Ladainian Tomlinson HoF? (1 Viewer)

[Koya]

It's certainly true that if you want to talk about how beautiful someone is, stats don't mean much. This discussion about the best runners of all time, so in this discussion, stats mean a lot. If you want to discuss beauty, try the Miss America Pageant.

You can attempt to take one word I use and harp on that... but if you want to talk about best runner ever? LT2 may have had a better career, but Sayers was a far better runner, putting both at their healthy peak.LT2s career is better than his raw running ability imo.And beautiful is not just aesthetic here. Sayers could, and DID do things with the football that no one I have seen can touch. Faulk had some of it, Barry was a different style but some of it ... but Sayers was still the best pure runner and LT2 wouldnt be in my discussion for that throne.

As I touched upon before, the players you mentioned all had very good Sports Center highlight tapes. Players like LT for the most part didn't have those moves/jukes/cuts to fake people out, twist defenders ankles from a cutback, etc. so in terms of "beauty" I agree that the other players you mentioned had more pure running skills. But as others have mentioned it's not all about who looked prettier doing it.For example, I remember Bo Jackson was a skill freak when he played. But he played baseball and was a part time player in addition to getting hurt. Bo ended with a 5.4 ypc and had speed to birn. But no one seems to consider him in these great running back debates . . .

I hear you, but its not about the aesthetic beauty, its about what that beauty represented in regard to a skill set. I saw Faulks career... it was not just pretty. He did magical things on the field. You can argue the system helped or whatnot, but I saw skills in him that LT2 simply never had. And Faulk blocked, caught the ball as well or better than ANY RB ive see... So beauty to me is not "pretty" it is a representation of a skill set when a player can do things on his own, even on a bad team, with no blocking etc... I didnt see that as much with LT2 as those I have listed above him.

 

[David Yudkin]

No one is in Sayers stratosphere in my personal eye test. Damn, the guy put moves on defenders who were behind him but had the angle. Just ungodly and beautiful.

Here's the problem I have with Sayers (and some other similar players). We've all seen the highlight reel plays and he was extrememly elusive on those plays. But there were plenty of other plays . . . nondescript ones . . . that we DIDN'T see.Sayers BEFORE he got hurt and was never the same averaged slightly below 15 carries a game. He had a ypc in the 5.0 to 5.1 range. That's basically 75 yards rushing a game, which even back then wasn't earth shaking. I'm not knocking his skills, but he didn't get the ball a ton and only had a 5 year window where he was productive.

I realize that was a different era, but if a player only got the ball 14 times a game and produced 65-75 yards a game on the ground, no one would really be talking about him as a HOF candidate. IMO, Sayers got inducted for what could have been and some great skills, but numbers wise he's a fringe HOF guy in my book.

When I first started reading up on Sayers and then the HoF induction, I thought to myself, that's nice of the NFL to allow some guys in that were not shoe ins due to their numbers. Sayers numbers by themself...was it any better than Terrell Davis?

I mentioned this in another thread recently, but we can only evaluate people at the time they played. Sayers played in an era where injuries often limited career longevity. Most players, especially RBs, only lasted a few years. So voters compared Sayers to his peers at the time.If we jump ahead 30 to 40 years, careers are much longer than that era, science and technology have made many formerly career ending injuries just a bump in the road, and there are way more players with lengthy careers. So players with short careers in this era will be penalized for having shorter careers. Players like Davis, Holmes, Sterling Sharpe, etc. may have been great but don't have big career totals in an era where there will be no shortage of guys with big career numbers. If RBs only played for 6 or 7 seasons, than Davis would have an excellent chance to make the HOF. But that's not how the game has evolved, and I think TD will struggle to get in the "front door" of voting (he may have a better chance of induction through the Veteran's Committee down the road IMO).

 

[dgreen]

No one is in Sayers stratosphere in my personal eye test. Damn, the guy put moves on defenders who were behind him but had the angle. Just ungodly and beautiful.

Here's the problem I have with Sayers (and some other similar players). We've all seen the highlight reel plays and he was extrememly elusive on those plays. But there were plenty of other plays . . . nondescript ones . . . that we DIDN'T see.Sayers BEFORE he got hurt and was never the same averaged slightly below 15 carries a game. He had a ypc in the 5.0 to 5.1 range. That's basically 75 yards rushing a game, which even back then wasn't earth shaking. I'm not knocking his skills, but he didn't get the ball a ton and only had a 5 year window where he was productive.

I realize that was a different era, but if a player only got the ball 14 times a game and produced 65-75 yards a game on the ground, no one would really be talking about him as a HOF candidate. IMO, Sayers got inducted for what could have been and some great skills, but numbers wise he's a fringe HOF guy in my book.

When I first started reading up on Sayers and then the HoF induction, I thought to myself, that's nice of the NFL to allow some guys in that were not shoe ins due to their numbers. Sayers numbers by themself...was it any better than Terrell Davis?

They didn't just "allow" him in. He was a 1st ballot HOFer. He was a lock. He was 1st Team All Pro 5 times in his first 5 years before the injury. He was named the All Time Halfback in 1969 at the NFL's 50th Anniversary. He's one of the RBs on the 75th Anniversary Team.

 

[Mikey16x]

This thread is stupid, I'm not even an L.T fan and there is no way he doesn't get in first ballot. Oh but I saw it a couple of times and I'm one of the few who would probably put Marshall Faulk above L.T.

