Recent RB HOF Poll (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

Haven't had one of this in at least three days, so figured I'd throw one out there now that these guys are done or winding down.

 

[ScottNorwood]

All OUT. RB is the most overrated position in football.

 

[Peter_Griffin]

All OUT. For me a hall of famer is someone you don't even have to think about whether they get in or not. I paused for about 1/2 second on Tiki Barber and the rest just said meh.

They were all very good RBs and even great for a few years but just not hall of famers.

 

[boubucarow]

None very good for long enough or dominate enough in their prime.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

None very good for long enough or dominate enough in their prime.

I don't see how you can say James or Alexander weren't dominant enough in their prime, but I do I agree with your first sentiment.I think James has the best case of all 4 backs, and if he hadn't left Indy right before they got a ring or if Arizona won last year's Super Bowl he'd have a decent argument at least.

 

[Jason Wood]

None of them get in IMHO, nor do I think they should.

Alexander statistically will be one of those guys a lot of people make the case for down the road; he'll be one of those players people call "the best not to get into the Hall of Fame" as will Edge probably. But I don't think either differentiated themselves enough in an unbelievable offensive era to get the call. All four were fantasy BEASTS though and would go into my Fantasy HOF.

 

[boubucarow]

None very good for long enough or dominate enough in their prime.

I don't see how you can say James or Alexander weren't dominant enough in their prime, but I do I agree with your first sentiment.I think James has the best case of all 4 backs, and if he hadn't left Indy right before they got a ring or if Arizona won last year's Super Bowl he'd have a decent argument at least.

Let's look then...Alexander's career consists of 5 good to great season and then three seasons that amount to part time or below the average back performance.So in those 5 years he averaged 1,500 rushing yards 17 rushing touchdowns 270 receiving yards 2 receiving touchdowns (10,973 yards from scrimmage-112 touchdowns total)How about James top 5 seasons? 1,515 rushing yards 12 rushing touchdowns 458 receiving yards 2 receiving touchdowns (15466-91 total)I would guess James has the best chance unless Alexander's record breaking season holds enough weight. By the dominant in their prime comment, I meant the impact of an Earl Campbell or Gale Sayers who both made the Hall of Fame despite very short careers. While the numbers might be there, I don't think either had enough impact in their prime years to be assured of enshrinement.

 

[FUBAR]

Stats:

Tiki: 24th in attempts, 21st in yardage, 45th TDs, 40th rushing per game; 10th in yards from scrimmage

Edge: 8th in attempts, 11th in yardage, 18th TDs, 8th rushing per game; 12th in yards from scrimmage

Alexander: 25th in attempts, 26th in yardage, 7th TDs, 20th rushing per game

Dillon: 18th in attempts, 17th in yardage, 16th TDs, 24th rushing per game

I said yes to Tiki and Edge, but I doubt they'll get in. IMO, if you've put up top 12 yardage on a career, you should be in the HOF.

Thurman Thomas got into the HOF in 07, while I loved his game, he wasn't better than Tiki. Tiki put up over 100 yards per game. You have to take his complete body of work and not just rushing into account.

SA was a TD beast, but not overly impressive overall. Dillon was good, never truly great although he had some nice games.

 

[Yellow Line is Unoffcial]

0 for 4

Edge and Tiki should be in the Hall of Very Good

SA and Dillon aren't very close

 

[gianmarco]

I think Tiki is being a bit overlooked even though I don't care for the guy very much.

--The guy had ~1500+ yards from scrimmage for 7 years in a row (well, one of them was 1442 but he missed 2 games)

--He only missed 2 games his entire 10 year career (other than the 4 he didn't play as a rookie)

--He had 2000+ yards from scrimmage in 4 of his last 5 years (not EXACTLY, but 1984 yds is close enough)

--He had no fewer than 52 catches for 8 yrs in a row

--Career 4.7 ypc average

--2nd highest yards from scrimmage in a single year in NFL history

--Averaged over 5.1 ypc his last 2 years in the NFL at the age of 30 and 31 and retired at his peak

--Had 300+ carries in 4 of his last 5 years in addition to the 50+ catches

--10th all time in career yards from scrimmage and in yards/touch.

--3 Pro-Bowls and 1 All-Pro

--5 years in a row with 1200+ rushing yds

--3 years in a row with 1500+ rushing yds his last 3 years in the league

Tiki had a very dominant stretch to close out his career. Compared to the guys above that listed their best 5 year average, Tiki actually beat them both except in TDs. Over his last 5 years he averaged: 317 carries for 1528 rushing yds (4.8 ypc) and 60 receptions for 526 receiving yds (8.8 ypr) and 9 TDs. Of this group, I think Tiki had the better overall career, better peak, better durability, and left the game on top with even more left to offer and not just compiling stats. And he did all that while having to give up carries (and TDs) to Ron Dayne and Brandon Jacobs.

ETA--To put some of those things in perspective, LT has never rushed for 1500+ yds 3 years in a row and has only done it 3 yrs in his career (although he has a couple in the 1400's). LT has only gotten 2000+ yds from scrimmage 3 times in his career. LT has a 4.4 career ypc average. Tiki still has 70+ more receptions and 1300+ more receiving yards than LT. I'm not saying Barber = LT, but LT is a sure-fire lock for the HOF and one of the top 5 greatest of all-time and Barber stacks up pretty comparably with the exception of TDs.

Also, as Chase pointed out, Tiki did this most of the time without any supporting cast AND had to share significant carries with Ron Dayne and Jacobs for a good chunk of those 7 yrs he was deemed the starter.

