Jerome Bettis and Art Monk -v- Terrell Davis and Sterling Sharpe (1 Viewer)

[BigSteelThrill]

Little stats like that can be worthless. If you want to know if Bettis is Hall of Fame material, just look at these stats, the important ones.4th most rushes all time5th most rushing yards all time10th most rushing TD's of all timeEight 1,000 yard seasons6 Pro Bowl appearences1 SuperBowl ringNot to mention he's known as the original "fat power back"Pittman has, well, 0 Pro Bowls and is not ranked in the top 50 in any major RB category.

"Little stats" like that give context to what is otherwise subjective interference. We think Bettis is "great" or a Hall of Famer because we like him and he served a serviceable role in the same offense for a long period of time--long enough to compile healthy career stats. Was he better than Pittman? Of course. Overall, he was. But, for the majority of his career, he was nothing more than ordinary. It's just that he was ordinary (and healthy) for a very long time. If that's what you consider a HOFer, fine.

You do realize you could take away 3 years from a lot of great or Hall of Fame players and make them look ordinary, right?

Take 3 years away from Terrell Davis and he would be worthless.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Little stats like that can be worthless. If you want to know if Bettis is Hall of Fame material, just look at these stats, the important ones.4th most rushes all time5th most rushing yards all time10th most rushing TD's of all timeEight 1,000 yard seasons6 Pro Bowl appearences1 SuperBowl ringNot to mention he's known as the original "fat power back"Pittman has, well, 0 Pro Bowls and is not ranked in the top 50 in any major RB category.

"Little stats" like that give context to what is otherwise subjective interference. We think Bettis is "great" or a Hall of Famer because we like him and he served a serviceable role in the same offense for a long period of time--long enough to compile healthy career stats. Was he better than Pittman? Of course. Overall, he was. But, for the majority of his career, he was nothing more than ordinary. It's just that he was ordinary (and healthy) for a very long time. If that's what you consider a HOFer, fine.

You do realize you could take away 3 years from a lot of great or Hall of Fame players and make them look ordinary, right?

Take 3 years away from Terrell Davis and he would be worthless.

Yeah, but no one is calling Terrell Davis a HoF lock.

 

[cobalt_27]

Little stats like that can be worthless. If you want to know if Bettis is Hall of Fame material, just look at these stats, the important ones.4th most rushes all time5th most rushing yards all time10th most rushing TD's of all timeEight 1,000 yard seasons6 Pro Bowl appearences1 SuperBowl ringNot to mention he's known as the original "fat power back"Pittman has, well, 0 Pro Bowls and is not ranked in the top 50 in any major RB category.

"Little stats" like that give context to what is otherwise subjective interference. We think Bettis is "great" or a Hall of Famer because we like him and he served a serviceable role in the same offense for a long period of time--long enough to compile healthy career stats. Was he better than Pittman? Of course. Overall, he was. But, for the majority of his career, he was nothing more than ordinary. It's just that he was ordinary (and healthy) for a very long time. If that's what you consider a HOFer, fine.

You do realize you could take away 3 years from a lot of great or Hall of Fame players and make them look ordinary, right?

Take 3 years away from Terrell Davis and he would be worthless.

Yeah, but no one is calling Terrell Davis a HoF lock.

But, pair either of these two RBs on the same team (all things else being equal), I'd take my chances of winning more SBs with TD's 3 healthy years than I would with Jerome Bettis and his 13 pretty decent years.

 

[Tau837]

BTW, anyone who uses Pro Bowl appearances as an argument for the HOF is insane. Just look at this year's PB and how many substitutions of substitutions of substitutions were made following injuries or prior committments that gave half the league an invite.Jerome Bettis made the Pro Bowl in 1994 off of 1025 yards and 3 TDs. 'Nuff said.

Or how about the 2005 season when McNair made the Pro Bowl as like the 3th or 4th alternate?Or 2003 when Tomlinson did NOT make it, despite leading the league in yards from scrimmage, because Portis, Holmes, and James all had great years in the AFC, too?

What's your point? McNair still has a Pro Bowl on his resume, it's a way to show that the NFL honors a good season that you had. Nothing wrong with making it as an alternate. And hell, Portis, Holmes, James and Tomlinson all deserved it that year. Someone had to be left out, that's just how it works sometimes.