 

[David Yudkin]

Simpson was great for a few years but it took a while for him to get started and his performance level fell off after that with time missed from injuries and generally getting older. He was insanely good in three years (73, 75, 76). I rmember his last 3 games in 76 when he had almost 650 rushing.

I would agree at his peak/in his prime that Simpson was awesome. So I guess my question is what are we ranking on . . . career totals? Individual seasons? How they looked?

Tomlinson put up pick numbers but never really looked phenomenal in doing it. Someone like Emmitt got the job done by moving the chains, not with 75 yard runs. Someone like Faulk likely benefited from teams having to play off the line and cover multiple receivers . . . so he would often have more room to run and played mostly indoors on turf. There are a lot of variables that could have to be reviewed. Not knowing what the criteria for a Top 5 list are, it's tough to pick.

I've been seriously watching football since around 1982, and IMO Tomlinson was a phenomenal runner in his prime. I think he's better than anyone I've personally watched except for maybe (as I said earlier) Payton. And that's a maybe. I've also watched more NFL Films presentations in that time than I care to remember and Jim Brown is the only other guy I would maybe take ahead of him. My opinion, of course.

My point was that LT didn't have a ton of plays like Sanders where he took a busted play, ran backwards, sideways, spun several times, and faked out the entire defense to break off an 80 yard TD. He didn't have many plays like Tony Dorsett where he sprinted 99 yards and outran everyone on the field. He didn't have many plays where he bowled over a half dozen defenders and dragged 3 of them the last 30 yards down the field like Earl Campbell. I'm not knocking him for any of that. His numbers and results speak for themselves, and taking a play off tackle for an 18 yard TD without a lot of fanfare counts just as much as highlight reel plays. Maybe he made it look too easy. Maybe he wasn't as flashy. IMO, I care more about the stat sheet, the TDs, and if he helped his team win. Emmitt Smith seems to have the same reputation of never being a great RB (in some people's eyes), so I guess it's different strokes for different folks.

 

[TommyGilmore]

While he is a lock HoFer, his sudden and precipitous fall (though not uncommon for a back) has taken him out of the running for greatest ever or even top 3 all time, IMO.

Go back three years, and had he a couple more of those peak years you could make an argument as the best all around back ever... I also remember him talking about getting to and passing E. Smith for the overall rushing record. Neither are a reality now.

If he wants to hang on and compile while being a shadow of his former self for several years like Emmitt did, anything is possible.

It's something of a myth that Emmitt merely "hung on" his last few years. Yes, he had declined (as any RB would be expected to decline from the ages of 32-35), but he was still an above average RB. As a starter his last 4 seasons he put up the equivalent of 1000 yards at 3.7 YPC.I don't think Tomlinson at age 31 could do what Emmitt did at age 35.

 

[Tau837]

No one is in Sayers stratosphere in my personal eye test. Damn, the guy put moves on defenders who were behind him but had the angle. Just ungodly and beautiful.

Here's the problem I have with Sayers (and some other similar players). We've all seen the highlight reel plays and he was extrememly elusive on those plays. But there were plenty of other plays . . . nondescript ones . . . that we DIDN'T see.Sayers BEFORE he got hurt and was never the same averaged slightly below 15 carries a game. He had a ypc in the 5.0 to 5.1 range. That's basically 75 yards rushing a game, which even back then wasn't earth shaking. I'm not knocking his skills, but he didn't get the ball a ton and only had a 5 year window where he was productive.I realize that was a different era, but if a player only got the ball 14 times a game and produced 65-75 yards a game on the ground, no one would really be talking about him as a HOF candidate. IMO, Sayers got inducted for what could have been and some great skills, but numbers wise he's a fringe HOF guy in my book.

Do you think he was 1st team All Pro in each of his first 5 seasons (before his career ending injury) because of "what could have been"? IMO you're completely off base here. For one thing, you are knocking him for "only" producing 73 rushing yards per game (his career average) without acknowledging that he led the league in rushing yards per game in 3 of his 5 healthy seasons... and was 3rd in the league in the other 2 healthy seasons. If you are going to judge him "numbers-wise" maybe you should consider putting those numbers in context.He was inducted because he was one of the best running backs of all time, not because he "might have been" one of the best if he hadn't been hurt.

 

[Tau837]

No one is in Sayers stratosphere in my personal eye test. Damn, the guy put moves on defenders who were behind him but had the angle. Just ungodly and beautiful.

Here's the problem I have with Sayers (and some other similar players). We've all seen the highlight reel plays and he was extrememly elusive on those plays. But there were plenty of other plays . . . nondescript ones . . . that we DIDN'T see.Sayers BEFORE he got hurt and was never the same averaged slightly below 15 carries a game. He had a ypc in the 5.0 to 5.1 range. That's basically 75 yards rushing a game, which even back then wasn't earth shaking. I'm not knocking his skills, but he didn't get the ball a ton and only had a 5 year window where he was productive.

I realize that was a different era, but if a player only got the ball 14 times a game and produced 65-75 yards a game on the ground, no one would really be talking about him as a HOF candidate. IMO, Sayers got inducted for what could have been and some great skills, but numbers wise he's a fringe HOF guy in my book.

When I first started reading up on Sayers and then the HoF induction, I thought to myself, that's nice of the NFL to allow some guys in that were not shoe ins due to their numbers. Sayers numbers by themself...was it any better than Terrell Davis?

They didn't just "allow" him in. He was a 1st ballot HOFer. He was a lock. He was 1st Team All Pro 5 times in his first 5 years before the injury. He was named the All Time Halfback in 1969 at the NFL's 50th Anniversary. He's one of the RBs on the 75th Anniversary Team.

