Mike Alstott Hall of Fame? (1 Viewer)

[Norseman]

Listening the local radio, and they are talking about Alstott being a possible Hall of Famer. That kind of blew me away, because I didn't think that he was but I figured I would poll the collective knowledge of the FBG's to see what they say.

 

[CalBear]

He doesn't even make the Hall of Very Good.

 

[Jason Wood]

It's almost impossible for him to get HOF consideration given the era he played in...fullbacks simply don't get consideration for HOF consideration anymore and his numbers don't come close to justifying induction as an offensive producer.

 

[Rushmore]

No way. He was fun to watch a few years ago, but HOF ?

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

Its close, he has numbers similar to Motley and he is a 6 time pro bowler in an era that did not feature FB's

Other Modern Era Hall of Fame Full Backs:

Jim Brown

Larry Csonka

Marion Motley

Joe Perry

Jim Taylor

 

[tomarken]

Isn't he already in the fantasy HOF?

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

It's almost impossible for him to get HOF consideration given the era he played in...fullbacks simply don't get consideration for HOF consideration anymore and his numbers don't come close to justifying induction as an offensive producer.

Motley - 4720 rushing yards & 31 TDs 1107 receiving yards & 7 TDsAlstot - 5088 rushing yards & 58 TDs 2284 receiving yards & 13 TDsSo yes Alstot did put numbers up that were similar to other Hall of Fame FB's. I think he will be up for debate.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

No.

I almost said hall of very good. But after thinking about him over the span of NFL as I have wathced it, the answer was easily... NO!

 

[Native]

He wont sniff the HOF because (sadly) all we care about today is statistics. But he was without a doubt one of the most incredible runners Ive ever seen. Bronko Nagurski and Marion Motley didnt have big numbers either but both were recognized for their bruising running styles and unique contributions to the game. It just shows you how much our perception of the game has changed. It would be fantastic if the NFL ever inducted a guy like Alstott simply because it would alleviate this sick dependancy we have on statistics to determine who the best players are. It would cause us to rethink how we define greatness.

In many ways, Alstott is the anti-Curtis Martin. What I mean by that is this - although Alstott possessed a unique running style that was arguably unmatched in the last 20 years, his numbers are rather pedestrian compared to most HB's. On the other hand, Martin's style was very ordinary compared to other HB's (he wasnt the biggest or fastest), but he consistently accumulated 1000 yard seasons. Although both are terriffic runners, only Martin will ever be inducted.

 

[Gr00vus]

It's almost impossible for him to get HOF consideration given the era he played in...fullbacks simply don't get consideration for HOF consideration anymore and his numbers don't come close to justifying induction as an offensive producer.

You think Lorenzo Neal's got any shot? I don't, but I figure he's been the best NFL fullback around for a while now.

 

[Jason Wood]

It's almost impossible for him to get HOF consideration given the era he played in...fullbacks simply don't get consideration for HOF consideration anymore and his numbers don't come close to justifying induction as an offensive producer.

Motley - 4720 rushing yards & 31 TDs 1107 receiving yards & 7 TDsAlstot - 5088 rushing yards & 58 TDs 2284 receiving yards & 13 TDsSo yes Alstott did put numbers up that were similar to other Hall of Fame FB's. I think he will be up for debate.

I don't want to be too dismissive of your view here, but comparing Marion Motley to Mike Alstott speaks of a lack of appreciation for their respective eras. Motley played in the 1940s and 50s. He averaged 5.7 yards per rush (still an NFL record) over his career, amassing numbers at a time when offensive numbers overall paled in comparison to what we see from teams today. He was the all-time rusher of the NFL's predecessor league, the AAFC. In HIS era, Motley was one of the true offensive forces in the league. Alstott was never close to being that.

 

[Tau837]

It's almost impossible for him to get HOF consideration given the era he played in...fullbacks simply don't get consideration for HOF consideration anymore and his numbers don't come close to justifying induction as an offensive producer.

