HOF Class of 2010 (1 Viewer)

[Horrorshow]

Ray Guy HAS to be in soon!!

Yeah, how is Ray Guy NOT in the Hall of Fame already? Sure he was a punter... but (A) that is a position in the NFL and (B) we're talking about the greatest at that position who ever played. He's named to every conceivable "All-time" NFL team, and for good reason.Maybe not everyone knows this, but the first amazing thing about Guy is that he was a 1st Round draft pick. He made the Pro Bowl seven times, and played in 207 consecutive games. Although he was famous for hanging incredibly long punts up in the air (and is credited with inspiring the term "hang time"), he also averaged 42.4 yards per punt for his career. One season (1984-'85) he placed 57 punts inside the 20 yard line! Etc; etc.

Jan Stenerud has a bust in Canton, so there's absolutely no excuse for Ray Guy not to be there too.

Guy did not place 57 punts inside the 20-yard line in one season. He did do that over the course of two seasons. The NFL single season record is 42 by Andy Lee. Jeff Feagles has played in 345 consecutive games.

Guy's 42.4 yards per punt currently places him 62nd on the all-time list.

Dave Jennings was a more effective punter than Ray Guy.

 

[SSOG]

For starters, team success is independent of how the team was the prior year. If you're 14-2, you don't have more wins if you were 6-10 last year or if you were 14-2 last year. 14-2 is 14-2; that's why I'm saying I'm grading coaching records. 14-2 is better than 10-6 which is better than 5-11. It's an objective measure of coaching records. I'm not using objective as a synonym for better the way some people do; subjectivity is needed in grading coaches, but not in grading coaching records.

FWIW, I don't think something like innovation is that important for a HC. If you win, I don't care if it's pretty or innovative or stylish. The goal is to win, not to look good. It's pretty hard to win without being innovative, though.

Championships are explicitly built into my grading system.

Impact on the game seems sort of fluffy to me. I can't think of a coach who got in based on his impact on the game, rather than his record. Tom Flores was the first minority coach in the modern era and won two SBs. Jimmy Johnson led a dynasty, has a good coaching record, is credited with having a huge impact on the draft, yet isn't in, either. I think for the most part, coaches get in for how good they were at coaching. The other stuff just tends to come along with good coaching.

I think innovation is important, but not necessary. I think that a coach could get inducted based solely on record, provided the record was unimpeachable enough (e.g. Don Shula). I think that a coach could get inducted based solely on innovation, provided the innovation was significant enough (e.g. Sid Gilman). You're right that most of the coaches in the hall have gotten in on a combination of factors rather than the overwhelming strength of just one, which is my point about Madden- he doesn't have any other factors in his favor except for record, so I would hold his record to a higher standard. And, to me, his record falls short of that standard. If he had another championship or another 3-4 years of success, then he would meet that standard. He didn't, so he doesn't- at least not in my book. And, as I've said a couple of times now, the Seniors Committee standard of entry is RADICALLY higher than the traditional standard of entry, so even if you feel like he makes the regular cutoff, there's NO WAY he makes the Seniors Committee cutoff based solely on coaching record.

EDIT:

Chart was unreadable.

Find it here http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play...iTe00.htm?redir

Seven year career, of which two were phenomenal and one was very good. The four others lacked any real significance whatsoever.

Just not enough here.

I'm of the opinion that players should be judged by peak value rather than rewarded for compiling mediocre stats long after everyone else has hung them up. If Terrell Davis had hung on for 5 more years and rushed for a paltry 800 per year, he'd have 10,000 rushing yards. Would that somehow make him more of a HoFer? What if he hung on for 10 more years and reached 15,000 rushing yards? That would make him the 3rd leading rusher in NFL history. Is the reason that Davis isn't a HoFer because he didn't hang on long enough at the end of his career putting up mediocre numbers?Terrell Davis played 4 healthy seasons. Here's how those 4 seasons looked:

Season 1- rushed for 1100 yards in 14 games @ 4.7 yards per carry despite being a rookie 6th rounder. Became the lowest-drafted player to rush for 1,000 as a rookie. The ORoY award went to Curtis Martin, but Davis had a much better season (CuMart = 4.0 ypc, Davis = 4.7).

Season 2- Rushed for 1500/13 @ 4.5 ypc. Pro Bowl, 1st team AP All Pro, AP OPoY.

Season 3- Rushed for 1750/15 @ 4.7 ypc in 15 games. Pro Bowl, 1st team AP All Pro, SB MVP.

Season 4- Rushed for 2009/21 @ 5.1 ypc despite not playing the equivalent of 2 full games (sat a lot of second halves because they were blowouts). Pro Bowl, 1st team AP All Pro, AP OPoY, NFL MVP.

Davis did more in 4 years than most RBs did in their entire career. Through 4 years, Davis had 6413/56 rushing @ 4.8 ypc, another 1181/5 receiving, 3 pro bowls, 3 first team AP All Pros, two AP OPoYs, a league MVP, 2 SB rings, and a SB MVP. He put up the most dominant RB season in recent NFL history (Defenses were VERY tough against the run in 1998). He also put up arguably the best 2-season and 3-season stretches the league has ever seen. He is almost inarguably the greatest postseason rusher in NFL history. He outplayed Barry Freaking Sanders in his prime.

To compare Terrell Davis to Curtis Martin... despite Martin playing for so much longer, Terrell Davis has two more first team AP All pro awards, two more OPoY awards, one more MVP, two more SB rings, and one more SB MVP. More than that, if you total up all of the top 5 finishes by both backs in any major statistical category (rushes, rushing yards, ypa, rushing TDs, total yards, total TDs), Terrell Davis finished his career with 18, and Curtis Martin finished his career with 17. That's right- in addition to the multitude of awards and accolades, Terrell Davis was so dominant that he had more top 5 finishes in 4 years than Curtis Martin had in 11. In fact, in his entire 11 year career, Martin only finished among the top 10 in yards per carry once- a 10th place finish in 2001. It's a classic peak value vs. compiler comparison, and I would argue very strongly that Terrell Davis accomplished more in 4 years than Curtis Martin did in 11.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

For starters, team success is independent of how the team was the prior year. If you're 14-2, you don't have more wins if you were 6-10 last year or if you were 14-2 last year. 14-2 is 14-2; that's why I'm saying I'm grading coaching records. 14-2 is better than 10-6 which is better than 5-11. It's an objective measure of coaching records. I'm not using objective as a synonym for better the way some people do; subjectivity is needed in grading coaches, but not in grading coaching records.

FWIW, I don't think something like innovation is that important for a HC. If you win, I don't care if it's pretty or innovative or stylish. The goal is to win, not to look good. It's pretty hard to win without being innovative, though.

Championships are explicitly built into my grading system.

Impact on the game seems sort of fluffy to me. I can't think of a coach who got in based on his impact on the game, rather than his record. Tom Flores was the first minority coach in the modern era and won two SBs. Jimmy Johnson led a dynasty, has a good coaching record, is credited with having a huge impact on the draft, yet isn't in, either. I think for the most part, coaches get in for how good they were at coaching. The other stuff just tends to come along with good coaching.

I think innovation is important, but not necessary. I think that a coach could get inducted based solely on record, provided the record was unimpeachable enough (e.g. Don Shula). I think that a coach could get inducted based solely on innovation, provided the innovation was significant enough (e.g. Sid Gilman). You're right that most of the coaches in the hall have gotten in on a combination of factors rather than the overwhelming strength of just one, which is my point about Madden- he doesn't have any other factors in his favor except for record, so I would hold his record to a higher standard. And, to me, his record falls short of that standard. If he had another championship or another 3-4 years of success, then he would meet that standard. He didn't, so he doesn't- at least not in my book. And, as I've said a couple of times now, the Seniors Committee standard of entry is RADICALLY higher than the traditional standard of entry, so even if you feel like he makes the regular cutoff, there's NO WAY he makes the Seniors Committee cutoff based solely on coaching record.

EDIT:

Chart was unreadable.

Find it here http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play...iTe00.htm?redir

Seven year career, of which two were phenomenal and one was very good. The four others lacked any real significance whatsoever.

Just not enough here.

I'm of the opinion that players should be judged by peak value rather than rewarded for compiling mediocre stats long after everyone else has hung them up. If Terrell Davis had hung on for 5 more years and rushed for a paltry 800 per year, he'd have 10,000 rushing yards. Would that somehow make him more of a HoFer? What if he hung on for 10 more years and reached 15,000 rushing yards? That would make him the 3rd leading rusher in NFL history. Is the reason that Davis isn't a HoFer because he didn't hang on long enough at the end of his career putting up mediocre numbers?Terrell Davis played 4 healthy seasons. Here's how those 4 seasons looked:

Season 1- rushed for 1100 yards in 14 games @ 4.7 yards per carry despite being a rookie 6th rounder. Became the lowest-drafted player to rush for 1,000 as a rookie. The ORoY award went to Curtis Martin, but Davis had a much better season (CuMart = 4.0 ypc, Davis = 4.7).

