 - He only played in 9 games due to a knee injury - he was averaging 6.2 YPC up until that point and ended the season still 5th in the league in rushing yards.69 - Came back to be #1 in rush attempts, #1 in rush yardage, and #3 in rush TD's. For those 5 years, he was the best in the game. He was one of the 2 or 3 best the game had seen to that point. Herschel Walker had 2 seasons in the top 10 in rushing yards - a strike shortened 1987 where he was 6th, and in 1988 where he was 2nd. He was good for about a season and a half and mediocre the rest of his career. In one game his rookie season, Gale Sayers had more TD's than Walker had rushing in all but 4 of his seasons.

 

[Mr. Vegas]

No,RB with under 10,000 yards will get in from here on out.

 

[BlueOnion]

They are stats.

How many yards did Sayers rush for in his career? 4956

How many TDs did he rush for in his career? 39

How many times was he named the best back of all time? 1

How many times was he named All NFL? 5

You can statistically analyze as many non-statistical accolades as you want, it still won't make the accolades a statistical accomplishment.

What do you think voters used to select him as the best back all time and All NFL five times? They used stats, among other things. Those accolades are very much stats-based.

One can make a very strong case for Gale Sayers in the HOF, but his statistics are not part of that strong equation.

 

[Tau837]

The only reason it's called that is because of the AFL. It's the NFL Hall of Fame by all accounts, just look who runs it.

No one has been or will ever be inducted into the HOF in all or in part due to performance in the CFL or USFL.

I don't really disagree but yet I feel Warren Moon should be the exception.

Perhaps I wasn't clear above (post 51), but I feel Moon is a lock to make the HOF without any consideration for his numbers outside the NFL. So, while I believe he will make it, I don't see him as an exception to my statement above.

 

[Biabreakable]

I hate Mike Lynn!    

No!! Hershel Walker does NOT belong in the hall of fame!!

Even Hershel would probobly say that Hershel is not a hall of fame caliber player. He was a I formation rb with good top end speed who could not create his own holes or even have very good vision to recognise them.

I could list 50 or more Rbs better than Hershel Walker.

I do think he belongs in the Viking hall of shame. Perhaps the worst thing the Viking franchise ever did was trading so much for him and that is saying somthing.

 

[BlueOnion]

I do think he belongs in the Viking hall of shame. Perhaps the worst thing the Viking franchise ever did was trading so much for him and that is saying somthing.

I hate to defend Herchel Walker here, but if you are going to give up that much for one player who can only run from the I-formation, is Jerry Burns even defendable for refusing to put the I-formation into the playbook?

 

[Bri]

He was a I formation rb with good top end speed who could not create his own holes or even have very good vision to recognise them.

I disagree. Some of his kick returns were spectacular and only someone with great vision could have done that. Not just "dead ahead" speed. As for creating his own holes, he bowled over his share of guys making something out of nothing.

 

[BigRed]

lmaoGB all the HOF threads

 

[Biabreakable]

Jerry Burns never wanted Hershel Walker. Mike Lynn traded for him to be cheap and not have to pay for rookies.Bri that you even have to mention kick returns for big plays from Hershel just shows how little he did that actualy made a difference as a player.He did not do crap after that one run where he lost his shoe for the Vikings.

 

[Native]

If he hadn't played in the USFL, probably. As it stands, doubtful.

Too bad too, because I remember watching that cat play at Georgia and he was one of the best backs I have ever seen.

 

[David Yudkin]

Combining the first three options, the total vote count at this point would be 46 people that think he should at least be considered at some point vs 48 that say he effectively stands no chance. That's a lot closer than I would have thought . . .

 

[MarshallRob]

Herschel had Emmitt Smith like numbers where he scored a rushing TD practically every game.  That was against elite college level caliber players.  The example I would choose to use to illustrate that this was the common assumption by even the pro back offices is that Steve Young was not picked up by a team needing a QB.  If the talent level was comparable in both leagues, Steve Young's success there would be worthy enough for a starting gig in the NFL for teams like the Rams, but only teams like Tampa Bay were willing to take a shot with him.  In fact the better players were already leaving for the NFL and Herschel had an extra year playing against the scraps.