Um, my point is that deserving players do not alway go, and undeserving players sometimes go. Bettis in '94 and '04 are classic examples of a guy making it who did not deserve to. '01 is debatable, as Bettis was having a really good season before getting hurt. Even if you give him the benefit of the doubt where 2001 is concerned, 4 Pro Bowl berths, which is the most he SHOULD have had, is not that outstanding that it should be used as an excuse to declare him a lock for the Hall. The bottom line is that the Pro Bowl is too flawed to use it to measure and compare players, so it should not be given much weight when considering HoF worthiness.

After seeing Bettis's 2004 Pro Bowl selection trashed yet again, I had to respond on that one. From Wikipedia:

Bettis again found himself a back-up to start the 2004 season, this time to Duce Staley. But when an injury held Staley out of action mid-way through the year, Bettis stepped in and gained 100+ yards in each of his seven regular season starts, leading to a Pro-Bowl berth for the sixth time in his career.

Sometimes it's not just about the end of year stat line. I agree that Pro Bowls aren't a great measure, and Bettis may not have deserved 6... but even if he had 1 or 2 fewer he would have had as many or more than almost all other RBs other than the HOF nobrainers (Smith, Sanders, etc.).

 

[Tau837]

Given the premise of the thread, I think far too few of the posters are ignoring the quality of quarterback and offensive line and how that would likely affect Davis. I definitely think his production would be significantly lower than it was in Denver... and for only 4 years, the first of which Bettis outperformed him, as previously noted. Meanwhile, Bettis performed the majority of his career with a lousy QB and an average to good offensive line, so his performance would likely be similar, and possibly better, since Roethlisberger would be an upgrade over most of Bettis's QBs. This would narrow the gap between them to the point that Bettis's 13 seasons would be a better choice IMO.

Now, if the premise was that Davis remained healthy longer, I'd take him. Obviously, he was more talented, and it is merely longevity that would lead anyone not to take him over Bettis.

If he got to keep Elway and his offensive line, I'd probably also take Davis with the assumption that I'd be able to replace him when he got hurt, and thus would rather take 3 shots at the Super Bowl.

But the premise narrows the gap enough for me to prefer Bettis.

I can't really see a case in which I'd prefer Monk over Sharpe. Sharpe's career was not as abbreviated, and I think the gap between Sharpe and Monk is greater. And I think Sharpe would do a lot more than Monk to get keep extra defenders out of the box and away from Bettis.

So I null voted.

 

[cobalt_27]

After seeing Bettis's 2004 Pro Bowl selection trashed yet again, I had to respond on that one. From Wikipedia:Sometimes it's not just about the end of year stat line. I agree that Pro Bowls aren't a great measure, and Bettis may not have deserved 6... but even if he had 1 or 2 fewer he would have had as many or more than almost all other RBs other than the HOF nobrainers (Smith, Sanders, etc.).

Yeah, I guess when the AFC selects SEVEN running backs to represent the squad, Bettis probably deserved a spot.

 

[cobalt_27]

Now, if the premise was that Davis remained healthy longer, I'd take him. Obviously, he was more talented, and it is merely longevity that would lead anyone not to take him over Bettis.

I think that's the only point I'm making. If it's TD + Sharpe, I'd start my team quicker than a heartbeat with those guys over Bettis + Monk. At both positions, I'd be taking the more talented player.

 

[Ghost Rider]

After seeing Bettis's 2004 Pro Bowl selection trashed yet again, I had to respond on that one. From Wikipedia:

Bettis again found himself a back-up to start the 2004 season, this time to Duce Staley. But when an injury held Staley out of action mid-way through the year, Bettis stepped in and gained 100+ yards in each of his seven regular season starts, leading to a Pro-Bowl berth for the sixth time in his career.

Sometimes it's not just about the end of year stat line. I agree that Pro Bowls aren't a great measure, and Bettis may not have deserved 6... but even if he had 1 or 2 fewer he would have had as many or more than almost all other RBs other than the HOF nobrainers (Smith, Sanders, etc.).

