HOF finalists 2011 (1 Viewer)

[spider321]

Martin played one less year than Faulk and surpassed Faulk in career rushing yards while they were both active. I think that's pretty notable and shows he was a better runner.

How many more carries did Martin have in that span you speak of?How many more ypc did Faulk average?

I'd be willing to bet, a closer look at the numbers doesn't support your position.

I don't understand this.I said he had more rushing yards and you are saying the YPC and carry total might dispute that? They are 3 different stats.

Head over to PFR, http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MartCu00.htm and http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/F/FaulMa00.htm I'm not making it up

What part of "How many more carries did Martin have in that span you speak of?" did you not understand?

 

[Bri]

Martin played one less year than Faulk and surpassed Faulk in career rushing yards while they were both active. I think that's pretty notable and shows he was a better runner.

How many more carries did Martin have in that span you speak of?How many more ypc did Faulk average?



I'd be willing to bet, a closer look at the numbers doesn't support your position.

I don't understand this.I said he had more rushing yards and you are saying the YPC and carry total might dispute that? They are 3 different stats.

Head over to PFR, http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MartCu00.htm and http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/F/FaulMa00.htm I'm not making it up

What part of "How many more carries did Martin have in that span you speak of?" did you not understand?

 

[cvnpoka]

faulk and sanders are locks.

roaf and haley are deserving, likely this time around.

i think brown, carter, sharpe, dent, and doleman should make it as well at some point.

i dont know anything about dermonti dawson.

martin will get in at some point, i dont think he deserves.

 

[cobalt_27]

Martin played one less year than Faulk and surpassed Faulk in career rushing yards while they were both active. I think that's pretty notable and shows he was a better runner.

Did Faulk not run with the ball after he caught it? He just dropped to the turf?Faulk had fewer touches than Martin over his career, yet he accumulated more yards than Martin. And, that's not all attributable to receiving yards, either (where he was, indeed, a better runner after the catch). Faulk also had a better YPC from the rush than Martin did. So, I don't care how you define it, Faulk was the better runner.Also, Faulk with 100 rushing touchdowns (in approximately 700 fewer attempts) compared to Martin's 90.Martin was a compiler, and I mean that in the most positive respect to the guy. But, he was no Marshall Faulk.

 

[spider321]

Martin played one less year than Faulk and surpassed Faulk in career rushing yards while they were both active. I think that's pretty notable and shows he was a better runner.Faulk was a better receiver and everyone seems to know that. I don't think Martin passing Faulk(what I wrote above) is common knowledge.

The point is...If Martin needed many more carries to get more yards, he is not a better runner.

Curtis Martin was not a better runner, in any fantasy land, than Marshall Faulk.

 

[mad sweeney]

Love to see that Cortez the King is still making the finalists list, but no way no how in this class. Too bad for one of the most dominant DTs of his time. Back before DirecTV, he really WAS playing in Alaska as far as national exposure goes as well as for some very bad teams. He won NFL DPY on a 2-14 team! Better luck next year Cortez.

 

[cobalt_27]

faulk and sanders are locks. roaf and haley are deserving, likely this time around.i think brown, carter, sharpe, dent, and doleman should make it as well at some point.i dont know anything about dermonti dawson.martin will get in at some point, i dont think he deserves.

I'd say Faulk, Sanders, and Roaf.Not sure if its Carter's and/or Sharpe's time, but I'd go with them. Not on Martin. Not now. Some day. Not in this class, though.

 

[Tau837]

Martin played one less year than Faulk and surpassed Faulk in career rushing yards while they were both active. I think that's pretty notable and shows he was a better runner.

Did Faulk not run with the ball after he caught it? He just dropped to the turf?Faulk had fewer touches than Martin over his career, yet he accumulated more yards than Martin. And, that's not all attributable to receiving yards, either (where he was, indeed, a better runner after the catch). Faulk also had a better YPC from the rush than Martin did. So, I don't care how you define it, Faulk was the better runner.Also, Faulk with 100 rushing touchdowns (in approximately 700 fewer attempts) compared to Martin's 90.Martin was a compiler, and I mean that in the most positive respect to the guy. But, he was no Marshall Faulk.

I agree Faulk was better than Martin. There is really no argument otherwise IMO. So there is really no need to debate that.However, this talk of Martin being a compiler is off base IMO. Bettis is a much better example of that - his best 3 seasons all happened within his first 5 years in the league, and he did not rush for more than 941 yards in any of his last 4 seasons.In contrast, Martin's second to last season - his 10th - was his best... he led the league in carries and rushing yards while running for 4.6 ypc, and he had 14 total TDs. He set career highs for carries, rushing yards, ypc, and yards from scrimmage. As Bri noted, his performance fell enough in the season after that, and he promptly retired after that season. Martin was AP Offensive ROY in 1995; he made the Pro Bowl in 1995, 1996, and 1998; he was 2nd team All Pro in 1999 and 2001 and 1st team All Pro in 2004. He was a top 10 caliber RB for 10 years, which is pretty rare. IMO this is not a description of a compiler. I think Martin is HOF worthy, though I don't think he will get in this year.

 

[Tau837]

My immediate reaction to this list of finalists without giving it more thought is that I think the non-senior choices should be Faulk, Sanders, Sharpe, Carter, and Dawson.

There are certainly others here who are HOF worthy and who I expect to make it in later classes. As for Roaf vs. Dawson, consider that Dawson was 1st team All Pro 6 straight times, while Roaf was 1st team All Pro "only" 3 times. Given a lack of metrics to use in assessing offensive linemen, those selections carry a lot of weight IMO.