The NFL had a supplemental draft of USFL players in 1984 to prevent a bidding war. Steve Young was the #1 pick.Walker wasn't drafted because Dallas already owned his rights.

 

[dgreen]

They are stats.

How many yards did Sayers rush for in his career? 4956

How many TDs did he rush for in his career? 39

How many times was he named the best back of all time? 1

How many times was he named All NFL? 5

You can statistically analyze as many non-statistical accolades as you want, it still won't make the accolades a statistical accomplishment.

What do you think voters used to select him as the best back all time and All NFL five times? They used stats, among other things. Those accolades are very much stats-based.

One can make a very strong case for Gale Sayers in the HOF, but his statistics are not part of that strong equation.

Do you completely discount his kick returning?

 

[Tau837]

Combining the first three options, the total vote count at this point would be 46 people that think he should at least be considered at some point vs 48 that say he effectively stands no chance. That's a lot closer than I would have thought . . .

Well, if nothing else, all the HOF threads on this board have proven that the posters here are not good at applying the same standards to HOF selection that the HOF itself uses.Many on this board would vote in Rod Smith, Jimmy Smith, Terrell Davis, Testaverde, Bledsoe, Tiki, and many other players who were good to very good players in their era, even though none of them were truly elite.

I'm not surprised by these results based on the other threads.

 

[Bri]

Bri that you even have to mention kick returns for big plays from Hershel just shows how little he did that actualy made a difference as a player.

It was a few plays where his vision(reply to post) stood out to me. It's my understanding that he wanted to do kick returns regardless of whether he was a star or not. I believe Tim Brown appreciated and took the same attitude with punt returns.Yeah I know about injuries and all but I wish more stars returned kicks and punts or played special teams. I appreciate that mindset.

 

[stevec]

Well, if nothing else, all the HOF threads on this board have proven that the posters here are not good at applying the same standards to HOF selection that the HOF itself uses.

Many on this board would vote in Rod Smith, Jimmy Smith, Terrell Davis, Testaverde, Bledsoe, Tiki, and many other players who were good to very good players in their era, even though none of them were truly elite.

I'm not surprised by these results based on the other threads.

Smiths, Testaverde, Bledsoe are one list - very good career value, not enough peak value to get them in, and their careers are near enoguh to done that we are pretty sure where they end up.Davis is on another list entirely: great peak value, but short career, so not enough career value to get in.

I don't think Tiki has a great shot, but he's not done and might end up making a good case - he's at 1816-8283-47 rush | 511-4580-12 rec which is an impressive career total, but 1 Pro Bowl. He needs another 3 years at this current level, but if he keeps leading the NFL in yards from scrimmage like 2004 & 2005 so far, he'll get in.

 

[David Yudkin]

I don't think Tiki has a great shot, but he's not done and might end up making a good case - he's at  1816-8283-47 rush  |  511-4580-12 rec which is an impressive career total, but 1 Pro Bowl. He needs another 3 years at this current level, but if he keeps leading the NFL in yards from scrimmage like 2004 & 2005 so far, he'll get in.

With Tiki already at 30, I'm not sure he can keep up his current pace. As I've discussed in the other HOF RB threads, there are 10 other RB candidates that should likely be considered before Barber, and it's very unlikely voters will start electing that many RB from the same era/generation.I through Walker into the mix simply because I have never seen a thread on him or one that really even mentioned him as a HOF candidate. That in iteslef likely dooms his chances, but the positive response makes me wonder if someday he might actually get some consideration.

 

[stevec]

I don't think Tiki has a great shot, but he's not done and might end up making a good case - he's at  1816-8283-47 rush   |   511-4580-12 rec which is an impressive career total, but 1 Pro Bowl. He needs another 3 years at this current level, but if he keeps leading the NFL in yards from scrimmage like 2004 & 2005 so far, he'll get in.