Season 2- Rushed for 1500/13 @ 4.5 ypc. Pro Bowl, 1st team AP All Pro, AP OPoY.

Season 3- Rushed for 1750/15 @ 4.7 ypc in 15 games. Pro Bowl, 1st team AP All Pro, SB MVP.

Season 4- Rushed for 2009/21 @ 5.1 ypc despite not playing the equivalent of 2 full games (sat a lot of second halves because they were blowouts). Pro Bowl, 1st team AP All Pro, AP OPoY, NFL MVP.

Davis did more in 4 years than most RBs did in their entire career. Through 4 years, Davis had 6413/56 rushing @ 4.8 ypc, another 1181/5 receiving, 3 pro bowls, 3 first team AP All Pros, two AP OPoYs, a league MVP, 2 SB rings, and a SB MVP. He put up the most dominant RB season in recent NFL history (Defenses were VERY tough against the run in 1998). He also put up arguably the best 2-season and 3-season stretches the league has ever seen. He is almost inarguably the greatest postseason rusher in NFL history. He outplayed Barry Freaking Sanders in his prime.

To compare Terrell Davis to Curtis Martin... despite Martin playing for so much longer, Terrell Davis has two more first team AP All pro awards, two more OPoY awards, one more MVP, two more SB rings, and one more SB MVP. More than that, if you total up all of the top 5 finishes by both backs in any major statistical category (rushes, rushing yards, ypa, rushing TDs, total yards, total TDs), Terrell Davis finished his career with 18, and Curtis Martin finished his career with 17. That's right- in addition to the multitude of awards and accolades, Terrell Davis was so dominant that he had more top 5 finishes in 4 years than Curtis Martin had in 11. In fact, in his entire 11 year career, Martin only finished among the top 10 in yards per carry once- a 10th place finish in 2001. It's a classic peak value vs. compiler comparison, and I would argue very strongly that Terrell Davis accomplished more in 4 years than Curtis Martin did in 11.

4 years. I can't do it. I'll never support TD's candidacy based upon 4 years. Great back, not a HOF back.

 

[Chase Stuart]

For starters, team success is independent of how the team was the prior year. If you're 14-2, you don't have more wins if you were 6-10 last year or if you were 14-2 last year. 14-2 is 14-2; that's why I'm saying I'm grading coaching records. 14-2 is better than 10-6 which is better than 5-11. It's an objective measure of coaching records. I'm not using objective as a synonym for better the way some people do; subjectivity is needed in grading coaches, but not in grading coaching records.

FWIW, I don't think something like innovation is that important for a HC. If you win, I don't care if it's pretty or innovative or stylish. The goal is to win, not to look good. It's pretty hard to win without being innovative, though.

Championships are explicitly built into my grading system.

Impact on the game seems sort of fluffy to me. I can't think of a coach who got in based on his impact on the game, rather than his record. Tom Flores was the first minority coach in the modern era and won two SBs. Jimmy Johnson led a dynasty, has a good coaching record, is credited with having a huge impact on the draft, yet isn't in, either. I think for the most part, coaches get in for how good they were at coaching. The other stuff just tends to come along with good coaching.

I think innovation is important, but not necessary. I think that a coach could get inducted based solely on record, provided the record was unimpeachable enough (e.g. Don Shula). I think that a coach could get inducted based solely on innovation, provided the innovation was significant enough (e.g. Sid Gilman). You're right that most of the coaches in the hall have gotten in on a combination of factors rather than the overwhelming strength of just one, which is my point about Madden- he doesn't have any other factors in his favor except for record, so I would hold his record to a higher standard. And, to me, his record falls short of that standard. If he had another championship or another 3-4 years of success, then he would meet that standard. He didn't, so he doesn't- at least not in my book. And, as I've said a couple of times now, the Seniors Committee standard of entry is RADICALLY higher than the traditional standard of entry, so even if you feel like he makes the regular cutoff, there's NO WAY he makes the Seniors Committee cutoff based solely on coaching record.

EDIT:

Chart was unreadable.

Find it here http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play...iTe00.htm?redir

Seven year career, of which two were phenomenal and one was very good. The four others lacked any real significance whatsoever.

Just not enough here.

I'm of the opinion that players should be judged by peak value rather than rewarded for compiling mediocre stats long after everyone else has hung them up. If Terrell Davis had hung on for 5 more years and rushed for a paltry 800 per year, he'd have 10,000 rushing yards. Would that somehow make him more of a HoFer? What if he hung on for 10 more years and reached 15,000 rushing yards? That would make him the 3rd leading rusher in NFL history. Is the reason that Davis isn't a HoFer because he didn't hang on long enough at the end of his career putting up mediocre numbers?Terrell Davis played 4 healthy seasons. Here's how those 4 seasons looked:

Season 1- rushed for 1100 yards in 14 games @ 4.7 yards per carry despite being a rookie 6th rounder. Became the lowest-drafted player to rush for 1,000 as a rookie. The ORoY award went to Curtis Martin, but Davis had a much better season (CuMart = 4.0 ypc, Davis = 4.7).

Season 2- Rushed for 1500/13 @ 4.5 ypc. Pro Bowl, 1st team AP All Pro, AP OPoY.

Season 3- Rushed for 1750/15 @ 4.7 ypc in 15 games. Pro Bowl, 1st team AP All Pro, SB MVP.

Season 4- Rushed for 2009/21 @ 5.1 ypc despite not playing the equivalent of 2 full games (sat a lot of second halves because they were blowouts). Pro Bowl, 1st team AP All Pro, AP OPoY, NFL MVP.

Davis did more in 4 years than most RBs did in their entire career. Through 4 years, Davis had 6413/56 rushing @ 4.8 ypc, another 1181/5 receiving, 3 pro bowls, 3 first team AP All Pros, two AP OPoYs, a league MVP, 2 SB rings, and a SB MVP. He put up the most dominant RB season in recent NFL history (Defenses were VERY tough against the run in 1998). He also put up arguably the best 2-season and 3-season stretches the league has ever seen. He is almost inarguably the greatest postseason rusher in NFL history. He outplayed Barry Freaking Sanders in his prime.

To compare Terrell Davis to Curtis Martin... despite Martin playing for so much longer, Terrell Davis has two more first team AP All pro awards, two more OPoY awards, one more MVP, two more SB rings, and one more SB MVP. More than that, if you total up all of the top 5 finishes by both backs in any major statistical category (rushes, rushing yards, ypa, rushing TDs, total yards, total TDs), Terrell Davis finished his career with 18, and Curtis Martin finished his career with 17. That's right- in addition to the multitude of awards and accolades, Terrell Davis was so dominant that he had more top 5 finishes in 4 years than Curtis Martin had in 11. In fact, in his entire 11 year career, Martin only finished among the top 10 in yards per carry once- a 10th place finish in 2001. It's a classic peak value vs. compiler comparison, and I would argue very strongly that Terrell Davis accomplished more in 4 years than Curtis Martin did in 11.

I agree that Davis should be in the HOF. As for best playoff RB ever, I still give that nod to Emmitt Smith. I understand that Davis has a better YPC and better per game stats, but Emmitt did it for longer, presumably against tougher defenses (I haven't taken the time to verify it, so I could be wrong), and led his team to one more title. Even if you want to quibble with Emmitt's production, being incredible for 17 games is more impressive than being (slightly more than) incredible for 8 games. Franco Harris and John Riggins would be in the running, too, but I'd put TD over them.As for Martin/Davis, they're obviously on different sides of the peak/longevity argument. If you add up all of Martin's top 10 finishes, you get 41; do it for Davis and you only get 23. Martin's 10-straight 1,000 yard seasons shouldn't be ignored just because he didn't finish in the top five. Davis at his peak was certainly better, and if you want to say because of his post-season, he's got a better HOF profile, I can buy that.

 

[Chase Stuart]

4 years. I can't do it. I'll never support TD's candidacy based upon 4 years. Great back, not a HOF back.

4.5 years.He did rank 6th in rushing yards per game in an 8-game season in 2001.

 

[moleculo]

For starters, team success is independent of how the team was the prior year. If you're 14-2, you don't have more wins if you were 6-10 last year or if you were 14-2 last year. 14-2 is 14-2; that's why I'm saying I'm grading coaching records. 14-2 is better than 10-6 which is better than 5-11. It's an objective measure of coaching records. I'm not using objective as a synonym for better the way some people do; subjectivity is needed in grading coaches, but not in grading coaching records.

FWIW, I don't think something like innovation is that important for a HC. If you win, I don't care if it's pretty or innovative or stylish. The goal is to win, not to look good. It's pretty hard to win without being innovative, though.

Championships are explicitly built into my grading system.

Impact on the game seems sort of fluffy to me. I can't think of a coach who got in based on his impact on the game, rather than his record. Tom Flores was the first minority coach in the modern era and won two SBs. Jimmy Johnson led a dynasty, has a good coaching record, is credited with having a huge impact on the draft, yet isn't in, either. I think for the most part, coaches get in for how good they were at coaching. The other stuff just tends to come along with good coaching.