 

[DrJ]

Martin played one less year than Faulk and surpassed Faulk in career rushing yards while they were both active. I think that's pretty notable and shows he was a better runner.

Did Faulk not run with the ball after he caught it? He just dropped to the turf?Faulk had fewer touches than Martin over his career, yet he accumulated more yards than Martin. And, that's not all attributable to receiving yards, either (where he was, indeed, a better runner after the catch). Faulk also had a better YPC from the rush than Martin did. So, I don't care how you define it, Faulk was the better runner.Also, Faulk with 100 rushing touchdowns (in approximately 700 fewer attempts) compared to Martin's 90.Martin was a compiler, and I mean that in the most positive respect to the guy. But, he was no Marshall Faulk.

I agree Faulk was better than Martin. There is really no argument otherwise IMO. So there is really no need to debate that.However, this talk of Martin being a compiler is off base IMO. Bettis is a much better example of that - his best 3 seasons all happened within his first 5 years in the league, and he did not rush for more than 941 yards in any of his last 4 seasons.In contrast, Martin's second to last season - his 10th - was his best... he led the league in carries and rushing yards while running for 4.6 ypc, and he had 14 total TDs. He set career highs for carries, rushing yards, ypc, and yards from scrimmage. As Bri noted, his performance fell enough in the season after that, and he promptly retired after that season. Martin was AP Offensive ROY in 1995; he made the Pro Bowl in 1995, 1996, and 1998; he was 2nd team All Pro in 1999 and 2001 and 1st team All Pro in 2004. He was a top 10 caliber RB for 10 years, which is pretty rare. IMO this is not a description of a compiler. I think Martin is HOF worthy, though I don't think he will get in this year.

The reason he's viewed as a compiler is because he had an unspectacular 4.0 YPC average on his career and several of those 1000 yard seasons he was well under 4.0 YPC. If Da Bears had given Forte another 20 carries last season so he got 1000 yards, would that have all of the sudden made some big difference? It's how he got the 1000 yards that most people consider the more important measuring stick than just the arbitrary number itself.The only RB's that have YPC's as bad as Martin and Bettis in the hall are Riggins and Floyd Little (3.9 YPC a piece). Martin deserves to be there over Little though, who just made it last year, so he'll probably get in. He's still not what I think of when I think HOF RB.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Faulk is a no-brainer.

C. Martin will make it, but I think he will have to wait a few years.

Bettis shouldn't make it, but he is a media darling now, in large part because he is now a part of the media, so I suspect his friends will vote him in sooner rather than later.

 

[Tau837]

Martin played one less year than Faulk and surpassed Faulk in career rushing yards while they were both active. I think that's pretty notable and shows he was a better runner.

Did Faulk not run with the ball after he caught it? He just dropped to the turf?Faulk had fewer touches than Martin over his career, yet he accumulated more yards than Martin. And, that's not all attributable to receiving yards, either (where he was, indeed, a better runner after the catch). Faulk also had a better YPC from the rush than Martin did. So, I don't care how you define it, Faulk was the better runner.Also, Faulk with 100 rushing touchdowns (in approximately 700 fewer attempts) compared to Martin's 90.Martin was a compiler, and I mean that in the most positive respect to the guy. But, he was no Marshall Faulk.

I agree Faulk was better than Martin. There is really no argument otherwise IMO. So there is really no need to debate that.However, this talk of Martin being a compiler is off base IMO. Bettis is a much better example of that - his best 3 seasons all happened within his first 5 years in the league, and he did not rush for more than 941 yards in any of his last 4 seasons.In contrast, Martin's second to last season - his 10th - was his best... he led the league in carries and rushing yards while running for 4.6 ypc, and he had 14 total TDs. He set career highs for carries, rushing yards, ypc, and yards from scrimmage. As Bri noted, his performance fell enough in the season after that, and he promptly retired after that season. Martin was AP Offensive ROY in 1995; he made the Pro Bowl in 1995, 1996, and 1998; he was 2nd team All Pro in 1999 and 2001 and 1st team All Pro in 2004. He was a top 10 caliber RB for 10 years, which is pretty rare. IMO this is not a description of a compiler. I think Martin is HOF worthy, though I don't think he will get in this year.

The reason he's viewed as a compiler is because he had an unspectacular 4.0 YPC average on his career and several of those 1000 yard seasons he was well under 4.0 YPC. If Da Bears had given Forte another 20 carries last season so he got 1000 yards, would that have all of the sudden made some big difference? It's how he got the 1000 yards that most people consider the more important measuring stick than just the arbitrary number itself.The only RB's that have YPC's as bad as Martin and Bettis in the hall are Riggins and Floyd Little (3.9 YPC a piece). Martin deserves to be there over Little though, who just made it last year, so he'll probably get in. He's still not what I think of when I think HOF RB.

Your Forte question is apples and oranges. Martin's case isn't built on one season, it's built on 10 straight seasons of 1000+ rushing yards and 1650+ yards from scrimmage. That is a level of consistent high-level achievement that is extremely rare and is HOF worthy IMO. To even bring up Forte in the conversation is silly.

 

[spider321]

Do you not believe the Hall is becoming too watered down, Just Win?

 

[Bri]

Martin was a compiler, and I mean that in the most positive respect to the guy.

That's simply not true. If you don't recall, I've linked to his page. Here it is againhttp://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MartCu00.htm

The guy retired after his first poor season. He didn't keep playing to add on to his career totals. He retired at age 32.

At age 31, he led the NFL in rushing.

If anything, out of the three, the other two would be compilers.

