Steeler fans are about to hate me, but... (1 Viewer)

[crazyhorse]

Bettis is awesome.17 carries; 101 yards; 2 TDsThe Bus always delivers.

 

[Irish]

In 9 career postseason games, Bettis has rushed for less than 500 yards. :X

Sure, if you ignore the fact that in 2001/2002 he was hurt in the postseason and got a whopping 13 carries in 3 games over that stretch.In the 6 games in which he was healthy and actually started the game, he has 472 yards and 5 TDs in 6 starts. That's including a 13/43 debacle against the Patriots in 1996 in which the Steelers had to abandon the run completely in order to play catchup. He has broken 100 yards in 3 of his other 5 playoff starts.

 

[crazyhorse]

In 9 career postseason games, Bettis has rushed for less than 500 yards. :X

Sure, if you ignore the fact that in 2001/2002 he was hurt in the postseason and got a whopping 13 carries in 3 games over that stretch.In the 6 games in which he was healthy and actually started the game, he has 472 yards and 5 TDs in 6 starts. That's including a 13/43 debacle against the Patriots in 1996 in which the Steelers had to abandon the run completely in order to play catchup. He has broken 100 yards in 3 of his other 5 playoff starts.

Perfect example of people relying too much on stats instead of looking into the real facts.

 

[4thAndForever]

In 9 career postseason games, Bettis has rushed for less than 500 yards. :X

Sure, if you ignore the fact that in 2001/2002 he was hurt in the postseason and got a whopping 13 carries in 3 games over that stretch.In the 6 games in which he was healthy and actually started the game, he has 472 yards and 5 TDs in 6 starts. That's including a 13/43 debacle against the Patriots in 1996 in which the Steelers had to abandon the run completely in order to play catchup. He has broken 100 yards in 3 of his other 5 playoff starts.

You're right, I'm definitely owned on that one. In a thread where Steelers fans are trumping Bettis's longetivity as a core reason for his enshrinement, disproving my point by showing how he hasn't been there when his team has needed him most one third of the time definitely puts me in my place. Especially when you figure that when healthy, he's averaged an amazing 3.5 yards per carry and a breathtaking 79 yards per game. If those aren't Hall of Fame numbers, I don't know what are.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

Interesting which player's photo is under "Top Stories" on the official Pro Football HOF website. Someone ought to ask Urlacher if Bettis belongs in the Hall.

 

[Das Boot]

To me, Bettis was never a special player. He is a compiler. He is Rafael Palmiero and Harold Baines in shoulder pads. If you play long enough at a respectable level, you will put up numbers. But "respectable" shouldn't get you a bust in Canton.

If Bettis is just a compiler, at least he was really good at compiling.Heck, you'd think more people would just compile until they were 5th all time.

Boot.

 

[Godsbrother]

Argue all you want. Bettis will be in HOF, I have no doubt about it. He mightnot get in first ballot, depending on who else is eligible, but he'll be there.Not only does he have sufficient numbers, he is good guy and media favorite. He's in.

 

[4thAndForever]

Interesting which player's photo is under "Top Stories" on the official Pro Football HOF website. Someone ought to ask Urlacher if Bettis belongs in the Hall.

Jeff Feagles and Kurt Warner are also on the front page. I see your point.

 

[4thAndForever]

Argue all you want. Bettis will be in HOF, I have no doubt about it. He mightnot get in first ballot, depending on who else is eligible, but he'll be there.

Not only does he have sufficient numbers, he is good guy and media favorite. He's in.

I'm not sure anyone is even debating this. I think he'll be in there, too.But the question was should he be in there.

 

[Steelers4Life]

To me, Bettis was never a special player.  He is a compiler.  He is Rafael Palmiero and Harold Baines in shoulder pads.  If you play long enough at a respectable level, you will put up numbers. But "respectable" shouldn't get you a bust in Canton. 

If Bettis is just a compiler, at least he was really good at compiling.Heck, you'd think more people would just compile until they were 5th all time.

Boot.

Curtis Martin is viewed as one of the most durable RBs the NFL has seen in a long time, and he's played 2 fewer years than Bettis has. We'll see if Martin is able to add a 100 yard, 2 TD performance in 2007. Better yet, we'll see if he looks like a RB who can rush for over 800 yards in half a season next year, which would be his 12th.

People act as though it's as simple as playing for 13 years and BAM, you're 5th all time rushing. There's a reason that few NFL RBs last that long, and none like Bettis have come close. It's his entire body of work that is Hall-worthy.

People also want to compare him to the Thurman Thomas type of RBs, but that's ridiculous. Sure, Thomas was a better receiver. Bettis has been a far superior between the tackles runner. They played the same position, but they played very different games.

 

[4thAndForever]

To me, Bettis was never a special player. He is a compiler. He is Rafael Palmiero and Harold Baines in shoulder pads. If you play long enough at a respectable level, you will put up numbers. But "respectable" shouldn't get you a bust in Canton.

If Bettis is just a compiler, at least he was really good at compiling.Heck, you'd think more people would just compile until they were 5th all time.

Boot.

Curtis Martin is viewed as one of the most durable RBs the NFL has seen in a long time, and he's played 2 fewer years than Bettis has. We'll see if Martin is able to add a 100 yard, 2 TD performance in 2007. Better yet, we'll see if he looks like a RB who can rush for over 800 yards in half a season next year, which would be his 12th.

People act as though it's as simple as playing for 13 years and BAM, you're 5th all time rushing. There's a reason that few NFL RBs last that long, and none like Bettis have come close. It's his entire body of work that is Hall-worthy.

People also want to compare him to the Thurman Thomas type of RBs, but that's ridiculous. Sure, Thomas was a better receiver. Bettis has been a far superior between the tackles runner. They played the same position, but they played very different games.