I think innovation is important, but not necessary. I think that a coach could get inducted based solely on record, provided the record was unimpeachable enough (e.g. Don Shula). I think that a coach could get inducted based solely on innovation, provided the innovation was significant enough (e.g. Sid Gilman). You're right that most of the coaches in the hall have gotten in on a combination of factors rather than the overwhelming strength of just one, which is my point about Madden- he doesn't have any other factors in his favor except for record, so I would hold his record to a higher standard. And, to me, his record falls short of that standard. If he had another championship or another 3-4 years of success, then he would meet that standard. He didn't, so he doesn't- at least not in my book. And, as I've said a couple of times now, the Seniors Committee standard of entry is RADICALLY higher than the traditional standard of entry, so even if you feel like he makes the regular cutoff, there's NO WAY he makes the Seniors Committee cutoff based solely on coaching record.

EDIT:

Chart was unreadable.

Find it here http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play...iTe00.htm?redir

Seven year career, of which two were phenomenal and one was very good. The four others lacked any real significance whatsoever.

Just not enough here.

I'm of the opinion that players should be judged by peak value rather than rewarded for compiling mediocre stats long after everyone else has hung them up. If Terrell Davis had hung on for 5 more years and rushed for a paltry 800 per year, he'd have 10,000 rushing yards. Would that somehow make him more of a HoFer? What if he hung on for 10 more years and reached 15,000 rushing yards? That would make him the 3rd leading rusher in NFL history. Is the reason that Davis isn't a HoFer because he didn't hang on long enough at the end of his career putting up mediocre numbers?Terrell Davis played 4 healthy seasons. Here's how those 4 seasons looked:

Season 1- rushed for 1100 yards in 14 games @ 4.7 yards per carry despite being a rookie 6th rounder. Became the lowest-drafted player to rush for 1,000 as a rookie. The ORoY award went to Curtis Martin, but Davis had a much better season (CuMart = 4.0 ypc, Davis = 4.7).

Season 2- Rushed for 1500/13 @ 4.5 ypc. Pro Bowl, 1st team AP All Pro, AP OPoY.

Season 3- Rushed for 1750/15 @ 4.7 ypc in 15 games. Pro Bowl, 1st team AP All Pro, SB MVP.

Season 4- Rushed for 2009/21 @ 5.1 ypc despite not playing the equivalent of 2 full games (sat a lot of second halves because they were blowouts). Pro Bowl, 1st team AP All Pro, AP OPoY, NFL MVP.

Davis did more in 4 years than most RBs did in their entire career. Through 4 years, Davis had 6413/56 rushing @ 4.8 ypc, another 1181/5 receiving, 3 pro bowls, 3 first team AP All Pros, two AP OPoYs, a league MVP, 2 SB rings, and a SB MVP. He put up the most dominant RB season in recent NFL history (Defenses were VERY tough against the run in 1998). He also put up arguably the best 2-season and 3-season stretches the league has ever seen. He is almost inarguably the greatest postseason rusher in NFL history. He outplayed Barry Freaking Sanders in his prime.

To compare Terrell Davis to Curtis Martin... despite Martin playing for so much longer, Terrell Davis has two more first team AP All pro awards, two more OPoY awards, one more MVP, two more SB rings, and one more SB MVP. More than that, if you total up all of the top 5 finishes by both backs in any major statistical category (rushes, rushing yards, ypa, rushing TDs, total yards, total TDs), Terrell Davis finished his career with 18, and Curtis Martin finished his career with 17. That's right- in addition to the multitude of awards and accolades, Terrell Davis was so dominant that he had more top 5 finishes in 4 years than Curtis Martin had in 11. In fact, in his entire 11 year career, Martin only finished among the top 10 in yards per carry once- a 10th place finish in 2001. It's a classic peak value vs. compiler comparison, and I would argue very strongly that Terrell Davis accomplished more in 4 years than Curtis Martin did in 11.

4 years. I can't do it. I'll never support TD's candidacy based upon 4 years. Great back, not a HOF back.

Imagine TD had one additional season where he put up 1140 yards on 204 rushes (5.6 YPC) and 12 TD's, in 8 games? And what if those 8 games were against the best teams in the NFL? That would have to be pretty compelling, no?That's TD's playoff resume.

Year	 Date	 Opp	 Result	 Att	 Yds	 Y/A	 TD    1996	1/ 4/1997	JAX	  L 27-30	  14	91	6.5	1   1997	12/27/1997	JAX	 W 42-17	 31	184	5.94	2   1997	1/ 4/1998	KAN	 W 14-10	 25	101	4.04	2   1997	1/11/1998	PIT	 W 24-21	 26	139	5.35	1   1997	1/25/1998	GNB	 W 31-24	 30	157	5.23	3   1998	1/ 9/1999	MIA	 W 38-3	 21	199	9.48	2   1998	1/17/1999	NYJ	 W 23-10	 32	167	5.22	1   1998	1/31/1999	ATL	 W 34-19	 25	102	4.08	0   -------------------------------------------------------------- totals	8			204	1140	5.6	12

 

[CalBear]

Well, like relievers in baseball, I think some of us realize that special teams are a part of the game and that eventually some of the very best special teams players will get inducted in the HOF. Who was the Special Teams All-Pro the years that Tasker played? Or did they just have a Pro Bowl Special Teams designation and not one on the All Pro teams?

Unless the NFL adopts a different mechanism for selecting players to the Hall of Fame, gunners, long snappers, punters, and kickers have no place in the Hall. I mean, seriously, who would you bump from this semi-final list to stick in someone like Guy or Tasker who had fewer than 10 plays per game on the field? (And they really weren't much differentiated from their peers, either). Do you think Steve Tasker should go in before Cris Carter? Before Shannon Sharpe, Roger Craig, Charles Haley? Frankly, Tasker and Guy shouldn't even be bumping people out of the semi-final list, but that doesn't matter that much; with only 5 possible selections per year, there's no way they should be bumping one of the truly deserving players.Maybe they could select 5 football players, and one gimmick per year instead; Tasker and Guy would be at the top of the latter list.

 

[John Windle]

Clearly we all love numbers... numbers drive fantasy sports and sports discussions in general. But in my mind, the Hall of Fame is about taking your kids to explain to them who the greatest players ever were and what they did.

To say Terrell Davis isn't one of the greatest players who ever played is preposterous. He flat out dominated the league, and did it over a nice stretch. He won championships. The only thing he didn't do is have a handful of mediocre to good years to pad his career stats. That's the only difference between him and Emmitt Smith... Emmitt tacked on more years of being "good", but not quite "great" like the five year stretch he had in the early 90's. And don't get me wrong... I *love* Emmitt Smith... absolutely love him... but in my mind he didn't really accomplish much more than TD other than be more durable.

And while there is something to be said about durability... we're not talking about a Bo Jackson where he never really did anything other than show us how good he *could* be. TD actually did the things that you want your running back to do... everything you could ever hope for. And if you think adding six more years of 1100 to 1200 yards at 3.9 to 4.1 YPC makes a RB more valuable.... why? We didn't win anything with Emmitt turning those years in... he was good... but so what?

TD is a no brainer, one of the best backs ever and deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Clearly we all love numbers... numbers drive fantasy sports and sports discussions in general. But in my mind, the Hall of Fame is about taking your kids to explain to them who the greatest players ever were and what they did.To say Terrell Davis isn't one of the greatest players who ever played is preposterous. He flat out dominated the league, and did it over a nice stretch. He won championships. The only thing he didn't do is have a handful of mediocre to good years to pad his career stats. That's the only difference between him and Emmitt Smith... Emmitt tacked on more years of being "good", but not quite "great" like the five year stretch he had in the early 90's. And don't get me wrong... I *love* Emmitt Smith... absolutely love him... but in my mind he didn't really accomplish much more than TD other than be more durable.And while there is something to be said about durability... we're not talking about a Bo Jackson where he never really did anything other than show us how good he *could* be. TD actually did the things that you want your running back to do... everything you could ever hope for. And if you think adding six more years of 1100 to 1200 yards at 3.9 to 4.1 YPC makes a RB more valuable.... why? We didn't win anything with Emmitt turning those years in... he was good... but so what?TD is a no brainer, one of the best backs ever and deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.

Agreed, except for the argument that the numbers are clouding the issue. It's the numbers, IMO, that say he deserves to be in.

 

[SSOG]

4 years. I can't do it. I'll never support TD's candidacy based upon 4 years. Great back, not a HOF back.

What's the sticking point? Do you think that 4 years is too short for anyone to merit HoF induction, or do you just believe that Davis didn't do enough? If someone played 4 seasons and won 4 MVPs and 4 SB MVPs, would that merit induction? If not, what's the minimum number of years a player has to play well to merit induction?Do you view Earl Campbell as a worthy Hall of Famer? If so, what major differences do you see between Campbell and Davis that makes one a HoFer and the other not?