Bettis became a GL back (to a degree) as his career wound down and Faulk played 4 or 5 years where he didn't get 1000 yards rushing.

 

[Godsbrother]

Nice to see Dawson geting recognition in this thread. Definitely long overdue -- hopefully he makes it this time.

 

[golfguy]

faulk and sanders are going in

dawson should be.

martin will eventually. (he better before bettis goes in and i'm a steeler fan. martin was a much better back).

carter should be in, but i have to go with andre reed first. and the fact that irvin is in over reed is still laughable to me.

 

[Bri]

Off my chest-Some of you guys are making me feel old and I'm wondering if you were NFL fans, serious NFL fans, when Faulk and Martin were playing.

There's some stat looking that's just ridiculous in here. Earl Campbell had what you guys would call a horrible average some years, like 3.4 or somesuch so don't give me that Martin is so terrible with his 4. I'm sorry but it seems there's an ignorance of how the yards were gained. I have zero problem with Earl's average. More often than not, he got 3.4 then 3.4 then 3.4 and it was a first down. Then they did it again. The defense knew it and the guy kept pounding the rock. Eventually he took such a pounding that he suffered from traumatic leg injuries even to this day. "You cant" hold it against the guy that he was his team's offense and that he got it done in that fashion. Without a doubt I feel I can proclaim that 99% of NFL RBs before and after Campbell could not have done what he did. In today's game, I doubt anyone could. Very little about today's RBs screams of durability and toughness.

Riggins wasn't all that different from Campbell in this regard and (at times) Alstott on the Bucs too. They got hurt doing it though.

Marshall Faulk is like a completely different position or something to Earl Campbell. I can't imagine either being capable of replacing the other, the styles are just so very different. Faulk wasn't anywhere near as tough a runner or as good an inside runner and Campbell wasn't anywhere near as cat quick.

Re this discussion. Martin played WR for the Jets little bit atimes as they had a year or two with an unusually high number of injuries at WR. He wasn't anywhere near the receiving back that Faulk was. Like Campbell though, I don't think Faulk could have replaced Martin or Martin have replaced Faulk with each doing as well.

They are different, so very different runners.

I'll tell you one thing that makes me appreciate Martin more than Faulk. Martin did well regardless of whether he played on a poor team or a good team. Faulk did not.

That consecutive 1000 yard season streak is nothing to sneeze at. Jim Brown, Barry, Sweetness, Sayers...you name a RB, they didn't do it. It doesn't mean Martin was better than those all-time greats but it is significant.

Faulk had six good (or great) seasons and six with less than 1000. Martin had one poor season, his last.

I played FF then. I do recall Faulk going in the first, sometimes as soon as the very first pick. His owner would have thrown a drink at you or somesuch if you dared to suggest he's going to the hall those years he couldn't even get 1000 yards. Remember Forte two years ago? How furious people were when he was a 2nd or 3rd overall pick and pretty much stunk. That might put Faulk into context for some of you younger guys. Forte only had like 600-700 yards by the time the FF playoffs began and everyone hated that they drafted him. THAT was Faulk.

 

[Sinrman]

Out of the new guys, I'd say all of them except Bettis. I think Jerome will eventually get in, but not on his first try. The others

are very deserving IMO...

 

[jestertj]

Curtis Martin idolized Walter Payton and did everything he could to be a great man too. There are so many good reasons to vote in a guy like Martin. I feel like I've heard 10k young RBs say they idolized Sweetness and precious few would even hold a candle to the legend. Curtis is one of those precious few. We have had a slew of discussions over the years as to whether kids should idolize these guys and all those usually end with a big "NO." The more I think about great men in sports, it's always someone from another era.

It would be so nice to see Curtis voted in and then be on 10k different talk shows all humble and reserved giving credit to everyone else.

Warrick Dunn was an exceptional person too and there's been others as well, but here we have a chance to talk-up a guy that isn't a loud mouth arrogant look-at-me type.

Probably for a few reasons. He is a defensive player and it seems like there are always more offensive skill position players eligible and so the defensive players who truly stand out have an edge. And Sanders does stand out, partly because of his brash, arrogant personality and style. Personally, I am not convinced he was ever a great CB but he was sort of the original big mouth braggart "look at me" type of player. If you like guys like TO and Ocho and Marshall, well, Deion was the original.

You can not be serious.If Deion wasn't a great CB, please tell me what it takes to be one.

 

[David Yudkin]

I think where the debate lies between Faulk and Martin is that Faulk had better peak years whereas Martin was very good for a longer period (even in playing in fewer games).

Put another way, of the all time best years in yards from scrimmage, Faulk holds the #2, 16, 22, 31, and 107 ranked seasons. Martin's best seasons rank 67, 97, 141, 155, and 163 on the all time YFS rankings.

Faulk was also at his peak in the greatest show on turf years on an offense that dominated the league and won a SB. Martin lost in his only SB appearnace and never played in an offensive system as dynamic as the Rams.

 

[CalBear]

I think where the debate lies between Faulk and Martin is that Faulk had better peak years whereas Martin was very good for a longer period (even in playing in fewer games).Put another way, of the all time best years in yards from scrimmage, Faulk holds the #2, 16, 22, 31, and 107 ranked seasons. Martin's best seasons rank 67, 97, 141, 155, and 163 on the all time YFS rankings.Faulk was also at his peak in the greatest show on turf years on an offense that dominated the league and won a SB. Martin lost in his only SB appearnace and never played in an offensive system as dynamic as the Rams.