Motley - 4720 rushing yards & 31 TDs 1107 receiving yards & 7 TDsAlstot - 5088 rushing yards & 58 TDs 2284 receiving yards & 13 TDsSo yes Alstot did put numbers up that were similar to other Hall of Fame FB's. I think he will be up for debate.

No way. I posted this recently about Lorenzo Neal's chances:

IMO Neal has no chance. Here are the FBs in the HOF:Jim Brown - 1957-1965 - arguably best RB of all timeLarry Csonka - 1968-1979 - Dolphins legend; Super Bowl MVP; almost 9000 combined net yards and 68 TDsJohn Henry Johnson - 1954-1966 - ranked #4 on career rushing list when he retiredMarion Motley - 1946-1953, 1955 - AAFC all time leading rusher; led NFL in rushing in 1950; on NFL 75th anniversary teamJoe Perry - 1948-1963 - 12532 combined net yards, more than 60 TDsJim Taylor - 1958-1967 - Packers legend; 10,532 combined net yards; NFL POY in 1962All of these FBs were offensive forces on their teams, not just blockers. You may also notice none have been elected who played after 1979, and Csonka was the only one who played after 1967. This is because of the changes to NFL offenses over the years that have moved towards using the FB as a blocker and only occasional receiver, not a primary ball carrier. Neal would be the first fullback to be elected solely for blocking ability. It won't happen.

Motley was much more accomplished for his era than Alstott is in his. You can't look just at raw numbers and compare them. These players played in an era in which they were the feature RBs in their offenses and among the best RBs in the league. Not just among the best FBs, among the best RBs. They just happened to play fullback because of the prevalent offensive strategies.He has no chance. I doubt he'll ever make the 25 man cutdown.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

It's almost impossible for him to get HOF consideration given the era he played in...fullbacks simply don't get consideration for HOF consideration anymore and his numbers don't come close to justifying induction as an offensive producer.

Motley - 4720 rushing yards & 31 TDs 1107 receiving yards & 7 TDsAlstot - 5088 rushing yards & 58 TDs 2284 receiving yards & 13 TDsSo yes Alstott did put numbers up that were similar to other Hall of Fame FB's. I think he will be up for debate.

I don't want to be too dismissive of your view here, but comparing Marion Motley to Mike Alstott speaks of a lack of appreciation for their respective eras. Motley played in the 1940s and 50s. He averaged 5.7 yards per rush (still an NFL record) over his career, amassing numbers at a time when offensive numbers overall paled in comparison to what we see from teams today. He was the all-time rusher of the NFL's predecessor league, the AAFC. In HIS era, Motley was one of the true offensive forces in the league. Alstott was never close to being that.

I started to reply to that post, and figured it wasnt worth the time.Kudos to you woody.

 

[Tau837]

It's almost impossible for him to get HOF consideration given the era he played in...fullbacks simply don't get consideration for HOF consideration anymore and his numbers don't come close to justifying induction as an offensive producer.

Motley - 4720 rushing yards & 31 TDs 1107 receiving yards & 7 TDsAlstot - 5088 rushing yards & 58 TDs 2284 receiving yards & 13 TDsSo yes Alstott did put numbers up that were similar to other Hall of Fame FB's. I think he will be up for debate.

I don't want to be too dismissive of your view here, but comparing Marion Motley to Mike Alstott speaks of a lack of appreciation for their respective eras. Motley played in the 1940s and 50s. He averaged 5.7 yards per rush (still an NFL record) over his career, amassing numbers at a time when offensive numbers overall paled in comparison to what we see from teams today. He was the all-time rusher of the NFL's predecessor league, the AAFC. In HIS era, Motley was one of the true offensive forces in the league. Alstott was never close to being that.