Martin has also already run for more yards than Bettis, so I think your point pretty much gets thrown out the window.

 

[PMENFAN]

I think Bettis is a borderline guy. I don't think he should go in, but I would understand if he does. I hate the 'longetivity' argument. Having a long career means you are an elite athlete (pro level-elite among men). It doesn't mean you're elite among the elites among men. These are the players in the hall. I'd put him w/ CMartin. I would sooner put Martin in, but IMHO he's no lock. The 10 years of 1k yards does not impress me. Ten years at 1500? He'd be a lock. Both very good players, who had long careers, but not hall of famers. I'd put them in the hall of very gooders, but not hall of famers. For recent RB's, there are very few I'd put in the hall. Holmes-debatable (more of a system than him-not an irony that he took over for Faulk as the season TD leader). . LT-A virtual lockShaun Alexander-another lockCorey Dillon?-debatable, if he can turn it on and get NE deep in the playoffs the next 2-3 years, stronger argument for, but not a lock.McGahee-the potential is there, but he needs to produce. New coaches/scheme will helpJamal Lewis-Seems to have lost some heart. Let's see what a new contract does. Potential there, but we'll see. Edge-Pretty close to a lock. A ring this year and a couple more above average years, and yesTiki-borderline, but I say no. Always good, but never great. Only became above average with a very good line and good passing game. Far below average w/out, but has absolutely improved as the years went on. Portis-No way. Slightly better than average back. Marshall Faulk-Absolutely inThose are the main guys I think people would think of at this point. I believe Cadillac will be a special NFL back in a couple of years. I'm not sold on Ronnie Brown, and of the young guys, they're the only ones I think worthy of mention. I dont' believe Benson will be anthing special in the NFL.

 

[Steelers4Life]

To me, Bettis was never a special player.  He is a compiler.  He is Rafael Palmiero and Harold Baines in shoulder pads.  If you play long enough at a respectable level, you will put up numbers. But "respectable" shouldn't get you a bust in Canton. 

If Bettis is just a compiler, at least he was really good at compiling.Heck, you'd think more people would just compile until they were 5th all time.

Boot.

Curtis Martin is viewed as one of the most durable RBs the NFL has seen in a long time, and he's played 2 fewer years than Bettis has. We'll see if Martin is able to add a 100 yard, 2 TD performance in 2007. Better yet, we'll see if he looks like a RB who can rush for over 800 yards in half a season next year, which would be his 12th.

People act as though it's as simple as playing for 13 years and BAM, you're 5th all time rushing. There's a reason that few NFL RBs last that long, and none like Bettis have come close. It's his entire body of work that is Hall-worthy.

People also want to compare him to the Thurman Thomas type of RBs, but that's ridiculous. Sure, Thomas was a better receiver. Bettis has been a far superior between the tackles runner. They played the same position, but they played very different games.

Martin has also already run for more yards than Bettis, so I think your point pretty much gets thrown out the window.

Not really. He's carried the ball over 400 times more than Bettis in 2 fewer seasons. I definitely admire what Martin has done.

However, it's been brought up that Bettis's YPC is sub-par, but their YPCs are almost identical. (3.94 & 4.01) Martin has more yards because he's got more carries, not because he was a better runner.

 

[4thAndForever]

To me, Bettis was never a special player. He is a compiler. He is Rafael Palmiero and Harold Baines in shoulder pads. If you play long enough at a respectable level, you will put up numbers. But "respectable" shouldn't get you a bust in Canton.

If Bettis is just a compiler, at least he was really good at compiling.Heck, you'd think more people would just compile until they were 5th all time.

Boot.

Curtis Martin is viewed as one of the most durable RBs the NFL has seen in a long time, and he's played 2 fewer years than Bettis has. We'll see if Martin is able to add a 100 yard, 2 TD performance in 2007. Better yet, we'll see if he looks like a RB who can rush for over 800 yards in half a season next year, which would be his 12th.

People act as though it's as simple as playing for 13 years and BAM, you're 5th all time rushing. There's a reason that few NFL RBs last that long, and none like Bettis have come close. It's his entire body of work that is Hall-worthy.

People also want to compare him to the Thurman Thomas type of RBs, but that's ridiculous. Sure, Thomas was a better receiver. Bettis has been a far superior between the tackles runner. They played the same position, but they played very different games.

Martin has also already run for more yards than Bettis, so I think your point pretty much gets thrown out the window.

Not really. He's carried the ball over 400 times more than Bettis in 2 fewer seasons. I definitely admire what Martin has done.

However, it's been brought up that Bettis's YPC is sub-par, but their YPCs are almost identical. (3.94 & 4.01) Martin has more yards because he's got more carries, not because he was a better runner.

I guess that begs the question, why can't Bettis stay as healthy as Martin seeing as how Martin has had more carries in a shorter time span?Now obviously, it's not exactly fair to use Curtis Martin as a measuring stick; Martin has been nothing short of remarkable in his ability to stay healthy, play through injury, etc. But it doesn't exactly speak well for Bettis. He's only played all 16 games in a season 6 times - and you've already conceded that he hasn't always had the heaviest work load. Heck, he's only topped 300 carries 5 times (with a 6th season of 299 carries).

I put him in the Hall of Very, Very Good.

 

[gman8343]

the moral of this story is if you're very good for a long time, you become great, even if you were never truly great at any one point in your career.

 

[4thAndForever]

the moral of this story is if you're very good for a long time, you become great, even if you were never truly great at any one point in your career.

 

[PMENFAN]

the moral of this story is if you're very good for a long time, you become great, even if you were never truly great at any one point in your career.

The Dave Kreig argument? Play for a long time, put up lots of numbers, and get into the hall? I disagree. My criteria is not stat based, but how you played.