 

[Chase Stuart]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=2042

Corey Dillon doesn't deserve to be mentioned in this thread. I've got him as the 47th most worthy RB for the HOF, far outside of consideration. I've got James/Alexander/Barber stacked at 16/17/18, so these are legitimate candidates. My system is merely a statistical look at a player's career; no consideration beyond his actual numbers are considered.

13 of my top 15 RBs on my HOF litmus test are in the HOF or will be in the HOF; the other two are TD and Priest Holmes. In light of the bolded above, I think it's clear why TD and Holmes are not HOF candidates -- much of their unbelievable success (and make no doubt, their production was out of this world good) has been attributed to their supporting casts. I don't disagree with common perception in this case; both players undoubtedly benefitted significantly by playing in dominant offensive schemes for RBs. And make no mistake, the fact that neither was a highly drafted player, combined with the production some of their teammates (and replacements) have had, make people question the innate ability of these two players.

Outside of my top 15, you've still got some modern HOFers -- Marcus Allen, Leroy Kelly, Franco Harris and John Riggins are in the top 22. But these guys are just as clearly, IMO, in the bottom half of the HOF rung. They're in the half with Csonka and Dorsett, not the one with Barry and Payton.

So ranking 16/17/18 is impressive, but far from clear that such a ranking merits induction. While I disagree that "too many RBs have been inducted therefore we should be more careful with whom we induct", I do think we should induct only the very best players.

Moving past the statistical rankings, it's obvious that one of these three is not like the other. Shaun Alexander played in a system that on a production level was not dissimilar from Davis and Holmes. Edgerrin James benefitted from playing with Manning and Harrison (not to mention Glenn and Saturday); it's hard to think of those Colts and not think of Moore playing with Unitas and Berry (not to mention Jim Parker and **** Szymanski). But Moore revolutionized the game in a way that Edgerrin James never did, and James will be viewed by many as a "what if" candidate; as great as he was, we'll always wonder how great he really could have been if not for that injury.

But when you look at Barber, and his supporting cast, and I think you get a very different feel. Guys like Snee and Diehl and O'Hara were not very good when Barber was in his prime; he had to deal with bad QB play almost all of his career. In '02, he ranked 4th in the league in yards from scrimmage playing with Collins, Hilliard, Toomer, Petitgout, Seubert, Bober, Whittle and Rosenthal. He did not play in a west coast offense, or with Alex Gibbs, or **** Vermeil. His teammates always looked much worse than he did. The NYG have a dominant running game now, but that was not the case for the majority of Barber's career. In playoff losses against SF and PHI he totaled 329 yards -- he carried those Giants teams in a way that Shaun Alexander and Edgerrin James did not.

Dillon is an obvious no. James and Alexander have the numbers to be in the debate, but I think both fall short. Barber is right on the border, but I would probably put him in.

 

[awesomeness]

Edge in, other 3 out.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Stats:Tiki: 24th in attempts, 21st in yardage, 45th TDs, 40th rushing per game; 10th in yards from scrimmage Edge: 8th in attempts, 11th in yardage, 18th TDs, 8th rushing per game; 12th in yards from scrimmage Alexander: 25th in attempts, 26th in yardage, 7th TDs, 20th rushing per game Dillon: 18th in attempts, 17th in yardage, 16th TDs, 24th rushing per gameI said yes to Tiki and Edge, but I doubt they'll get in. IMO, if you've put up top 12 yardage on a career, you should be in the HOF. Thurman Thomas got into the HOF in 07, while I loved his game, he wasn't better than Tiki. Tiki put up over 100 yards per game. You have to take his complete body of work and not just rushing into account. SA was a TD beast, but not overly impressive overall. Dillon was good, never truly great although he had some nice games.

In my link above, I've got Thurman Thomas #10 overall and quite a bit ahead of Tiki. I think you're really underestimating Thurman, who in addition to everything else, was a terrific playoff performer (with the exception of a Super Bowl or two). He led the league in yards from scrimmage four times, and from ' 89 to '93, he was absolutely dominant.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Numbers are a factor, but often misleading as we shift eras. My factor has always been the simple one of whether the player's story essential to also telling football's story? If the answer is no, they are out. The backs you list were all very good, or in Dillion's case good, but they did not impact the history of football. The story of their era can be told without them. They did not win championships, they did not change offesnses or cause new defenses to stop them, nor did they embody the sport in its context with the rest of histrory. Gale Sayers did. They did not. I point out Sayers because footballs story is about championships, but at times it is about more.

 

[David Yudkin]

Numbers are a factor, but often misleading as we shift eras. My factor has always been the simple one of whether the player's story essential to also telling football's story? If the answer is no, they are out. The backs you list were all very good, or in Dillion's case good, but they did not impact the history of football. The story of their era can be told without them. They did not win championships, they did not change offesnses or cause new defenses to stop them, nor did they embody the sport in its context with the rest of histrory. Gale Sayers did. They did not. I point out Sayers because footballs story is about championships, but at times it is about more.

Can you tell the story of football without including Curtis Martin? How about Jerome Bettis? That's going to be a problem for a lot of players from the past 20 years. There are so many players with solid numbers . . . but did they really change the game any? Clinton Portis could end up with more rushing yards than anyone from this era, but he at this point hasn't won anything and not many would think of him as the predominent RB from his generation.

 

[Sidewinder16]

In light of the bolded above, I think it's clear why TD and Holmes are not HOF candidates --

I'm not sure I understand this statement. TD has been one of the 25 HOF semifinalists in each of the past 3 years. How is it clear that he's not a candidate?I understand it's complete conjecture at the moment, but I don't foresee Holmes ever making the 25 semifinalists. I wouldn't even be surprised if he was never even a preliminary nominee.