I agree that Davis should be in the HOF. As for best playoff RB ever, I still give that nod to Emmitt Smith. I understand that Davis has a better YPC and better per game stats, but Emmitt did it for longer, presumably against tougher defenses (I haven't taken the time to verify it, so I could be wrong), and led his team to one more title. Even if you want to quibble with Emmitt's production, being incredible for 17 games is more impressive than being (slightly more than) incredible for 8 games. Franco Harris and John Riggins would be in the running, too, but I'd put TD over them.As for Martin/Davis, they're obviously on different sides of the peak/longevity argument. If you add up all of Martin's top 10 finishes, you get 41; do it for Davis and you only get 23. Martin's 10-straight 1,000 yard seasons shouldn't be ignored just because he didn't finish in the top five. Davis at his peak was certainly better, and if you want to say because of his post-season, he's got a better HOF profile, I can buy that.

I strongly suspect that Davis faced tougher postseason defenses than Smith, because Davis faced some UNBELIEVABLE postseason defenses.I actually think that Martin/Davis both have very comparable profiles, just at opposite ends of the spectrum. I'd put Davis in first, just like I bet you'd put Martin in first, but I think both guys are worthy. I actually am a big fan of using "combined top 5 finishes" as a measure of HoF candidacy, because it really controls for peak vs. longevity. A guy with an unbelievable peak will rack up a lot of top 5 finishes in a short span. A guy with a low peak but a long career will collect a lot of top 5 finishes scattered over the course of his career. Both players wind up in the same place, but they take a different route to get there. In terms of top 5 finishes, Davis and Martin are a virtual wash (17 vs. 16). Davis gets bonus points for the MVP, SBMVP, 2xOPoY, 3x1AP, and postseason resume. Martin gets bonus points for the ORoY, 10 straight 1,000 yard seasons, and top 5 career rushing yardage finish. Like I said, both players' candidacies wound up in similar places, they just took different routes to get there.

Maybe they could select 5 football players, and one gimmick per year instead; Tasker and Guy would be at the top of the latter list.

That would actually be awesome, you could have a "football curiousities" wing full of people like the best tackling punter, the best blocking WR, the best punting QB, the best receiving OT, etc.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Well, like relievers in baseball, I think some of us realize that special teams are a part of the game and that eventually some of the very best special teams players will get inducted in the HOF. Who was the Special Teams All-Pro the years that Tasker played? Or did they just have a Pro Bowl Special Teams designation and not one on the All Pro teams?

Unless the NFL adopts a different mechanism for selecting players to the Hall of Fame, gunners, long snappers, punters, and kickers have no place in the Hall. I mean, seriously, who would you bump from this semi-final list to stick in someone like Guy or Tasker who had fewer than 10 plays per game on the field? (And they really weren't much differentiated from their peers, either). Do you think Steve Tasker should go in before Cris Carter? Before Shannon Sharpe, Roger Craig, Charles Haley? Frankly, Tasker and Guy shouldn't even be bumping people out of the semi-final list, but that doesn't matter that much; with only 5 possible selections per year, there's no way they should be bumping one of the truly deserving players.Maybe they could select 5 football players, and one gimmick per year instead; Tasker and Guy would be at the top of the latter list.

Of the 15 semi-finalists, I'd put in Tasker beforeon CoryellKevin GreeneRay GuyCortez KennedyArt ModellPaul TagliabueOf course, that still leaves a lot of guys ahead of him and I doubt he'll get in before getting to the Seniors Committee. But saying that special teams players are a "gimmick" makes me question your football acumen.

 

[dutch]

Well, like relievers in baseball, I think some of us realize that special teams are a part of the game and that eventually some of the very best special teams players will get inducted in the HOF. Who was the Special Teams All-Pro the years that Tasker played? Or did they just have a Pro Bowl Special Teams designation and not one on the All Pro teams?

Unless the NFL adopts a different mechanism for selecting players to the Hall of Fame, gunners, long snappers, punters, and kickers have no place in the Hall. I mean, seriously, who would you bump from this semi-final list to stick in someone like Guy or Tasker who had fewer than 10 plays per game on the field? (And they really weren't much differentiated from their peers, either). Do you think Steve Tasker should go in before Cris Carter? Before Shannon Sharpe, Roger Craig, Charles Haley? Frankly, Tasker and Guy shouldn't even be bumping people out of the semi-final list, but that doesn't matter that much; with only 5 possible selections per year, there's no way they should be bumping one of the truly deserving players.Maybe they could select 5 football players, and one gimmick per year instead; Tasker and Guy would be at the top of the latter list.

Of the 15 semi-finalists, I'd put in Tasker beforeon CoryellKevin GreeneRay GuyCortez KennedyArt ModellPaul TagliabueOf course, that still leaves a lot of guys ahead of him and I doubt he'll get in before getting to the Seniors Committee. But saying that special teams players are a "gimmick" makes me question your football acumen.

If you want to put special teams players in the HOF then Tasker is going to have to stand in line behind GAry Anderson, Morton Andersen, Eric Metcalf and Brian Mitchell to name a few from the recent past. Tasker was nowhere near as valuable to the Bills' success as these four were to their teams and I am sure there are plenty of other special teams candidates throughout the NFL's hostory that can make a similar claim and push Tasker even further down the list. Hell, it may even be possible to quantify Ray Guy as more valuable to to he raiders than Tasker was to the Bills.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The second best special teams player of all time was Nick Lowery. The best was Jan Stenerud.

 

[Tau837]

The second best special teams player of all time was Nick Lowery. The best was Jan Stenerud.

With regard to Lowery, the last time you said this about him, I posted this:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=2565

Chase, finally got around to reading the blog posts. Interesting stuff. I have a few comments on methodology:1. Obviously it will be more accurate once you have the accurate distance data for each kick and incorporate weather/stadium factors, which I believe you indicated is coming at some point.

2. An obvious element to incorporate is "clutch" situations... though it is debatable what all that entails. All 4th quarter and OT kicks? All 4th quarter and OT kicks within a certain point spread (but what spread)? Only kicks within the last x minutes of the 4th quarter and beyond (i.e., including OT)? Kicks within the last x minutes (or seconds) of the first half? Emphasis on postseason games? Once a timing element is decided, should differing credit be given for kicks that bring a team within a TD... within a FG... tie the game... take a team from behind to ahead... move a team from a FG or less ahead to more than a FG ahead... move a team from a TD or less ahead to more than a TD ahead...?

3. Vince's blog comment about kickoff data comparing Anderson, Andersen, and Lowery is very interesting. I really think for an accurate kicker assessment you need to incorporate this element. I realize getting the data is a challenge, but it is interesting that the data in the comment shows that if it was an element of your ranking, Andersen would very likely move ahead of Lowery, so it could have an important effect.

4. I wonder about somehow incorporating an element for opportunity. For example, 42.3% of Andersen's FG attempts were from 40+ yards, compared to 39.7% of Lowery's kicks. So one would expect Andersen to be penalized a bit more by your methodology, since one would expect him to have more long misses... but is that intuitively the right way to judge kickers? Certainly the kicker has no control over where his opportunities come from. And one reason a kicker could be given more opportunities to kick long FGs is because of his superior ability to do so.

I posted these in the blog in case you review the comments for future updates to the methodology.

All in all, reading those blog posts and taking into account the items above, albeit based on impressions since hard data is not necessarily available, I think Andersen is more deserving than Lowery.

 

[dutch]

The second best special teams player of all time was Nick Lowery. The best was Jan Stenerud.

Okay, as far as special teamers to put in the HOF before Tasker we now have:AndersonAndersenMitchellE. MetcalfLoweryPossible addtions:White ShoesT. MetcalfGuyLandettaWow, Tasker has loooong wait in front of him.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Good memory, JWB. Here's what I wrote back to you:

Thanks JWB. Always glad when you're able to chime in.

1. I've got reservations on including "clutchness" into the rankings, but at least for now, it's a moot point. I don't think we're getting historical data on in-game kicking, just game-by-game historical data.

2. Kickoff data would be nice, and net data would be even better. However, kickoff yards are like kick return yards -- i.e., the least useful yards around because they don't help you gain first downs. Between kickers who are very close, KO data would be a good tiebreaker, but I doubt that it would make significant impacts on the rankings. That's just an assumption, though, not something I've proven or derived.

3. Not necessarily. There's no difference between having lots of 50+ yarders or lots of 30+ yarders, except for variance. But on average, all kickers will be average. By comparing each kick to league average from that distance, kicking more kicks from farther away doesn't penalize anyone. Does that make sense?

I'm still open to the idea that Anderson >> Lowery, but I haven't been convinced of it yet.

 

[Lefty27]

4 years. I can't do it. I'll never support TD's candidacy based upon 4 years. Great back, not a HOF back.