Really? Bettis deserved to make NO MORE than 4. Thurman Thomas made 5. Curtis Martin made 5. Edgerrin James has made 4. LaDainian Tomlinson has made 4. Corey Dillon has made 4. And those are just RB's from the last decade and a half (the same era as Bettis). So, this idea that Bettis still has more Pro Bowls than most other RB's, if you take away several of his, is a myth. And I obviously did not count no-brainer HOF RB's like Sanders, Smith, and Faulk.

After seeing Bettis's 2004 Pro Bowl selection trashed yet again, I had to respond on that one. From Wikipedia:Sometimes it's not just about the end of year stat line. I agree that Pro Bowls aren't a great measure, and Bettis may not have deserved 6... but even if he had 1 or 2 fewer he would have had as many or more than almost all other RBs other than the HOF nobrainers (Smith, Sanders, etc.).

Yeah, I guess when the AFC selects SEVEN running backs to represent the squad, Bettis probably deserved a spot.

Technically, six, as Tony Richardson is a FB, but I hardly see how Bettis making the Pro Bowl as the 3rd alternate is anything to brag about.

 

[cobalt_27]

Sometimes it's not just about the end of year stat line. I agree that Pro Bowls aren't a great measure, and Bettis may not have deserved 6... but even if he had 1 or 2 fewer he would have had as many or more than almost all other RBs other than the HOF nobrainers (Smith, Sanders, etc.).

Really? Bettis deserved to make NO MORE than 4. Thurman Thomas made 5. Curtis Martin made 5. Edgerrin James has made 4. LaDainian Tomlinson has made 4. Corey Dillon has made 4. And those are just RB's from the last decade and a half (the same era as Bettis).

Add Ahman Green (4)Eddie George (4)Ricky Watters (5)And, of course your Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, Marshall Faulk who combine for about 400 Pro Bowls, rightfully so.But, of that other group above, I see Thurman (in this year), Curtis Martin and LT as the only certain HOFers. Edge has work to do. Dillon, I don't see it. Ahman, no way. Eddie George, no way. Ricky Watters...maaaaaaybe. I'm for it, but I don't know if the voters will get him in.Bettis is in the worst of this entire group. He stands a better chance because his personality was charming and likable. But, strictly as a player, he wasn't nearly as good as these guys.ETA: Correction...Bettis was better than Eddie George. Sorry to suggest otherwise. Bettis was definitely better than George.

 

[AB in DC]

To get back to the original question, if this is truly a lousy team, it will not be in SB contention for the first three or four years no matter which pair you take.

Since you can only count on three or four years of TD/Sharpe, the obvious picks (to me) are Bettis/Monk to give your franchise enough time to build a winner.

Yes, duh, obviously TD/Sharpe are more talented than Bettis/Monk. But that's not what the question asks.

 

[dgreen]

I can't really see a case in which I'd prefer Monk over Sharpe.

I don't know much about Sharpe's non-receiving skills and abilities, so I can't compare on that level between these two. But, Monk was a great blocker and leader. He was 100% a team player. I'd love to hear about Sharpe's attributes that we can't see in stats.Strictly looking at stats, other than TDs, I wouldn't say Sharpe blew Monk away. Sharpe had some luxuries Monk didn't. Sharpe played in a more receiver-friendly offense. In Sharpe's seven seasons, the Packers threw 3901 passes (37.2 per game). In Monk's first seven seasons, the Redskins threw 3266 passes (31.1 per game - his career number was only 32.1 attempts per game). So, GB threw about 19% more per game than Washington in those respective seven seasons. Also, GB completed 20.4 passes per game compared to Washington's 17.8 (a 14.3% difference).Simply put, Monk played on a running team and a winning team. Those two things combined can lower receiving numbers. And, they were especially a running team once they hit the redzone, a big reason for Monk's pedestrian TD numbers.Sharpe caught 26.1% of GB's completions and Monk caught 24.9 % of Washington's completions during those seven years. While that's not a huge margin, I'd say Monk faced greater intrateam competition for the ball at receiver. Monk's career percentage (excluding his final year in Philly, but including his one year with the Jets) was 22.2% because of guys like Gary Clark and Ricky Sanders.And, it shouldn't be ignored that Monk NEVER complained that he didn't get the ball enough. He simply did what the team needed him to do. Again, I'd love to hear about Sharpe in these areas because that's what really wins football games.It's a shame we didn't get to see Sharpe more in postseason. He had really good performances in his only two games.

