Terrell Davis (1 Viewer)

[Ghost Rider]

Pros:

-Lifetime YPC of 4.6.

-In his first four seasons in the NFL, he ran for 6,413 yards and scored 61 touchdowns.

-Was the MVP of Super Bowl XXXII.

-Was the MVP of the '98 season.

-Is a three time All-Pro (which is a greater measure of dominance than Pro Bowl berths)

-Is arguably the best postseason back ever, averaging 5.6 YPC (!!!!!!), rushing for 1,140 yards and scoring 12 touchdowns in 8 playoff games. Most of those games were against high-quality defenses, too.

-Finished in the top 3 in rushing yards, touchdowns scored, and yards from scrimmage three seasons in a row ('96, '97 and '98).

-Is one of only four RB's to ever rush for over 2,000 yards in a season.

Cons:

-Longevity. He only played seven seasons in the league, and played in 5 or less games in two of them.

-The continued success of the Broncos running game over the years, and their ability to plug almost anyone in to rush for over 1,000 yards (though no other Denver RB has come close to doing what he did).

-------

The way I see it, longevity is really the only strike against him. And he was such a dominant back, that the more I think about it, I do not see how he is not a Hall of Famer. If anyone can name a back that had as dominant a three-year period as he did from '96-'98, by all means, let me know who it is.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/DaviTe00.htm

 

[David Yudkin]

This has been discussed several other times. IIRC, most felt "not." as his career was pretty short (although he did have 3-4 exceptional years).

 

[Ghost Rider]

This has been discussed several other times. IIRC, most felt "not." as his career was pretty short (although he did have 3-4 exceptional years).

While it is not really fair to compare backs from one generation to backs from another, there has been a precedent set for letting in players who had short careers, but were extremely dominant in their short time in the league. I think Davis falls into this category.

 

[Zaphod]

This has been discussed several other times. IIRC, most felt "not." as his career was pretty short (although he did have 3-4 exceptional years).

Pretty much spot on. Longevity is always undervalued when people start making a case for the Hall. It should be one of the main criteria for entry, otherwise where do you draw the line? When a guy has a few good years? One good year?This type of discussion usually boils down to dominator vs. compiler. I think the entry point for the hall should incorporate both aspects equally. There is only one Hall and I don't think it should be the Hall of the very good.

 

[Sabertooth]

He changed the football landscape in the mid-nineties. YES!

(and this is from a Packers fan !)

 

[David Yudkin]

Davis had 4 great year (really 3 great years and one very good one). He struggled his way through 3 other seasons and was basically not much more than a footnote in those years.

IMO, players that don't have at least 5 solid years under their belts are going to have a lot of trouble mustering much HOF consideration.

There are several guys that played well but got hurt or did great for a while and then did very little (off the top of my head Priest Holmes, Billy Sims, Sterling Sharpe, Gerald Riggs, William Andrews, Herman Moore, Kurt Warner) Are these guys HOF worthy?

I agree that on the side of great stats and using the "dominant player" philosophy that Davis would merit consideration, but he really did not have much of a career in terms of longevity.

And in recent years, guys with short careers have not garnered much attention.

 

[moleculo]

Davis had 4 great year (really 3 great years and one very good one). He struggled his way through 3 other seasons and was basically not much more than a footnote in those years.

IMO, players that don't have at least 5 solid years under their belts are going to have a lot of trouble mustering much HOF consideration.

There are several guys that played well but got hurt or did great for a while and then did very little (off the top of my head Priest Holmes, Billy Sims, Sterling Sharpe, Gerald Riggs, William Andrews, Herman Moore, Kurt Warner) Are these guys HOF worthy?

I agree that on the side of great stats and using the "dominant player" philosophy that Davis would merit consideration, but he really did not have much of a career in terms of longevity.