 

[David Yudkin]

No one is in Sayers stratosphere in my personal eye test. Damn, the guy put moves on defenders who were behind him but had the angle. Just ungodly and beautiful.

Here's the problem I have with Sayers (and some other similar players). We've all seen the highlight reel plays and he was extrememly elusive on those plays. But there were plenty of other plays . . . nondescript ones . . . that we DIDN'T see.Sayers BEFORE he got hurt and was never the same averaged slightly below 15 carries a game. He had a ypc in the 5.0 to 5.1 range. That's basically 75 yards rushing a game, which even back then wasn't earth shaking. I'm not knocking his skills, but he didn't get the ball a ton and only had a 5 year window where he was productive.I realize that was a different era, but if a player only got the ball 14 times a game and produced 65-75 yards a game on the ground, no one would really be talking about him as a HOF candidate. IMO, Sayers got inducted for what could have been and some great skills, but numbers wise he's a fringe HOF guy in my book.

Do you think he was 1st team All Pro in each of his first 5 seasons (before his career ending injury) because of "what could have been"? IMO you're completely off base here. For one thing, you are knocking him for "only" producing 73 rushing yards per game (his career average) without acknowledging that he led the league in rushing yards per game in 3 of his 5 healthy seasons... and was 3rd in the league in the other 2 healthy seasons. If you are going to judge him "numbers-wise" maybe you should consider putting those numbers in context.He was inducted because he was one of the best running backs of all time, not because he "might have been" one of the best if he hadn't been hurt.

I understand that he was revered in the league at the time . . . I meant "what could have been" in terms of his career totals.As for leading the league as you indicated, IIRC he led the "NFL" but the AFL had their own records so there were two leagues at the time. And one year he was credited for leading the league in rushing yards per game he more than a third of the season. Also, several players averageg 80, 90, 100 yards rushing per game before and after Sayers years at the top (guys like Jim Brown, Jim Taylor, Leroy Kelly, Larry Brown, etc.). Sayers happened to lead the league in a couple of off years for rushing yds/gm.

 

[Sidewinder16]

...and I think TD will struggle to get in the "front door" of voting (he may have a better chance of induction through the Veteran's Committee down the road IMO).

What exactly do you mean by this? That he will struggle to get inducted, or that he will struggle to even be considered for induction?He's been one of the 25 semifinalists the past 4 years (I believe every year he's been eligible). He's been seriously considered since he's been eligible, IMO.

 

[Bull Dozier]

While he is a lock HoFer, his sudden and precipitous fall (though not uncommon for a back) has taken him out of the running for greatest ever or even top 3 all time, IMO.

Go back three years, and had he a couple more of those peak years you could make an argument as the best all around back ever... I also remember him talking about getting to and passing E. Smith for the overall rushing record. Neither are a reality now.

If he wants to hang on and compile while being a shadow of his former self for several years like Emmitt did, anything is possible.

It's something of a myth that Emmitt merely "hung on" his last few years. Yes, he had declined (as any RB would be expected to decline from the ages of 32-35), but he was still an above average RB. As a starter his last 4 seasons he put up the equivalent of 1000 yards at 3.7 YPC.I don't think Tomlinson at age 31 could do what Emmitt did at age 35.

I disagree with just about everything you've said in that post. Emmitt was definitely just hanging on. There's nothing above average about a 3.7 YPC over several years. I also remember watching him play. He was barely servicable, much less above average.

 

[David Yudkin]

...and I think TD will struggle to get in the "front door" of voting (he may have a better chance of induction through the Veteran's Committee down the road IMO).

What exactly do you mean by this? That he will struggle to get inducted, or that he will struggle to even be considered for induction?He's been one of the 25 semifinalists the past 4 years (I believe every year he's been eligible). He's been seriously considered since he's been eligible, IMO.

IMO, will struggle to get inducted by the main voting process. As you said, he's been a semifinalist 4 times . . . but not a finalist. As the years go forward, there are many, many RB options coming up for induction IN ADDITION TO a lot of players that were elite performers with lengthy careers at other positions coming up for induction. None of that helps Davis.Look at some of the guys that DIDN'T get in. Cris Carter, Shannon Sharpe, Tim Brown, etc. One would have to think that if they are having trouble getting in that Davis would be a lot farther on the induction totem pole, no?

Again IMO, if Davis had a huge groundswell of getting in, it would have happened already. We know his numbers aren't going to get any better. And there's guys like Faulk, Martin, Bettis, Edge, LT etc. likely coming up soon.

I think the Veteran's Committee may give him more of a look than the regular voting panel once he is eligible, just like they just did with Floyd Little.

 

[CalBear]

It's certainly true that if you want to talk about how beautiful someone is, stats don't mean much. This discussion about the best runners of all time, so in this discussion, stats mean a lot. If you want to discuss beauty, try the Miss America Pageant.

You can attempt to take one word I use and harp on that... but if you want to talk about best runner ever? LT2 may have had a better career, but Sayers was a far better runner, putting both at their healthy peak.

And was Bo Jackson at his healthy peak better than Sayers? He had some great runs, too.Part of the reason LT is one of the best backs of all time is that he carried the ball a lot, for many years, and was productive for a long time; you can't say that Sayers is better than him because Sayers had some good looking runs against relatively weak competition, any more than you can say that Bo Jackson is better than Sayers.Tomlinson has five seasons which are better than Sayers' best season by any reasonable metric. Sayers never averaged 100 rushing yards/game in a season: Tomlinson did it three times. If Sayers was such an incredible pure runner, why didn't he put up rushing numbers?