 

[cobalt_27]

Yes, duh, obviously TD/Sharpe are more talented than Bettis/Monk. But that's not what the question asks.

Steeler fans cringe to hear this, so I don't think it's obvious to them judging from this thread.The question is: "You're the owner/gm/coach- which pair do you take?"The answer is: You take the most talented pair.And, that would be TD/Sharpe.Now, if you're a psychic, and you know beforehand how their careers will turn out (i.e., you know how long the shelf life is on these guys), then that might change things. But, I'd maintain--with a bit of hyperbole, but mostly seriousness--that I would win more championships with the TD-Sharpe tandem in a 5-year stretch than I would with the Bettis-Monk pairing for 12 years, all talent around them being equal. In other words, surround me with a very good team, short a RB and WR, and I could win more championships in 5 years with TD/Sharpe than I would in 12 years with Bettis/Monk. And, I think most here would agree with that assessment.

 

[Pat Patriot]

Yes, duh, obviously TD/Sharpe are more talented than Bettis/Monk. But that's not what the question asks.

Steeler fans cringe to hear this, so I don't think it's obvious to them judging from this thread.The question is: "You're the owner/gm/coach- which pair do you take?"

The answer is: You take the most talented pair.

And, that would be TD/Sharpe.

Now, if you're a psychic, and you know beforehand how their careers will turn out (i.e., you know how long the shelf life is on these guys), then that might change things. But, I'd maintain--with a bit of hyperbole, but mostly seriousness--that I would win more championships with the TD-Sharpe tandem in a 5-year stretch than I would with the Bettis-Monk pairing for 12 years, all talent around them being equal. In other words, surround me with a very good team, short a RB and WR, and I could win more championships in 5 years with TD/Sharpe than I would in 12 years with Bettis/Monk.

And, I think most here would agree with that assessment.

The premise of the thread says you know how ALL of their careers turn out. So you know the length and quality of the career before you make your decision.

 

[Tau837]

Yes, duh, obviously TD/Sharpe are more talented than Bettis/Monk. But that's not what the question asks.

Steeler fans cringe to hear this, so I don't think it's obvious to them judging from this thread.The question is: "You're the owner/gm/coach- which pair do you take?"

The answer is: You take the most talented pair.

And, that would be TD/Sharpe.

Now, if you're a psychic, and you know beforehand how their careers will turn out (i.e., you know how long the shelf life is on these guys), then that might change things. But, I'd maintain--with a bit of hyperbole, but mostly seriousness--that I would win more championships with the TD-Sharpe tandem in a 5-year stretch than I would with the Bettis-Monk pairing for 12 years, all talent around them being equal. In other words, surround me with a very good team, short a RB and WR, and I could win more championships in 5 years with TD/Sharpe than I would in 12 years with Bettis/Monk.

And, I think most here would agree with that assessment.

You just ignored the premise, which clearly states that we know how their careers will turn out. It also doesn't say that you have a very good team, short a RB and WR. It says you have an average to good offensive line and a rookie QB--Roethlisberger.Also, as has been pointed out in this thread, you only get a 4 year window with Davis, not 5... and Bettis outperformed him in year 1. So your window of having more talent is 3 years.

You may still prefer Davis & Sharpe, but the verbiage you used here actually suggests your answer to the thread question could well be Bettis & Monk.

Also, I am not a Steeler fan, but I have been arguing for Bettis on these boards a lot, and I fully agree that Davis was more talented. But that doesn't mean he would be more valuable to my team in this scenario.

 

[David Yudkin]

Yes, duh, obviously TD/Sharpe are more talented than Bettis/Monk. But that's not what the question asks.

Steeler fans cringe to hear this, so I don't think it's obvious to them judging from this thread.The question is: "You're the owner/gm/coach- which pair do you take?"

The answer is: You take the most talented pair.

And, that would be TD/Sharpe.