And in recent years, guys with short careers have not garnered much attention.

don't you think that awards, such as SB-MVP, NFL MVP, and all-pro can augment the 3 great years? I'd have to think that post-season awards count for something...a complete list of players who were NFL MVP and SB MVP:

Bart Starr

Joe Namath

Roger Staubach

Terry Bradshaw

Joe Montana

Jerry Rice

Emmitt Smith

Steve Young

Terrell Davis

John Elway

Kurt Warner

seems like pretty rarified air...everyone on this list is either in the HOF or well on their way (with the question marks for TD and KW).

 

[Chase Stuart]

Davis had 4 great year (really 3 great years and one very good one). He struggled his way through 3 other seasons and was basically not much more than a footnote in those years.

IMO, players that don't have at least 5 solid years under their belts are going to have a lot of trouble mustering much HOF consideration.

There are several guys that played well but got hurt or did great for a while and then did very little (off the top of my head Priest Holmes, Billy Sims, Sterling Sharpe, Gerald Riggs, William Andrews, Herman Moore, Kurt Warner) Are these guys HOF worthy?

I agree that on the side of great stats and using the "dominant player" philosophy that Davis would merit consideration, but he really did not have much of a career in terms of longevity.

And in recent years, guys with short careers have not garnered much attention.

don't you think that awards, such as SB-MVP, NFL MVP, and all-pro can augment the 3 great years? I'd have to think that post-season awards count for something...a complete list of players who were NFL MVP and SB MVP:

Bart Starr - won five NFL titles

Joe Namath - one of the most important figures in NFL history

Roger Staubach - highest QB rating ever when he retired; 3 SB appearances; 7 straight seasons top 5 fantasy QB

Terry Bradshaw - won four SB rings

Joe Montana - best QB ever in many eyes

Jerry Rice - most receiving yards ever

Emmitt Smith - most rushing yards ever

Steve Young - highest QB rating ever

Terrell Davis

John Elway - five SB appearances

Kurt Warner

seems like pretty rarified air...everyone on this list is either in the HOF or well on their way (with the question marks for TD and KW).

On that above list, all of those players were legitimate superstars that would have made the HOF had they not won an NFL MVP. Only Namath and Staubach have "lesser" credentials. Namath owes his place in the Hall of Fame because, well, it's the Hall of Fame. Staubach's accomplishments aren't Montana, Elway or Young, but they're HOF worthy.TD is much more similar to Warner, who I don't think anyone believes is going to make the HOF.

 

[Lightning Fast Whip]

I agree on TD Warner comparison..just not the outcome on Hall of FAME. For our generation TD and Warner are defining players that if we are recounting stories to our grandkids one day will come up in discussions of the "Greatest show on Turf" or Elway and Broncos finally getting over the hump because they had TD. I think Fame wise these guys are more important to be included than a Curtis Martin or Vinny Testeverde (long career, lots of stats from longevity but not as important in league history). If I'm walking a Grandkid through the HOF in 20 years I want a TD display over a CuMart one. Likewise I want a Warner one and his great rags to riches story and his Greatest Show on Turf told over some guy who was simply good over a long time. Warner deserves in like Namath.

 

[LHUCKS]

I'd rather see Corey Dillon in the Hall than TD.

Dillon was a pro-bowler regardless of what teams he played for IMHO.

The same can't be said for TD IMHO.

 

[moleculo]

Davis had 4 great year (really 3 great years and one very good one).  He struggled his way through 3 other seasons and was basically not much more than a footnote in those years.

IMO, players that don't have at least 5 solid years under their belts are going to have a lot of trouble mustering much HOF consideration.

There are several guys that played well but got hurt or did great for a while and then did very little (off the top of my head Priest Holmes, Billy Sims, Sterling Sharpe, Gerald Riggs, William Andrews, Herman Moore, Kurt Warner)  Are these guys HOF worthy?

I agree that on the side of great stats and using the "dominant player" philosophy that Davis would merit consideration, but he really did not have much of a career in terms of longevity.