 

[Steelers4Life]

To me, Bettis was never a special player.  He is a compiler.  He is Rafael Palmiero and Harold Baines in shoulder pads.  If you play long enough at a respectable level, you will put up numbers. But "respectable" shouldn't get you a bust in Canton. 

If Bettis is just a compiler, at least he was really good at compiling.Heck, you'd think more people would just compile until they were 5th all time.

Boot.

Curtis Martin is viewed as one of the most durable RBs the NFL has seen in a long time, and he's played 2 fewer years than Bettis has. We'll see if Martin is able to add a 100 yard, 2 TD performance in 2007. Better yet, we'll see if he looks like a RB who can rush for over 800 yards in half a season next year, which would be his 12th.

People act as though it's as simple as playing for 13 years and BAM, you're 5th all time rushing. There's a reason that few NFL RBs last that long, and none like Bettis have come close. It's his entire body of work that is Hall-worthy.

People also want to compare him to the Thurman Thomas type of RBs, but that's ridiculous. Sure, Thomas was a better receiver. Bettis has been a far superior between the tackles runner. They played the same position, but they played very different games.

Martin has also already run for more yards than Bettis, so I think your point pretty much gets thrown out the window.

Not really. He's carried the ball over 400 times more than Bettis in 2 fewer seasons. I definitely admire what Martin has done.

However, it's been brought up that Bettis's YPC is sub-par, but their YPCs are almost identical. (3.94 & 4.01) Martin has more yards because he's got more carries, not because he was a better runner.

I guess that begs the question, why can't Bettis stay as healthy as Martin seeing as how Martin has had more carries in a shorter time span?Now obviously, it's not exactly fair to use Curtis Martin as a measuring stick; Martin has been nothing short of remarkable in his ability to stay healthy, play through injury, etc. But it doesn't exactly speak well for Bettis. He's only played all 16 games in a season 6 times - and you've already conceded that he hasn't always had the heaviest work load. Heck, he's only topped 300 carries 5 times (with a 6th season of 299 carries).

I put him in the Hall of Very, Very Good.

Different types of RBs. Bettis is a 250+ pound bruiser, and guys like him with running styles like his are more susceptible to injuries and wearing down earlier. He's an exception to the rule. Martin is also an exception to the rule, and what he's done has been truly remarkable. Contrary to your opinion, I think that speaks very well for Bettis.

He's had a few great seasons and a lot of very, very good ones. Longevity IS a factor, and the fact that he's done what he's done the way he's done it for as long as he's done it speaks volumes. You say it tongue in check, but that IS exactly what makes him great, and great RBs make it to the Hall.

 

[ren hoek]

Curtis Martin - 4th in rushing, 7th all-time in yards from scrimmage. 103.75 all-purpose yards per game played.Jerome Bettis - 5th in rushing, 12th all-time in yards from scrimmage, 79.41 all-purpose yards per game played.Not only has Martin eclipsed Bettis' career rushing yardage mark in two fewer seasons (or 20 fewer games), he's completely obliterated Bettis in the aspect of all-purpose yards. If Bettis is such a great back, why are his per-game numbers so absurdly pedestrian, and furthermore, why is Bettis even being mentioned in the same breath as Curtis Martin?

 

[Ghost Rider]

To touch on the Marti/Bettis comparison:IMO, the 1200 yard mark is a better benchmark for judging how good of a season a RB had. Martin has run for over 1200 yards 7 times, Bettis only 4 times. Martin has almost 2 1/2 times as many receptions as Bettis and well over twice as many receiving yards, not to mention more rushing yards despite playing two less seasons. Martin has finished in the top ten in rushing 7 times, Bettis 5 times. Martin has finished in the top three 4 times, Bettis 3 times. Martin has finished in the top ten in yards from scrimmage 9 times. Bettis has only 3 times. Martin has 12 more career TD's despite not always being the short yardage back on his team and not being a bruising short yardage back like Bettis.

 

[Bojang0301]

Bettis is the Rafael Palmeiro of the NFL. Really good for a long time, but in the end, a very forgettable player.

Please he defined what the Steelers are all about for a decade now. He has been the main staple for a team that has had extremly few losing seasons during that time period. If you think Bettis will be easily forgotten about I guess we should say the same for CuMart. It is not all about stats. Bettis is a different back for this generation but also is the definition for the team he has played for and been a direct cause for their success. He is just as deserving as CuMart or Faulk and you people are really fishing here on a guy who will most likely be a first ballot in guy.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Please he defined what the Steelers are all about for a decade now. He has been the main staple for a team that has had extremly few losing seasons during that time period.

Rod Smith has been the main staple on a team that has had very few losing seasons (one, in fact) over the last ten years. Should he be in the HoF, too?

He is just as deserving as CuMart or Faulk

That is just plain wrong. You need to read through this thread carefully and you will see the many arguments made that demonstrate how much better Faulk and Martin have been over their careers.

 

[4thAndForever]

Bettis is the Rafael Palmeiro of the NFL. Really good for a long time, but in the end, a very forgettable player.

Please he defined what the Steelers are all about for a decade now. He has been the main staple for a team that has had extremly few losing seasons during that time period. If you think Bettis will be easily forgotten about I guess we should say the same for CuMart. It is not all about stats. Bettis is a different back for this generation but also is the definition for the team he has played for and been a direct cause for their success. He is just as deserving as CuMart or Faulk and you people are really fishing here on a guy who will most likely be a first ballot in guy.

I take that back, Bettis is not a forgettable player, and it was wrong of me to compare him to Palmeiro. He's more Don Mattingly.

 

[4thAndForever]

To me, Bettis was never a special player. He is a compiler. He is Rafael Palmiero and Harold Baines in shoulder pads. If you play long enough at a respectable level, you will put up numbers. But "respectable" shouldn't get you a bust in Canton.

If Bettis is just a compiler, at least he was really good at compiling.Heck, you'd think more people would just compile until they were 5th all time.