 

[Sidewinder16]

As I touched upon before, the players you mentioned all had very good Sports Center highlight tapes. Players like LT for the most part didn't have those moves/jukes/cuts to fake people out, twist defenders ankles from a cutback, etc. so in terms of "beauty" I agree that the other players you mentioned had more pure running skills. But as others have mentioned it's not all about who looked prettier doing it.

For example, I remember Bo Jackson was a skill freak when he played. But he played baseball and was a part time player in addition to getting hurt. Bo ended with a 5.4 ypc and had speed to birn. But no one seems to consider him in these great running back debates . . .

Maybe I'm reading into your use of this phrase in a way that you're not intending, but it sounds to me like you think "highlight" reels are a bad way to make any sort of judgement on players. Is this accurate, or am I off base here?IMO, there may be occasions where a simple highlight reel may not be a good tool for evaluating a player (evaluations can obviously be made for numerous reasons). The greatest example of a bad time to use highlight reels, in my mind, is judging college players for the NFL draft. In that case, highlight reels can be very misleading. But I think when you're talking about greatest NFL players ever it can be a solid indicator (not the end all/be all, but definitely a solid indicator) of how good/great a player is/was, IMO.

Out of curiosity, how many players would you say can put together greater Sports Center highlight reels than Sayers?

 

[David Yudkin]

It's certainly true that if you want to talk about how beautiful someone is, stats don't mean much. This discussion about the best runners of all time, so in this discussion, stats mean a lot. If you want to discuss beauty, try the Miss America Pageant.

You can attempt to take one word I use and harp on that... but if you want to talk about best runner ever? LT2 may have had a better career, but Sayers was a far better runner, putting both at their healthy peak.

And was Bo Jackson at his healthy peak better than Sayers? He had some great runs, too.Part of the reason LT is one of the best backs of all time is that he carried the ball a lot, for many years, and was productive for a long time; you can't say that Sayers is better than him because Sayers had some good looking runs against relatively weak competition, any more than you can say that Bo Jackson is better than Sayers.Tomlinson has five seasons which are better than Sayers' best season by any reasonable metric. Sayers never averaged 100 rushing yards/game in a season: Tomlinson did it three times. If Sayers was such an incredible pure runner, why didn't he put up rushing numbers?

Because RBs didn't get the ball 20-25 times a game like they do now. From 1960-1970, only 5 times did a RB average 20 carries a game.From 2000-2009, there were 56 players that had 320 or more carries, and I didn't even bother to look at who averaged 20+ carries a game that missed a game or two.

 

[Sidewinder16]

...and I think TD will struggle to get in the "front door" of voting (he may have a better chance of induction through the Veteran's Committee down the road IMO).

What exactly do you mean by this? That he will struggle to get inducted, or that he will struggle to even be considered for induction?He's been one of the 25 semifinalists the past 4 years (I believe every year he's been eligible). He's been seriously considered since he's been eligible, IMO.

IMO, will struggle to get inducted by the main voting process. As you said, he's been a semifinalist 4 times . . . but not a finalist. As the years go forward, there are many, many RB options coming up for induction IN ADDITION TO a lot of players that were elite performers with lengthy careers at other positions coming up for induction. None of that helps Davis.Look at some of the guys that DIDN'T get in. Cris Carter, Shannon Sharpe, Tim Brown, etc. One would have to think that if they are having trouble getting in that Davis would be a lot farther on the induction totem pole, no?

Again IMO, if Davis had a huge groundswell of getting in, it would have happened already. We know his numbers aren't going to get any better. And there's guys like Faulk, Martin, Bettis, Edge, LT etc. likely coming up soon.

I think the Veteran's Committee may give him more of a look than the regular voting panel once he is eligible, just like they just did with Floyd Little.

I certainly don't believe Davis is any sort of shoe-in to be inducted anytime soon, but I think he's definitely got his shoe in the door and is banging on it pretty hard. I suppose it's fair to describe that as "struggling to get in the front door", I just wasn't sure if that's how you were using the phrase.

 

[ckl81]

Clearly he's a HoFer, as most of the discussion in this thread has been how he ranks with the likes of Sayers, Jim Brown, Barry, Faulk, etc.

 

[David Yudkin]

As I touched upon before, the players you mentioned all had very good Sports Center highlight tapes. Players like LT for the most part didn't have those moves/jukes/cuts to fake people out, twist defenders ankles from a cutback, etc. so in terms of "beauty" I agree that the other players you mentioned had more pure running skills. But as others have mentioned it's not all about who looked prettier doing it.

For example, I remember Bo Jackson was a skill freak when he played. But he played baseball and was a part time player in addition to getting hurt. Bo ended with a 5.4 ypc and had speed to birn. But no one seems to consider him in these great running back debates . . .

Maybe I'm reading into your use of this phrase in a way that you're not intending, but it sounds to me like you think "highlight" reels are a bad way to make any sort of judgement on players. Is this accurate, or am I off base here?IMO, there may be occasions where a simple highlight reel may not be a good tool for evaluating a player (evaluations can obviously be made for numerous reasons). The greatest example of a bad time to use highlight reels, in my mind, is judging college players for the NFL draft. In that case, highlight reels can be very misleading. But I think when you're talking about greatest NFL players ever it can be a solid indicator (not the end all/be all, but definitely a solid indicator) of how good/great a player is/was, IMO.

Out of curiosity, how many players would you say can put together greater Sports Center highlight reels than Sayers?