 

[moleculo]

Numbers are a factor, but often misleading as we shift eras. My factor has always been the simple one of whether the player's story essential to also telling football's story? If the answer is no, they are out. The backs you list were all very good, or in Dillion's case good, but they did not impact the history of football. The story of their era can be told without them. They did not win championships, they did not change offesnses or cause new defenses to stop them, nor did they embody the sport in its context with the rest of histrory. Gale Sayers did. They did not. I point out Sayers because footballs story is about championships, but at times it is about more.

this is why Terrell Davis being excluded is a crime - a man who rushed for 2k yards, NFL MVP, SB MVP, and was the catalyst for the the two superbowl wins after four previous losses for the Broncos, and guided the AFC to their first SB win after 14 years of NFC dominance.To not tell the story of Terrell Davis is to exclude the latter part of the 90's.

 

[switz]

I think James has the best case of all 4 backs, and if he hadn't left Indy right before they got a ring or if Arizona won last year's Super Bowl he'd have a decent argument at least.

Actually what hurt James was the knee injury. I'm of the opinion he'll get in eventually, but not on first ballot. The rest however don't stand a chance.

 

[foxco]

I wouldn't put CMart or Bettis in, so none of these guys would be in IMO.

I'd put Terrell Davis in over any of them and CMart and Bettis. I want the best in the HOF, not very good players who played a long time and racked up big stats.

 

[Raider Nation]

Edge in, other 3 out.

Yep

 

[Chase Stuart]

In light of the bolded above, I think it's clear why TD and Holmes are not HOF candidates --

I'm not sure I understand this statement. TD has been one of the 25 HOF semifinalists in each of the past 3 years. How is it clear that he's not a candidate?I understand it's complete conjecture at the moment, but I don't foresee Holmes ever making the 25 semifinalists. I wouldn't even be surprised if he was never even a preliminary nominee.

Sorry, I meant HOFers, not HOF candidates.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I think James has the best case of all 4 backs, and if he hadn't left Indy right before they got a ring or if Arizona won last year's Super Bowl he'd have a decent argument at least.

Actually what hurt James was the knee injury. I'm of the opinion he'll get in eventually, but not on first ballot. The rest however don't stand a chance.

I think Tiki has a shot. He's 10th all time in yards from scrimmage behind Rice, Emmitt, Payton, Faulk, Sanders, Allen, CMart, Thurman and Dorsett. That's some pretty rarified company.EDIT: He also has more YFS then Edge in the same amount of seasons, although Edge should pass him this year.

 

[lyon812]

I put Barber in. I think Barber would be more of a lock if he hadn't retired, but he went out on top. He was 10th in all-purpose yards, 600 away from Dorsett, 900 away from Thomas--yet half his career was squandered as a non-starter. His last five years: 1984, 1677, 2096, 2390, 2127. That's dominant. He only lacked the big touchdown numbers, which I think skews some perceptions of him, in the same way that Alexander's great TD numbers skewed perception of him.

I know it's all arbitrary, but I wish Barber had started his career earlier or given it a couple of more years. I don't think there would have been any argument.

 

[Toads]

Terrell Davis

 

[CalBear]

I put Barber in. I think Barber would be more of a lock if he hadn't retired, but he went out on top. He was 10th in all-purpose yards, 600 away from Dorsett, 900 away from Thomas--yet half his career was squandered as a non-starter. His last five years: 1984, 1677, 2096, 2390, 2127. That's dominant. He only lacked the big touchdown numbers, which I think skews some perceptions of him, in the same way that Alexander's great TD numbers skewed perception of him.

As far as I can tell, the point of this game is to get the ball in the end zone.

 

[moleculo]

Tiki has the best shot IMHO, because he played in NY.

 

[pollardsvision]

I think people are suffering from "good old days" syndrome here.

I don't see how Edge doesn't get in, and deservedly so, imo.

Numbers aren't everything, but there 15+ HOF RBs with fewer career rushing yards than Edge (#11 all-time). He's also #8 in yards/game (2 yards behind Payton), ahead of the likes of OJ Simpson, Campbell, Dorsett, Sayers, and Bo Jackson.

He was also one of the better dual-threat RBs ever.

Sure, he benefited from a nice system for RBs, but he was a talented RB and his production stacks up against all but a few of the all-time greats.

I think Tiki and Alexander are similar in that they both had about 5 seasons of all-time great production. They dominated the league during those seasons.

Let's look at some other all-time greats (unquestioned HOF'ers):

OJ Simpson: He only had 5 seasons in which he topped 800 rushing yards.

John Riggins: 5 seasons over 1000 yards

Jim Taylor: 5 dominant seasons

Gale Sayers: 2 seasons over 900 yards (I know he was a great returner, but he only returned 6 kicks and 2 punts for TDs in his career).

Campbell: 5 dominant seasons

5 great seasons can get you in. It just doesn't seem right b/c our dads and granddads never told us stories about them growing up, but Edge, Tiki, and Alexander were HOFers, imo.

 

[CalBear]

I think Tiki and Alexander are similar in that they both had about 5 seasons of all-time great production. They dominated the league during those seasons.

Uh, no. Tiki Barber finished top-5 in yards from scrimmage 4 times; top-3 twice. He never finished in the top 10 in total TDs; he finished #9 in rushing TDs once. So at best, he had two seasons of great production and two seasons of good production. Alexander finished in the top 5 (and top 3) in rushing yards only twice. He did finish in the top 3 in rushing TDs five years in a row, which is quite impressive, but only one of those seasons was "all-time great production." When compared with their peers, there will be at least four or five backs who come out ahead (including James on this list).