Boot.

Curtis Martin is viewed as one of the most durable RBs the NFL has seen in a long time, and he's played 2 fewer years than Bettis has. We'll see if Martin is able to add a 100 yard, 2 TD performance in 2007. Better yet, we'll see if he looks like a RB who can rush for over 800 yards in half a season next year, which would be his 12th.

People act as though it's as simple as playing for 13 years and BAM, you're 5th all time rushing. There's a reason that few NFL RBs last that long, and none like Bettis have come close. It's his entire body of work that is Hall-worthy.

People also want to compare him to the Thurman Thomas type of RBs, but that's ridiculous. Sure, Thomas was a better receiver. Bettis has been a far superior between the tackles runner. They played the same position, but they played very different games.

Martin has also already run for more yards than Bettis, so I think your point pretty much gets thrown out the window.

Not really. He's carried the ball over 400 times more than Bettis in 2 fewer seasons. I definitely admire what Martin has done.

However, it's been brought up that Bettis's YPC is sub-par, but their YPCs are almost identical. (3.94 & 4.01) Martin has more yards because he's got more carries, not because he was a better runner.

I guess that begs the question, why can't Bettis stay as healthy as Martin seeing as how Martin has had more carries in a shorter time span?Now obviously, it's not exactly fair to use Curtis Martin as a measuring stick; Martin has been nothing short of remarkable in his ability to stay healthy, play through injury, etc. But it doesn't exactly speak well for Bettis. He's only played all 16 games in a season 6 times - and you've already conceded that he hasn't always had the heaviest work load. Heck, he's only topped 300 carries 5 times (with a 6th season of 299 carries).

I put him in the Hall of Very, Very Good.

Different types of RBs. Bettis is a 250+ pound bruiser, and guys like him with running styles like his are more susceptible to injuries and wearing down earlier. He's an exception to the rule. Martin is also an exception to the rule, and what he's done has been truly remarkable. Contrary to your opinion, I think that speaks very well for Bettis.

He's had a few great seasons and a lot of very, very good ones. Longevity IS a factor, and the fact that he's done what he's done the way he's done it for as long as he's done it speaks volumes. You say it tongue in check, but that IS exactly what makes him great, and great RBs make it to the Hall.

I guess where we disagree is that I don't believe there should be a special Hall of Fame category for these "250+ pound bruisers." A running back should be compared to other running backs, not other running backs who shared the same running style. Sure, Bettis has been a great bulldozer for awhile, but his production just hasn't matched the production of his peers. I don't think the Hall should make an exception for him just because of his style.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I guess where we disagree is that I don't believe there should be a special Hall of Fame category for these "250+ pound bruisers." A running back should be compared to other running backs, not other running backs who shared the same running style. Sure, Bettis has been a great bulldozer for awhile, but his production just hasn't matched the production of his peers. I don't think the Hall should make an exception for him just because of his style.

Exactly. But this is a point Bettis, or should I say Steelers, fans keep overlooking. You need to compare a player to other players at the same position in their era and that is where Bettis comes up short. Bettis is AT BEST the 6th best RB of his era right now and by the time he is eligible, it is likely he will be 8th, 9th or 10th.

 

[Bojang0301]

  Please he defined what the Steelers are all about for a decade now. He has been the main staple for a team that has had extremly few losing seasons during that time period. 

Rod Smith has been the main staple on a team that has had very few losing seasons (one, in fact) over the last ten years. Should he be in the HoF, too?

He is just as deserving as CuMart or Faulk 

That is just plain wrong. You need to read through this thread carefully and you will see the many arguments made that demonstrate how much better Faulk and Martin have been over their careers.

Has Rod Smith been the definition of the team? Has Bettis ever been asked to be a reciever out of the backfield/break off 40 to 80 yd runs? The thing I think you misunderstand is the argument is not that he should be an exception because he is a big 250 lb bruiser but that the pure and simple fact is that he was and quite possible still is the best at the role he is meant to play. In my opinion if you were the best at what your job is in the NFL and you do it for such a long period of time then hell yes you deserve to go to the Hall.

 

[Ghost Rider]

The thing I think you misunderstand is the argument is not that he should be an exception because he is a big 250 lb bruiser but that the pure and simple fact is that he was and quite possible still is the best at the role he is meant to play. In my opinion if you were the best at what your job is in the NFL and you do it for such a long period of time then hell yes you deserve to go to the Hall.

This is a very weak argument. If a punter is the best in the NFL for a long period of time, thereby being the best at his job, does he deserve to go to the Hall? What about the best long snapper?

The role Bettis was meant to play was that of a running back. He has not been the best at any point in his career, much less over a long period of time. You cannot let him in because he has been the best big bruising back over the last ten years. That would be like letting Warrick Dunn in because he has been the best undersized RB over the last ten years.

 

[Bojang0301]

  The thing I think you misunderstand is the argument is not that he should be an exception because he is a big 250 lb bruiser but that the pure and simple fact is that he was and quite possible still is the best at the role he is meant to play. In my opinion if you were the best at what your job is in the NFL and you do it for such a long period of time then hell yes you deserve to go to the Hall.

This is a very weak argument. If a punter is the best in the NFL for a long period of time, thereby being the best at his job, does he deserve to go to the Hall? What about the best long snapper?

The role Bettis was meant to play was that of a running back. He has not been the best at any point in his career, much less over a long period of time. You cannot let him in because he has been the best big bruising back over the last ten years. That would be like letting Warrick Dunn in because he has been the best undersized RB over the last ten years.

Well then you are looking for the simplist answer which is that he will retire as the #5 rusher all-time period. Even if that is longevity those other "great" backs were not able to amass that over their career.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

  The thing I think you misunderstand is the argument is not that he should be an exception because he is a big 250 lb bruiser but that the pure and simple fact is that he was and quite possible still is the best at the role he is meant to play. In my opinion if you were the best at what your job is in the NFL and you do it for such a long period of time then hell yes you deserve to go to the Hall.