With Tiki already at 30, I'm not sure he can keep up his current pace. As I've discussed in the other HOF RB threads, there are 10 other RB candidates that should likely be considered before Barber, and it's very unlikely voters will start electing that many RB from the same era/generation.I through Walker into the mix simply because I have never seen a thread on him or one that really even mentioned him as a HOF candidate. That in itself likely dooms his chances, but the positive response makes me wonder if someday he might actually get some consideration.

I agree that he may not keep up the pace, but if he does it for 3 more years, he's in - that will get him near 20,000 yards from scrimmage, and unless you think Martin and/or Faulk's not getting in, that's awesome company:

All-time leaders  1.  J Rice        23540  2.  E Smith       21579  3.  W Payton      21264  4. *M Faulk       18963  5.  B Sanders     18190  6.  M Allen       17654  7. *C Martin      17430  8.  T Thomas      16532  9.  T Dorsett     1629310.  E Dickerson   1539611.  T Brown       1512412. *J Bettis      1503013.  R Watters     1489114.  J Brown       1481115.  F Harris      1440716.  J Lofton      1425017.  C Carter      1394018.  H Ellard      1382719.  A Reed        1369820.  J Riggins     1344221.  O Simpson     1337822.  O Anderson    1333523.  S Largent     1317224.  R Craig       1310025.  H Walker      1308426.  A Monk        1305327.  I Fryar       1302728.  E Byner       1286629. *T Barber      1286330.  E George      12668

Interestingly, Herschel is on this list as well, at #25. And it doesn't include kick returns.

 

[David Yudkin]

It looks like Barber (at 30) is 7100 and change from 20,000 total yards. That's not exactly knocking on the door.LT (26) will have around 10,000 and Edge (27) will have over 12,000 yards at the end of the year, and I would give both of those guys a way better shot at 20,000 yards than Barber.Guys in front of Barber in terms of total yards that are waiting to get in the HOF are: Emmitt, Faulk, Martin, Thomas, and Bettis. RB ahead of him that are not great HOF candidates are: Watters, OAnderson, and Craig. Dillon falls in the too soon to tell category and Alexander is certainly off to a good start.Not all of these guys can make it in, so some people are going to miss the cut. I agree that Barber could look more attractive with several more big seasons, but that could be said about almost any RB out there (should they lead the league in total yards several years in a row).

 

[DrJ]

They are stats.

How many yards did Sayers rush for in his career? 4956

How many TDs did he rush for in his career? 39

How many times was he named the best back of all time? 1

How many times was he named All NFL? 5

You can statistically analyze as many non-statistical accolades as you want, it still won't make the accolades a statistical accomplishment.

What do you think voters used to select him as the best back all time and All NFL five times? They used stats, among other things. Those accolades are very much stats-based.

One can make a very strong case for Gale Sayers in the HOF, but his statistics are not part of that strong equation.

Sure, if you insist on comparing stats across eras, but then no one that played in the 50's and 60's at RB would be HOF worthy outside of Jim Brown.Sayers numbers were tremendous for the era that he played in and there was no one better for those 5 years that he played. Talentwise, statistically...the whole 9.

 

[DrJ]

Combining the first three options, the total vote count at this point would be 46 people that think he should at least be considered at some point vs 48 that say he effectively stands no chance.  That's a lot closer than I would have thought . . .

Well, if nothing else, all the HOF threads on this board have proven that the posters here are not good at applying the same standards to HOF selection that the HOF itself uses.Many on this board would vote in Rod Smith, Jimmy Smith, Terrell Davis, Testaverde, Bledsoe, Tiki, and many other players who were good to very good players in their era, even though none of them were truly elite.

I'm not surprised by these results based on the other threads.

But at the same time, the HOF commitee hasn't really been even in using these same criteria. Take John Riggins for example, he had one great season in his entire career and was nothing more than a compiler outside of that. He was in the top 10 in rushing yards only 4 times in a 14 year career and was never higher than 5. He had a lot of TD's in the Washington system, that's about all he ever did. He made 1 friggin Pro Bowl. Why a player like him is in there when others that were good for a really long time aren't considered really doesn't make a lot of sense.But are we supposed to consider Riggins induction a standard, or just a ridiculous selection that has little merit? That's where the gray area is....