I think Faulk was clearly better than Martin. But I don't think Tony Dorsett was clearly better than Martin.

 

[Tau837]

That consecutive 1000 yard season streak is nothing to sneeze at. Jim Brown, Barry, Sweetness, Sayers...you name a RB, they didn't do it.

I think you've posted something to this effect about Barry Sanders twice in this thread. For the record, Sanders played 10 seasons in the NFL and ran for at least 1,115 yards in each of them. In fact, he ran for 1300+ yards in 9 of those 10 seasons.You also chose some other rather poor examples here.

Jim Brown only played 9 seasons. In 2 of those, he was below 1000 rushing yards, but he ran for 942 in a 12 game season in 1957 and 996 in a 14 game season in 1962... clearly above 16 game 1000 yard pace (Martin always played in 16 game seasons).

Walter Payton ran for at least 1222 yards for 11 straight seasons, with one exception - 1982, during which a strike reduced the number of games from 16 to 9. His 9 game pace was ~1060 rushing yards.

I guess you were right about Sayers, though it's odd you chose him given his short career.

Faulk had six good (or great) seasons and six with less than 1000. Martin had one poor season, his last.

I played FF then. I do recall Faulk going in the first, sometimes as soon as the very first pick. His owner would have thrown a drink at you or somesuch if you dared to suggest he's going to the hall those years he couldn't even get 1000 yards. Remember Forte two years ago? How furious people were when he was a 2nd or 3rd overall pick and pretty much stunk. That might put Faulk into context for some of you younger guys. Forte only had like 600-700 yards by the time the FF playoffs began and everyone hated that they drafted him. THAT was Faulk.

Again, I think you're a bit off base here. From a fantasy perspective, Faulk finished as a top 7 fantasy RB in 7 of his 12 seasons. In 3 of his other seasons, he finished in the 14-17 range. By the time his season performance dropped below that range, he was not commanding a high draft pick. So in his first 10 seasons, he had 7 elite seasons and 3 disappointing but still solid RB2 seasons. He was a freaking stud, period.

 

[Jason Wood]

I don't think Martin or Bettis should be inducted.

My votes:

Deion Sanders

Marshall Faulk

Cris Carter

Richard Dent

Dermonti Dawson

 

[Bri]

Faulk had six good (or great) seasons and six with less than 1000. Martin had one poor season, his last. I played FF then. I do recall Faulk going in the first, sometimes as soon as the very first pick. His owner would have thrown a drink at you or somesuch if you dared to suggest he's going to the hall those years he couldn't even get 1000 yards. Remember Forte two years ago? How furious people were when he was a 2nd or 3rd overall pick and pretty much stunk. That might put Faulk into context for some of you younger guys. Forte only had like 600-700 yards by the time the FF playoffs began and everyone hated that they drafted him. THAT was Faulk.

Again, I think you're a bit off base here. From a fantasy perspective, Faulk finished as a top 7 fantasy RB in 7 of his 12 seasons. In 3 of his other seasons, he finished in the 14-17 range. By the time his season performance dropped below that range, he was not commanding a high draft pick. So in his first 10 seasons, he had 7 elite seasons and 3 disappointing but still solid RB2 seasons. He was a freaking stud, period.

No, I distinctly remember it.After rocking in 2000 and 2001, he was brutal in 2002. He had three super weeks, great for FF. He also though had 8 weeks with 43 yards or less rushing. In the second half of the year he had, 13 carries, 9 carries, 10 carries...it was brutal for FF people that took him with the first pick.I said six of 12. Your argument was 7 of 12. I imagine 2002 is the year in question.It is still that he only rocked half the time for FF. I'm not saying he wasn't fantastic when he was "on", but those other years he wasn't.Onto your 7 of 10-In 1996, he had run for 1282 and 1078 and had 55 or so receptions in each year previous. That made him a 1st round pick in FF. However, in 1996 he only ran for 587 yards.In 1997, there were many that still loved the guy. He did have the 55 or so receptions in 1996 and he still went in the first round, just a bit later. He didn't do much better for FF. He got 300 yards the last three weeks of the season (for the FF playoffs) but he only had 700 yards rushing for the previous 13 weeks. Quickly glancing at PFR, most weeks were 50 yards rushing or less.You can look at the year end totals and glean whatever you want from that, ignoring a 13 week FF season or all his games under 50 yards. He was a top top pick and was a first rounder for FF since day 1 in the NFL. He let people down for FF as often as he succeeded. Martin being an automatic K you could rely on was so much more useful for FF.There were countless stud RB theory discussions and oh so much came from Faulk. Feel free to google for plenty of old articles. Get into the gamelogs at PFR. Go to MFL and dig up some old league and look at the week to week stuff.

 

[Tau837]

Do you not believe the Hall is becoming too watered down, Just Win?

There are currently 232 players and 39 other contributors in the HOF. How many players have played in the league in its history (including AAFC and AFL)? I assume that is less than 1% of all players in league history. I don't generally have a problem with that.To correlate that to today, there were 1696 players on active rosters in every week this season, and probably upwards of 1900 players were active this year. Applying the same 1% to the league today would imply there are 19 HOFers playing today. I am fine with that. Just off the top of my head: Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Brett Favre, Ladainian Tomlinson, Terrell Owens, Randy Moss, Tony Gonzalez, Alan Faneca, Jason Taylor, Ray Lewis, Champ Bailey, Charles Woodson, Ed Reed, Troy Polamalu. That's 14 guys I expect to make it, and does not account for any younger players who will ultimately prove to have elite careers.There are certainly players in there who I do not think are worthy, but not that many.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Faulk had six good (or great) seasons and six with less than 1000. Martin had one poor season, his last. I played FF then. I do recall Faulk going in the first, sometimes as soon as the very first pick. His owner would have thrown a drink at you or somesuch if you dared to suggest he's going to the hall those years he couldn't even get 1000 yards. Remember Forte two years ago? How furious people were when he was a 2nd or 3rd overall pick and pretty much stunk. That might put Faulk into context for some of you younger guys. Forte only had like 600-700 yards by the time the FF playoffs began and everyone hated that they drafted him. THAT was Faulk.