You cannot let him in because he has been the best big bruising back over the last ten years.

No? Talk to the voters that put John Riggins and Earl Campbell in HOF.

 

[PMENFAN]

Also, you have too lok at the Oilers, and what they did with and without Campbell. Nothing before he showed up, and a borderline playoff team with him, and back to the bottom when he left. He elevated the team. Now, go and watch some film of Campbell. Known more for his power, which is far more power than Bettis, but also faster than Bettis, and better moves than Bettis. All Bettis has is power. Now, even the Steelers didn't see him as the answer, and they brought in Staley a number of years ago, because the Bus isn't an everydown back. Yes, he's compiled a lot of stats. But, he plays on a team that runs the ball. Not just with him, but before his time. The Steelers have always been a power run team with solid D. That's the Rooney formula since the team inception. Even w/ Bradshaw/Swann/Stallworth, they were still a run first team with a solid D. The horse is dead when you start to try and put the Bus in a cetegory w/ Earl Campbell. Stop beating it.

 

[BlueOnion]

To me, Bettis was never a special player. He is a compiler. He is Rafael Palmiero and Harold Baines in shoulder pads. If you play long enough at a respectable level, you will put up numbers. But "respectable" shouldn't get you a bust in Canton.

You can be against Palmiero and Baines as simple stat compilers because all they are doing is swinging a stick. It is different for Bettis because playing the game involves taking a huge amount of punishment. Just ask Earl Campbell himself how much punishment a running back takes, he had to quite after 9 seasons.

 

[David Yudkin]

I think Bettis and Curtis Martin established themselves as hall of fame locks with their amazing 2004 seasons. But, I think Martin is much more deserving of the honor than Bettis as I think Martin has been more consistently great throughout his entire career.

Seems to me that 2 of the HOF RBs most comparable to Bettis in terms of their ability would be Larry Csonka and John Riggins.

Let's take a look at their numbers:

Larry Csonka (6'3", 237):

5-time Pro Bowler (1970-1974)

Played for 11 years, had 3 1000 yard seasons

Finished top-5 in rushing 4 times

All-time rank: 29th in rushing yards

Super Bowl MVP

career numbers: 1891 carries for 8081 yards (4.3 y/a) 64 TD; 106 receptions for 820 yards 4 TDs

John Riggins (6'2", 230):

1-time Pro Bowler (1975)

Played for 14 years, had 5 1000 yard seasons

Finished top-10 in rushing 4 times

All-time rank: 13th in rushing yards

Super Bowl MVP

career numbers: 2916 carries for 11352 yards (3.9 y/a) 104 TD; 250 receptions for 2090 yards 12 TDs

Jerome Bettis (5'11", 255):

6-time Pro Bowler (1993, 1994, 1996, 1997, 2001, 2004)

Played for 13 years, had 8 1000 yard seasons

Finished top-10 in rushing 5 times (including 3 top-5s)

All-time rank: 5th in rushing yards

career numbers: 3428 carries for 13467 yards (3.9 y/a) 84 TD; 197 receptions for 1425 yards 3 TDs

Based on that comparison, Bettis stacks up pretty nicely. The only key thing he is missing is a Super Bowl win and his TD totals are pretty low for a power RB.

I haven't read the whole thread, but this is both a very good but very flaVVed analysis (with all due respect to Aaron).IMO, the only way to determine who should be in the HOF is to compare players that are peers and contemporaries. Csonka and Riggins put up the numbers they did in the era they did and were deemed top level producers FOR THEIR GENERATION.

We need to review how Bettis has fared against backs from THIS generation, not those from 25-30 years ago.

I think Bettis will some day make it in (although I don't think he is a great candidate and should be a borderline candidate). The rationale being that the HOF voters have traditionally voted in roughly 3-5 players from the same position from the same timeframe.

From Bettis' timeframe, I see Emmitt, Martin, Faulk, Thomas, Sanders (already in) more deserving and players like Edge, LT, and SA well on their way. That's a lot of great backs all playing from roughly the same era, and I am not so sure that the HOF voters will vote everyone in that starts putting up huge stats due to the offensive explosion in the past 10-15 years. And there are other lurkers out there as well in terms of whether they will merit consideration (Watters, Dillon, Holmes, Barber, Green, Portis, etc.) that might be or turn into options at some point.

Kinda like baseball. There are tons of guys that are hitting 20 home runs every year now. Back in the day, 20 home runs might lead the league. But 20 home runs in baseball now is nothing to write home about. So comparing PLAYER 2005 and his 250 home runs vs HOF PLAYER 1910 and his 187 home runs, PLAYER 2005 will have better stats but really is not a HOF candidate.

Given the state of the NFL, Bettis has really morphed into a short yardage specialist that has had very little part in the passing game and is fairly one dimensional. Very good player for sure (with a long shelf life). Great? That one is debatable.

 

[Bri]

Riggins was dominating. He knocked people over and carried them. It wasn't uncommon for him to have 3 guys hanging on him, literally, as he ran. Stats don't necessarily show that domination.Bettis, IMO, did not dominate like Riggins.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

You can draw up all the polls you want, but all you nay-sayers won't mean squat when the bust of the Bus is bronzed and placed in Canton.  It's going to happen people.

It is possible that the East Coast bias and the friendly relationship Bettis has with the media might get him in, but if he does make it, he won't be the first undeserving player to make it and certainly won't be the last.

When has Bettis ever led the NFL in anything?

A legitimate question that merits an answer from the pro-Bettis crowd.

Yeah, I looked it up the other day, the only thing I could find was carries.

How many times did Joe Montana ever lead the league in anything ?I looked it up and all I could find was pass attempts.