What's the sticking point? Do you think that 4 years is too short for anyone to merit HoF induction, or do you just believe that Davis didn't do enough? If someone played 4 seasons and won 4 MVPs and 4 SB MVPs, would that merit induction? If not, what's the minimum number of years a player has to play well to merit induction?Do you view Earl Campbell as a worthy Hall of Famer? If so, what major differences do you see between Campbell and Davis that makes one a HoFer and the other not?

I agree that Davis should be in the HOF. As for best playoff RB ever, I still give that nod to Emmitt Smith. I understand that Davis has a better YPC and better per game stats, but Emmitt did it for longer, presumably against tougher defenses (I haven't taken the time to verify it, so I could be wrong), and led his team to one more title. Even if you want to quibble with Emmitt's production, being incredible for 17 games is more impressive than being (slightly more than) incredible for 8 games. Franco Harris and John Riggins would be in the running, too, but I'd put TD over them.

As for Martin/Davis, they're obviously on different sides of the peak/longevity argument. If you add up all of Martin's top 10 finishes, you get 41; do it for Davis and you only get 23. Martin's 10-straight 1,000 yard seasons shouldn't be ignored just because he didn't finish in the top five. Davis at his peak was certainly better, and if you want to say because of his post-season, he's got a better HOF profile, I can buy that.

I strongly suspect that Davis faced tougher postseason defenses than Smith, because Davis faced some UNBELIEVABLE postseason defenses.I actually think that Martin/Davis both have very comparable profiles, just at opposite ends of the spectrum. I'd put Davis in first, just like I bet you'd put Martin in first, but I think both guys are worthy. I actually am a big fan of using "combined top 5 finishes" as a measure of HoF candidacy, because it really controls for peak vs. longevity. A guy with an unbelievable peak will rack up a lot of top 5 finishes in a short span. A guy with a low peak but a long career will collect a lot of top 5 finishes scattered over the course of his career. Both players wind up in the same place, but they take a different route to get there. In terms of top 5 finishes, Davis and Martin are a virtual wash (17 vs. 16). Davis gets bonus points for the MVP, SBMVP, 2xOPoY, 3x1AP, and postseason resume. Martin gets bonus points for the ORoY, 10 straight 1,000 yard seasons, and top 5 career rushing yardage finish. Like I said, both players' candidacies wound up in similar places, they just took different routes to get there.

Maybe they could select 5 football players, and one gimmick per year instead; Tasker and Guy would be at the top of the latter list.

That would actually be awesome, you could have a "football curiousities" wing full of people like the best tackling punter, the best blocking WR, the best punting QB, the best receiving OT, etc.

The best punting QB is already in the HOF - that is the one and only Slingin' Sammy Baugh.

 

[CalBear]

Of course, that still leaves a lot of guys ahead of him and I doubt he'll get in before getting to the Seniors Committee. But saying that special teams players are a "gimmick" makes me question your football acumen.

I doubt he'll get in from the Seniors Committee, either. I just don't see how Tasker was anything special. There are a ton of guys who could have performed as well as Tasker did on special teams, but they didn't because they were valuable football players, so their teams wouldn't put them out there as gunners on punt coverage.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I loved Tasker as a player, but I absolutely hate him as a broadcaster. If Madden's broadcasting career helped him get in, can Tasker's broadcasting career hurt him?

Tasker is and always has been a long shot to get in, but I think it's pretty impressive that he made the list of semifinalists in a class this strong. That certainly indicates that the voters don't think he's a "gimmick". As for how important he was to the team, he was pretty important but I don't think anyone could argue that he was more important than players like Cornelius Bennett, Daryl Talley, Kent Hull, etc. and even Mark Pike was a huge, huge part of the Bills special teams coverage units even though Tasker got much more of the glory.

Andre Reed is the only remaining Bill that I think belongs, but with the WR spot is stacked now and will remain that way for awhile. He might have to wait a long time.

I do think that Bill Polian should get strong consideration when he walks away. How many pure GMs are in?

 

[SSOG]

Okay, as far as special teamers to put in the HOF before Tasker we now have:AndersonAndersenMitchellE. MetcalfLoweryPossible addtions:White ShoesT. MetcalfGuyLandettaWow, Tasker has loooong wait in front of him.

Don't forget Mel Gray and Rick Upchurch, who along with Mitchell were the three best return men in NFL history. Upchurch even added 4700 yards and 27 TDs on offense in addition to his prodigious return game contributions.

 

[Steady Mooobin]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=1888

I wrote that last year comparing Art Monk to Shannon Sharpe. My main argument was that "the tight end and the wide receiver positions are not binary options but rather they fall on a continuum." I still don't know what I think of Sharpe -- I'm leaning towards saying he's HOF-worthy, but I see the argument against him. He's definitely been surpassed by Tony Gonzalez, who not only is a better pass catching TE but was a much better blocking TE. The argument against? Sharpe never ranked higher than 10th in the league in receiving yards. To be a HOF type player with those numbers, he had to be at least a pretty competent blocker.

I think I have seen you type this in the past. Gonzales used to be a horrible blocker and has only improved to be a marginal blocker. You guys can hate on Sharpe all you like, but he was doing his thing long before every defense in the league used some variation of the Cover 2. Without him, the Ravens may have not scored an offensive TD the entire 2001 season, the same year they won the championship.

 

[Steady Mooobin]

You discount Grimm because his career wasn't long enough, but then can "see good arguments for TD?"

TD is the last person on this list I'd put in.

RBs can have short careers. Offensive linemen can't. No one is saying Tony Boselli (5 PB, 3 1AP) should get in and he's got arguably a better resume than Grimm (4/3).I'd put TD in for the same reason I'd put Terry Bradshaw and Troy Aikman in my HOF.

Just curious, would you put Curtis Martin, Tiki Barber and Jerome Bettis in? I'd put all three of these in before TD...and I'm not sure all 3 should be in.

Martin, yes. I admit to being biased with Martin, but I think he's a very deserving HOF. He's also one of my favorite players ever.I've long said that I view Alexander/Barber/James on the same tier. I think at least one but not all three will get in, and I have no idea how that will play out. After giving it a lot of thought, I decided to put Tiki as #1 on my list there. So yes, I think Tiki should go in, although I realize the numbers game means he may have to wait awhile.

Bettis is close, but I'd err on the side of not putting him in. I think he's about comparable to the weakest RBs currently in the HOF, but my general benchmark is a bit higher than that. Certainly not a disgrace if he makes it, but he's not someone I'd go out of my way to push in.

I'd probably put TD ahead of everyone, but definitely ahead of Barber and Bettis.

If Shaun Alexander gets into the HOF I'll quit watching football.

 

[SSOG]

If Shaun Alexander gets into the HOF I'll quit watching football.

I wouldn't go quite that far, but I do agree that Alexander has no business getting into the hall without first paying admission. I'd expand that to include Edgerrin James and Jerome Bettis, too. James has a 4.0 career ypc. Bettis has a 3.9. James has never ranked in the top 5 in the NFL in ypc, and has only once ranked in the top 10 (a 9th place finish). Bettis actually has 3 top-5 finishes in ypc, and an additional top-10 finish... but he mixed those in with an Eddie Georgian 9 seasons of 3.8 ypc or less. Both backs were first team AP All Pros as rookies (and, I might add, deservedly so- especially in Bettis's case), but after that they combined for just one such honor in 22 combined seasons. I'd put Alexander in over either of them.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

The second best special teams player of all time was Nick Lowery. The best was Jan Stenerud.

Okay, as far as special teamers to put in the HOF before Tasker we now have:AndersonAndersenMitchellE. MetcalfLoweryPossible addtions:White ShoesT. MetcalfGuyLandettaWow, Tasker has loooong wait in front of him.

LOL, had no idea there was such an Anti-Tasker contingent out there. I'd put him behind Andersen, Anderson and Mitchell and probably tied with Lowery. E Metcalf was overrated as was Guy. Maybe I can see Gray there as well. Not sure about Upchurch.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

If Shaun Alexander gets into the HOF I'll quit watching football.

I wouldn't go quite that far, but I do agree that Alexander has no business getting into the hall without first paying admission. I'd expand that to include Edgerrin James and Jerome Bettis, too. James has a 4.0 career ypc. Bettis has a 3.9. James has never ranked in the top 5 in the NFL in ypc, and has only once ranked in the top 10 (a 9th place finish). Bettis actually has 3 top-5 finishes in ypc, and an additional top-10 finish... but he mixed those in with an Eddie Georgian 9 seasons of 3.8 ypc or less. Both backs were first team AP All Pros as rookies (and, I might add, deservedly so- especially in Bettis's case), but after that they combined for just one such honor in 22 combined seasons. I'd put Alexander in over either of them.

I am admittedly biased toward Bettis and would like to see him in the HOF (although if really pressed, I'd say he doesn't deserve it...just like TD doesn't). He is the exact opposite of TD. He is longevity, which, for a RB of his style and game, is an absolutely impressive feat. He put up numbers consistently through most of his career and is among the all time yardage leaders. There is absolutely no way Shaun Alexander deserves to be in the HOF more than JB. I'd rank it this wayCurtis MartinJerome BettisTerrell DavisTiki BarberEdgerrin JamesEddie GeorgeShaun Alexander

 

[ConstruxBoy]

The second best special teams player of all time was Nick Lowery. The best was Jan Stenerud.