My point was not that players should or should not have highlight reel plays, but there are far more plays that aren't highlight reel plays for every player in the league. That's where the numbers come in. LT had great numbers for a lot of years but fewer highlight reel moments. Does that make one greater than the other?Lynn Swann had great highlight reel plays when he was in the limelight and on national tv (which back then didn't happen very often). So IMO Swann got the benefit of acrobatic catches in the SB but his regular season performance did not match his Sports Center moments. But histpry will remember the great plays that there is viso of . . . not the many other games when he didn't do much.

 

[David Yudkin]

...and I think TD will struggle to get in the "front door" of voting (he may have a better chance of induction through the Veteran's Committee down the road IMO).

What exactly do you mean by this? That he will struggle to get inducted, or that he will struggle to even be considered for induction?He's been one of the 25 semifinalists the past 4 years (I believe every year he's been eligible). He's been seriously considered since he's been eligible, IMO.

IMO, will struggle to get inducted by the main voting process. As you said, he's been a semifinalist 4 times . . . but not a finalist. As the years go forward, there are many, many RB options coming up for induction IN ADDITION TO a lot of players that were elite performers with lengthy careers at other positions coming up for induction. None of that helps Davis.Look at some of the guys that DIDN'T get in. Cris Carter, Shannon Sharpe, Tim Brown, etc. One would have to think that if they are having trouble getting in that Davis would be a lot farther on the induction totem pole, no?

Again IMO, if Davis had a huge groundswell of getting in, it would have happened already. We know his numbers aren't going to get any better. And there's guys like Faulk, Martin, Bettis, Edge, LT etc. likely coming up soon.

I think the Veteran's Committee may give him more of a look than the regular voting panel once he is eligible, just like they just did with Floyd Little.

I certainly don't believe Davis is any sort of shoe-in to be inducted anytime soon, but I think he's definitely got his shoe in the door and is banging on it pretty hard. I suppose it's fair to describe that as "struggling to get in the front door", I just wasn't sure if that's how you were using the phrase.

I would have more of a positive vibe if Davis had been a finalist already. The guys that get in each year will be restocked with several other guys that in the next few years will feature some real no brainer inductees. So Davis will have a really hard time climbing the pecking order for induction.

 

[CaptainHook]

It's not fair to keep comparing the individual facets of LT's game to the greatest players of that particular skill. No he wasn't as quick as barry. No he wasn't as powerful as jim brown. He wasn't quite the receiver that faulk was. What made LT so good is that he was great at every aspect of being an RB. While not other-wordly in any one skill, cumulatively he may be the best RB to have ever played.

Please stop bringing up Emmitt; LT was vastly superior to him in all ways besides situation. LOL @ citing 3.7ypc as evidence that he wasn't washed up.

 

[Sidewinder16]

My point was not that players should or should not have highlight reel plays, but there are far more plays that aren't highlight reel plays for every player in the league. That's where the numbers come in. LT had great numbers for a lot of years but fewer highlight reel moments. Does that make one greater than the other? Lynn Swann had great highlight reel plays when he was in the limelight and on national tv (which back then didn't happen very often). So IMO Swann got the benefit of acrobatic catches in the SB but his regular season performance did not match his Sports Center moments. But histpry will remember the great plays that there is viso of . . . not the many other games when he didn't do much.

I get that. I guess it just seems to me that great highlight reels get put together by great players. Sure every RB has tons of "3 yards and a cloud of dust" runs, or even being tackled for a loss. What separates the average, or just "good", players from the greats is the stuff highlight reels are made of, IMO. Sure, we all can recall the average players having a great highlight or two, but the greats seem to be able to have whole episodes worth of highlight footage. And it's not necessarily just the Barry Sanders running around in circles near the LOS before breaking out and going 80 yards for the score that makes great highlights. I could watch hours of stuff like Emmitt playing with a broken collarbone (in the playoffs?).IMO, we remember the great plays because great players made them, and more than just a time or two. Lynn Swann didn't merely have more opportunities than other WRs to be in the national spotlight. He had those opportunities and did miraculous things during them.

 

[cobalt_27]

What are your all's thoughts?

Thanks for starting such a rich topic.

 

[David Yudkin]

My point was not that players should or should not have highlight reel plays, but there are far more plays that aren't highlight reel plays for every player in the league. That's where the numbers come in. LT had great numbers for a lot of years but fewer highlight reel moments. Does that make one greater than the other? Lynn Swann had great highlight reel plays when he was in the limelight and on national tv (which back then didn't happen very often). So IMO Swann got the benefit of acrobatic catches in the SB but his regular season performance did not match his Sports Center moments. But histpry will remember the great plays that there is viso of . . . not the many other games when he didn't do much.

I get that. I guess it just seems to me that great highlight reels get put together by great players. Sure every RB has tons of "3 yards and a cloud of dust" runs, or even being tackled for a loss. What separates the average, or just "good", players from the greats is the stuff highlight reels are made of, IMO. Sure, we all can recall the average players having a great highlight or two, but the greats seem to be able to have whole episodes worth of highlight footage. And it's not necessarily just the Barry Sanders running around in circles near the LOS before breaking out and going 80 yards for the score that makes great highlights. I could watch hours of stuff like Emmitt playing with a broken collarbone (in the playoffs?).IMO, we remember the great plays because great players made them, and more than just a time or two. Lynn Swann didn't merely have more opportunities than other WRs to be in the national spotlight. He had those opportunities and did miraculous things during them.