I guess that scrub doesn't belong either.

That's funny, I found that he also led in passing TDs, yards per attempt, and passer rating.

Heh...Wow, Evilgrin 72, you just got owned. Badly. Again.

Owned..... OK. Admittedly, I did miss the fact that he led the league in TD passes once and yards per attempt once in a 16-year career (like that is a HOF resume in and of itself - come on), but it doesn't change the point. That point being, sometimes you have to look beyond the numbers a bit. Testaverde's numbers dwarf those of Montana, but no one is saying Vinny should be in the Hall ahead of Montana. Joe's job wasn't to throw for 400 yards a game - the Niners had a balanced attack. The guy did what he did better than anyone else, and as such he belongs. Much the same could be said about Bettis, only he HAS the numbers to go along with it.

How you can start calling "owned" when in this thread you have said that the Steelers don't win championships anymore because they settle for very good players rather than trying to get great ones, and also said Bettis may only get into the Hall because of East Coast bias and a friendly relationship with the media is beyond me. I suppose by that rationale we can expect to see Doug Flutie in the Hall as well?

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Riggins was dominating. He knocked people over and carried them. It wasn't uncommon for him to have 3 guys hanging on him, literally, as he ran. Stats don't necessarily show that domination.

Bettis, IMO, did not dominate like Riggins.

Ask Brian Urlacher and the other two guys Bettis carried into the end zone with him on Sunday if they agree with you.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

What some people seem to be missing as well is that you have to take into consideration the role a person is asked to play on his team. Saying Bettis is inferior to Faulk or Martin because the other guys have more receiving yards is like saying that Dennis Eckersley pales in comparison to Bert Blyleven because he has fewer strikeouts. Eckersley didn't have the opportunity to get those strikeouts because he pitched far fewer innings. Likewise, Bettis doesn't get thrown the ball 8 times a game like Faulk often did, so he couldn't possibly compile big receiving numbers. Before you start in with the "that's because Bettis sucks as a receiver" comments - how do you know? He never had the opportunity because the Steelers offense simply does not design many plays to be thrown to the backs. Even with a pure speed back like Parker in there, he catches 1, maybe 2 passes a game, all on screens.I have recently seen Bettis referred to in print as "the best closer in the NFL", which is to say, he takes the ball late in the game when the Steelers are up, and grinds out the tough yards, keeps the chains moving, and finishes wins. This is what he does, and largely, what he always has done, and he does it as well or better than any back I can remember. That's not going to lead to gaudy YPC numbers when teams are stacking 9-10 in the box because they know the run is coming, but that's the nature of the beast, if you will. You have to measure Bettis' success as a back by how well he fills the role he's asked to fill. His 100 yard second half against a brutal Bears defense in the snow on Sunday proves that he can STILL do this better than anyone in the NFL. For years now, he's been the best at what he does, 2000 yard seasons or MVP awards aside. If you evaluate him based on how well he does his job, what he means to his team and his franchise, and what he means to the city of Pittsburgh, I think he definitely belongs. If you're of the mindset that what he does is not "sexy" enough to deserve enshrinement (the same argument people make against relief pitchers as Cy Young candidates, or middle relievers as Hall of Famers), I respect your viewpoint. As a Steelers fan, though, if you went back 20 years and gave me a choice of any RB in his prime to take in a draft, knowing how his entire career would play out in advance, there are VERY few I would take ahead of Bettis. To me, this is the most telling sign that the guy deserves to get in. Earl Campbell was admittedly a better back at his peak than Bettis was, but would you really rather have a guy who has 3 huge years and then falls apart than a guy who can carry your team on his back for a decade and a half? If the Steelers had ever had a halfway decent QB in Bettis' prime, they'd likely have 1 or 2 Super Bowl titles, and this argument wouldn't even exist.As it stands, whoever wants to call me a homer or plant an owned tag on me, go for it. This argument will be settled once Jerome becaomes eligible. And just know that whether or not any of us still post here, when he gets enshrined, I will be kicked back with a beer, a wry smile on my face, thinking of you all.

 

[BlueOnion]

I cannot believe John Riggins is in the Hall of Fame. Was there a lottery system at one time?If Riggins is in and Bettis does not, Hall of Fame = sham.

 

[Ghost Rider]

The thing I think you misunderstand is the argument is not that he should be an exception because he is a big 250 lb bruiser but that the pure and simple fact is that he was and quite possible still is the best at the role he is meant to play. In my opinion if you were the best at what your job is in the NFL and you do it for such a long period of time then hell yes you deserve to go to the Hall.

This is a very weak argument. If a punter is the best in the NFL for a long period of time, thereby being the best at his job, does he deserve to go to the Hall? What about the best long snapper?

The role Bettis was meant to play was that of a running back. He has not been the best at any point in his career, much less over a long period of time. You cannot let him in because he has been the best big bruising back over the last ten years. That would be like letting Warrick Dunn in because he has been the best undersized RB over the last ten years.

Well then you are looking for the simplist answer which is that he will retire as the #5 rusher all-time period. Even if that is longevity those other "great" backs were not able to amass that over their career.

Longevity does not outweigh true greatness, which the other backs of this era I have mentioned have had. Bettis has not.

You're hurting your case by bringing up Campbell. Campbell won the rushing title each of his first three seasons. Bettis never won a title, and never even had one season as good as any of Campbell's first three. Campbell joined a franchise that hadn't seen the postseason since the merger, and led them to consecutive AFC championship games. Bettis joined the Steelers the year after they went to the Super Bowl, and they haven't been back. Campbell is in the Hall not just because he was a bruiser, but because he was the best RB in the NFL for three straight seasons, and took a team with no playoff history to conference championship games.