 

[dgreen]

Take John Riggins for example...Why a player like him is in there when others that were good for a really long time aren't considered really doesn't make a lot of sense.

Can you please name some of these players that were good for a really long time and aren't considered?

 

[BlueOnion]

Sure, if you insist on comparing stats across eras, but then no one that played in the 50's and 60's at RB would be HOF worthy outside of Jim Brown.

Sayers numbers were tremendous for the era that he played in and there was no one better for those 5 years that he played. Talentwise, statistically...the whole 9.

That was exactly what I was asking, statistically he does not stand up against other HOF running backs. However, I never said he doesn't deserve to be in the HOF, which you seem to be focusing on.

 

[Tau837]

I don't think Tiki has a great shot, but he's not done and might end up making a good case - he's at  1816-8283-47 rush   |   511-4580-12 rec which is an impressive career total, but 1 Pro Bowl. He needs another 3 years at this current level, but if he keeps leading the NFL in yards from scrimmage like 2004 & 2005 so far, he'll get in.

With Tiki already at 30, I'm not sure he can keep up his current pace. As I've discussed in the other HOF RB threads, there are 10 other RB candidates that should likely be considered before Barber, and it's very unlikely voters will start electing that many RB from the same era/generation.I through Walker into the mix simply because I have never seen a thread on him or one that really even mentioned him as a HOF candidate. That in itself likely dooms his chances, but the positive response makes me wonder if someday he might actually get some consideration.

I agree that he may not keep up the pace, but if he does it for 3 more years, he's in - that will get him near 20,000 yards from scrimmage...Interestingly, Herschel is on this list as well, at #25. And it doesn't include kick returns.

See Tiki a HOFer?, If not, what more will it take? for good discussion on Tiki's chances.See Terrell Davis for discussion on him.

My opinion on each of them is clearly stated in those threads. IMO neither deserves it and neither will make it.

 

[MarshallRob]

Sure, if you insist on comparing stats across eras, but then no one that played in the 50's and 60's at RB would be HOF worthy outside of Jim Brown.

Sayers numbers were tremendous for the era that he played in and there was no one better for those 5 years that he played.  Talentwise, statistically...the whole 9.

That was exactly what I was asking, statistically he does not stand up against other HOF running backs. However, I never said he doesn't deserve to be in the HOF, which you seem to be focusing on.

Hall of Fame Running Backs that Sayers has more rushing yards than: Marion Motley, Paul Hornung, Red Grange, Bronko Nagurski, Doak Walker.

There are more.

 

[BlueOnion]

Hall of Fame Running Backs that Sayers has more rushing yards than:

Marion Motley, Paul Hornung, Red Grange, Bronko Nagurski, Doak Walker.

There are more.

So I guess Sayers is not the only one who does not statistically measure up to his HOF peers.

 

[dgreen]

Hall of Fame Running Backs that Sayers has more rushing yards than:

Marion Motley, Paul Hornung, Red Grange, Bronko Nagurski, Doak Walker.

There are more.

So I guess Sayers is not the only one who does not statistically measure up to his HOF peers.

Yes, in the same way Jim Brown doesn't measure up to Emmitt Smith.

 

[DrJ]

Take John Riggins for example...Why a player like him is in there when others that were good for a really long time aren't considered really doesn't make a lot of sense.

Can you please name some of these players that were good for a really long time and aren't considered?

I guess I should say not considered seriously.I mean, who seriously considers Otis Anderson a HOF'er? How about Ricky Watters? Corey Dillon?

 

[dgreen]

Take John Riggins for example...Why a player like him is in there when others that were good for a really long time aren't considered really doesn't make a lot of sense.

Can you please name some of these players that were good for a really long time and aren't considered?

I guess I should say not considered seriously.I mean, who seriously considers Otis Anderson a HOF'er? How about Ricky Watters? Corey Dillon?

I think Watters will receive consideration at some point after he's eligible. Dillon, I'm not so sure about. Ottis Anderson was someone I mentioned earlier as needing more consideration. But, I'd take Riggins over any of those three without question. Riggins was a good receiver out of the backfield early in his career. He possessed more speed than most give him credit for.