Again, I think you're a bit off base here. From a fantasy perspective, Faulk finished as a top 7 fantasy RB in 7 of his 12 seasons. In 3 of his other seasons, he finished in the 14-17 range. By the time his season performance dropped below that range, he was not commanding a high draft pick. So in his first 10 seasons, he had 7 elite seasons and 3 disappointing but still solid RB2 seasons. He was a freaking stud, period.

No, I distinctly remember it.After rocking in 2000 and 2001, he was brutal in 2002. He had three super weeks, great for FF. He also though had 8 weeks with 43 yards or less rushing. In the second half of the year he had, 13 carries, 9 carries, 10 carries...it was brutal for FF people that took him with the first pick.I said six of 12. Your argument was 7 of 12. I imagine 2002 is the year in question.It is still that he only rocked half the time for FF. I'm not saying he wasn't fantastic when he was "on", but those other years he wasn't.Onto your 7 of 10-In 1996, he had run for 1282 and 1078 and had 55 or so receptions in each year previous. That made him a 1st round pick in FF. However, in 1996 he only ran for 587 yards.In 1997, there were many that still loved the guy. He did have the 55 or so receptions in 1996 and he still went in the first round, just a bit later. He didn't do much better for FF. He got 300 yards the last three weeks of the season (for the FF playoffs) but he only had 700 yards rushing for the previous 13 weeks. Quickly glancing at PFR, most weeks were 50 yards rushing or less.You can look at the year end totals and glean whatever you want from that, ignoring a 13 week FF season or all his games under 50 yards. He was a top top pick and was a first rounder for FF since day 1 in the NFL. He let people down for FF as often as he succeeded. Martin being an automatic K you could rely on was so much more useful for FF.There were countless stud RB theory discussions and oh so much came from Faulk. Feel free to google for plenty of old articles. Get into the gamelogs at PFR. Go to MFL and dig up some old league and look at the week to week stuff.

How much of Faulk's receiving stats are you ignoring?

 

[Bri]

That consecutive 1000 yard season streak is nothing to sneeze at. Jim Brown, Barry, Sweetness, Sayers...you name a RB, they didn't do it.

I think you've posted something to this effect about Barry Sanders twice in this thread. For the record, Sanders played 10 seasons in the NFL and ran for at least 1,115 yards in each of them. In fact, he ran for 1300+ yards in 9 of those 10 seasons.You also chose some other rather poor examples here.

Jim Brown only played 9 seasons. In 2 of those, he was below 1000 rushing yards, but he ran for 942 in a 12 game season in 1957 and 996 in a 14 game season in 1962... clearly above 16 game 1000 yard pace (Martin always played in 16 game seasons).

Walter Payton ran for at least 1222 yards for 11 straight seasons, with one exception - 1982, during which a strike reduced the number of games from 16 to 9. His 9 game pace was ~1060 rushing yards.

I guess you were right about Sayers, though it's odd you chose him given his short career.

I didn't choose specific examples I said Barry, Jim Brown, Sweetness....whomever ya want.I was wrong and Barry and he both share the record with 10 consecutive 1000 yard seasons. Since they share the record, every other RB to ever play will fall short. That's why it's a record. You know that so I don't see why you want to go thru Sayers, Sweetness and Blair Thomas or whomever else. It's a record.

 

[Bri]

Faulk had six good (or great) seasons and six with less than 1000. Martin had one poor season, his last.

I played FF then. I do recall Faulk going in the first, sometimes as soon as the very first pick. His owner would have thrown a drink at you or somesuch if you dared to suggest he's going to the hall those years he couldn't even get 1000 yards. Remember Forte two years ago? How furious people were when he was a 2nd or 3rd overall pick and pretty much stunk. That might put Faulk into context for some of you younger guys. Forte only had like 600-700 yards by the time the FF playoffs began and everyone hated that they drafted him. THAT was Faulk.

Again, I think you're a bit off base here. From a fantasy perspective, Faulk finished as a top 7 fantasy RB in 7 of his 12 seasons. In 3 of his other seasons, he finished in the 14-17 range. By the time his season performance dropped below that range, he was not commanding a high draft pick. So in his first 10 seasons, he had 7 elite seasons and 3 disappointing but still solid RB2 seasons. He was a freaking stud, period.

No, I distinctly remember it.After rocking in 2000 and 2001, he was brutal in 2002. He had three super weeks, great for FF. He also though had 8 weeks with 43 yards or less rushing. In the second half of the year he had, 13 carries, 9 carries, 10 carries...it was brutal for FF people that took him with the first pick.

I said six of 12. Your argument was 7 of 12. I imagine 2002 is the year in question.

It is still that he only rocked half the time for FF. I'm not saying he wasn't fantastic when he was "on", but those other years he wasn't.

Onto your 7 of 10-

In 1996, he had run for 1282 and 1078 and had 55 or so receptions in each year previous. That made him a 1st round pick in FF. However, in 1996 he only ran for 587 yards.