Great post. People keep talking about how important Bettis is to the success of the Steelers the last ten years, but I had forgotten that they got to the Super Bowl the year before he got there and haven't been there since they got him. I am not saying Bettis has not been an important player to the Steelers, but to act like they owe all of their success to him, like some have suggested, is ludicrous.

And Campbell's career achievements, as you pointed out, blow Bettis' away.

How you can start calling "owned" when in this thread you have said that the Steelers don't win championships anymore because they settle for very good players rather than trying to get great ones, and also said Bettis may only get into the Hall because of East Coast bias and a friendly relationship with the media is beyond me. I suppose by that rationale we can expect to see Doug Flutie in the Hall as well?

My comment about the Steelers settling for very good instead of great players was sarcasm. Do we really need to put an emoticon every time we are being sarcastic or joking around? Do you not think there is an East Coast bias?

Do you think a player playing on the East Coast and being friendly with the media really wouldn't help his cause when trying to get into the Hall of Fame?

Let me put it to you this way. Let's say there are two borderline HoF candidates. They have almost identical stats and career accomplishments. Player A plays in New York, is a media favorite and frequently makes appearances on network football pre-game shows on his bye weeks. Player B plays in Cleveland and talks to the media as little as possible. Which player do you think is getting into the Hall and which isn't?

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Let me put it to you this way. Let's say there are two borderline HoF candidates. They have almost identical stats and career accomplishments. Player A plays in New York, is a media favorite and frequently makes appearances on network football pre-game shows on his bye weeks. Player B plays in Cleveland and talks to the media as little as possible. Which player do you think is getting into the Hall and which isn't?

This may be true, but to insinuate that this is the only reason he will gain entry is ludicrous.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Riggins was dominating. He knocked people over and carried them. It wasn't uncommon for him to have 3 guys hanging on him, literally, as he ran. Stats don't necessarily show that domination.

Bettis, IMO, did not dominate like Riggins.

Ask Brian Urlacher and the other two guys Bettis carried into the end zone with him on Sunday if they agree with you.

Mike Alstott has frequently run over opponents and carried them into the end zone over the course of his career, too. What's your point?

 

[BlueOnion]

Riggins was dominating. He knocked people over and carried them. It wasn't uncommon for him to have 3 guys hanging on him, literally, as he ran. Stats don't necessarily show that domination.

Bettis, IMO, did not dominate like Riggins.

Ask Brian Urlacher and the other two guys Bettis carried into the end zone with him on Sunday if they agree with you.

Mike Alstott has frequently run over opponents and carried them into the end zone over the course of his career, too. What's your point?

Bri was making a point that Riggins was special. Evilgrin tried to show that Riggins was not that special. You are now simply beating a dead horse...or should I say a dead Riggins.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Riggins was dominating. He knocked people over and carried them. It wasn't uncommon for him to have 3 guys hanging on him, literally, as he ran. Stats don't necessarily show that domination.

Bettis, IMO, did not dominate like Riggins.

Ask Brian Urlacher and the other two guys Bettis carried into the end zone with him on Sunday if they agree with you.

Mike Alstott has frequently run over opponents and carried them into the end zone over the course of his career, too. What's your point?

Is there really any question as to what my point is? Read Bri's post, then mine.

 

[Ghost Rider]

What some people seem to be missing as well is that you have to take into consideration the role a person is asked to play on his team. Saying Bettis is inferior to Faulk or Martin because the other guys have more receiving yards is like saying that Dennis Eckersley pales in comparison to Bert Blyleven because he has fewer strikeouts. Eckersley didn't have the opportunity to get those strikeouts because he pitched far fewer innings. Likewise, Bettis doesn't get thrown the ball 8 times a game like Faulk often did, so he couldn't possibly compile big receiving numbers. Before you start in with the "that's because Bettis sucks as a receiver" comments - how do you know? He never had the opportunity because the Steelers offense simply does not design many plays to be thrown to the backs. Even with a pure speed back like Parker in there, he catches 1, maybe 2 passes a game, all on screens.

I have recently seen Bettis referred to in print as "the best closer in the NFL", which is to say, he takes the ball late in the game when the Steelers are up, and grinds out the tough yards, keeps the chains moving, and finishes wins. This is what he does, and largely, what he always has done, and he does it as well or better than any back I can remember. That's not going to lead to gaudy YPC numbers when teams are stacking 9-10 in the box because they know the run is coming, but that's the nature of the beast, if you will. You have to measure Bettis' success as a back by how well he fills the role he's asked to fill. His 100 yard second half against a brutal Bears defense in the snow on Sunday proves that he can STILL do this better than anyone in the NFL. For years now, he's been the best at what he does, 2000 yard seasons or MVP awards aside. If you evaluate him based on how well he does his job, what he means to his team and his franchise, and what he means to the city of Pittsburgh, I think he definitely belongs. If you're of the mindset that what he does is not "sexy" enough to deserve enshrinement (the same argument people make against relief pitchers as Cy Young candidates, or middle relievers as Hall of Famers), I respect your viewpoint. As a Steelers fan, though, if you went back 20 years and gave me a choice of any RB in his prime to take in a draft, knowing how his entire career would play out in advance, there are VERY few I would take ahead of Bettis. To me, this is the most telling sign that the guy deserves to get in. Earl Campbell was admittedly a better back at his peak than Bettis was, but would you really rather have a guy who has 3 huge years and then falls apart than a guy who can carry your team on his back for a decade and a half? If the Steelers had ever had a halfway decent QB in Bettis' prime, they'd likely have 1 or 2 Super Bowl titles, and this argument wouldn't even exist.

As it stands, whoever wants to call me a homer or plant an owned tag on me, go for it. This argument will be settled once Jerome becaomes eligible. And just know that whether or not any of us still post here, when he gets enshrined, I will be kicked back with a beer, a wry smile on my face, thinking of you all.