 

[DrJ]

Take John Riggins for example...Why a player like him is in there when others that were good for a really long time aren't considered really doesn't make a lot of sense.

Can you please name some of these players that were good for a really long time and aren't considered?

I guess I should say not considered seriously.I mean, who seriously considers Otis Anderson a HOF'er? How about Ricky Watters? Corey Dillon?

I think Watters will receive consideration at some point after he's eligible. Dillon, I'm not so sure about. Ottis Anderson was someone I mentioned earlier as needing more consideration. But, I'd take Riggins over any of those three without question. Riggins was a good receiver out of the backfield early in his career. He possessed more speed than most give him credit for.

He wasn't all that spectacular of a receiver, the guy ranked in the top 10 in yards from scrimmage an entire 1 time in 14 seasons.

 

[David Yudkin]

Take John Riggins for example...Why a player like him is in there when others that were good for a really long time aren't considered really doesn't make a lot of sense.

Can you please name some of these players that were good for a really long time and aren't considered?

I guess I should say not considered seriously.I mean, who seriously considers Otis Anderson a HOF'er? How about Ricky Watters? Corey Dillon?

Dillon isn't done playing, so it's impossible to evaluate him yet. If he didn't play another down? Probably not. If he plays a couple more seasons and gains another 3,000 rushing yards for the Pats and gets another ring . . . who knows? That could vault him in to the Top 5 all-time for rushing yards. Would that change your opinion of him any?

 

[GreedoShotFirst]

It has been pointed out a million times that HOF voters look at more than just stats, specifically they look at guys who are winners and guys who perform well in the postseason. Riggins was a beast in the playoffs and a SB MVP. That, not his stats, is what got him in. he also puken on Barbara Bush, gotta give the man credit for that :X

 

[DrJ]

Take John Riggins for example...Why a player like him is in there when others that were good for a really long time aren't considered really doesn't make a lot of sense.

Can you please name some of these players that were good for a really long time and aren't considered?

I guess I should say not considered seriously.I mean, who seriously considers Otis Anderson a HOF'er? How about Ricky Watters? Corey Dillon?

Dillon isn't done playing, so it's impossible to evaluate him yet. If he didn't play another down? Probably not. If he plays a couple more seasons and gains another 3,000 rushing yards for the Pats and gets another ring . . . who knows? That could vault him in to the Top 5 all-time for rushing yards. Would that change your opinion of him any?

Why would 3000 yards more in the latter part of his career make any of his accomplishments to date any more impressive? If Tomlinson got hit by a bus tomorrow, he should make the HOF. Who cares that his career totals aren't the same as Corey Dillon's? He was a flat out better RB, and for the time he played far superior to Dillon. He was the best in this era, and one of the best the game had seen for the time that he played.

I just don't understand the idea that longevity is the end all be all. A guy that plays for 12 years is better than a guy that played 6 by default, because look at where he ranks on the career list!

 

[David Yudkin]

Take John Riggins for example...Why a player like him is in there when others that were good for a really long time aren't considered really doesn't make a lot of sense.

Can you please name some of these players that were good for a really long time and aren't considered?

I guess I should say not considered seriously.I mean, who seriously considers Otis Anderson a HOF'er? How about Ricky Watters? Corey Dillon?

Dillon isn't done playing, so it's impossible to evaluate him yet. If he didn't play another down? Probably not. If he plays a couple more seasons and gains another 3,000 rushing yards for the Pats and gets another ring . . . who knows? That could vault him in to the Top 5 all-time for rushing yards. Would that change your opinion of him any?

Why would 3000 yards more in the latter part of his career make any of his accomplishments to date any more impressive? If Tomlinson got hit by a bus tomorrow, he should make the HOF. Who cares that his career totals aren't the same as Corey Dillon's? He was a flat out better RB, and for the time he played far superior to Dillon. He was the best in this era, and one of the best the game had seen for the time that he played.