I'm not really arguing anything here, just pointing out a couple of things. Which is better, the RB that has a portfolio of highlight reel runs with a 3.9 career ypc or the guy that has a closet full of 5-6 yard runs and a 4.8 ypc? Which one is better for the team?Take a guy like Deion Branch. He had some spectacular post season games for the Patriots. Yet he had just as many games where he did NOTHING. And I literally mean close to nothing. But since he did well when the lights were on (at least some times). He had the same issue in the regular season as well, having a couple 100 yard games but almost half the time disappearing and getting 2-3 catches for 30 yards. But since people remember the big tv games, people in NE balked when they traded him as if he were the second coming.As far as Swann went, he averaged over 120 yards a game in his last 3 Super Bowls. He averaged 47 yards a game over his career. But people will always remember the circus catches and pretty soon not many folks will even remember him as a player without the highlights. Certainly a big game player . . . regular season not so much.

 

[TommyGilmore]

There's nothing above average about a 3.7 YPC over several years.

Sure there is. There were 240 RBs who played in the NFL from 2001-2004, but only 25 of them averaged 3.7 YPC and 55 yards per game. Smith was one of them.Granted, 55 yards per game is nothing special. But it's still above average.

 

[Bull Dozier]

There's nothing above average about a 3.7 YPC over several years.

Sure there is. There were 240 RBs who played in the NFL from 2001-2004, but only 25 of them averaged 3.7 YPC and 55 yards per game. Smith was one of them.Granted, 55 yards per game is nothing special. But it's still above average.

Are you elastic man? That's the biggest stretch I've ever seen.

 

[JJP]

This has to be one of the most one-sided polls in FBG history.

 

[David Yudkin]

This has to be one of the most one-sided polls in FBG history.

Only 94% of people voted yes . . . which is 6% too low.

 

[IDrinkyourMilkshake]

Hall of Very Good IMO.

 

[cobalt_27]

Hall of Very Good IMO.

Watch 10 more years of football before posting again.

 

[Jason Wood]

Hall of Very Good IMO.

I'm going to presume you have much, much, MUCH more stringent requirements for the Hall of Fame than the -- you know -- ACTUAL Hall of Fame.

 

[IDrinkyourMilkshake]

Hall of Very Good IMO.

I'm going to presume you have much, much, MUCH more stringent requirements for the Hall of Fame than the -- you know -- ACTUAL Hall of Fame.

I was just being sarcastic.

 

[Csonka4life]

No one is in Sayers stratosphere in my personal eye test. Damn, the guy put moves on defenders who were behind him but had the angle. Just ungodly and beautiful.

Here's the problem I have with Sayers (and some other similar players). We've all seen the highlight reel plays and he was extrememly elusive on those plays. But there were plenty of other plays . . . nondescript ones . . . that we DIDN'T see.Sayers BEFORE he got hurt and was never the same averaged slightly below 15 carries a game. He had a ypc in the 5.0 to 5.1 range. That's basically 75 yards rushing a game, which even back then wasn't earth shaking. I'm not knocking his skills, but he didn't get the ball a ton and only had a 5 year window where he was productive.I realize that was a different era, but if a player only got the ball 14 times a game and produced 65-75 yards a game on the ground, no one would really be talking about him as a HOF candidate. IMO, Sayers got inducted for what could have been and some great skills, but numbers wise he's a fringe HOF guy in my book.

Do you think he was 1st team All Pro in each of his first 5 seasons (before his career ending injury) because of "what could have been"? IMO you're completely off base here. For one thing, you are knocking him for "only" producing 73 rushing yards per game (his career average) without acknowledging that he led the league in rushing yards per game in 3 of his 5 healthy seasons... and was 3rd in the league in the other 2 healthy seasons. If you are going to judge him "numbers-wise" maybe you should consider putting those numbers in context.He was inducted because he was one of the best running backs of all time, not because he "might have been" one of the best if he hadn't been hurt.

Otherwise Billy Sims, Dickie Post and others would be hall of famers too.

 

[Bri]

unreal that anyone would vote no

 

[Deranged Hermit]

...and I think TD will struggle to get in the "front door" of voting (he may have a better chance of induction through the Veteran's Committee down the road IMO).

What exactly do you mean by this? That he will struggle to get inducted, or that he will struggle to even be considered for induction?He's been one of the 25 semifinalists the past 4 years (I believe every year he's been eligible). He's been seriously considered since he's been eligible, IMO.

IMO, will struggle to get inducted by the main voting process. As you said, he's been a semifinalist 4 times . . . but not a finalist. As the years go forward, there are many, many RB options coming up for induction IN ADDITION TO a lot of players that were elite performers with lengthy careers at other positions coming up for induction. None of that helps Davis.Look at some of the guys that DIDN'T get in. Cris Carter, Shannon Sharpe, Tim Brown, etc. One would have to think that if they are having trouble getting in that Davis would be a lot farther on the induction totem pole, no?

Again IMO, if Davis had a huge groundswell of getting in, it would have happened already. We know his numbers aren't going to get any better. And there's guys like Faulk, Martin, Bettis, Edge, LT etc. likely coming up soon.

I think the Veteran's Committee may give him more of a look than the regular voting panel once he is eligible, just like they just did with Floyd Little.

I certainly don't believe Davis is any sort of shoe-in to be inducted anytime soon, but I think he's definitely got his shoe in the door and is banging on it pretty hard. I suppose it's fair to describe that as "struggling to get in the front door", I just wasn't sure if that's how you were using the phrase.