In 1997, there were many that still loved the guy. He did have the 55 or so receptions in 1996 and he still went in the first round, just a bit later. He didn't do much better for FF. He got 300 yards the last three weeks of the season (for the FF playoffs) but he only had 700 yards rushing for the previous 13 weeks. Quickly glancing at PFR, most weeks were 50 yards rushing or less.

You can look at the year end totals and glean whatever you want from that, ignoring a 13 week FF season or all his games under 50 yards. He was a top top pick and was a first rounder for FF since day 1 in the NFL. He let people down for FF as often as he succeeded.

Martin being an automatic K you could rely on was so much more useful for FF.

There were countless stud RB theory discussions and oh so much came from Faulk. Feel free to google for plenty of old articles. Get into the gamelogs at PFR. Go to MFL and dig up some old league and look at the week to week stuff.

How much of Faulk's receiving stats are you ignoring?

 

[Tau837]

No, I distinctly remember it.After rocking in 2000 and 2001, he was brutal in 2002. He had three super weeks, great for FF. He also though had 8 weeks with 43 yards or less rushing. In the second half of the year he had, 13 carries, 9 carries, 10 carries...it was brutal for FF people that took him with the first pick.

In the first 8 games of 2002, Faulk had 151/780/8 (5.2 ypc) rushing and 54/390/2 (7.2 ypr) receiving... he averaged 146 total yards and 1.25 TDs per game. Up to that point, there was no dropoff. Then he got hurt, missed two games, and came off the bench for 4 more games during the second half. It happens, even to the best of them. In this case, context matters.2003 was somewhat similar... he had 1108 yards from scrimmage and 11 TDs in 11 games.

I said six of 12. Your argument was 7 of 12. I imagine 2002 is the year in question.

Wrong. Here are the 7 seasons I was referring to, along with where he ranked at the RB position (using FBG scoring) in each of those seasons:1994 - 41995 - 61997 - 71998 - 31999 - 22000 - 12001 - 1

It is still that he only rocked half the time for FF. I'm not saying he wasn't fantastic when he was "on", but those other years he wasn't.Onto your 7 of 10-In 1996, he had run for 1282 and 1078 and had 55 or so receptions in each year previous. That made him a 1st round pick in FF. However, in 1996 he only ran for 587 yards.In 1997, there were many that still loved the guy. He did have the 55 or so receptions in 1996 and he still went in the first round, just a bit later. He didn't do much better for FF. He got 300 yards the last three weeks of the season (for the FF playoffs) but he only had 700 yards rushing for the previous 13 weeks. Quickly glancing at PFR, most weeks were 50 yards rushing or less.You can look at the year end totals and glean whatever you want from that, ignoring a 13 week FF season or all his games under 50 yards. He was a top top pick and was a first rounder for FF since day 1 in the NFL. He let people down for FF as often as he succeeded.

It isn't clear why you are so focused on rushing yards to the exclusion of everything else. Maybe that's why you aren't getting it. Faulk was arguably the best receiving RB of all time, and he was a TD machine. He didn't have to have a ton of rushing yards to be extremely valuable, but he still ran for more than 12K yards.

Martin being an automatic K you could rely on was so much more useful for FF.

It is not possible to be more wrong about something than you are about this.

 

[todisco1]

Martin may belong in the FF HOF, but not the real one. He just wasn't as good as Emmitt, Barry and Faulk. Those are the only three from that time frame who belong.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

When Faulk played, he was considered to be the best or one of the elite RBs in the league for several years.

You can't say the same for Martin. What makes his career more impressive is consistency over a long period of time. I don't think he was ever really considered to be among the best 2 or 3 RBs in the league, but he wasn't too far away either.

Bettis is a compiler. Nice back and one of the most agile big RBs we've ever seen, but not a HOFer by most standards.

 

[Bri]

It is still that he only rocked half the time for FF. I'm not saying he wasn't fantastic when he was "on", but those other years he wasn't.Onto your 7 of 10-In 1996, he had run for 1282 and 1078 and had 55 or so receptions in each year previous. That made him a 1st round pick in FF. However, in 1996 he only ran for 587 yards.In 1997, there were many that still loved the guy. He did have the 55 or so receptions in 1996 and he still went in the first round, just a bit later. He didn't do much better for FF. He got 300 yards the last three weeks of the season (for the FF playoffs) but he only had 700 yards rushing for the previous 13 weeks. Quickly glancing at PFR, most weeks were 50 yards rushing or less.You can look at the year end totals and glean whatever you want from that, ignoring a 13 week FF season or all his games under 50 yards. He was a top top pick and was a first rounder for FF since day 1 in the NFL. He let people down for FF as often as he succeeded.

It isn't clear why you are so focused on rushing yards to the exclusion of everything else. Maybe that's why you aren't getting it. Faulk was arguably the best receiving RB of all time, and he was a TD machine. He didn't have to have a ton of rushing yards to be extremely valuable, but he still ran for more than 12K yards.

this is the third time someone in this thread has stated that I'm excluding receiving yards as they quote me mentioning receptions. You make it a point to say he was arguably the best receiving back as if I didn't say something similar on several occasions in this thread.I said you can glean whatever you want from year end totals and you did just that. You're not looking at game logs and thus this is a waste of time. When a RB fails to run for 20 yards for the day that stinks. You can shine it up however you want but I'm going to remember exactly as it was and look at the game logs. You keep rolling with your year end totals.

 

[Bri]

Martin being an automatic K you could rely on was so much more useful for FF.

It is not possible to be more wrong about something than you are about this.

Start another thread anytime and I'll teach you about this week to week hobby if you need me to.