 

[pollardsvision]

I think Tiki and Alexander are similar in that they both had about 5 seasons of all-time great production. They dominated the league during those seasons.

Uh, no. Tiki Barber finished top-5 in yards from scrimmage 4 times; top-3 twice. He never finished in the top 10 in total TDs; he finished #9 in rushing TDs once. So at best, he had two seasons of great production and two seasons of good production. Alexander finished in the top 5 (and top 3) in rushing yards only twice. He did finish in the top 3 in rushing TDs five years in a row, which is quite impressive, but only one of those seasons was "all-time great production." When compared with their peers, there will be at least four or five backs who come out ahead (including James on this list).

In Tiki's 5-year run, he averaged 1528 rushing yards and 526 receiving yards. That is all-time great and you could put that up against the 5-years spans of the all-time greats.He wasn't a TD monster, but neither was someone like OJ, who cleared 9 rushing TDs 2 times.He is #10 all-time in yards from scrimmage. That's a testament to just how big those 5 seasons really were.I'm not that bullish on Alexander b/c I think he wasn't that good of a RB even when he was putting up huge numbers, but 100 rushing TDs is some pretty elite company. The 1500 rushing yards he averaged for a 5 year stretch is all-time great production, imo. The short-lived TD record puts him over the top, I think.Also, by comparison:Riggins never finished higher than 5th in rushing yards (only did that once).Franco was only top-5 3 times.Marcus Allen: twiceDorsett: 3 times

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think people are suffering from "good old days" syndrome here.I don't see how Edge doesn't get in, and deservedly so, imo.Numbers aren't everything, but there 15+ HOF RBs with fewer career rushing yards than Edge (#11 all-time). He's also #8 in yards/game (2 yards behind Payton), ahead of the likes of OJ Simpson, Campbell, Dorsett, Sayers, and Bo Jackson.He was also one of the better dual-threat RBs ever.Sure, he benefited from a nice system for RBs, but he was a talented RB and his production stacks up against all but a few of the all-time greats.I think Tiki and Alexander are similar in that they both had about 5 seasons of all-time great production. They dominated the league during those seasons.Let's look at some other all-time greats (unquestioned HOF'ers):OJ Simpson: He only had 5 seasons in which he topped 800 rushing yards.John Riggins: 5 seasons over 1000 yardsJim Taylor: 5 dominant seasonsGale Sayers: 2 seasons over 900 yards (I know he was a great returner, but he only returned 6 kicks and 2 punts for TDs in his career).Campbell: 5 dominant seasons5 great seasons can get you in. It just doesn't seem right b/c our dads and granddads never told us stories about them growing up, but Edge, Tiki, and Alexander were HOFers, imo.

Riggins is in the HOF because of his post-season success; Simpson is in because he had two all time great seasons. We know Sayers is a unique case. Taylor may have had five great seasons, but that was back when five great seasons was just about unheard of. Campbell had a short career, but his peak was higher than James' peak.There are 11 "post-merger" guys in the HOF, using that term somewhat loosely, and then Emmitt/Faulk/LT/Martin. SmithSandersFaulkPaytonTomlinsonDickersonSimpsonThomasCampbellMartinAllenHarrisRigginsDorsettCsonkaIt's pretty clear, I think, that you need to be better than the guys at the bottom of the list if you want to go to Canton. Where do you want to draw the line? It's a good question. I'd put Edge/Tiki/Alexander -- based on numbers only -- all between Martin and Allen. That would still put them in the bottom third of the list, which is why I think the best guy there (Tiki, although best not based on the numbers) is still a borderline case. But saying that Edge is better than Larry Csonka is not a convincing argument that he should be in the HOF.

 

[CalBear]

In Tiki's 5-year run, he averaged 1528 rushing yards and 526 receiving yards. That is all-time great and you could put that up against the 5-years spans of the all-time greats.

He wasn't a TD monster, but neither was someone like OJ, who cleared 9 rushing TDs 2 times.

He is #10 all-time in yards from scrimmage. That's a testament to just how big those 5 seasons really were.

I'm not that bullish on Alexander b/c I think he wasn't that good of a RB even when he was putting up huge numbers, but 100 rushing TDs is some pretty elite company. The 1500 rushing yards he averaged for a 5 year stretch is all-time great production, imo. The short-lived TD record puts him over the top, I think.

OJ Simpson played in a different era, with fewer games per season, which is the only reason Tiki and Alexander's seasons look like they might compare. OJ finished #1 in the league in rushing yards four times, top-5 in yards from scrimmage six times (#1 three times), and #1 in rushing TDs twice. All of those are worlds better than Tiki's performances. OJ averaged 110 rushing yards per game over his five-year stretch; Tiki averaged just 96 per game, Alexander 94, and both of them had more carries than OJ.

 

[pollardsvision]

I think people are suffering from "good old days" syndrome here.I don't see how Edge doesn't get in, and deservedly so, imo.Numbers aren't everything, but there 15+ HOF RBs with fewer career rushing yards than Edge (#11 all-time). He's also #8 in yards/game (2 yards behind Payton), ahead of the likes of OJ Simpson, Campbell, Dorsett, Sayers, and Bo Jackson.He was also one of the better dual-threat RBs ever.Sure, he benefited from a nice system for RBs, but he was a talented RB and his production stacks up against all but a few of the all-time greats.I think Tiki and Alexander are similar in that they both had about 5 seasons of all-time great production. They dominated the league during those seasons.Let's look at some other all-time greats (unquestioned HOF'ers):OJ Simpson: He only had 5 seasons in which he topped 800 rushing yards.John Riggins: 5 seasons over 1000 yardsJim Taylor: 5 dominant seasonsGale Sayers: 2 seasons over 900 yards (I know he was a great returner, but he only returned 6 kicks and 2 punts for TDs in his career).Campbell: 5 dominant seasons5 great seasons can get you in. It just doesn't seem right b/c our dads and granddads never told us stories about them growing up, but Edge, Tiki, and Alexander were HOFers, imo.