I just don't understand the idea that longevity is the end all be all. A guy that plays for 12 years is better than a guy that played 6 by default, because look at where he ranks on the career list!

So let me just double check . . .If Dillon did have two more 1,500 yard rushing seasons like last year and won another title with the Pats, Dillon IS NOT a legit HOF contender given what WOULD total . . .

- 9 seasons with 1,000+ yards including 6 on one of the weakest teams in NFL history

- 3 years of 1,500+ rushing yards

- 3 other years of 1,300+ rushing yards

- 2 Super Bowl rings

- Top 5 all-time in rushing yards

As a homework assignment, research who has that on his resume AND IS NOT in the HOF . . .

(I'll save you the trouble. No one.)

I don't for a minute think that Dillon has two more seasons like that in him, but it could still happen, and then we would need to look at him in a different light than we do now.

 

[DrJ]

Take John Riggins for example...Why a player like him is in there when others that were good for a really long time aren't considered really doesn't make a lot of sense.

Can you please name some of these players that were good for a really long time and aren't considered?

I guess I should say not considered seriously.I mean, who seriously considers Otis Anderson a HOF'er? How about Ricky Watters? Corey Dillon?

Dillon isn't done playing, so it's impossible to evaluate him yet. If he didn't play another down? Probably not. If he plays a couple more seasons and gains another 3,000 rushing yards for the Pats and gets another ring . . . who knows? That could vault him in to the Top 5 all-time for rushing yards. Would that change your opinion of him any?

Why would 3000 yards more in the latter part of his career make any of his accomplishments to date any more impressive? If Tomlinson got hit by a bus tomorrow, he should make the HOF. Who cares that his career totals aren't the same as Corey Dillon's? He was a flat out better RB, and for the time he played far superior to Dillon. He was the best in this era, and one of the best the game had seen for the time that he played.

I just don't understand the idea that longevity is the end all be all. A guy that plays for 12 years is better than a guy that played 6 by default, because look at where he ranks on the career list!

So let me just double check . . .If Dillon did have two more 1,500 yard rushing seasons like last year and won another title with the Pats, Dillon IS NOT a legit HOF contender given what WOULD total . . .

- 9 seasons with 1,000+ yards including 6 on one of the weakest teams in NFL history

- 3 years of 1,500+ rushing yards

- 3 other years of 1,300+ rushing yards

- 2 Super Bowl rings

- Top 5 all-time in rushing yards

As a homework assignment, research who has that on his resume AND IS NOT in the HOF . . .

(I'll save you the trouble. No one.)

I don't for a minute think that Dillon has two more seasons like that in him, but it could still happen, and then we would need to look at him in a different light than we do now.

How is 1300 yards any sort of a benchmark anymore? 8 guys did it in 04, at least 10 in in 03, 10 in 02, etc ,etc... It's like home runs in baseball - 30-40 home runs doesn't mean all that much anymore. Dillon has been in the top 10 in rushing more times than Riggins and undeserving guys like that, I'll give him credit on that, but he also has never led the league in rushing. He's been in the top 5 only twice.

You should have to be one of the top 2 or 3 at your position at some point in time to qualify here - great at some point in your career. Not just pretty good for quite a while.

 

[Sinrman]

Man these threads are a joke...

 

[Tau837]

Take John Riggins for example...Why a player like him is in there when others that were good for a really long time aren't considered really doesn't make a lot of sense.

Can you please name some of these players that were good for a really long time and aren't considered?

I guess I should say not considered seriously.I mean, who seriously considers Otis Anderson a HOF'er? How about Ricky Watters? Corey Dillon?

Dillon isn't done playing, so it's impossible to evaluate him yet. If he didn't play another down? Probably not. If he plays a couple more seasons and gains another 3,000 rushing yards for the Pats and gets another ring . . . who knows? That could vault him in to the Top 5 all-time for rushing yards. Would that change your opinion of him any?

Why would 3000 yards more in the latter part of his career make any of his accomplishments to date any more impressive? If Tomlinson got hit by a bus tomorrow, he should make the HOF. Who cares that his career totals aren't the same as Corey Dillon's? He was a flat out better RB, and for the time he played far superior to Dillon. He was the best in this era, and one of the best the game had seen for the time that he played.