 

[Dr. No]

Curtis Martin idolized Walter Payton and did everything he could to be a great man too. There are so many good reasons to vote in a guy like Martin. I feel like I've heard 10k young RBs say they idolized Sweetness and precious few would even hold a candle to the legend. Curtis is one of those precious few. We have had a slew of discussions over the years as to whether kids should idolize these guys and all those usually end with a big "NO." The more I think about great men in sports, it's always someone from another era. It would be so nice to see Curtis voted in and then be on 10k different talk shows all humble and reserved giving credit to everyone else. Warrick Dunn was an exceptional person too and there's been others as well, but here we have a chance to talk-up a guy that isn't a loud mouth arrogant look-at-me type.

Great guy and a very good RB for a long time, but to me he's just not a HOFer.

Martin had 10 years in a row with more than 1,000 yards rushing and is 4th all time in rushing.

At no point was he ever considered the best at his position. I don't recall him ever being considered in the top tier of his position. He was good and good for a long time. But he wasn't excellent and HOF material, IMO.

do you think Marcus Allen is a hall of famer?he only had 3 seasons over 1000 yards rushing and only 1 where he was near the top of his position

 

[CalBear]

No, I distinctly remember it.After rocking in 2000 and 2001, he was brutal in 2002. He had three super weeks, great for FF. He also though had 8 weeks with 43 yards or less rushing. In the second half of the year he had, 13 carries, 9 carries, 10 carries...it was brutal for FF people that took him with the first pick.

In 2002 Faulk outscored Martin 8 times despite playing only 14 games; even if you took a zero in the weeks Faulk didn't play, he still gave you as many good weeks as Martin did.I think Martin deserves to be in the Hall, but there's no way he was more fantasy relevant than Faulk by any measure.

 

[Dr. No]

When Faulk played, he was considered to be the best or one of the elite RBs in the league for several years.You can't say the same for Martin. What makes his career more impressive is consistency over a long period of time. I don't think he was ever really considered to be among the best 2 or 3 RBs in the league, but he wasn't too far away either.Bettis is a compiler. Nice back and one of the most agile big RBs we've ever seen, but not a HOFer by most standards.

Bettis and Curtis Martin both have better numbers than Marcus Allen and he was a lock for the HOF and first ballot.Marcus only had 1 or 2 seasons where he was considered near the top of his position.But he was more famous and has a Heisman... but this IS the NFL hall of fame.

 

[Dr. No]

To me.. once Marcus Allen got in first ballot I have always looked at someone's career and compared it to his and if they were better (and they often are) then they are a hall of famer:

Bettis - yes

CMart - yes

Tim Brown - yes

Cris Carter - yes

Faulk - yes

Deion - yes

Shannon Sharpe - yes

actually i'm yes on all of them.

If we can take Marcus Allen out, then i'd be a lot more strict, but I'd still say yes to CMart, Bettis, Deion, and Shannon

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Bettis and Curtis Martin both have better numbers than Marcus Allen and he was a lock for the HOF and first ballot.Marcus only had 1 or 2 seasons where he was considered near the top of his position.But he was more famous and has a Heisman... but this IS the NFL hall of fame.

I think most would agree that Allen was a compiler and probably doesn't belong.He did win a League MVP award though and I think that probably means a lot to voters.Both Martin and Bettis will probably get in eventually on the strength of their career numbers, but I'd leave Bettis out if I had a vote. I may have left out Allen as well, although things have changed since he got in.

 

[Don Quixote]

When Faulk played, he was considered to be the best or one of the elite RBs in the league for several years.You can't say the same for Martin. What makes his career more impressive is consistency over a long period of time. I don't think he was ever really considered to be among the best 2 or 3 RBs in the league, but he wasn't too far away either.Bettis is a compiler. Nice back and one of the most agile big RBs we've ever seen, but not a HOFer by most standards.

Bettis and Curtis Martin both have better numbers than Marcus Allen and he was a lock for the HOF and first ballot.Marcus only had 1 or 2 seasons where he was considered near the top of his position.But he was more famous and has a Heisman... but this IS the NFL hall of fame.

What's the numbers advantage that Bettis and Martin have over Marcus Allen? A quick PFR search shows that Allen has a yards from scrimmage advantage (although a slight one), and has a 40-50 TD advantage.

 

[Tau837]

When Faulk played, he was considered to be the best or one of the elite RBs in the league for several years.

You can't say the same for Martin. What makes his career more impressive is consistency over a long period of time. I don't think he was ever really considered to be among the best 2 or 3 RBs in the league, but he wasn't too far away either.

Bettis is a compiler. Nice back and one of the most agile big RBs we've ever seen, but not a HOFer by most standards.

Actually, the bolded is technically incorrect, at least for one season. Martin was 2nd team All Pro twice and first team All Pro once. It's debatable whether his 2nd team All Pro seasons would meet your criteria (top 2-3 RBs in the league), but there is no denying he met your critera in 2004.

 

[spider321]

I wish people would stop comparing potential HOF's to the "worst" HOF's at their position, and start comparing them to the best when deciding if they are worthy.

 

[Tau837]

Martin being an automatic K you could rely on was so much more useful for FF.

It is not possible to be more wrong about something than you are about this.

Start another thread anytime and I'll teach you about this week to week hobby if you need me to.

:irony:

 

[Tau837]

No, I distinctly remember it.After rocking in 2000 and 2001, he was brutal in 2002. He had three super weeks, great for FF. He also though had 8 weeks with 43 yards or less rushing. In the second half of the year he had, 13 carries, 9 carries, 10 carries...it was brutal for FF people that took him with the first pick.