And in recent years, guys with short careers have not garnered much attention.

don't you think that awards, such as SB-MVP, NFL MVP, and all-pro can augment the 3 great years? I'd have to think that post-season awards count for something...a complete list of players who were NFL MVP and SB MVP:

Bart Starr - won five NFL titles

Joe Namath - one of the most important figures in NFL history

Roger Staubach - highest QB rating ever when he retired; 3 SB appearances; 7 straight seasons top 5 fantasy QB

Terry Bradshaw - won four SB rings

Joe Montana - best QB ever in many eyes

Jerry Rice - most receiving yards ever

Emmitt Smith - most rushing yards ever

Steve Young - highest QB rating ever

Terrell Davis

John Elway - five SB appearances

Kurt Warner

seems like pretty rarified air...everyone on this list is either in the HOF or well on their way (with the question marks for TD and KW).

On that above list, all of those players were legitimate superstars that would have made the HOF had they not won an NFL MVP. Only Namath and Staubach have "lesser" credentials. Namath owes his place in the Hall of Fame because, well, it's the Hall of Fame. Staubach's accomplishments aren't Montana, Elway or Young, but they're HOF worthy.TD is much more similar to Warner, who I don't think anyone believes is going to make the HOF.

I don't disagree. IMO, the HOF formula = quality (skill) + quantity (tenure)+ post-season sucess + awards. TD is clearly lacking in quantity, but has the quality, post season sucess and awards to compensate. In 20 years, your kids will look back at the NFL records, and note TD and KW both had some of the best seasons ever - this will be obvious if they look at the records of post season awards. They will see that they were SB heroes as well. They will ask why they aren't in the HOF - your only answer for TD has to be that his career was cut short because of injury. I think they should get in, but they probably won't.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Davis had 4 great year (really 3 great years and one very good one). He struggled his way through 3 other seasons and was basically not much more than a footnote in those years.

IMO, players that don't have at least 5 solid years under their belts are going to have a lot of trouble mustering much HOF consideration.

There are several guys that played well but got hurt or did great for a while and then did very little (off the top of my head Priest Holmes, Billy Sims, Sterling Sharpe, Gerald Riggs, William Andrews, Herman Moore, Kurt Warner) Are these guys HOF worthy?

I agree that on the side of great stats and using the "dominant player" philosophy that Davis would merit consideration, but he really did not have much of a career in terms of longevity.

And in recent years, guys with short careers have not garnered much attention.

don't you think that awards, such as SB-MVP, NFL MVP, and all-pro can augment the 3 great years? I'd have to think that post-season awards count for something...a complete list of players who were NFL MVP and SB MVP:

Bart Starr - won five NFL titles

Joe Namath - one of the most important figures in NFL history

Roger Staubach - highest QB rating ever when he retired; 3 SB appearances; 7 straight seasons top 5 fantasy QB

Terry Bradshaw - won four SB rings

Joe Montana - best QB ever in many eyes

Jerry Rice - most receiving yards ever

Emmitt Smith - most rushing yards ever

Steve Young - highest QB rating ever

Terrell Davis

John Elway - five SB appearances

Kurt Warner

seems like pretty rarified air...everyone on this list is either in the HOF or well on their way (with the question marks for TD and KW).

On that above list, all of those players were legitimate superstars that would have made the HOF had they not won an NFL MVP. Only Namath and Staubach have "lesser" credentials. Namath owes his place in the Hall of Fame because, well, it's the Hall of Fame. Staubach's accomplishments aren't Montana, Elway or Young, but they're HOF worthy.TD is much more similar to Warner, who I don't think anyone believes is going to make the HOF.