Riggins is in the HOF because of his post-season success; Simpson is in because he had two all time great seasons. We know Sayers is a unique case. Taylor may have had five great seasons, but that was back when five great seasons was just about unheard of. Campbell had a short career, but his peak was higher than James' peak.There are 11 "post-merger" guys in the HOF, using that term somewhat loosely, and then Emmitt/Faulk/LT/Martin. SmithSandersFaulkPaytonTomlinsonDickersonSimpsonThomasCampbellMartinAllenHarrisRigginsDorsettCsonkaIt's pretty clear, I think, that you need to be better than the guys at the bottom of the list if you want to go to Canton. Where do you want to draw the line? It's a good question. I'd put Edge/Tiki/Alexander -- based on numbers only -- all between Martin and Allen. That would still put them in the bottom third of the list, which is why I think the best guy there (Tiki, although best not based on the numbers) is still a borderline case. But saying that Edge is better than Larry Csonka is not a convincing argument that he should be in the HOF.

Wow, it's tough to get into the HOF as a RB.I'm not saying any of the 3 are slam dunks, but I think they make the cut. The 16 game season certainly made a difference for them and the lack of playoff success for Tiki and Edge is especially glaring, given that both had their prev. team win a SB as soon as they left.I think Edge's production is just hard to deny and from looking at the list, it's apparent that, unless you are a freak of nature, 5 great seasons is about all you get. I think what Tiki and Alexander did with theirs puts them in that Allen range

 

[Chase Stuart]

Wow, it's tough to get into the HOF as a RB.

I'm not saying any of the 3 are slam dunks, but I think they make the cut. The 16 game season certainly made a difference for them and the lack of playoff success for Tiki and Edge is especially glaring, given that both had their prev. team win a SB as soon as they left.

I think Edge's production is just hard to deny and from looking at the list, it's apparent that, unless you are a freak of nature, 5 great seasons is about all you get. I think what Tiki and Alexander did with theirs puts them in that Allen range

There's no doubt it's tough to get in. Once again, the question is what percentage of current HOFers do you think a player needs to be better than in order to get in? 50% sounds good in theory, but I think it's too tough a standard if we restrict our set to modern RBs. But if we've got a set of 15 RBs, requiring a RB to be in the top 10 is reasonable. So is top 12. I think all three RBs fall in that "better than Allen/Harris/Riggins/Dorsett/Csonka" range but worse than Martin. Also worth noting, though:

If we look at the last 10 HOF RBs (including the four retired and not yet eligible guys), that leaves Tiki/Edge/SA better than just two of the 10 (Dorsett and Allen).

If you check the list at the bottom of this post -- http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=1530 -- which accounts for era very well, then you see that James/SA/Barber are really on the outside looking in. Were they more dominant than Holmes or Davis? No. Are they clearly more valuable than Chuck Foreman or William Andrews? After accounting for era, it's not very clear.

The reason Barber gets my vote is because of the three, he's the one that sticks out as a "better than his numbers" guy.

 

[Native]

Only a certain number of RB's should get in from a particular generation. During this period, 1) Marshall Faulk and 2) Ladanian Tomlinson are the two clear front runners, followed by 3) Terrell Davis and 4) Curtis Martin. After the first two guys, I wouldnt be upset if none of the other guys were inducted. James had gaudy statistics in a potent offense but his ability never impressed me. If he played in a generation were stats weren't so important and players were valued solely by their quality of play, Edge would never get inducted.

Of the guys you listed, I like Alexander the best. In his prime I thought he was the best of the four backs and almost single handedly won his team the Super Bowl. He wore down fast though and that will probably keep him out.

 

[FUBAR]

Once again, the question is what percentage of current HOFers do you think a player needs to be better than in order to get in? 50% sounds good in theory, but I think it's too tough a standard if we restrict our set to modern RBs. But if we've got a set of 15 RBs, requiring a RB to be in the top 10 is reasonable. So is top 12. I think all three RBs fall in that "better than Allen/Harris/Riggins/Dorsett/Csonka" range but worse than Martin. Also worth noting, though:

Do we work with the assumption that everyone in the HOF is worthy of being in the HOF? If so, why isn't it ok to just be better than the 15th RB? Once you account for era that is. Honestly, how many players have a better 7 year run than Tiki's 2000-2006? The man averaged 1920 yards from scrimmage in that span. That's an average of the top 70 ever every year for 7 years. Doesn't sound all that impressive I guess, but it is. He has the 2nd best year ever, 4 in the top 57. Maybe I'm biased, he won me a couple championships, but the guy was great. I would rank Tiki over CurMar.

 

[David Yudkin]

Only a certain number of RB's should get in from a particular generation. During this period, 1) Marshall Faulk and 2) Ladanian Tomlinson are the two clear front runners, followed by 3) Terrell Davis and 4) Curtis Martin. After the first two guys, I wouldnt be upset if none of the other guys were inducted. James had gaudy statistics in a potent offense but his ability never impressed me. If he played in a generation were stats weren't so important and players were valued solely by their quality of play, Edge would never get inducted.Of the guys you listed, I like Alexander the best. In his prime I thought he was the best of the four backs and almost single handedly won his team the Super Bowl. He wore down fast though and that will probably keep him out.