 

[Jason Wood]

He wont sniff the HOF because (sadly) all we care about today is statistics. But he was without a doubt one of the most incredible runners Ive ever seen. Bronko Nagurski and Marion Motley didnt have big numbers either but both were recognized for their bruising running styles and unique contributions to the game. It just shows you how much our perception of the game has changed. It would be fantastic if the NFL ever inducted a guy like Alstott simply because it would alleviate this sick dependency we have on statistics to determine who the best players are. It would cause us to rethink how we define greatness.In many ways, Alstott is the anti-Curtis Martin. What I mean by that is this - although Alstott possessed a unique running style that was arguably unmatched in the last 20 years, his numbers are rather pedestrian compared to most HB's. On the other hand, Martin's style was very ordinary compared to other HB's (he wasnt the biggest or fastest), but he consistently accumulated 1000 yard seasons. Although both are terriffic runners, only Martin will ever be inducted.

Marion Motley averaged 5.7 yards per rush...an NFL record (that holds to this day).Actually I think the Pro Football HOF, while not perfect, does a MUCH better job at rewarding all aspects of a players achievements than simply relying on stats. In baseball, things like 3,000 hits, 500 HRS (which is now going by the wayside), 1500 RBIs, 300 wins, etc...are considered surefire ways in. There is no such thing in the NFL...many inductees have great stats, sure, but also are recognized for their RELATIVE worth in their era, as well as their playoff accomplishments and overall team success.

 

[Tau837]

It's almost impossible for him to get HOF consideration given the era he played in...fullbacks simply don't get consideration for HOF consideration anymore and his numbers don't come close to justifying induction as an offensive producer.

You think Lorenzo Neal's got any shot? I don't, but I figure he's been the best NFL fullback around for a while now.

No. See my previous post.

 

[Capella]

He doesn't even make the Hall of Very Good.

 

[Native]

He wont sniff the HOF because (sadly) all we care about today is statistics. But he was without a doubt one of the most incredible runners Ive ever seen. Bronko Nagurski and Marion Motley didnt have big numbers either but both were recognized for their bruising running styles and unique contributions to the game. It just shows you how much our perception of the game has changed. It would be fantastic if the NFL ever inducted a guy like Alstott simply because it would alleviate this sick dependency we have on statistics to determine who the best players are. It would cause us to rethink how we define greatness.In many ways, Alstott is the anti-Curtis Martin. What I mean by that is this - although Alstott possessed a unique running style that was arguably unmatched in the last 20 years, his numbers are rather pedestrian compared to most HB's. On the other hand, Martin's style was very ordinary compared to other HB's (he wasnt the biggest or fastest), but he consistently accumulated 1000 yard seasons. Although both are terriffic runners, only Martin will ever be inducted.

Marion Motley averaged 5.7 yards per rush...an NFL record (that holds to this day).Actually I think the Pro Football HOF, while not perfect, does a MUCH better job at rewarding all aspects of a players achievements than simply relying on stats. In baseball, things like 3,000 hits, 500 HRS (which is now going by the wayside), 1500 RBIs, 300 wins, etc...are considered surefire ways in. There is no such thing in the NFL...many inductees have great stats, sure, but also are recognized for their RELATIVE worth in their era, as well as their playoff accomplishments and overall team success.

1) Point taken about Motley. 2) Youre right when you compare the NFL HOF to the MLB HOF. Still, I get the feeling this is slowly changing. Lynn Swann was one of the most controversial selections in recent history because of his "dubious" statistical record compared to other players. I dont expect another receiver with anywhere close to his numbers ever coming close to the Hall. Today you have seemingly dozens of WR's whose case for induction is based almost entirely on stats - Andre Reed, Art Monk, Tim Brown, etc. This constant banter about statistics drowns out the quality of the duscussion on the SKILLS these players possessed. This isnt a rebuke against those aforementioned players - Im simply stating that the crux of these discussions have now shifted - we spend more time talking about numbers on paper and less time talking about what weve viewed with our own eyes. In 50 years, people are going to compare Mike Alstott's stats (5088 yards, 3.7 average) with Antwain Smiths (6881, 3.9 average) and ascertain that Smith was a better player. Unless the HOF sets a precedent and tries and "deemphasize" some of the effect that statistics plays on HOF voting, this is precisely whats going to happen.