I don't disagree. IMO, the HOF formula = quality (skill) + quantity (tenure)+ post-season sucess + awards. TD is clearly lacking in quantity, but has the quality, post season sucess and awards to compensate. In 20 years, your kids will look back at the NFL records, and note TD and KW both had some of the best seasons ever - this will be obvious if they look at the records of post season awards. They will see that they were SB heroes as well. They will ask why they aren't in the HOF - your only answer for TD has to be that his career was cut short because of injury. I think they should get in, but they probably won't.

If TD gets in why not Chuck Foreman?TD: 600 career VBD

Foreman: 648 career VBD

Foreman made 5 straight Pro Bowls and rushed for over 100 yards in three playoff victories. Tremendous receiver and short yardage runner along with being a great every down RB.

But he was only dominant for five years.

I don't think TD has much on Bills Sims either. Sims has a career VBD of 407, and averaged 119.6 yards per game for his career. Davis averaged 109.7 Y/G for his career.

If you want to compare apples to apples (i.e., games to games), let's just remove TD post-1998. He was pretty much useless afterwards anyway.

Sims: 60 games, 5106 yards, 4.5 YPC, 42 TDs; 186 receptions, 2072 yards, 5 TDs

Davis: 61 games, 6413 yards, 4.8 YPC, 56 TDs; 152 receptions, 1181 yards, 5 TDs

So in one extra game Davis averaged 4.9 more YPG. But he played with John Elway and a much better OL.

But that's not really the point; I don't think Sims should make the HOF. But Davis isn't clearly on another level.

James ******* Wilder had two amazing seasons in a row too; I'd like to see more than that for a HOFer.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I'd rather see Corey Dillon in the Hall than TD.

Dillon was a pro-bowler regardless of what teams he played for IMHO.

The same can't be said for TD IMHO.

What kind of argument is that? You cannot penalize a player for playing on only one team throughout his entire career. Besides, Pro Bowl berths shouldn't count for much when discussing a players' HOF credentials.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Davis had 4 great year (really 3 great years and one very good one). He struggled his way through 3 other seasons and was basically not much more than a footnote in those years.

IMO, players that don't have at least 5 solid years under their belts are going to have a lot of trouble mustering much HOF consideration.

There are several guys that played well but got hurt or did great for a while and then did very little (off the top of my head Priest Holmes, Billy Sims, Sterling Sharpe, Gerald Riggs, William Andrews, Herman Moore, Kurt Warner) Are these guys HOF worthy?

I agree that on the side of great stats and using the "dominant player" philosophy that Davis would merit consideration, but he really did not have much of a career in terms of longevity.

And in recent years, guys with short careers have not garnered much attention.

don't you think that awards, such as SB-MVP, NFL MVP, and all-pro can augment the 3 great years? I'd have to think that post-season awards count for something...a complete list of players who were NFL MVP and SB MVP:

Bart Starr - won five NFL titles

Joe Namath - one of the most important figures in NFL history

Roger Staubach - highest QB rating ever when he retired; 3 SB appearances; 7 straight seasons top 5 fantasy QB

Terry Bradshaw - won four SB rings

Joe Montana - best QB ever in many eyes

Jerry Rice - most receiving yards ever

Emmitt Smith - most rushing yards ever

Steve Young - highest QB rating ever

Terrell Davis

John Elway - five SB appearances

Kurt Warner

seems like pretty rarified air...everyone on this list is either in the HOF or well on their way (with the question marks for TD and KW).

On that above list, all of those players were legitimate superstars that would have made the HOF had they not won an NFL MVP. Only Namath and Staubach have "lesser" credentials. Namath owes his place in the Hall of Fame because, well, it's the Hall of Fame. Staubach's accomplishments aren't Montana, Elway or Young, but they're HOF worthy.TD is much more similar to Warner, who I don't think anyone believes is going to make the HOF.