I'd put Davis in my HOF over Martin and Bettis. But I see Martin and Bettis getting in way before Davis does (and if he does).As for Edge, he's had four 1,500 yard rushing seasons. That's not chump change. The issue I think for most people is that he didn't win a ring, but if he even plays part time this year he should move up to the #7 slot in career rushing yards.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Once again, the question is what percentage of current HOFers do you think a player needs to be better than in order to get in? 50% sounds good in theory, but I think it's too tough a standard if we restrict our set to modern RBs. But if we've got a set of 15 RBs, requiring a RB to be in the top 10 is reasonable. So is top 12. I think all three RBs fall in that "better than Allen/Harris/Riggins/Dorsett/Csonka" range but worse than Martin. Also worth noting, though:

Do we work with the assumption that everyone in the HOF is worthy of being in the HOF? If so, why isn't it ok to just be better than the 15th RB? Once you account for era that is. Honestly, how many players have a better 7 year run than Tiki's 2000-2006? The man averaged 1920 yards from scrimmage in that span. That's an average of the top 70 ever every year for 7 years. Doesn't sound all that impressive I guess, but it is. He has the 2nd best year ever, 4 in the top 57. Maybe I'm biased, he won me a couple championships, but the guy was great. I would rank Tiki over CurMar.

Tiki's fumbling issues are a big knock, though. That's why in my formula I've got him below Edge.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Only a certain number of RB's should get in from a particular generation. During this period, 1) Marshall Faulk and 2) Ladanian Tomlinson are the two clear front runners, followed by 3) Terrell Davis and 4) Curtis Martin. After the first two guys, I wouldnt be upset if none of the other guys were inducted. James had gaudy statistics in a potent offense but his ability never impressed me. If he played in a generation were stats weren't so important and players were valued solely by their quality of play, Edge would never get inducted.Of the guys you listed, I like Alexander the best. In his prime I thought he was the best of the four backs and almost single handedly won his team the Super Bowl. He wore down fast though and that will probably keep him out.

I'd put Davis in my HOF over Martin and Bettis. But I see Martin and Bettis getting in way before Davis does (and if he does).As for Edge, he's had four 1,500 yard rushing seasons. That's not chump change. The issue I think for most people is that he didn't win a ring, but if he even plays part time this year he should move up to the #7 slot in career rushing yards.

I'd put Davis over Martin, although I think it's close. Bettis is far behind, and I both wouldn't put him in and don't expect him to be inducted.

 

[Sinrman]

All OUT. For me a hall of famer is someone you don't even have to think about whether they get in or not. I paused for about 1/2 second on Tiki Barber and the rest just said meh.They were all very good RBs and even great for a few years but just not hall of famers.

 

[David Yudkin]

All OUT. For me a hall of famer is someone you don't even have to think about whether they get in or not. I paused for about 1/2 second on Tiki Barber and the rest just said meh.They were all very good RBs and even great for a few years but just not hall of famers.

I agree in theory but disagree in practice, as there are probably some guys that are already in that wouldn't pass this screening test. That makes it difficult when down stream people will say "PLAYER X is in, so the bar was set and PLAYER Y should get in."

 

[FUBAR]

Once again, the question is what percentage of current HOFers do you think a player needs to be better than in order to get in? 50% sounds good in theory, but I think it's too tough a standard if we restrict our set to modern RBs. But if we've got a set of 15 RBs, requiring a RB to be in the top 10 is reasonable. So is top 12. I think all three RBs fall in that "better than Allen/Harris/Riggins/Dorsett/Csonka" range but worse than Martin. Also worth noting, though:

Do we work with the assumption that everyone in the HOF is worthy of being in the HOF? If so, why isn't it ok to just be better than the 15th RB? Once you account for era that is. Honestly, how many players have a better 7 year run than Tiki's 2000-2006? The man averaged 1920 yards from scrimmage in that span. That's an average of the top 70 ever every year for 7 years. Doesn't sound all that impressive I guess, but it is. He has the 2nd best year ever, 4 in the top 57. Maybe I'm biased, he won me a couple championships, but the guy was great. I would rank Tiki over CurMar.

Tiki's fumbling issues are a big knock, though. That's why in my formula I've got him below Edge.

Fair point, he had a 4-year span where that was pretty bad.

 

[Native]

Only a certain number of RB's should get in from a particular generation. During this period, 1) Marshall Faulk and 2) Ladanian Tomlinson are the two clear front runners, followed by 3) Terrell Davis and 4) Curtis Martin. After the first two guys, I wouldnt be upset if none of the other guys were inducted. James had gaudy statistics in a potent offense but his ability never impressed me. If he played in a generation were stats weren't so important and players were valued solely by their quality of play, Edge would never get inducted.Of the guys you listed, I like Alexander the best. In his prime I thought he was the best of the four backs and almost single handedly won his team the Super Bowl. He wore down fast though and that will probably keep him out.

I'd put Davis in my HOF over Martin and Bettis. But I see Martin and Bettis getting in way before Davis does (and if he does).As for Edge, he's had four 1,500 yard rushing seasons. That's not chump change. The issue I think for most people is that he didn't win a ring, but if he even plays part time this year he should move up to the #7 slot in career rushing yards.

I agree that Edge has the best numbers of the bunch, but he also had the least amount of talent (IMO) and played on the best offense. In these situations I like to use the "switcharoo" litmus test: Had you put Alexander on the Colts and Edge on Seattle in their prime years, Alexander would be a first ballot HOF'er and Edge wouldnt even be in this discussion.