 

[Tau837]

He wont sniff the HOF because (sadly) all we care about today is statistics. But he was without a doubt one of the most incredible runners Ive ever seen. Bronko Nagurski and Marion Motley didnt have big numbers either but both were recognized for their bruising running styles and unique contributions to the game. It just shows you how much our perception of the game has changed. It would be fantastic if the NFL ever inducted a guy like Alstott simply because it would alleviate this sick dependency we have on statistics to determine who the best players are. It would cause us to rethink how we define greatness.In many ways, Alstott is the anti-Curtis Martin. What I mean by that is this - although Alstott possessed a unique running style that was arguably unmatched in the last 20 years, his numbers are rather pedestrian compared to most HB's. On the other hand, Martin's style was very ordinary compared to other HB's (he wasnt the biggest or fastest), but he consistently accumulated 1000 yard seasons. Although both are terriffic runners, only Martin will ever be inducted.

Marion Motley averaged 5.7 yards per rush...an NFL record (that holds to this day).Actually I think the Pro Football HOF, while not perfect, does a MUCH better job at rewarding all aspects of a players achievements than simply relying on stats. In baseball, things like 3,000 hits, 500 HRS (which is now going by the wayside), 1500 RBIs, 300 wins, etc...are considered surefire ways in. There is no such thing in the NFL...many inductees have great stats, sure, but also are recognized for their RELATIVE worth in their era, as well as their playoff accomplishments and overall team success.

1) Point taken about Motley. 2) Youre right when you compare the NFL HOF to the MLB HOF. Still, I get the feeling this is slowly changing. Lynn Swann was one of the most controversial selections in recent history because of his "dubious" statistical record compared to other players. I dont expect another receiver with anywhere close to his numbers ever coming close to the Hall. Today you have seemingly dozens of WR's whose case for induction is based almost entirely on stats - Andre Reed, Art Monk, Tim Brown, etc. This constant banter about statistics drowns out the quality of the duscussion on the SKILLS these players possessed. This isnt a rebuke against those aforementioned players - Im simply stating that the crux of these discussions have now shifted - we spend more time talking about numbers on paper and less time talking about what weve viewed with our own eyes. In 50 years, people are going to compare Mike Alstott's stats (5088 yards, 3.7 average) with Antwain Smiths (6881, 3.9 average) and ascertain that Smith was a better player. Unless the HOF sets a precedent and tries and "deemphasize" some of the effect that statistics plays on HOF voting, this is precisely whats going to happen.

Honestly, in 50 years, I'm pretty certain no one is going to be thinking about Alstott and/or Smith. So no worries there.

 

[Native]

And for the record, I didnt vote for Alstott to be inducted into the HOF (I picked the Hall of Very Good, whatever that means). That said, the fact that nearly 50% of the people voted that Alstott doesnt deserve any kind of recognition speaks volumes about how our minds associate gaudy statistics with greatness rather than on-field talent and skills. Its a relfection of the NFL's stat-friendly HOF policy and our our own stat-hungry way of thinking.

 

[Native]

He wont sniff the HOF because (sadly) all we care about today is statistics. But he was without a doubt one of the most incredible runners Ive ever seen. Bronko Nagurski and Marion Motley didnt have big numbers either but both were recognized for their bruising running styles and unique contributions to the game. It just shows you how much our perception of the game has changed. It would be fantastic if the NFL ever inducted a guy like Alstott simply because it would alleviate this sick dependency we have on statistics to determine who the best players are. It would cause us to rethink how we define greatness.In many ways, Alstott is the anti-Curtis Martin. What I mean by that is this - although Alstott possessed a unique running style that was arguably unmatched in the last 20 years, his numbers are rather pedestrian compared to most HB's. On the other hand, Martin's style was very ordinary compared to other HB's (he wasnt the biggest or fastest), but he consistently accumulated 1000 yard seasons. Although both are terriffic runners, only Martin will ever be inducted.