It's criminal that we didn't get to see more of what TD could do. I just loved watching him play and really hope he's in the Hall one day, like he deserves to be.....

 

[dgreen]

unreal that anyone would vote no

They aren't serious votes.

 

[switz]

I don't think Tomlinson at age 31 could do what Emmitt did at age 35.

We seem to always fall into the trap of remembering past greats to be greater than they were.One of the things that separates LT from Emmitt IMO, is that Emmitt for most of his career played behind a dominating OL, one of the best run blocking units I've ever seen. LT for the first half of his career played behind a horrible OL. Someone talked about never seeing LT make someone miss, I'm not sure that person ever saw LT play outside of the past 3 years. LT was the master of making a small move, just enough to elude a tackler and get downfield. It was beautiful to watch.It's hard to know what LT could do next season, as he missed two games this year, and hasn't been 100% in a LONG time.However, at 35 Emmitt averaged 3.5YPC, rushed for 937 yards and 9 TDs. I'm 100% certain LT could do that next year in the right situation.I would take LT's first 7 years over Emmitt's first 7 years. LT 10650 yards, 115 TDsEmmitt 10160 yards, 108TDsAnd that was with Emmitt playing behind a far better OL for most of that time.Send LT somewhere with a decent run blocking OL, and I think he'll put up 1000 plus for a couple more years.

 

[fissure man]

I don't think Tomlinson at age 31 could do what Emmitt did at age 35.

We seem to always fall into the trap of remembering past greats to be greater than they were.

One of the things that separates LT from Emmitt IMO, is that Emmitt for most of his career played behind a dominating OL, one of the best run blocking units I've ever seen. LT for the first half of his career played behind a horrible OL. Someone talked about never seeing LT make someone miss, I'm not sure that person ever saw LT play outside of the past 3 years. LT was the master of making a small move, just enough to elude a tackler and get downfield. It was beautiful to watch.

It's hard to know what LT could do next season, as he missed two games this year, and hasn't been 100% in a LONG time.

However, at 35 Emmitt averaged 3.5YPC, rushed for 937 yards and 9 TDs. I'm 100% certain LT could do that next year in the right situation.

100% certain? Well I hope he does better then last year, when he averaged 3.3 yards a carry, at the ripe old age of 31.

I would take LT's first 7 years over Emmitt's first 7 years.

LT 10650 yards, 115 TDs

Emmitt 10160 yards, 108TDs

And that was with Emmitt playing behind a far better OL for most of that time.

I bet you would. LT was going up against the likes of Denver, KC, and Oakland his entire career. Difficult to compare the two, because of the NFL realignment in 2002, but for some perspective...1990-1996 defensive rankings for yards:

Giants - 2, 7, 18, 5, 11, 17, 14

Eagles - 22, 1, 6, 17, 4, 4, 5

Redskins - 14, 3, 7, 26, 26, 18, 28

Cardinals - 18, 16, 24, 21, 3, 26, 21

Defensive rankings LT faced his first 7 years, 2001 - 2007

Raiders - 18, 11, 30, 30, 27, 3, 22

Broncos - 8, 6, 4, 4, 15, 14, 19

Chiefs - 23, 32, 29, 31, 25, 16, 13

Seatle - 20 (2001 only)

Emmitt faced 11 top 10 defenses, and 7 top 5 defenses his first 7 years.

LT faced 5 top 10 defenses, 3 top five defenses his first 7 years.

Again, it's not a 100% fair comparison because of the realignment. I'm sure as hell not going back year by year. But let's be fair and just call that even, even though I highly doubt any of the teams LT faced could possibly close that gap.

So lets say LT faced an equal amount of top 5 & top 10 defenses.

From 1990-1996 Emmitt Smith also...

Played in 15 playoff games:

1,413 yards (4.4) 19 TDs, adding 44 receptions for 318 yards and 2 more TD's.

(The bolded portions were NFL records he improved on later)

Oh, he also managed to pick up a league MVP, and Super Bowl MVP, along with 3 Super Bowl rings.

LT's playoff resume....

7 games:

327 yards (3.4) 4 TD's, adding 19 receptions for 157 yards, 4 TD's

Please refrain from mentioning LT, who's most memorable playoff images are of him sulking on the bench, in the same breath as an all time NFL legend like Emmitt Smith.

 

[CalBear]

100% certain? Well I hope he does better then last year, when he averaged 3.3 yars a carry.

Emmitt rushed for 2.8 yards per carry at 34.

 

[fissure man]

100% certain? Well I hope he does better then last year, when he averaged 3.3 yars a carry.

Emmitt rushed for 2.8 yards per carry at 34.

LOL, look at Brick using the computer.

 

[switz]

From 1990-1996 Emmitt Smith also...

Played in 15 playoff games:

1,413 yards (4.4) 19 TDs, adding 44 receptions for 318 yards and 2 more TD's.

(The bolded portions were NFL records he improved on later)

Oh, he also managed to pick up a league MVP, and Super Bowl MVP, along with 3 Super Bowl rings.

LT's playoff resume....

7 games:

327 yards (3.4) 4 TD's, adding 19 receptions for 157 yards, 4 TD's

Please refrain from mentioning LT, who's most memorable playoff images are of him sulking on the bench, in the same breath as an all time NFL legend like Emmitt Smith.

ROFL @ someone again trying to use playoffs to prove one player is better than another. LT played on pretty crappy teams, that's why SD was in a position to take him, Brees, and Rivers so highly. Emmitt played on great teams, hardly even close to comparable.And once again, as you totally ignored... LT played behind a pretty terrible OL for much of his career, whereas Emmitt played behind one of the consistently best lines of his era. OLs generally make the RB, and if you take Emmitt out of DAL and put him in SD, I hardly expect he'd do nearly as good as LT did.