I don't disagree. IMO, the HOF formula = quality (skill) + quantity (tenure)+ post-season sucess + awards. TD is clearly lacking in quantity, but has the quality, post season sucess and awards to compensate. In 20 years, your kids will look back at the NFL records, and note TD and KW both had some of the best seasons ever - this will be obvious if they look at the records of post season awards. They will see that they were SB heroes as well. They will ask why they aren't in the HOF - your only answer for TD has to be that his career was cut short because of injury. I think they should get in, but they probably won't.

If TD gets in why not Chuck Foreman?TD: 600 career VBD

Foreman: 648 career VBD

Foreman made 5 straight Pro Bowls and rushed for over 100 yards in three playoff victories. Tremendous receiver and short yardage runner along with being a great every down RB.

But he was only dominant for five years.

I don't think TD has much on Bills Sims either. Sims has a career VBD of 407, and averaged 119.6 yards per game for his career. Davis averaged 109.7 Y/G for his career.

If you want to compare apples to apples (i.e., games to games), let's just remove TD post-1998. He was pretty much useless afterwards anyway.

Sims: 60 games, 5106 yards, 4.5 YPC, 42 TDs; 186 receptions, 2072 yards, 5 TDs

Davis: 61 games, 6413 yards, 4.8 YPC, 56 TDs; 152 receptions, 1181 yards, 5 TDs

So in one extra game Davis averaged 4.9 more YPG. But he played with John Elway and a much better OL.

But that's not really the point; I don't think Sims should make the HOF. But Davis isn't clearly on another level.

James ******* Wilder had two amazing seasons in a row too; I'd like to see more than that for a HOFer.

Would you like to also compare T.D.'s postseason numbers to Sims' and Foreman's?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Davis had 4 great year (really 3 great years and one very good one). He struggled his way through 3 other seasons and was basically not much more than a footnote in those years.

IMO, players that don't have at least 5 solid years under their belts are going to have a lot of trouble mustering much HOF consideration.

There are several guys that played well but got hurt or did great for a while and then did very little (off the top of my head Priest Holmes, Billy Sims, Sterling Sharpe, Gerald Riggs, William Andrews, Herman Moore, Kurt Warner) Are these guys HOF worthy?

I agree that on the side of great stats and using the "dominant player" philosophy that Davis would merit consideration, but he really did not have much of a career in terms of longevity.

And in recent years, guys with short careers have not garnered much attention.

don't you think that awards, such as SB-MVP, NFL MVP, and all-pro can augment the 3 great years? I'd have to think that post-season awards count for something...a complete list of players who were NFL MVP and SB MVP:

Bart Starr - won five NFL titles

Joe Namath - one of the most important figures in NFL history

Roger Staubach - highest QB rating ever when he retired; 3 SB appearances; 7 straight seasons top 5 fantasy QB

Terry Bradshaw - won four SB rings

Joe Montana - best QB ever in many eyes

Jerry Rice - most receiving yards ever

Emmitt Smith - most rushing yards ever

Steve Young - highest QB rating ever

Terrell Davis

John Elway - five SB appearances

Kurt Warner

seems like pretty rarified air...everyone on this list is either in the HOF or well on their way (with the question marks for TD and KW).

On that above list, all of those players were legitimate superstars that would have made the HOF had they not won an NFL MVP. Only Namath and Staubach have "lesser" credentials. Namath owes his place in the Hall of Fame because, well, it's the Hall of Fame. Staubach's accomplishments aren't Montana, Elway or Young, but they're HOF worthy.TD is much more similar to Warner, who I don't think anyone believes is going to make the HOF.

I don't disagree. IMO, the HOF formula = quality (skill) + quantity (tenure)+ post-season sucess + awards. TD is clearly lacking in quantity, but has the quality, post season sucess and awards to compensate. In 20 years, your kids will look back at the NFL records, and note TD and KW both had some of the best seasons ever - this will be obvious if they look at the records of post season awards. They will see that they were SB heroes as well. They will ask why they aren't in the HOF - your only answer for TD has to be that his career was cut short because of injury. I think they should get in, but they probably won't.