Marion Motley averaged 5.7 yards per rush...an NFL record (that holds to this day).Actually I think the Pro Football HOF, while not perfect, does a MUCH better job at rewarding all aspects of a players achievements than simply relying on stats. In baseball, things like 3,000 hits, 500 HRS (which is now going by the wayside), 1500 RBIs, 300 wins, etc...are considered surefire ways in. There is no such thing in the NFL...many inductees have great stats, sure, but also are recognized for their RELATIVE worth in their era, as well as their playoff accomplishments and overall team success.

1) Point taken about Motley. 2) Youre right when you compare the NFL HOF to the MLB HOF. Still, I get the feeling this is slowly changing. Lynn Swann was one of the most controversial selections in recent history because of his "dubious" statistical record compared to other players. I dont expect another receiver with anywhere close to his numbers ever coming close to the Hall. Today you have seemingly dozens of WR's whose case for induction is based almost entirely on stats - Andre Reed, Art Monk, Tim Brown, etc. This constant banter about statistics drowns out the quality of the duscussion on the SKILLS these players possessed. This isnt a rebuke against those aforementioned players - Im simply stating that the crux of these discussions have now shifted - we spend more time talking about numbers on paper and less time talking about what weve viewed with our own eyes. In 50 years, people are going to compare Mike Alstott's stats (5088 yards, 3.7 average) with Antwain Smiths (6881, 3.9 average) and ascertain that Smith was a better player. Unless the HOF sets a precedent and tries and "deemphasize" some of the effect that statistics plays on HOF voting, this is precisely whats going to happen.

Honestly, in 50 years, I'm pretty certain no one is going to be thinking about Alstott and/or Smith. So no worries there.

 

[Tau837]

He wont sniff the HOF because (sadly) all we care about today is statistics. But he was without a doubt one of the most incredible runners Ive ever seen. Bronko Nagurski and Marion Motley didnt have big numbers either but both were recognized for their bruising running styles and unique contributions to the game. It just shows you how much our perception of the game has changed. It would be fantastic if the NFL ever inducted a guy like Alstott simply because it would alleviate this sick dependancy we have on statistics to determine who the best players are. It would cause us to rethink how we define greatness.In many ways, Alstott is the anti-Curtis Martin. What I mean by that is this - although Alstott possessed a unique running style that was arguably unmatched in the last 20 years, his numbers are rather pedestrian compared to most HB's. On the other hand, Martin's style was very ordinary compared to other HB's (he wasnt the biggest or fastest), but he consistently accumulated 1000 yard seasons. Although both are terriffic runners, only Martin will ever be inducted.

I disagree with your thinking. First of all, it is not statistics alone that factor into HOF selections. Awards and team accomplishments are also very important. But the bottom line is that players are judged for HOF worthiness based on their individual and team success. Statistics, while imperfect, are one of the best ways to measure that.You say Alstott had a unique running style unmatched in the last 20 years. I'm not even sure what that means exactly or why having a unique style should bear on HOF worthiness... The relevant question in my mind is how much that style contributed to his team's success. Are you suggesting that Alstott contributed as much to his teams' success as Martin did? If that is what you are getting at, I think you are way off base.

 

[Tau837]

And for the record, I didnt vote for Alstott to be inducted into the HOF (I picked the Hall of Very Good, whatever that means). That said, the fact that nearly 50% of the people voted that Alstott doesnt deserve any kind of recognition speaks volumes about how our minds associate gaudy statistics with greatness rather than on-field talent and skills. Its a relfection of the NFL's stat-friendly HOF policy and our our own stat-hungry way of thinking.

So for his era, do you think of Alstott as one of the few best players to have played? One of the few best RBs specifically?I think he was a very good player for a long time. But that doesn't justify being recognized more than he already has via Pro Bowls and All Pro selections. I mean, what recognition is it that you think he deserves and hasn't gotten?

 

[BroadwayG]

He might make it into the Purdue Alum NFL hall of fame.

 

[Native]

And for the record, I didnt vote for Alstott to be inducted into the HOF (I picked the Hall of Very Good, whatever that means). That said, the fact that nearly 50% of the people voted that Alstott doesnt deserve any kind of recognition speaks volumes about how our minds associate gaudy statistics with greatness rather than on-field talent and skills. Its a relfection of the NFL's stat-friendly HOF policy and our our own stat-hungry way of thinking.