Meaning a lot to the city you play in means nothing as far as being a Hall of Fame player. I think you are smart enough to know that. I will ask you again, and if you would like to ignore it again, that is fine.....Shouldn't a coach's job be to get the most out of all of his players? If so, and Bettis is a better pass catcher than I think he is, then Cowher has done a poor job getting the best out of Bettis. And no, this is not an attempt to start an argument about Cowher. You simple cannot have it both ways.

Another serious question...how many RB's from each era do you think should be inducted into the Hall of Fame? I think no more than five should go in and I have already made my arguments a dozen times for the RB's from Bettis' era who are more deserving.

"Best closer in the NFL?..who said, some Pittsburgh writer or another writer up east?

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Riggins was dominating. He knocked people over and carried them. It wasn't uncommon for him to have 3 guys hanging on him, literally, as he ran. Stats don't necessarily show that domination.

Bettis, IMO, did not dominate like Riggins.

Ask Brian Urlacher and the other two guys Bettis carried into the end zone with him on Sunday if they agree with you.

Mike Alstott has frequently run over opponents and carried them into the end zone over the course of his career, too. What's your point?

Bri was making a point that Riggins was special. Evilgrin tried to show that Riggins was not that special. You are now simply beating a dead horse...or should I say a dead Riggins.

Just saying that Bettis frequently does what he was touting riggins for doing.There is no way on earth you can justify Riggins being in the Hall of Fame and not Bettis. The guys here arguing against Bettis are so focused on dominance over a short period of time - show me where Riggins dominated. 1 Pro Bowl (I know, I know - this means nothing) in 14-15 years?

 

[PMENFAN]

Doug Flutie in the Hall as well?

Without question Doug Flutie goes into the Pro Football Hall of FameHe won 5 consecutive MVP's in the Canadian Pro League, and I believe 5 Gray Cups. Not to mention that everywhere he played, after the CFL, he outplayed the entrenched starter, when given the opportunity, but could never get the nod. Odd, very odd. Let me qualify that. He has not outplayed Brady, but did outplay Brees and Rob Johnson.

 

[BlueOnion]

I will ask you again, and if you would like to ignore it again, that is fine.....Shouldn't a coach's job be to get the most out of all of his players? If so, and Bettis is a better pass catcher than I think he is, then Cowher has done a poor job getting the best out of Bettis. And no, this is not an attempt to start an argument about Cowher. You simple cannot have it both ways.

Yes. What does this have to do with Jerome Bettis? (Yes, I understand this has been covered, but I am intrigued now and don't want to scroll back).

Another serious question...how many RB's from each era do you think should be inducted into the Hall of Fame? I think no more than five should go in and I have already made my arguments a dozen times for the RB's from Bettis' era who are more deserving.

This is dumb way to approach the Hall of Fame. Players getting in based on a quota instead of ability and performance. But the only person I think is clearly ahead of Bettis is Emmitt Smith and Marshall Faulk might be a wash.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Riggins was dominating. He knocked people over and carried them. It wasn't uncommon for him to have 3 guys hanging on him, literally, as he ran. Stats don't necessarily show that domination.

Bettis, IMO, did not dominate like Riggins.

Ask Brian Urlacher and the other two guys Bettis carried into the end zone with him on Sunday if they agree with you.

Mike Alstott has frequently run over opponents and carried them into the end zone over the course of his career, too. What's your point?

Bri was making a point that Riggins was special. Evilgrin tried to show that Riggins was not that special. You are now simply beating a dead horse...or should I say a dead Riggins.

Just saying that Bettis frequently does what he was touting riggins for doing.There is no way on earth you can justify Riggins being in the Hall of Fame and not Bettis. The guys here arguing against Bettis are so focused on dominance over a short period of time - show me where Riggins dominated. 1 Pro Bowl (I know, I know - this means nothing) in 14-15 years?

Why do you keep comparing Riggins to Bettis? Different era = different numbers = different standard. Haven't we been over this already?

I will ask you again, and if you would like to ignore it again, that is fine.....Shouldn't a coach's job be to get the most out of all of his players? If so, and Bettis is a better pass catcher than I think he is, then Cowher has done a poor job getting the best out of Bettis. And no, this is not an attempt to start an argument about Cowher. You simple cannot have it both ways.

Yes. What does this have to do with Jerome Bettis? (Yes, I understand this has been covered, but I am intrigued now and don't want to scroll back).

I am not explaining it again just because you are lazy. Read the whole thread and figure it out.

Another serious question...how many RB's from each era do you think should be inducted into the Hall of Fame? I think no more than five should go in and I have already made my arguments a dozen times for the RB's from Bettis' era who are more deserving.

This is dumb way to approach the Hall of Fame. Players getting in based on a quota instead of ability and performance. But the only person I think is clearly ahead of Bettis is Emmitt Smith and Marshall Faulk might be a wash.

You don't think Sanders, also from Bettis' era, is clearly ahead of Bettis? Marshall Faulk is a wash? Um, yeah, okay.

 

[BlueOnion]

You don't think Sanders, also from Bettis' era, is clearly ahead of Bettis?

Marshall Faulk is a wash? Um, yeah, okay.

Barry Sanders was a Hall of Fame Quiter, lets not sugar coat the fact the guy had no heart.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Why do you keep comparing Riggins to Bettis? Different era = different numbers = different standard. Haven't we been over this already?

Bri compared them, and I responded to his post. if you don't feel the need to rehash it, don't take up his argument for him.

 

[Ghost Rider]

You don't think Sanders, also from Bettis' era, is clearly ahead of Bettis?

Marshall Faulk is a wash? Um, yeah, okay.

Barry Sanders was a Hall of Fame Quiter, lets not sugar coat the fact the guy had no heart.

I won't argue the fact that Sanders was a jerk who quit on his team on the eve of training camp, but he was still an absolute lock for the Hall of Fame.