I just don't understand the idea that longevity is the end all be all. A guy that plays for 12 years is better than a guy that played 6 by default, because look at where he ranks on the career list!

So let me just double check . . .If Dillon did have two more 1,500 yard rushing seasons like last year and won another title with the Pats, Dillon IS NOT a legit HOF contender given what WOULD total . . .

- 9 seasons with 1,000+ yards including 6 on one of the weakest teams in NFL history

- 3 years of 1,500+ rushing yards

- 3 other years of 1,300+ rushing yards

- 2 Super Bowl rings

- Top 5 all-time in rushing yards

As a homework assignment, research who has that on his resume AND IS NOT in the HOF . . .

(I'll save you the trouble. No one.)

I don't for a minute think that Dillon has two more seasons like that in him, but it could still happen, and then we would need to look at him in a different light than we do now.

Why is this even being debated? You admit yourself that this performance from Dillon is not likely. I'd go further than that and say there is virtually no chance.More importantly, as someone else said, he has not been one of the top few RBs at his position during his career, regardless of how he might finish. (Note: few does not equal 6 or 7.)

Heck, even your argument about where he would rank on the rushing yards list, which would be #6 with 3000 more yards by the way, would still leave him behind two contemporaries: Martin and Bettis. Those two along with Faulk are definitely in ahead of him. And is Emmitt a contemporary? He is in ahead of him. And I'm sure I'm forgetting someone else.

 

[Black Sunshine]

I don't know about Herschel, but former Dallas Cowboys GM Mike Lynn should be a first ballot guy. Talk about the proverbial screwjob of a lifetime.

 

[David Yudkin]

Take John Riggins for example...Why a player like him is in there when others that were good for a really long time aren't considered really doesn't make a lot of sense.

Can you please name some of these players that were good for a really long time and aren't considered?

I guess I should say not considered seriously.I mean, who seriously considers Otis Anderson a HOF'er? How about Ricky Watters? Corey Dillon?

Dillon isn't done playing, so it's impossible to evaluate him yet. If he didn't play another down? Probably not. If he plays a couple more seasons and gains another 3,000 rushing yards for the Pats and gets another ring . . . who knows? That could vault him in to the Top 5 all-time for rushing yards. Would that change your opinion of him any?

Why would 3000 yards more in the latter part of his career make any of his accomplishments to date any more impressive? If Tomlinson got hit by a bus tomorrow, he should make the HOF. Who cares that his career totals aren't the same as Corey Dillon's? He was a flat out better RB, and for the time he played far superior to Dillon. He was the best in this era, and one of the best the game had seen for the time that he played.

I just don't understand the idea that longevity is the end all be all. A guy that plays for 12 years is better than a guy that played 6 by default, because look at where he ranks on the career list!

So let me just double check . . .If Dillon did have two more 1,500 yard rushing seasons like last year and won another title with the Pats, Dillon IS NOT a legit HOF contender given what WOULD total . . .

- 9 seasons with 1,000+ yards including 6 on one of the weakest teams in NFL history

- 3 years of 1,500+ rushing yards

- 3 other years of 1,300+ rushing yards

- 2 Super Bowl rings

- Top 5 all-time in rushing yards

As a homework assignment, research who has that on his resume AND IS NOT in the HOF . . .

(I'll save you the trouble. No one.)

I don't for a minute think that Dillon has two more seasons like that in him, but it could still happen, and then we would need to look at him in a different light than we do now.

Why is this even being debated? You admit yourself that this performance from Dillon is not likely. I'd go further than that and say there is virtually no chance.More importantly, as someone else said, he has not been one of the top few RBs at his position during his career, regardless of how he might finish. (Note: few does not equal 6 or 7.)

Heck, even your argument about where he would rank on the rushing yards list, which would be #6 with 3000 more yards by the way, would still leave him behind two contemporaries: Martin and Bettis. Those two along with Faulk are definitely in ahead of him. And is Emmitt a contemporary? He is in ahead of him. And I'm sure I'm forgetting someone else.