So for his era, do you think of Alstott as one of the few best players to have played? One of the few best RBs specifically?I think he was a very good player for a long time. But that doesn't justify being recognized more than he already has via Pro Bowls and All Pro selections. I mean, what recognition is it that you think he deserves and hasn't gotten?

Please reread my previous post - the one you just quoted. I said that I voted "Hall of Very Good". The recognition Im talking about is in this thread - currently 53% of those that voted seem to think hes not worth a damn. Dont you think that the ONLY reason people voted that way os because his statistics arent eye-catching?

 

[Mungo Burrows]

Considering all the Pro-bowls he went to as a FB when he was usually used as an oversized halfback, depriving honors for guys more deserving as FBs, I certainly hope not.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Not a chance in hell. Too many of his numbers were accumulated when he was used as a RB, so the "he had great numbers for a FB" argument has little validity.

He has Chris Berman, who used to fellate him on a weekly basis, to thank for being as well-known as he is.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

It's almost impossible for him to get HOF consideration given the era he played in...fullbacks simply don't get consideration for HOF consideration anymore and his numbers don't come close to justifying induction as an offensive producer.

Motley - 4720 rushing yards & 31 TDs 1107 receiving yards & 7 TDsAlstot - 5088 rushing yards & 58 TDs 2284 receiving yards & 13 TDsSo yes Alstott did put numbers up that were similar to other Hall of Fame FB's. I think he will be up for debate.

I don't want to be too dismissive of your view here, but comparing Marion Motley to Mike Alstott speaks of a lack of appreciation for their respective eras. Motley played in the 1940s and 50s. He averaged 5.7 yards per rush (still an NFL record) over his career, amassing numbers at a time when offensive numbers overall paled in comparison to what we see from teams today. He was the all-time rusher of the NFL's predecessor league, the AAFC. In HIS era, Motley was one of the true offensive forces in the league. Alstott was never close to being that.

IMO you just proved why Alstot will be considered for the hall of fame. He is with out a doubt one of, if not the best FBs for HIS ERA. He was voted into 6 pro bowls, won a super bowl and he has played for over 10 seasons. I am not saying he will get in, but to say he has no chance is foolish.

 

[SSOG]

People lament that Alstott will be kept out of the HoF because he doesn't have the stats... but if it weren't for his stats, no one would even be bringing him up for the HoF. The only reason people even know who Alstott is is because he got used as a halfback far more than his FB brethren, which means he got better stats, which means he made pro bowls. If other teams ran their FBs as much as TB ran Alstott, there's no way anyone would even vote him into the HoVG.

 

[SSOG]

IMO you just proved why Alstot will be considered for the hall of fame. He is with out a doubt one of, if not the best FBs for HIS ERA. He was voted into 6 pro bowls, won a super bowl and he has played for over 10 seasons. I am not saying he will get in, but to say he has no chance is foolish.

He only made 6 pro bowls because all of the fans voted him in based on his stats. Give every other FB 150 carries a season and see how many pro bowls Alstott makes.

 

[Spartans Rule]

Not a chance in hell. Too many of his numbers were accumulated when he was used as a RB, so the "he had great numbers for a FB" argument has little validity. He has Chris Berman, who used to fellate him on a weekly basis, to thank for being as well-known as he is.

If Mike Alstott gets into the HOF for having great numbers for a fullback, than Rod Bernstine ought to join him for being the first tight end to rush for 1000 yards.For most of football history, teams played a halfback who was quick and a fullback who was powerful and ran the ball to both of them. Now teams have a running back and a blocking back, essentially, except for Tampa which continued to do it the old way with Dunn/Alstott and Pittman/Alstott.If Alstott was a dynamite lead blocker like Lorenzo Neal AND a good runner, then we might have something. But he was basically just a decent power back in an RBBC.