If TD gets in why not Chuck Foreman?TD: 600 career VBD

Foreman: 648 career VBD

Foreman made 5 straight Pro Bowls and rushed for over 100 yards in three playoff victories. Tremendous receiver and short yardage runner along with being a great every down RB.

But he was only dominant for five years.

I don't think TD has much on Bills Sims either. Sims has a career VBD of 407, and averaged 119.6 yards per game for his career. Davis averaged 109.7 Y/G for his career.

If you want to compare apples to apples (i.e., games to games), let's just remove TD post-1998. He was pretty much useless afterwards anyway.

Sims: 60 games, 5106 yards, 4.5 YPC, 42 TDs; 186 receptions, 2072 yards, 5 TDs

Davis: 61 games, 6413 yards, 4.8 YPC, 56 TDs; 152 receptions, 1181 yards, 5 TDs

So in one extra game Davis averaged 4.9 more YPG. But he played with John Elway and a much better OL.

But that's not really the point; I don't think Sims should make the HOF. But Davis isn't clearly on another level.

James ******* Wilder had two amazing seasons in a row too; I'd like to see more than that for a HOFer.

Would you like to also compare T.D.'s postseason numbers to Sims' and Foreman's?

Davis has some tremendous post-season numbers, there's no doubt about that. But it's not really a fair comparison to Sims or Foreman, since TD got to play 7 games during his peak two seasons, due to the larger post-season format and a great all around team and coaching staff.

 

[David Yudkin]

Warner had 5 more TD passes than Steve Beuerlein did in 1999. Beuerlein was a nice rags to riches story that year, too, so should he get in--he's got 28 more career TD than Warner does? And he didn't play for the high flying Rams. Culpepper had 39 TD one year . . . where's the C-Pep for HOF bandwagon? Rich Gannon had one of the best seasons ever for a QB . . . how about him?

Warner had 2.5 great seasons. That's it. And he had no other seasons that even merit a footnote as good seasons--they all were nowhere near HOF worthy. I can't see a modern day QB that has had a grand total of TWO seasons with 3,500 passing yards sniffing the HOF.

True, he's not done playing, but at 35 years old he's got a lot of catching up to do to get any real consideration.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Davis has some tremendous post-season numbers, there's no doubt about that. But it's not really a fair comparison to Sims or Foreman, since TD got to play 7 games during his peak two seasons, due to the larger post-season format and a great all around team and coaching staff.

Fair or not, postseason numbers matter. Do we discount what Joe Montana did in the playoffs and Super Bowl because he was fortunate enough to be the QB on the most innovative offense of the last 30 years?

 

[moleculo]

If TD gets in why not Chuck Foreman?

TD: 600 career VBD

Foreman: 648 career VBD

Foreman made 5 straight Pro Bowls and rushed for over 100 yards in three playoff victories. Tremendous receiver and short yardage runner along with being a great every down RB.

But he was only dominant for five years.

I don't think TD has much on Bills Sims either. Sims has a career VBD of 407, and averaged 119.6 yards per game for his career. Davis averaged 109.7 Y/G for his career.

If you want to compare apples to apples (i.e., games to games), let's just remove TD post-1998. He was pretty much useless afterwards anyway.

Sims: 60 games, 5106 yards, 4.5 YPC, 42 TDs; 186 receptions, 2072 yards, 5 TDs

Davis: 61 games, 6413 yards, 4.8 YPC, 56 TDs; 152 receptions, 1181 yards, 5 TDs

So in one extra game Davis averaged 4.9 more YPG. But he played with John Elway and a much better OL.

But that's not really the point; I don't think Sims should make the HOF. But Davis isn't clearly on another level.

James ******* Wilder had two amazing seasons in a row too; I'd like to see more than that for a HOFer.