If nothing else, all this HOF threads are proving one thing. There will be A LOT more players with gaudy stats over the next 10+ years, and obviously the HOF voters will not be voting them all in. In fact, they will vote only a select few in.So there will be countless, QB, RB, WR, and TE that someday WON'T make it in--far more than those that will. There have already been HOF threads and discussion--just about RB--involving:

Emmitt, Martin, Bettis, Faulk, Thomas, Barber, Walker, Holmes, Davis, Watters, Dillon, George, James, Tomlinson, Alexander, and Ahman Green. I bolded the ones that I think have the best chance of making it.

 

[Tau837]

Take John Riggins for example...Why a player like him is in there when others that were good for a really long time aren't considered really doesn't make a lot of sense.

Can you please name some of these players that were good for a really long time and aren't considered?

I guess I should say not considered seriously.I mean, who seriously considers Otis Anderson a HOF'er? How about Ricky Watters? Corey Dillon?

Dillon isn't done playing, so it's impossible to evaluate him yet. If he didn't play another down? Probably not. If he plays a couple more seasons and gains another 3,000 rushing yards for the Pats and gets another ring . . . who knows? That could vault him in to the Top 5 all-time for rushing yards. Would that change your opinion of him any?

Why would 3000 yards more in the latter part of his career make any of his accomplishments to date any more impressive? If Tomlinson got hit by a bus tomorrow, he should make the HOF. Who cares that his career totals aren't the same as Corey Dillon's? He was a flat out better RB, and for the time he played far superior to Dillon. He was the best in this era, and one of the best the game had seen for the time that he played.

I just don't understand the idea that longevity is the end all be all. A guy that plays for 12 years is better than a guy that played 6 by default, because look at where he ranks on the career list!

So let me just double check . . .If Dillon did have two more 1,500 yard rushing seasons like last year and won another title with the Pats, Dillon IS NOT a legit HOF contender given what WOULD total . . .

- 9 seasons with 1,000+ yards including 6 on one of the weakest teams in NFL history

- 3 years of 1,500+ rushing yards

- 3 other years of 1,300+ rushing yards

- 2 Super Bowl rings

- Top 5 all-time in rushing yards

As a homework assignment, research who has that on his resume AND IS NOT in the HOF . . .

(I'll save you the trouble. No one.)

I don't for a minute think that Dillon has two more seasons like that in him, but it could still happen, and then we would need to look at him in a different light than we do now.

Why is this even being debated? You admit yourself that this performance from Dillon is not likely. I'd go further than that and say there is virtually no chance.More importantly, as someone else said, he has not been one of the top few RBs at his position during his career, regardless of how he might finish. (Note: few does not equal 6 or 7.)

Heck, even your argument about where he would rank on the rushing yards list, which would be #6 with 3000 more yards by the way, would still leave him behind two contemporaries: Martin and Bettis. Those two along with Faulk are definitely in ahead of him. And is Emmitt a contemporary? He is in ahead of him. And I'm sure I'm forgetting someone else.

If nothing else, all this HOF threads are proving one thing. There will be A LOT more players with gaudy stats over the next 10+ years, and obviously the HOF voters will not be voting them all in. In fact, they will vote only a select few in.So there will be countless, QB, RB, WR, and TE that someday WON'T make it in--far more than those that will. There have already been HOF threads and discussion--just about RB--involving:

Emmitt, Martin, Bettis, Faulk, Thomas, Barber, Walker, Holmes, Davis, Watters, Dillon, George, James, Tomlinson, Alexander, and Ahman Green. I bolded the ones that I think have the best chance of making it.

Maybe we need a HOF Forum. Or Thread designator, like [HOF] (similar to the [Dynasty] threads). I have tried searching and at times found it difficult to find some of the old threads I was looking for, since I cannot use HOF as a search term.I would suggest that we start from scratch and walk through Pro Football history and elect a FBG HOF, but I'm sure it would end up like baseball's HOF or worse, with a bunch of players who were good but not great. This forum would probably elect all of the guys you named above except for maybe George & Green.