 

[Capella]

People lament that Alstott will be kept out of the HoF because he doesn't have the stats... but if it weren't for his stats, no one would even be bringing him up for the HoF. The only reason people even know who Alstott is is because he got used as a halfback far more than his FB brethren, which means he got better stats, which means he made pro bowls. If other teams ran their FBs as much as TB ran Alstott, there's no way anyone would even vote him into the HoVG.

I'm not convinced he's a Hall of Famer, but to say any other FB could have done what Mike did with more carries is pretty stupid.

 

[Block]

Alstott was a bruising runner, and the effect of those kinds of runners isn't really displayed in stats. Still, there have been bruising runners who have done well statistically in recent memory (John Riggins, Jerome Bettis as examples). Alstott isn't worthy of discussion. He was good for his role, but not spectacular. He doled out punishment but couldn't break a run for any distance at all, and also didn't have the best vision.

 

[Ghost Rider]

People lament that Alstott will be kept out of the HoF because he doesn't have the stats... but if it weren't for his stats, no one would even be bringing him up for the HoF. The only reason people even know who Alstott is is because he got used as a halfback far more than his FB brethren, which means he got better stats, which means he made pro bowls. If other teams ran their FBs as much as TB ran Alstott, there's no way anyone would even vote him into the HoVG.

I'm not convinced he's a Hall of Famer, but to say any other FB could have done what Mike did with more carries is pretty stupid.

He didn't say "any other FB" could do with Alstott did. He seemed to imply that enough of them could have done good enough to where Alstott would be a mere afterthought when it comes to talking about the HoF or the imaginary HoVG.

 

[CalBear]

And for the record, I didnt vote for Alstott to be inducted into the HOF (I picked the Hall of Very Good, whatever that means). That said, the fact that nearly 50% of the people voted that Alstott doesnt deserve any kind of recognition speaks volumes about how our minds associate gaudy statistics with greatness rather than on-field talent and skills. Its a relfection of the NFL's stat-friendly HOF policy and our our own stat-hungry way of thinking.

On the contrary: Alstott's inclusion in 6 Pro Bowls, despite mediocre running skills and poor blocking skills, is a reflection of people's obsession with stats.

 

[Ghost Rider]

And for the record, I didnt vote for Alstott to be inducted into the HOF (I picked the Hall of Very Good, whatever that means). That said, the fact that nearly 50% of the people voted that Alstott doesnt deserve any kind of recognition speaks volumes about how our minds associate gaudy statistics with greatness rather than on-field talent and skills. Its a relfection of the NFL's stat-friendly HOF policy and our our own stat-hungry way of thinking.

On the contrary: Alstott's inclusion in 6 Pro Bowls, despite mediocre running skills and poor blocking skills, is a reflection of people's obsession with stats.

Actually, it showed how little NFL fans (in general, meaning not most who come here) pay attention to the players who don't get mentioned on ESPN 493 times a week. I would bet that the great majority of those fans who voted for Alstott every year, if put to the test, couldn't have named at least three other FBs in the NFC in whatever particular year they were voting.

 

[duaneok66]

Not a chance in hell. Too many of his numbers were accumulated when he was used as a RB, so the "he had great numbers for a FB" argument has little validity. He has Chris Berman, who used to fellate him on a weekly basis, to thank for being as well-known as he is.

excellent post (sans the Berman reference) . . .

 

[Mungo Burrows]

And for the record, I didnt vote for Alstott to be inducted into the HOF (I picked the Hall of Very Good, whatever that means). That said, the fact that nearly 50% of the people voted that Alstott doesnt deserve any kind of recognition speaks volumes about how our minds associate gaudy statistics with greatness rather than on-field talent and skills. Its a relfection of the NFL's stat-friendly HOF policy and our our own stat-hungry way of thinking.

On the contrary: Alstott's inclusion in 6 Pro Bowls, despite mediocre running skills and poor blocking skills, is a reflection of people's obsession with stats.