I think you blew right past my main point, which was maybe never explicitly stated. My point is basically post season awards, such as NFL MVP, SB MVP, and All-Pro should be counted as highly as stats, longetivity and post season sucess. Neither Forman, Sims, or Wilder ever won a MVP award.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Davis has some tremendous post-season numbers, there's no doubt about that. But it's not really a fair comparison to Sims or Foreman, since TD got to play 7 games during his peak two seasons, due to the larger post-season format and a great all around team and coaching staff.

Fair or not, postseason numbers matter.

I have no idea what this means.

 

[matt jones]

I believe TD is a hall of famer. As for that hall of very good thing... TD was dominant for 3 years. John Elway was never dominant, and if he didn't play forever and get the rings on the way out, he's not in the hall IMO.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Warner had 5 more TD passes than Steve Beuerlein did in 1999. Beuerlein was a nice rags to riches story that year, too, so should he get in--he's got 28 more career TD than Warner does? And he didn't play for the high flying Rams. Culpepper had 39 TD one year . . . where's the C-Pep for HOF bandwagon? Rich Gannon had one of the best seasons ever for a QB . . . how about him?

Is Beuerlein a two-time MVP? Or Culpepper? Or Gannon? And how many Super Bowl's have those guys won, or even played in?

And how many Super Bowl MVP awards have any of them won?

I am not saying Warner should be in, but to compare him to those guys is just plain silly.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Davis has some tremendous post-season numbers, there's no doubt about that. But it's not really a fair comparison to Sims or Foreman, since TD got to play 7 games during his peak two seasons, due to the larger post-season format and a great all around team and coaching staff.

Fair or not, postseason numbers matter.

I have no idea what this means.

I should have said 'Like it or not'. Is that better?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Davis has some tremendous post-season numbers, there's no doubt about that. But it's not really a fair comparison to Sims or Foreman, since TD got to play 7 games during his peak two seasons, due to the larger post-season format and a great all around team and coaching staff.

Fair or not, postseason numbers matter.

I have no idea what this means.

I should have said 'Like it or not'. Is that better?

Not really. Isn't the question whether I think TD should be in the HOF?

 

[Ghost Rider]

Isn't the question whether I think TD should be in the HOF?

Yes, but you are trying to play a semantics game here. It is simple. If you are going to compare Davis to guys like Sims and Foreman, you have to compare their postseason stats as well. Like I said, ignoring Davis' postseason numbers is like saying, "Let's talk about Joe Montana's HoF credentials, but what he did in the postseason doesn't matter."

 

[moleculo]

I believe TD is a hall of famer. As for that hall of very good thing... TD was dominant for 3 years. John Elway was never dominant, and if he didn't play forever and get the rings on the way out, he's not in the hall IMO.

 

[David Yudkin]

Warner had 5 more TD passes than Steve Beuerlein did in 1999.  Beuerlein was a nice rags to riches story that year, too, so should he get in--he's got 28 more career TD than Warner does?  And he didn't play for the high flying Rams.  Culpepper had 39 TD one year . . . where's the C-Pep for HOF bandwagon?  Rich Gannon had one of the best seasons ever for a QB . . . how about him?

Is Beuerlein a two-time MVP? Or Culpepper? Or Gannon? And how many Super Bowl's have those guys won, or even played in?

And how many Super Bowl MVP awards have any of them won?

I am not saying Warner should be in, but to compare him to those guys is just plain silly.

The point was Warner has not had a CAREER. He had two excellent seasons. Using the SB MVP/titles won litmus test, I guess Marino shouldn't have gotten in and Manning will have to win to get in.His story is best suited for a Disney movie or movie of the week. He's a feel good story and was briefly a key cog in a great offense but really has done nothing since.

Other QB have had seasons similar to Warner's (at least in terms of regular season numbers). Warner may have had one more year where he was top notch than several other QB. Does that one extra year translate into HOF consideration.

Deion Branch has won two titles and a SB MVP, should he be a HOF candidate? (Obviously I don't think he comes close).