In 2002 Faulk outscored Martin 8 times despite playing only 14 games; even if you took a zero in the weeks Faulk didn't play, he still gave you as many good weeks as Martin did.I think Martin deserves to be in the Hall, but there's no way he was more fantasy relevant than Faulk by any measure.

 

[CalBear]

I wish people would stop comparing potential HOF's to the "worst" HOF's at their position, and start comparing them to the best when deciding if they are worthy.

So now that Jerry Rice is in, no other receiver should make it because they're not as good as Jerry Rice?I don't think Tony Dorsett is the worst HOFer; I think he's a middle of the road HOF RB. Clearly better than John Riggins, clearly not as good as Walter Payton. Martin is similar to Dorsett.

 

[David Yudkin]

Marcus Allen had 11 seasons with 1000+ yards from scrimmage and 7 seasons with 10+ TD. Sure, he had a doughnut hole mid career in terms of production, but if he put up the same numbers in a different order people would not have a problem with his productivity. Even with a lot of missed time and playing until he was 37, he still averaged 80 yards from scrimmage a game. It's not like he never did anything . . .

 

[Dr. No]

I think most would agree that Allen was a compiler and probably doesn't belong.He did win a League MVP award though and I think that probably means a lot to voters.Both Martin and Bettis will probably get in eventually on the strength of their career numbers, but I'd leave Bettis out if I had a vote. I may have left out Allen as well, although things have changed since he got in.

no, most people i talk to about my hate for Marcus Allen being in the hall completely disagree with me. his career numbers look good... because he played until he was THIRTY freakin' SEVEN and because the Chiefs gave him the goal line job for several years to pad his TD numbers.so he got a bunch of 1 yard TD's late in his career for free.Marcus had ONE outstanding season, 2 good seasons, and a whole load of lame seasons with high TD counts.Marcus had 3 1,000 yard rushing seasons.Bettis - 8Martin - 10But Marcus does have the coveted Heismann + MVP + super bowl Ring and a highlight play that will make it in super bowl archives forever.Whatever... by that logic Terell Davis should be an even stronger candidate

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

When Faulk played, he was considered to be the best or one of the elite RBs in the league for several years.

You can't say the same for Martin. What makes his career more impressive is consistency over a long period of time. I don't think he was ever really considered to be among the best 2 or 3 RBs in the league, but he wasn't too far away either.

Bettis is a compiler. Nice back and one of the most agile big RBs we've ever seen, but not a HOFer by most standards.

Actually, the bolded is technically incorrect, at least for one season. Martin was 2nd team All Pro twice and first team All Pro once. It's debatable whether his 2nd team All Pro seasons would meet your criteria (top 2-3 RBs in the league), but there is no denying he met your critera in 2004.

Sure, but I'm talking over a longer period of time than a single great year.I'm a huge Martin fan. Just never really thought of him in the same class as Barry, Emmitt, Thurman, etc.

2004 was incredible and is one of the biggest reasons why he'll probably make the HOF, but he was a 31-year old RB and I don't think many of that era would name him as one of the best 2 or 3 RBs in the league.

Edgerrin James, Priest Holmes, Shaun Alexander, Tomlinson, Tiki Barber, Portis, etc. all may have been considered better than him.

 

[Dr. No]

Marcus Allen had 11 seasons with 1000+ yards from scrimmage and 7 seasons with 10+ TD. Sure, he had a doughnut hole mid career in terms of production, but if he put up the same numbers in a different order people would not have a problem with his productivity. Even with a lot of missed time and playing until he was 37, he still averaged 80 yards from scrimmage a game. It's not like he never did anything . . .

I'm impressed he played until 37... but aside from the MVP season he was never remotely elite at his position.do you think Vinny Testaverde should be in the Hall of fame also?Other than the MVP (which is notable) and the super bowl ring (also notable, but it's a team game, not a 1 guy game) it's like they had the same career at different positions

 

[spider321]

I wish people would stop comparing potential HOF's to the "worst" HOF's at their position, and start comparing them to the best when deciding if they are worthy.

So now that Jerry Rice is in, no other receiver should make it because they're not as good as Jerry Rice?

That is not what I said.The point was that just because a guy is as good as the "worst" HOF'er, doesn't mean he should get in.I almost wish there was a 100-150 player limit for the Hall, and every time they vote a player in, they have to vote a player out.

 

[CalBear]

Marcus Allen had 11 seasons with 1000+ yards from scrimmage and 7 seasons with 10+ TD. Sure, he had a doughnut hole mid career in terms of production, but if he put up the same numbers in a different order people would not have a problem with his productivity. Even with a lot of missed time and playing until he was 37, he still averaged 80 yards from scrimmage a game. It's not like he never did anything . . .

I'm impressed he played until 37... but aside from the MVP season he was never remotely elite at his position.do you think Vinny Testaverde should be in the Hall of fame also?Other than the MVP (which is notable) and the super bowl ring (also notable, but it's a team game, not a 1 guy game) it's like they had the same career at different positions

Marcus Allen made the Pro Bowl 6 times and was first-team All-Pro twice. Testaverde made the Pro Bowl twice and was never an All-Pro. Allen finished #1 in yards from scrimmage twice, top-5 three times, and top-10 five times; Testaverde was never #1, finished top-5 once, and top-10 four times. Allen finished #1 in rushing TDs twice, top-5 five times, and top-10 nine times; Testaverde never finished #1 in passing TDs, finished top-5 twice, and top-10 three times.The only thing similar about their careers is that they were long.