Actually, it showed how little NFL fans (in general, meaning not most who come here) pay attention to the players who don't get mentioned on ESPN 493 times a week. I would bet that the great majority of those fans who voted for Alstott every year, if put to the test, couldn't have named at least three other FBs in the NFC in whatever particular year they were voting.

guys like Mack Strong got routinely jobbed.

 

[phthalatemagic]

not close. Whoever is suggesting he should be in is clearly joking.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

Not a chance in hell. Too many of his numbers were accumulated when he was used as a RB, so the "he had great numbers for a FB" argument has little validity. He has Chris Berman, who used to fellate him on a weekly basis, to thank for being as well-known as he is.

And John Madden

 

[BigRed]

Listening the local radio, and they are talking about Alstott being a possible Hall of Famer.

Wow stupidity on a radio talk show, there's something new.LMAO @ the HoF threads. I can't wait for the "Trent Dilfer: HOF?" one

 

[Native]

And for the record, I didnt vote for Alstott to be inducted into the HOF (I picked the Hall of Very Good, whatever that means). That said, the fact that nearly 50% of the people voted that Alstott doesnt deserve any kind of recognition speaks volumes about how our minds associate gaudy statistics with greatness rather than on-field talent and skills. Its a relfection of the NFL's stat-friendly HOF policy and our our own stat-hungry way of thinking.

On the contrary: Alstott's inclusion in 6 Pro Bowls, despite mediocre running skills and poor blocking skills, is a reflection of people's obsession with stats.

I think youre misunderstanding me. The impetus for my comments was that he was a bone-crunching runner - the likes of which we do not see very often in the NFL. THATS the reason Im arguing he should be given his due, not because he was elected to the pro bowl.I actually didnt know he made it to six pro bowls, nor does it really matter. Thats my whole point.

 

[CalBear]

I think youre misunderstanding me. The impetus for my comments was that he was a bone-crunching runner - the likes of which we do not see very often in the NFL. THATS the reason Im arguing he should be given his due, not because he was elected to the pro bowl.

He could break weak tackles, and had pretty good balance. That's it.

 

[MSULions]

why should he? he didn't play fullback!

 

[Native]

I think youre misunderstanding me. The impetus for my comments was that he was a bone-crunching runner - the likes of which we do not see very often in the NFL. THATS the reason Im arguing he should be given his due, not because he was elected to the pro bowl.

He could break weak tackles, and had pretty good balance. That's it.

Really? Guess well agree to disagree then.

 

[Tau837]

And for the record, I didnt vote for Alstott to be inducted into the HOF (I picked the Hall of Very Good, whatever that means). That said, the fact that nearly 50% of the people voted that Alstott doesnt deserve any kind of recognition speaks volumes about how our minds associate gaudy statistics with greatness rather than on-field talent and skills. Its a relfection of the NFL's stat-friendly HOF policy and our our own stat-hungry way of thinking.

So for his era, do you think of Alstott as one of the few best players to have played? One of the few best RBs specifically?I think he was a very good player for a long time. But that doesn't justify being recognized more than he already has via Pro Bowls and All Pro selections. I mean, what recognition is it that you think he deserves and hasn't gotten?

Please reread my previous post - the one you just quoted. I said that I voted "Hall of Very Good". The recognition Im talking about is in this thread - currently 53% of those that voted seem to think hes not worth a damn. Dont you think that the ONLY reason people voted that way os because his statistics arent eye-catching?

Uh, the "worst" rating in the poll is "not in any HOF". How do you equate that with "not worth a damn"? I voted that because I watched him play during his career and didn't find him to be more than a good player.

 

[kupcho1]

 

[Irish]

Alstott was not a FB. I know he made some Pro Bowl teams as a FB, but in reality he was a big TB. So comparing him to past great FB is meaningless.

 

[Irish]

why should he? he didn't play fullback!

 

[Warehouse Nasty]

The dude was a complete abomination as a FB. There's no way you can measure his stats to other FB's because, unlike Alstott, those other guys could block and they played the position well.

Alstott was a decent change of pace back who was miscast for most of his career. Fun to watch and a decent skill set, but he's nowhere near HOF mention.