Okay, as far as special teamers to put in the HOF before Tasker we now have:AndersonAndersenMitchellE. MetcalfLoweryPossible addtions:White ShoesT. MetcalfGuyLandettaWow, Tasker has loooong wait in front of him.

LOL, had no idea there was such an Anti-Tasker contingent out there. I'd put him behind Andersen, Anderson and Mitchell and probably tied with Lowery. E Metcalf was overrated as was Guy. Maybe I can see Gray there as well. Not sure about Upchurch.

LOL, anyone who follows Peter King on Twitter just got this tweet:With your HOF criteria how is Tasker not in the HOF?.......Wish I could be more persuasive. Absolutely no doubt to me he belongs. So now Peter King is my favorite sportswriter.

 

[MarshallRob]

A couple years ago Peter King picked his All-Time NFL Team. He chose Steve Tasker as his special teams player and wrote this: "His old special-teams coach, Bruce DeHaven, once made up a tape for me to watch, with 10 plays Tasker made that either won games or turned games Buffalo's way." Now that's impressive. But it's still only ten plays. I'm sure Deion Sanders made at least twice that many game-changing plays as a return man. And then you add in Deion's amazing career as a cornerback. Tasker's career is just a fraction as valuable as somebody like Deion. Heck, I'm sure Billy "White Shoes" Johnson made at least as many game-changing special teams plays as Tasker. And while not a great receiver White Shoes kicked in 4000 receiving yards (to Tasker's 779) as well. Even if Tasker's the greatest special teamer ever I don't see how his overall contributution adds up to enough to compare to the resumes of the rest of the players on that semi-finalist list.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I think I have seen you type this in the past. Gonzales used to be a horrible blocker and has only improved to be a marginal blocker.

Gonzo is much better than "marginal"

 

[ConstruxBoy]

A couple years ago Peter King picked his All-Time NFL Team. He chose Steve Tasker as his special teams player and wrote this: "His old special-teams coach, Bruce DeHaven, once made up a tape for me to watch, with 10 plays Tasker made that either won games or turned games Buffalo's way." Now that's impressive. But it's still only ten plays. I'm sure Deion Sanders made at least twice that many game-changing plays as a return man. And then you add in Deion's amazing career as a cornerback. Tasker's career is just a fraction as valuable as somebody like Deion. Heck, I'm sure Billy "White Shoes" Johnson made at least as many game-changing special teams plays as Tasker. And while not a great receiver White Shoes kicked in 4000 receiving yards (to Tasker's 779) as well. Even if Tasker's the greatest special teamer ever I don't see how his overall contributution adds up to enough to compare to the resumes of the rest of the players on that semi-finalist list.

Yeah I remember reading that when he wrote. But he has said several times since that he would support Tasker in the Hall. I believe Dr. Z said the same thing before his strokes. Anyway, don't expect him to make it anytime soon, but I think he deserves some special recognition as a great non-returner/kicker/punter special teams ace, although he did do some returning. He and Bill Bates were the best at that.

 

[SSOG]

I am admittedly biased toward Bettis and would like to see him in the HOF (although if really pressed, I'd say he doesn't deserve it...just like TD doesn't). He is the exact opposite of TD. He is longevity, which, for a RB of his style and game, is an absolutely impressive feat. He put up numbers consistently through most of his career and is among the all time yardage leaders. There is absolutely no way Shaun Alexander deserves to be in the HOF more than JB.

Curtis Martin is the opposite of Terrell Davis. Jerome Bettis is just 110% of Eddie George. Using my "top 5 finishes" criterion, Bettis has 13 career top 5 finishes, which is well behind Davis. Davis has more 1AP awards, the MVP, the two OPoYs, and the playoff accolades. As I mentioned, Bettis had 3.8 ypc or fewer in 9 of his 13 seasons. That's brutal.Here's a great comparison for you: both Bettis and Davis had 4 "great" seasons. In those 4 great seasons, Davis had 6413/56 rushing @ 4.8 ypc, and another 1181/5 receiving. In Bettis's four "great" seasons ('93, '96, '97, '00), he had 5866/33 rushing @ 4.4 ypc, and another 673/1 receiving. That's 0.4 more ypc, 1055 more yards, and 27 more TDs for Davis (in addition to all of the awards). So Davis's best four seasons clearly blow Bettis's out of the water. The difference between Davis and Bettis is that Bettis had 9 more mediocre-to-bad years to add to his stats outside of those 4 years. In his other 9 years, Bettis had 2135/7796/58 rushing and 876/1 receiving. That's 3.7 yards per carry. That's 866/8.4 a year rushing and 97 a year receiving. So you're essentially saying that if Terrell Davis had managed to hang on for 9 years after his injury and average 866/8 a year, then he'd be a Hall of Famer. If only Terrell Davis had some more truly mediocre-to-awful seasons to pad his career statistics.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I am admittedly biased toward Bettis and would like to see him in the HOF (although if really pressed, I'd say he doesn't deserve it...just like TD doesn't). He is the exact opposite of TD. He is longevity, which, for a RB of his style and game, is an absolutely impressive feat. He put up numbers consistently through most of his career and is among the all time yardage leaders. There is absolutely no way Shaun Alexander deserves to be in the HOF more than JB.

Curtis Martin is the opposite of Terrell Davis. Jerome Bettis is just 110% of Eddie George. Using my "top 5 finishes" criterion, Bettis has 13 career top 5 finishes, which is well behind Davis. Davis has more 1AP awards, the MVP, the two OPoYs, and the playoff accolades. As I mentioned, Bettis had 3.8 ypc or fewer in 9 of his 13 seasons. That's brutal.Here's a great comparison for you: both Bettis and Davis had 4 "great" seasons. In those 4 great seasons, Davis had 6413/56 rushing @ 4.8 ypc, and another 1181/5 receiving. In Bettis's four "great" seasons ('93, '96, '97, '00), he had 5866/33 rushing @ 4.4 ypc, and another 673/1 receiving. That's 0.4 more ypc, 1055 more yards, and 27 more TDs for Davis (in addition to all of the awards). So Davis's best four seasons clearly blow Bettis's out of the water. The difference between Davis and Bettis is that Bettis had 9 more mediocre-to-bad years to add to his stats outside of those 4 years. In his other 9 years, Bettis had 2135/7796/58 rushing and 876/1 receiving. That's 3.7 yards per carry. That's 866/8.4 a year rushing and 97 a year receiving. So you're essentially saying that if Terrell Davis had managed to hang on for 9 years after his injury and average 866/8 a year, then he'd be a Hall of Famer. If only Terrell Davis had some more truly mediocre-to-awful seasons to pad his career statistics.

YPC for Bettis shouldn't be the standard. He was never a threat to tear one off for 80 yards. He was a pounder and that artificially lowers his YPC. He had two 'bad' years in St. Loius when they stopped using him. His 'bad' year in Pittsburgh, he was still the goal line back and served a vital role on the team. His career yardage is Top 5 all time, I believe. As I said, I'd love to see him in the hall, but if push came to shove, I'd probably have to admit that it is a stretch to put him there. Just like TD. Of the list provided, I only think Curtis Martin should be in.

 

[SSOG]

YPC for Bettis shouldn't be the standard. He was never a threat to tear one off for 80 yards. He was a pounder and that artificially lowers his YPC. He had two 'bad' years in St. Loius when they stopped using him. His 'bad' year in Pittsburgh, he was still the goal line back and served a vital role on the team. His career yardage is Top 5 all time, I believe. As I said, I'd love to see him in the hall, but if push came to shove, I'd probably have to admit that it is a stretch to put him there. Just like TD. Of the list provided, I only think Curtis Martin should be in.

And Terrell Davis wasn't a pounder? Terrell Davis was a threat to take it 80 yards every time he touched it? It's an apples-to-apples comparison- both RBs were "slow" backs who were generally recognized as move-the-chains runners with little to no big play ability. Jerome Bettis's career long carry was 71 yards. Terrell Davis's was... 71 yards. And sure, Bettis is top 5 all time in rushing yards... but like I said, so what? If Terrell Davis had averaged 800 yards rushing @ 3.7 ypc over a 9-year span, he would be, too.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I recall a lot of big plays from Terrell Davis. Can't really think of any from Bettis.

 

[SSOG]

I recall a lot of big plays from Terrell Davis. Can't really think of any from Bettis.

Davis's big plays were mostly of the 20-40 yard variety. It's not like he was Chris Johnson with a bunch of 90 yard runs pulling up his average. Besides, it's a little silly to defend Bettis's ypc by saying "hey, lets not hold against him the fact that he was incapable of running for more than 15 yards on any given play". I still think that Davis and Bettis is an apples-to-apples comparison in terms of playstyle and archetype, and the fact that Davis had a better ypc is attributable to the fact that Davis was a better RB.