Now, if you're a psychic, and you know beforehand how their careers will turn out (i.e., you know how long the shelf life is on these guys), then that might change things. But, I'd maintain--with a bit of hyperbole, but mostly seriousness--that I would win more championships with the TD-Sharpe tandem in a 5-year stretch than I would with the Bettis-Monk pairing for 12 years, all talent around them being equal. In other words, surround me with a very good team, short a RB and WR, and I could win more championships in 5 years with TD/Sharpe than I would in 12 years with Bettis/Monk.

And, I think most here would agree with that assessment.

You just ignored the premise, which clearly states that we know how their careers will turn out. It also doesn't say that you have a very good team, short a RB and WR. It says you have an average to good offensive line and a rookie QB--Roethlisberger.Also, as has been pointed out in this thread, you only get a 4 year window with Davis, not 5... and Bettis outperformed him in year 1. So your window of having more talent is 3 years.

You may still prefer Davis & Sharpe, but the verbiage you used here actually suggests your answer to the thread question could well be Bettis & Monk.

Also, I am not a Steeler fan, but I have been arguing for Bettis on these boards a lot, and I fully agree that Davis was more talented. But that doesn't mean he would be more valuable to my team in this scenario.

Here's the thing, though, with Bettis. Let's assume for argument's sake that there are 30 teams in the league (close enough if there are 32) and that their are 30 starting RBs in the league (I know some teams use more than one back but ignore that for a minute).In theory, the "average" RB would rank as the #15 RB. Using fantasy rankings as the evaluation tool, Bettis only ranked in the Top 15 four times in his 13 year career. In fact, all of those came in his first 5 years in the league. So after 5 seasons, Bettis was actually performing AT A BELOW AVERAGE LEVEL for a RB for his next 8 seasons. So in theory in running this mythical team, you would probably want to consider a RB upgrade over Bettis at 5 years ANYWAY or you would have to live with below average RB production.

So it's really 5 years of Bettis vs 5 years of Davis. Bettis "wins" year 1 and year 5. Davis DOMINATES in the three years in the middle.

Same thing with Monk. He ranked in the Top 15 only 4 times in 16 years, so in 12 of them he was a below average NFL WR1 (by fantasy standards).

Sharpe, on the other hand, had 5 top 10 seasons in his 7 seasons and 4 of them were far better than Monk's best year (again fantasy wise).

If you took Monk, you would start with 4 years of so-so production and end up with 4 years of very little production, meaning in 8 years in the middle you would get 4 years above average and 4 years below average production wise.

Personally, I'd take the dominant years from Davis and Sharpe and worry about looking for replacements over being stuck with Bettis' and Sharpe's combination of 21 years of below average production.

 

[Tau837]

Strictly looking at stats, other than TDs, I wouldn't say Sharpe blew Monk away. Sharpe had some luxuries Monk didn't. Sharpe played in a more receiver-friendly offense. In Sharpe's seven seasons, the Packers threw 3901 passes (37.2 per game). In Monk's first seven seasons, the Redskins threw 3266 passes (31.1 per game - his career number was only 32.1 attempts per game). So, GB threw about 19% more per game than Washington in those respective seven seasons. Also, GB completed 20.4 passes per game compared to Washington's 17.8 (a 14.3% difference).

A few problems here. First off, TDs matter. Monk played exactly twice as many games as Sharpe and scored only 3 more TDs (68-65). You can't remove that from the comparison. Even if it wasn't a negative for Monk because of how the Skins used him, it was most certainly a major positive for Sharpe.Secondly, Sharpe played in 112 games in his 7 seasons, per pro-football-reference.com. 3901 attempts by the Packers equates to 34.8 passing attempts per game, not 37.2 as you claimed here.Third, you shouldn't be comparing Sharpe's first 7 seasons to Monk's first 7, since (a) Monk's career overlapped Sharpe's and (b) a greater emphasis on passing occurred between the first 7 seasons of Monk's career, 1980-1986, and the time that Sharpe played, from 1988-1994. They both played 112 games from 1988-1994, so that should be the comparison. During that time, Monk's teams had 3713 passing attempts, which is 33.2 per game. I really don't think a difference of 1.6 passing attempts per game mattered for purposes of this comparison.

