Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
This is so wrong. Priest came into the league as undrafted free agent, he simply wasn't a Billick type Rb. Yet he ran for 1000+ yds in his second season.**** Vermeil was high on him during his college days and that is the first thing he did when he came to the Chiefs. He's the only RB besides Emmit Smith to get back to back 20+ TD's. I don't think he'll be a unaminous decision, but eventually he will get in.
Yeah, Holmes wasn't a winner - dragged down every team he was on. And then when he finally made it to the postseason, the dude stunk it up. 200 yards and two TDs? Pfft. Sucka.
Hypotheticals like that are irrelevant, especially when it comes to HoF talk. Besides, are you talking about the same Clinton Portis whom the Broncos traded?
Davis had two all time great post-seasons. But Emmitt Smith had three great post-seasons, two more very good ones and two more good ones. Franco Harris had one great post-season, two very good ones, and three more solid ones. John Riggins had the best post-season performance of all time and another very good one. An honorable mention goes to Thurman Thomas.Davis is certainly one of the five best post-season runners ever. It's far from clear that he was the best playoff RB of all time, and it's obvious that he was not inarguably the best postseason runner ever.
I don't disagree here, but there are a ton of counterexamples.1) Trung Canidate/Steven Jackson.2) Jim Brown played behind arguably the greatest OL of all time, and the back that replaced him made the HOF.3) Emmitt Smith.4) Jim Taylor/Paul Hornung.5) O.J.6) DickersonHonestly, it's more difficult to think of star RBs that did *not* play with great OLs than ones who did. I totally agree that Holmes played behind an awesome line and was in a great "system" in Kansas City. But IMO, that hasn't stopped any RBs from making the HOF. Excluding TD, who I think makes it in one day, can you think of a RB who was HOF worthy except he played on a great system/OL, and therefore did not make the Hall?
What exactly makes the two remind you of each other? In my mind they couldn't be more different.
I wasn't saying that to prove TD's case one way or the other - I was saying it in response to someone else's comment comparing the two RBs and bringing TD's rings into the conversation.Yes, this is the same Clinton Portis who the Broncos traded for probably the best cornerback of his era and a 2nd round pick. But speaking of irrelevant points...Ghost Rider said:
To be clear, I think the HOF is a different beast than player value. For example, a RB who had 5 seasons of 1600 rushing yards would be a better HOF candidate for me than one with 10 seasons of 1300 yards. Now the latter RB would be more valuable to a team, and I'd probably rather have him on the Jets. But the former RB was more dominant, and that's what I think the HOF is about. Sustained dominance, yes, but dominance.I think when you ignore post-season numbers, Barber probably was the most valuable of the three and was definitely more valuable than Davis. When you include post-season numbers, Barber and Davis are equal in my eyes, with Holmes still a fair bit behind Barber. Any way you slice it, though, I think Barber's career was at least as valuable to the Giants as Davis was to the Broncos or Holmes to his teams.But in terms of HOF worthiness, I think he is a good bit behind both. He's very similar to Alexander or James in that sense, and a little behind the Campbells and Martins of the world. I still think he's a solid addition, but he's not an overwhelming "yes" to me. Barber's 05 was historically awesome. His 2006 and 2004 were really good. But that's about it. His next best season was '02, but he had 9 fumbles. And that's really it.I also like my RBs to be runners. I think YFS is a slightly misleading stat in the sense that receiving yards from a RB are not equal to rushing yards. Barber's a better version of Lydell Mitchell, and I think Mitchell is borderline, so I'm okay with Tiki getting in. But he didn't take over seasons like Holmes and Davis.That said, one thing about Barber is he was almost always playing on bad teams with bad OLs. Alexander, James, Holmes, Davis and Faulk were surrounded by stars. LT in his prime, was too. Barber was dominant on bad teams with really bad OLs, but I sort of doubt it's the sort of thing history will remember or even care about. In terms of talent I think he was HOF caliber. And I think you could make a solid argument that Barber could have matched Holmes or Davis if he was in those situations; alas, that's the sort of guessing game that the Hall usually doesn't engage in.
Why wouldn't you bring TD's rings into the conversation? Considering he was a huge part of the Broncos getting those rings, I'd say leaving them out of the conversation would be doing a disservice to what Davis accomplished as a NFL player. Would you leave Tom Brady's rings out of the equation if he retired today and we had to debate his Hall of Fame worthiness? Of course not.
It is irrelevant...just like your opinion that the Broncos would have been just as successful with Portis instead of Davis during the SB years.
Please go back and re-read the first page of this thread.Someone said that even though the Broncos continued to have success running the ball after TD left, none of them matched his production. Someone else said that the only thing TD had on Portis was the number of carries he got. Another guy chipped in with "and a couple of rings," or something like that.
His first year in the league, and '96 and '97, Bettis was awesome. He wasn't TD or Sanders or Emmitt, but he was really good then. The problem with the Bus is his supporters point to his career ranks, which leads to arguments about how he stuck around too long and wasn't dominant. I'm with you, though, that Holmes would be a better candidate than Bettis.
I'm perfectly calm, dude.
And I get what you are saying; I really do. But I just think that saying stuff like Portis could have done with Davis did adds nothing to the discussion. It is impossible to prove, and, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't mean a damn thing. What matters is what happened, not what might have happened. Know what I mean? 
Understood, and agreed. It was a throwaway line... I was not trying to make any particular point that was relevant to the topic of the thread. It added nothing and I suppose I probably should have just not bothered.I'm perfectly calm, dude.And I get what you are saying; I really do. But I just think that saying stuff like Portis could have done with Davis did adds nothing to the discussion. It is impossible to prove, and, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't mean a damn thing. What matters is what happened, not what might have happened. Know what I mean?