 

[fissure man]

Only a certain number of RB's should get in from a particular generation. During this period, 1) Marshall Faulk and 2) Ladanian Tomlinson are the two clear front runners, followed by 3) Terrell Davis and 4) Curtis Martin. After the first two guys, I wouldnt be upset if none of the other guys were inducted. James had gaudy statistics in a potent offense but his ability never impressed me. If he played in a generation were stats weren't so important and players were valued solely by their quality of play, Edge would never get inducted.Of the guys you listed, I like Alexander the best. In his prime I thought he was the best of the four backs and almost single handedly won his team the Super Bowl. He wore down fast though and that will probably keep him out.

I'd put Davis in my HOF over Martin and Bettis. But I see Martin and Bettis getting in way before Davis does (and if he does).As for Edge, he's had four 1,500 yard rushing seasons. That's not chump change. The issue I think for most people is that he didn't win a ring, but if he even plays part time this year he should move up to the #7 slot in career rushing yards.

I agree that Edge has the best numbers of the bunch, but he also had the least amount of talent (IMO) and played on the best offense. In these situations I like to use the "switcharoo" litmus test: Had you put Alexander on the Colts and Edge on Seattle in their prime years, Alexander would be a first ballot HOF'er and Edge wouldnt even be in this discussion.

I hope you're kidding. SEA had a GREAT line when Alexander was putting up those numbers. This is important to remember since Alexander is the softest "good" back I've ever seen play. He would just curl up into the fetal position and fall down rather then lower his shoulder. I think a lot of you are forgetting how good Corey Dillon was. He put up some impressive numbers while playing for one of the worst teams in the middles of one of their worst runs. I'm not suggesting he's a HOF player, but he was a good RB.

 

[David Yudkin]

I agree that Edge has the best numbers of the bunch, but he also had the least amount of talent (IMO) and played on the best offense. In these situations I like to use the "switcharoo" litmus test: Had you put Alexander on the Colts and Edge on Seattle in their prime years, Alexander would be a first ballot HOF'er and Edge wouldnt even be in this discussion.

The problem with the switching players argument is that many times you could end up sticking anyone in the HOF in the right environment. Take any RB from the 90s with health and a chance of longevity and put him in place of Emmitt Smith and that guy could easily be the all time leaqgue leader in rushing yards.In your scenario, you are penalizing Edge for playing on one of the league's best offenses. IMO, that's backwards. We should be rewarding players for producing on the most noteworthy teams. Or should we only look for standouts on 3-13 teams?Edge still had to log the miles and earn the yards to rank where he ranks. It's great to think that anyone could have done what he did, but we only know what actually happened. Edge had a 4.22 ypc in IND (including 3.6 in the year he came back from his knee injury). Post-James, the Colts have had a team ypc of 4.0, 3.8, and 3.4 in the years since he left. Had someone else come in and had kept up say a 4.8 or 5.0 ypc, I might be swayed to think that it was all the system and Edge was just a guy in a uniform.

 

[Matt Waldman]

Wow Native, I couldn't disagree more about Edgerrin James. James would have wiped the floor with Shaun Alexander if he were in Seattle or any other team when he was at his peak. Even after his ACL tear Edge was one of the most technically sound runners the league has seen in the past 15 years.

Edge had excellent patience, vision, and when it came to getting extra yards in the face of contact I can't think of too many backs who were better at getting lower than the defender so he could get that extra 2-3 yards and the first down. His ability to cut in the hole and change direction was excellent. It's hidden a bit because he lost some of that breakaway speed, but as a move the chains-get the first down-produce a high average of yards/carry guy few were better. He was an excellent receiver and one of the best pass blocking backs of this generation. He also had excellent stamina and rarely came out of the game.

Shaun Alexander shied away from contact far more by comparison, lacked Edge's speed (at Edge's peak), and was not anywhere on the map as a pass blocker.

You use the stats as a reason why James is overrated and certainly when you look at Rhodes and Addai it's understandable why one might think so. But the Colts' bread and butter run play, the stretch play, requires a back with speed to get to the outside, and force defenses to get to the sideline but also have the patience to cutback. This play relies so much on the cutback because the RB has to pay attention to what the safety and LB are doing as he's running laterally. Most backs are ineffective when you get them moving east-west, Edge was not. This play required discipline and instinct from a runner because this stretch play was a zone variation of the stretch play that is run as a gap play at Minnesota and Stanford. Gap plays require much less creativity from an RB because you don't cutback on these plays. You could argue Manning and this play are the chicken and the egg argument, but I believe the RB's effectiveness does more for the passing game on this play than the threat of the pass does for the run. But there are several QBs who are good at play fakes and far more athletic than Manning to get the ball to the RB on this play. The key is the back's effectiveness and its why so few teams run the stretch play.

I hear all the time that zone plays don't require a great feature back to run and that's why Shanny could put late round guys in the backfield and produce but I think this is a false generalization. The zone play puts the decision making on the RB and he has to have better vision, patience, anticipation, and skill in traffic than gap (power plays). If anything the zone plays are easier on the lineman and harder on the backs. Gap plays are easier on the backs and harder on the linemen See Ken Whisenhunts explanation:

On zone blocking: "It's easier when you're picking up stunting defensive lines because the angles are a lot easier for the offensive linemen to take on the defensive linemen. Because really, what you're doing is your working an area. So if your man stunts inside, you know the guy next to you is coming in that direction, he'll take him. So all you have to focus on is your steps and your technique. Then it's up to the back to pick the hole based on what he sees, which is what Edge is comfortable with because that's a lot of what Indianapolis did when he was there."