Sharpe caught 26.1% of GB's completions and Monk caught 24.9 % of Washington's completions during those seven years. While that's not a huge margin, I'd say Monk faced greater intrateam competition for the ball at receiver. Monk's career percentage (excluding his final year in Philly, but including his one year with the Jets) was 22.2% because of guys like Gary Clark and Ricky Sanders.

I suspect the wrong comparison (IMO) is used here as above, so I ignored this math.As for intrateam competition for receptions, if it is true that Sharpe had less of it, it is also true that he was the focal point of the defense, and almost certainly faced more double teams, especially since the Packers never had a running game either. That argument cuts both ways.

And, it shouldn't be ignored that Monk NEVER complained that he didn't get the ball enough. He simply did what the team needed him to do. Again, I'd love to hear about Sharpe in these areas because that's what really wins football games.

I'm not sure if you are implying that Sharpe complained...? As far as I know, he also did what the team needed him to do. And they needed him to produce more than Washington needed Monk to produce.

It's a shame we didn't get to see Sharpe more in postseason. He had really good performances in his only two games.

Agreed.

 

[dgreen]

Strictly looking at stats, other than TDs, I wouldn't say Sharpe blew Monk away. Sharpe had some luxuries Monk didn't. Sharpe played in a more receiver-friendly offense. In Sharpe's seven seasons, the Packers threw 3901 passes (37.2 per game). In Monk's first seven seasons, the Redskins threw 3266 passes (31.1 per game - his career number was only 32.1 attempts per game). So, GB threw about 19% more per game than Washington in those respective seven seasons. Also, GB completed 20.4 passes per game compared to Washington's 17.8 (a 14.3% difference).

A few problems here. First off, TDs matter. Monk played exactly twice as many games as Sharpe and scored only 3 more TDs (68-65). You can't remove that from the comparison. Even if it wasn't a negative for Monk because of how the Skins used him, it was most certainly a major positive for Sharpe.

I agree they matter to an extent. But, TDs are largely a result of play calling, not skill. It's not like Sharpe was more skilled in TDs than Monk. It's not like Monk tripped over the five-yard line or had butter fingers whenever he was in the endzone.

Secondly, Sharpe played in 112 games in his 7 seasons, per pro-football-reference.com. 3901 attempts by the Packers equates to 34.8 passing attempts per game, not 37.2 as you claimed here.

Oops, I used the Redskins 105 games played in Monk's first seven seasons as the denominator for Sharpe. My bad. While not as dramatic, it still shows that Sharpe played in a more pass happy offense than Monk.

Third, you shouldn't be comparing Sharpe's first 7 seasons to Monk's first 7, since (a) Monk's career overlapped Sharpe's and (b) a greater emphasis on passing occurred between the first 7 seasons of Monk's career, 1980-1986, and the time that Sharpe played, from 1988-1994. They both played 112 games from 1988-1994, so that should be the comparison. During that time, Monk's teams had 3713 passing attempts, which is 33.2 per game. I really don't think a difference of 1.6 passing attempts per game mattered for purposes of this comparison.

Monk turned 31 years old in 1988. Sharpe turned 23. In 1994, Monk turned 37 and Sharpe 29. That's not a fair comparison. Talent-wise, Monk's best days were over after 1991. He played with absolutely horrible QB play in '92 and '93 and switched teams in '94, while Sharpe started to hook up with a guy named Brett Favre. Not exactly and apples-to-apples comparison.I used Monk's first seven seasons because it matched the number of years for Sharpe and I thought it best matched the idea behind this thread.

And, it shouldn't be ignored that Monk NEVER complained that he didn't get the ball enough. He simply did what the team needed him to do. Again, I'd love to hear about Sharpe in these areas because that's what really wins football games.

I'm not sure if you are implying that Sharpe complained...? As far as I know, he also did what the team needed him to do. And they needed him to produce more than Washington needed Monk to produce.

No, I'm not suggesting he was a compainer. I really don't know much about Sharpe other than his numbers. I only watched him a handful of times. As I said, I'd love some insight from a GB homer who can tell us more about Sharpe than what's in the numbers. From what I know, I'm a Sharpe fan. I just don't think he's as head and shoulders above Monk as most people do. Then again, I love me some Art.