 

[switz]

100% certain? Well I hope he does better then last year, when he averaged 3.3 yars a carry.

Emmitt rushed for 2.8 yards per carry at 34.

LOL, look at Brick using the computer.

Look at fissure man having no response to real facts.

 

[Touchdown Syndrome]

Hey guys...Peyton Manning....Hall-of-Famer? What are y'all's thoughts??

Seriously, all this poll has shown us is that 12 trolls have visited this thread to vote "no".

 

[Koya]

Please refrain from mentioning LT unless you are referencing Lawrence Taylor as LT2, good as he was, is not even close to LT in terms of his impact on the game nor his place amongst all time greats at his position

LT2 would have to go for nearly 20k rushing yards before coming close to usurping the LT monicker from the greatest linebacker ever and quick possibly greatest defensive player in the history of the game.

 

[Koya]

Please refrain from mentioning LT unless you are referencing Lawrence Taylor. LT2, good as he was, is not even close to LT in terms of his impact on the game nor his place amongst all time greats at his position

LT2 would have to go for nearly 20k rushing yards before coming close to usurping the LT monicker from the greatest linebacker ever and quick possibly greatest defensive player in the history of the game.

 

[fissure man]

100% certain? Well I hope he does better then last year, when he averaged 3.3 yars a carry.

Emmitt rushed for 2.8 yards per carry at 34.

LOL, look at Brick using the computer.

Look at fissure man having no response to real facts. :IBTL:

You honestly think that his "fact" has any merit? He chose Emmitt's worst year, at age 34, where he had a whopping 90 carries (without looking it up, I think that's right) and was injured the rest of the year. The original thought mentioned was that somebody said they didn't think LT could do what Emmitt did at 35. You responded that in Emmitt's last year, at age 35 again, that he rushed for 3.5 ypc.Then you said LT could absolutely do better then that, when LT, at age 31, averaged 3.3 ypc.Why are you so confused?

 

[fissure man]

From 1990-1996 Emmitt Smith also...

Played in 15 playoff games:

1,413 yards (4.4) 19 TDs, adding 44 receptions for 318 yards and 2 more TD's.

(The bolded portions were NFL records he improved on later)

Oh, he also managed to pick up a league MVP, and Super Bowl MVP, along with 3 Super Bowl rings.

LT's playoff resume....

7 games:

327 yards (3.4) 4 TD's, adding 19 receptions for 157 yards, 4 TD's

Please refrain from mentioning LT, who's most memorable playoff images are of him sulking on the bench, in the same breath as an all time NFL legend like Emmitt Smith.

ROFL @ someone again trying to use playoffs to prove one player is better than another.

I'm sorry, wat?

LT played on pretty crappy teams, that's why SD was in a position to take him, Brees, and Rivers so highly. Emmitt played on great teams, hardly even close to comparable.

And once again, as you totally ignored... LT played behind a pretty terrible OL for much of his career, whereas Emmitt played behind one of the consistently best lines of his era. OLs generally make the RB, and if you take Emmitt out of DAL and put him in SD, I hardly expect he'd do nearly as good as LT did.

SD record LT's first 7 years = 84-60. Not all that bad. Put Emmitt Smith in the same division LT played in and I bet he would have done better. He produced at every single level.

So by your rules, you are allowed to say Emmitt benifited from a great line, I can't use his playoff performances to debate his greatness, yet we do it all day long in the QB threads, and it's not fair because LT played on allegedly poor teams?

You're not very good at this, maybe this is why Felix will cost you your season next year.

 

[cstu]

Please refrain from mentioning LT unless you are referencing Lawrence Taylor. LT2, good as he was, is not even close to LT in terms of his impact on the game nor his place amongst all time greats at his position

LT2 would have to go for nearly 20k rushing yards before coming close to usurping the LT monicker from the greatest linebacker ever and quick possibly greatest defensive player in the history of the game.

Why is there not room for two guys called LT? No one is going to confuse the two when you are discussing them because they played on opposite sides of the ball.

 

[Clinton]

Please refrain from mentioning LT unless you are referencing Lawrence Taylor. LT2, good as he was, is not even close to LT in terms of his impact on the game nor his place amongst all time greats at his position

LT2 would have to go for nearly 20k rushing yards before coming close to usurping the LT monicker from the greatest linebacker ever and quick possibly greatest defensive player in the history of the game.

Why is there not room for two guys called LT? No one is going to confuse the two when you are discussing them because they played on opposite sides of the ball.

When I think LT, I think Lawrence Tynes. Maybe that's just me.

 

[gonzobill5]

Please refrain from mentioning LT unless you are referencing Lawrence Taylor. LT2, good as he was, is not even close to LT in terms of his impact on the game nor his place amongst all time greats at his position

LT2 would have to go for nearly 20k rushing yards before coming close to usurping the LT monicker from the greatest linebacker ever and quick possibly greatest defensive player in the history of the game.

Why is there not room for two guys called LT? No one is going to confuse the two when you are discussing them because they played on opposite sides of the ball.

When I think LT, I think Lawrence Tynes. Maybe that's just me.

Google thinks of Tomlinson, Taylor, then LT. Govenor Matt Denn.

Wikipedia thinks of Lithuania, Lieutenant, then Lord & Taylor.

 

[renesauz]

We needed a poll for this?