 

[Tau837]

Old posts on Tasker's (ETA: lack of) qualifications for the HOF:

Well, this past season:Teams ranged from 898 to 1075 offensive plays. The Giants were 16th with 1003.Teams ranged from 930 to 1062 defensive plays. The Chiefs were 16th with 999.Teams ranged from 47 to 100 punts. A few teams were tied at #16 with 77.Teams ranged from 56 to 92 kickoffs. The Seahawks were 16th with 75.I think it's appropriate to use the same number for kick returns as for combined punts and kickoffs, in order to eliminate those that were not returned even though the play happened. So I'll use 152 for the number of kick returns.So someone who was a HOF caliber player on offense presumably played the majority of ~1000 snaps, possibly every snap, depending on position. Same for a HOF caliber player who played defense. In contrast, a special teams player who played every snap for kickoffs, punts, and kick returns, probably played only ~300 plays.You mentioned field goals and extra points as if Tasker played those. Did he? Even if so (last season):Teams ranged from 16 to 59 TDs, and thus potential extra point attempts. The Titans were 16th with 36.It looks like individual kickers attempted between 22 and 37 field goals, couldn't find team attempts quickly for some reason.So even if Tasker played on field goals and extra points, it would only add about 75 more plays or so. He'd still be at ~375 special teams plays, playing every single one of them, which would leave him at less than half the number of plays a HOF caliber offensive or defensive player would play in a regular season.

Well let's define impact. Tasker had 909 total offensive yards and 9 offensive TDs. I'd say those 9 TDs were impact plays, as were a handful of his catches that were for first downs, for example. But overall, his impact was minimal outside of special teams.So let's define his impact on special teams. How many TDs did he score on special teams? None as far as I can tell. He returned 44 kickoffs for 910 yards for a very pedestrian average of 20.7 yards per return. He returned 32 punts for 335 yards, a very nice average of 10.5 yards per return. He had no TDs in those returns, but no doubt a handful of impact plays on the longer returns.I found an internet source that said he had 204 special teams tackles during his career. How many were impact plays? He played 13 seasons, so that is an average of less than 20 tackles per season. I have no idea where to find how many fumbles he caused on those tackles; I'm assuming there were a few. I mean, what is an impact play in this context? Causing a fumble is. Saving a long return is, but it's impossible to know how many times he did that.You say he blocked a FG in the Pro Bowl. No idea where to find if he ever did so in regular play. I'll assume he didn't unless someone knows otherwise.So what have we come up with? 15-20 impact plays on offense? 15-20 impact plays on punt/kick returns? 40-50 impact plays on punt/kick coverage? I think that is being generous. That's less than 100 impact plays over his career... less than 10 per season.Now, how many impact plays do you think an average HOF caliber offensive or defensive player makes in a career? I'd say it's clearly a higher number by a large margin, although admittedly it is hard to measure for some positions like OL and DL. Did Tasker make more than other special teamers? Certainly more than most, but more than Mitchell? More than all other special teamers besides kickers? More than the best punter or kicker? I'm not sure. I suspect this type of thinking is what contributes to the fact that no special teamers other than Jan Stenerud, who pioneered the modern kicking style, are in the HOF.

Well, let's compare him to some borderline players. Who helped his team win more, Tasker or Art Monk? Tasker or Terrell Davis? Tasker or Drew Bledsoe? Tasker or Derrick Thomas? Tasker or Tiki Barber? Tasker or Leroy Butler? etc. I don't expect a single one of those guys to get in with the possible exception of Monk. So what makes Tasker more worthy than those players? Do you think Tasker contributed more to winning than they did?Another perspective. Do you think the best long snapper of all time should be in the HOF? The best third down RB? The best nickel back?More realistically, do you think the best fullback of every era should be in? Do you expect a fullback from this era to get in? Who contributes more to winning, Lorenzo Neal or Steve Tasker?Etc.

A lot of players who start at defensive back, linebacker, receiver, or running back would make excellent special teams players (in the roles other than punter and kicker)... but they are typically deemed too important to put on special teams because of the risk of injury (see Jason Sehorn). The fact that the better players are held off of special teams to play offense and defense implies that the special teamers are not as important.

If we look at either Guy or Tasker as "football players", I don't think either ever gets in, because they don't measure up to the "football players" on offense and defense.So it comes down to whether we are willing to consider specialists separately from offensive and defensive players. If so, then what defines a specialist? I'm not sure a gunner/returner is really a specialist, since any number of players on the team could fill that role, but kickers and punters clearly are specialists. So if we are willing to differentiate specialists, IMO Guy has a better chance than Tasker, although as I have said a few times here, I'm not convinced Guy is the best punter of all time, so I'm not sure he is the right punter to be chosen for induction.And if we look at which one contributed more to his team winning football games, I'm not at all convinced Tasker did more than Guy or any other good punter, anyway (see my post about field position).

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I thought the Tasker love was mostly shtick. Why are we getting hung up on it in here?

 

[Tau837]

I thought the Tasker love was mostly shtick. Why are we getting hung up on it in here?

It's not shtick from Construx Boy. He has consistently advocated Tasker for the HOF in every relevant thread for years. So I posted my counterpoints for the benefit of everyone else, so they don't get sucked in. I'm not hung up on it.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I thought the Tasker love was mostly shtick. Why are we getting hung up on it in here?

It's not shtick from Construx Boy. He has consistently advocated Tasker for the HOF in every relevant thread for years. So I posted my counterpoints for the benefit of everyone else, so they don't get sucked in. I'm not hung up on it.

he loves Craig Nall too though. Just saying.

 

[Tau837]

I thought the Tasker love was mostly shtick. Why are we getting hung up on it in here?

It's not shtick from Construx Boy. He has consistently advocated Tasker for the HOF in every relevant thread for years. So I posted my counterpoints for the benefit of everyone else, so they don't get sucked in. I'm not hung up on it.

he loves Craig Nall too though. Just saying.

OK... if I see him suggest Nall for the HOF, I'll ignore.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I recall a lot of big plays from Terrell Davis. Can't really think of any from Bettis.

Davis's big plays were mostly of the 20-40 yard variety. It's not like he was Chris Johnson with a bunch of 90 yard runs pulling up his average. Besides, it's a little silly to defend Bettis's ypc by saying "hey, lets not hold against him the fact that he was incapable of running for more than 15 yards on any given play". I still think that Davis and Bettis is an apples-to-apples comparison in terms of playstyle and archetype, and the fact that Davis had a better ypc is attributable to the fact that Davis was a better RB.

It isn't apples-to-apples. Bettis' playing weight 255. Davis' was 205. That's no small difference. And if you don't think 20-40 yard runs don't inflate your ypc, you're mistaken. I'm willing to bet that JB had fewer runs for less than 2 yards than TD over the same period of time.But I won't convince you that JB belongs in the HOF. Just as you won't convince me that TD does. Probably a good indicator that neither truly belongs there.

 

[SSOG]

It isn't apples-to-apples. Bettis' playing weight 255. Davis' was 205. That's no small difference. And if you don't think 20-40 yard runs don't inflate your ypc, you're mistaken. I'm willing to bet that JB had fewer runs for less than 2 yards than TD over the same period of time.But I won't convince you that JB belongs in the HOF. Just as you won't convince me that TD does. Probably a good indicator that neither truly belongs there.

That's a bet that you would probably lose. In his 4 pre-injury years, Davis never had a success rate lower than 52%. Football Outsiders only has data going back to 1994, so I don't know how he did in 1993, but in the 12 years from '94-'05, Jerome Bettis had a success rate below 52% 9 times, and a success rate of 52% once. That means only 3 times in 12 years did Bettis wind up with a success rate equal to or higher than Terrell Davis's WORST pre-injury season. Obviously success rate isn't quite the same thing, but both metrics are attempting to measure the same thing (the ability to consistently gain positive yardage and aid the offense in getting first downs).I also think that 100% agreement is an unrealistic standard for the Hall of Fame. If non-universal agreement is an indicator that people are undeserving, then there are probably only a dozen "deserving" HoFers in the hall right now.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I thought the Tasker love was mostly shtick. Why are we getting hung up on it in here?

It's not shtick from Construx Boy. He has consistently advocated Tasker for the HOF in every relevant thread for years. So I posted my counterpoints for the benefit of everyone else, so they don't get sucked in. I'm not hung up on it.

he loves Craig Nall too though. Just saying.

OK... if I see him suggest Nall for the HOF, I'll ignore.

Nall won't be first ballot, but....

 

[Horrorshow]

Mark Pike > Steve Tasker

 

[Tau837]

Finalists announced:

Three first-year eligible players, Tim Brown, Jerry Rice and Emmitt Smith, are among the 15 modern-era finalists who will be considered for election to the Pro Football Hall of Fame when the Hall’s Selection Committee meets in South Florida on Saturday, Feb. 6, 2010.