On the power scheme: "The advantage...of blocking down and pulling linemen is it creates holes, because you're essentially cutting the defense in half. You're more determining where the hole is going to be, and if the blocks are done correctly, there will be bigger holes for the back to go into. In the power scheme, more of those runs are going to hit into the holes where they were designed. Where in the zone scheme, we can start in one direction and it can actually bend all the way back."

Shaun Alexander ran behind an offense that was designed to run gap plays in Seattle during his heyday. He had a GREAT offensive line. Alexander often committed the big risk of making a cutback on these plays and this is usually discouraged. I've seen the same from college players who try to do this on gap plays. They may break one of those plays for a 20-30 yard run but lose about 40 yards in the other six to eight attempts where they try to pull this kind of move. He had some big plays, but more often had huge losses and really angered his coaching staff. This was documented in an ESPN article in recent years by Mike Sando who was the 'hawks beat writer.

Edge is a deceptively good player. His stats make him look excellent, but the flipside is that it's easy for people to dismiss him because of those stats. I would argue with the points I mentioned above that you shouldn't do it. I think he was by far the best back of this group. I would put Corey Dillon in the great talent, but not quite there category because the stats and team situations didn't help him generate the production he was capable.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

Karma came up an bit Tiki...

He retired so he could be the male Andrea Kramer robbing himself of a SB and HOF chances.

 

[fissure man]

I agree that Edge has the best numbers of the bunch, but he also had the least amount of talent (IMO) and played on the best offense. In these situations I like to use the "switcharoo" litmus test: Had you put Alexander on the Colts and Edge on Seattle in their prime years, Alexander would be a first ballot HOF'er and Edge wouldnt even be in this discussion.

The problem with the switching players argument is that many times you could end up sticking anyone in the HOF in the right environment. Take any RB from the 90s with health and a chance of longevity and put him in place of Emmitt Smith and that guy could easily be the all time leaqgue leader in rushing yards.In your scenario, you are penalizing Edge for playing on one of the league's best offenses. IMO, that's backwards. We should be rewarding players for producing on the most noteworthy teams. Or should we only look for standouts on 3-13 teams?

Edge still had to log the miles and earn the yards to rank where he ranks. It's great to think that anyone could have done what he did, but we only know what actually happened. Edge had a 4.22 ypc in IND (including 3.6 in the year he came back from his knee injury). Post-James, the Colts have had a team ypc of 4.0, 3.8, and 3.4 in the years since he left. Had someone else come in and had kept up say a 4.8 or 5.0 ypc, I might be swayed to think that it was all the system and Edge was just a guy in a uniform.

 

[FUBAR]

I agree that Edge has the best numbers of the bunch, but he also had the least amount of talent (IMO) and played on the best offense. In these situations I like to use the "switcharoo" litmus test: Had you put Alexander on the Colts and Edge on Seattle in their prime years, Alexander would be a first ballot HOF'er and Edge wouldnt even be in this discussion.

The problem with the switching players argument is that many times you could end up sticking anyone in the HOF in the right environment. Take any RB from the 90s with health and a chance of longevity and put him in place of Emmitt Smith and that guy could easily be the all time leaqgue leader in rushing yards.In your scenario, you are penalizing Edge for playing on one of the league's best offenses. IMO, that's backwards. We should be rewarding players for producing on the most noteworthy teams. Or should we only look for standouts on 3-13 teams?

Edge still had to log the miles and earn the yards to rank where he ranks. It's great to think that anyone could have done what he did, but we only know what actually happened. Edge had a 4.22 ypc in IND (including 3.6 in the year he came back from his knee injury). Post-James, the Colts have had a team ypc of 4.0, 3.8, and 3.4 in the years since he left. Had someone else come in and had kept up say a 4.8 or 5.0 ypc, I might be swayed to think that it was all the system and Edge was just a guy in a uniform.

what's so confusing? David's exaggerating, but it makes the point.

 

[FUBAR]

I agree that Edge has the best numbers of the bunch, but he also had the least amount of talent (IMO) and played on the best offense. In these situations I like to use the "switcharoo" litmus test: Had you put Alexander on the Colts and Edge on Seattle in their prime years, Alexander would be a first ballot HOF'er and Edge wouldnt even be in this discussion.

seriously, where do you come up with this stuff? Both benefited by being on their team, put Dillon in Seattle and he eclipses Emmitt's record.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Only a certain number of RB's should get in from a particular generation. During this period, 1) Marshall Faulk and 2) Ladanian Tomlinson are the two clear front runners, followed by 3) Terrell Davis and 4) Curtis Martin. After the first two guys, I wouldnt be upset if none of the other guys were inducted. James had gaudy statistics in a potent offense but his ability never impressed me. If he played in a generation were stats weren't so important and players were valued solely by their quality of play, Edge would never get inducted.Of the guys you listed, I like Alexander the best. In his prime I thought he was the best of the four backs and almost single handedly won his team the Super Bowl. He wore down fast though and that will probably keep him out.

I'd put Davis in my HOF over Martin and Bettis. But I see Martin and Bettis getting in way before Davis does (and if he does).As for Edge, he's had four 1,500 yard rushing seasons. That's not chump change. The issue I think for most people is that he didn't win a ring, but if he even plays part time this year he should move up to the #7 slot in career rushing yards.

I agree that Edge has the best numbers of the bunch, but he also had the least amount of talent (IMO) and played on the best offense. In these situations I like to use the "switcharoo" litmus test: Had you put Alexander on the Colts and Edge on Seattle in their prime years, Alexander would be a first ballot HOF'er and Edge wouldnt even be in this discussion.

I'd argue Edge was the most talented of all 4 (although Dillon was close). I think you are also overlooking that Seattle had one of the best o-lines in that era.