Joining the three first-year eligible players, are 11 other modern-era players and a longtime head coach. The 15 modern-era finalists, along with the two senior nominees announced in August 2009 (former Detroit Lions cornerback **** LeBeau and former Denver Broncos running back Floyd Little) will be the only candidates considered for Hall of Fame election when the 44-member Selection Committee meets. To be elected, a finalist must receive a minimum positive vote of 80 percent.

The official Hall of Fame Selection Committee’s 17 finalists (15 Modern-Era and two Senior Nominees*) with their positions, teams, and years active follow:

Tim Brown – Wide Receiver/Kick Returner – 1988-2003 Los Angeles/Oakland Raiders, 2004 Tampa Bay Buccaneers

Cris Carter – Wide Receiver – 1987-89 Philadelphia Eagles, 1990-2001 Minnesota Vikings, 2002 Miami Dolphins

Don Coryell – Coach – 1973-77 St. Louis Cardinals, 1978-1986 San Diego Chargers

Roger Craig – Running Back – 1983-1990 San Francisco 49ers, 1991 Los Angeles Raiders, 1992-93 Minnesota Vikings

Dermonti Dawson – Center – 1988-2000 Pittsburgh Steelers

Richard Dent – Defensive End – 1983-1993, 1995 Chicago Bears, 1994 San Francisco 49ers, 1996 Indianapolis Colts, 1997 Philadelphia Eagles

Russ Grimm – Guard – 1981-1991 Washington Redskins

Charles Haley – Defensive End/Linebacker – 1986-1991, 1999 San Francisco 49ers, 1992-96 Dallas Cowboys

Rickey Jackson – Linebacker – 1981-1993 New Orleans Saints, 1994-95 San Francisco 49ers

Cortez Kennedy – Defensive Tackle – 1990-2000 Seattle Seahawks

**** LeBeau* – Cornerback – 1959-1972 Detroit Lions

Floyd Little* – Running Back – 1967-1975 Denver Broncos

John Randle – Defensive Tackle – 1990-2000 Minnesota Vikings, 2001-03 Seattle Seahawks

Andre Reed – Wide Receiver – 1985-1999 Buffalo Bills, 2000 Washington Redskins

Jerry Rice – Wide Receiver – 1985-2000 San Francisco 49ers, 2001-04 Oakland Raiders, 2004 Seattle Seahawks

Shannon Sharpe – Tight End – 1990-99, 2002-03 Denver Broncos, 2000-01 Baltimore Ravens

Emmitt Smith – Running Back – 1990-2002 Dallas Cowboys, 2003-04 Arizona Cardinals

Carter, Dawson, Dent, Grimm, Kennedy, Randle, Reed, and Sharpe have all been finalists in previous years. Although they were eligible in previous years, this is the first time Coryell, Craig, Haley, Jackson, Little, and LeBeau have been finalists.

From this year’s list, five players – Dawson, Grimm, Kennedy, LeBeau, and Little – spent their entire NFL career with just one team.

LeBeau and Little were selected as senior candidates by the Hall of Fame’s Seniors Committee at their August 2009 meeting. The Seniors Committee reviews the qualifications of those players whose careers took place more than 25 years ago. The remaining 15 modern-era finalists were determined by a vote of the Hall’s 44-member Selection Committee from a list of 131 preliminary nominees that earlier was reduced to a list of 25 semifinalists. To be eligible for election, modern-era players and coaches must be retired at least five years (prior to 2007 coaches were eligible immediately after retiring).

Since Coryell retired prior to the 2007 change in coach’s eligibility, he has been eligible the longest of the modern-era nominees, 23 years. Grimm has been eligible 14 years, while Craig has been eligible 12 years. Jackson has been eligible for 10 years, Dent eight years, Haley six years, Reed, Dawson and Kennedy five years, Carter three years, Randle and Sharpe two years. Brown, Rice and Smith are in their first year of eligibility. Senior nominees LeBeau and Little have been eligible 33 years and 30 years respectively.

The Selection Committee will meet in South Florida, on Saturday, February 6, 2010, to elect the Hall of Fame Class of 2010. The election results will be announced at 5 p.m. ET during a one-hour NFL Network special, live from the Broward County Convention Center.

At the 2010 selection meeting, the selectors will thoroughly discuss the careers of each finalist. Although there is no set number for any class of enshrinees, the Pro Football Hall of Fame’s current ground rules stipulate that between four and seven new members will be selected each year. No more than five modern-era nominees can be elected in a given year and a class of six or seven can only be achieved if one or both senior nominees are elected. Representatives of the accounting firm Deloitte & Touche will tabulate all votes during the meeting.

At the announcement, Pro Football Hall of Fame President/Executive Director Steve Perry will be presented with an envelope containing the names of the nominees elected. Each newly elected member will be contacted immediately by the Hall of Fame. Members of the Class of 2010 in South Florida for the Super Bowl will be asked to join the live announcement show. Those not able to attend will be asked to join via teleconference.

 

[Tau837]

Players who didn't make the cut from semifinalist to finalist:

Cliff Branch

Terrell Davis

Chris Doleman

Kevin Greene

Ray Guy

Lester Hayes

Art Modell

Paul Tagliabue

Steve Tasker

Aeneas Williams

Pretty disappointed Williams didn't make it. Otherwise, I'm fine with these guys not making the cut down.

 

[Tau837]

Emmitt and Rice are obviously locks, so there are only 3 other spots from the 25 semifinalists. IMO Carter, Brown, and Sharpe are all deserving, but I'm not sure if any of them will make it into those other 3 spots. Because of this competition for 3 spots, I don't think several of these guys (like Branch, Coryell, Craig, Davis, Guy, Greene, Grimm, Hayes, Modell, Reed, Tasker... and probably not Tagliabue) have any chance.

8 of the 12 guys I named missed the cut.

 

[SSOG]

Players who didn't make the cut from semifinalist to finalist:Cliff BranchTerrell DavisChris DolemanKevin GreeneRay GuyLester HayesArt ModellPaul TagliabueSteve TaskerAeneas WilliamsPretty disappointed Williams didn't make it. Otherwise, I'm fine with these guys not making the cut down.

Agreed that it's almost criminal for Aeneas to not be a finalist at least. Also, Roger Craig? ROGER CRAIG?!?! Is there anyone on this entire forum that thinks that Roger Craig is a Hall of Famer? Hell, no matter how you feel about Terrell Davis, he has pretty much the same rushing numbers as Craig (500 fewer yards, 4 more TDs). Do Craig's receiving numbers really outweigh Davis's MVPs, OPoYs, and postseason accomplishments?What's next, Ricky Watters? Actually, even Ricky Watters might be more deserving than Roger Craig.

 

[Tau837]

Players who didn't make the cut from semifinalist to finalist:Cliff BranchTerrell DavisChris DolemanKevin GreeneRay GuyLester HayesArt ModellPaul TagliabueSteve TaskerAeneas WilliamsPretty disappointed Williams didn't make it. Otherwise, I'm fine with these guys not making the cut down.

Agreed that it's almost criminal for Aeneas to not be a finalist at least. Also, Roger Craig? ROGER CRAIG?!?! Is there anyone on this entire forum that thinks that Roger Craig is a Hall of Famer? Hell, no matter how you feel about Terrell Davis, he has pretty much the same rushing numbers as Craig (500 fewer yards, 4 more TDs). Do Craig's receiving numbers really outweigh Davis's MVPs, OPoYs, and postseason accomplishments?What's next, Ricky Watters? Actually, even Ricky Watters might be more deserving than Roger Craig.

I agree with you that Craig isn't deserving, but I've seen some people around here post in support of him.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Players who didn't make the cut from semifinalist to finalist:Cliff BranchTerrell DavisChris DolemanKevin GreeneRay GuyLester HayesArt ModellPaul TagliabueSteve TaskerAeneas WilliamsPretty disappointed Williams didn't make it. Otherwise, I'm fine with these guys not making the cut down.

You know you secretly want Tasker in the Hall.

 

[Insomniac]

The second best special teams player of all time was Nick Lowery. The best was Jan Stenerud.

Okay, as far as special teamers to put in the HOF before Tasker we now have:AndersonAndersenMitchellE. MetcalfLoweryPossible addtions:White ShoesT. MetcalfGuyLandettaWow, Tasker has loooong wait in front of him.

LOL, had no idea there was such an Anti-Tasker contingent out there. I'd put him behind Andersen, Anderson and Mitchell and probably tied with Lowery. E Metcalf was overrated as was Guy. Maybe I can see Gray there as well. Not sure about Upchurch.

LOL, anyone who follows Peter King on Twitter just got this tweet:With your HOF criteria how is Tasker not in the HOF?.......Wish I could be more persuasive. Absolutely no doubt to me he belongs. So now Peter King is my favorite sportswriter.

Peter King is a good reporter but every time I read his "analysis" I wonder if he's just repeating the opinion of the last person he talked to. He has no business being one of the very small group that votes for the HOF.