There are so many players NOT in the HOF that putting in Warner would be a travesty in my book.

I'm not knocking Warner, as he was a great QB for a couple or three years, but that's about where his story ends. Adding up his totals from 2002, 2003, and 2004, they would add up to 1,000 yards LESS than his 2001 season (and 25 fewer TD as well).

 

[kupcho1]

No way. TD had a few very good years, but was that TD or was it Denver's system? I'd be much more inclined to vote TD into the hall if (a) he had played at his peak level for a longer period and (b) Denver not had such continued success running the ball after his departure.

 

[Chase Stuart]

If TD gets in why not Chuck Foreman?

TD: 600 career VBD

Foreman: 648 career VBD

Foreman made 5 straight Pro Bowls and rushed for over 100 yards in three playoff victories. Tremendous receiver and short yardage runner along with being a great every down RB.

But he was only dominant for five years.

I don't think TD has much on Bills Sims either. Sims has a career VBD of 407, and averaged 119.6 yards per game for his career. Davis averaged 109.7 Y/G for his career.

If you want to compare apples to apples (i.e., games to games), let's just remove TD post-1998. He was pretty much useless afterwards anyway.

Sims: 60 games, 5106 yards, 4.5 YPC, 42 TDs; 186 receptions, 2072 yards, 5 TDs

Davis: 61 games, 6413 yards, 4.8 YPC, 56 TDs; 152 receptions, 1181 yards, 5 TDs

So in one extra game Davis averaged 4.9 more YPG. But he played with John Elway and a much better OL.

But that's not really the point; I don't think Sims should make the HOF. But Davis isn't clearly on another level.

James ******* Wilder had two amazing seasons in a row too; I'd like to see more than that for a HOFer.

I think you blew right past my main point, which was maybe never explicitly stated. My point is basically post season awards, such as NFL MVP, SB MVP, and All-Pro should be counted as highly as stats, longetivity and post season sucess. Neither Forman, Sims, or Wilder ever won a MVP award.

The NFL MVP award doesn't mean much in my eyes. Davis 2008 yard season is great regardless of whether he won that award.I understand your point, and I'd argue that Davis has had as much post-season success as any RB in history. That's really good. But guys like Wilder, Sims and Foreman had pretty similar regular season numbers and aren't close to the HOF. Davis is better than them, so he's close, but I don't think he's in.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Isn't the question whether I think TD should be in the HOF?

Yes, but you are trying to play a semantics game here. It is simple. If you are going to compare Davis to guys like Sims and Foreman, you have to compare their postseason stats as well. Like I said, ignoring Davis' postseason numbers is like saying, "Let's talk about Joe Montana's HoF credentials, but what he did in the postseason doesn't matter."

I agree. I compared their post-season stats. Davis' are a lot better.

 

[moleculo]

No way. TD had a few very good years, but was that TD or was it Denver's system? I'd be much more inclined to vote TD into the hall if (a) he had played at his peak level for a longer period and (b) Denver not had such continued success running the ball after his departure.

so were Joe Montana/Steve Young that good, or were they a product of their system? Does Youngs sucess diminish Montana's accomplishments?Ok, maybe not a fair comparison. But, Denvers rushing attack has never produced anybody close to a 2000 season (from a single player). Denvers continued sucess should not be held against TD.

 

[Marc Levin]

This has been discussed several other times. IIRC, most felt "not." as his career was pretty short (although he did have 3-4 exceptional years).

i tend to agree that the career was too short for HOF, but the 2G rushing and 2 SB rings might kick him over if there is a weak crop the year he is first nominated.

 

[kupcho1]

No way.  TD had a few very good years, but was that TD or was it Denver's system?  I'd be much more inclined to vote TD into the hall if (a) he had played at his peak level for a longer period and (b) Denver not had such continued success running the ball after his departure.

so were Joe Montana/Steve Young that good, or were they a product of their system? Does Youngs sucess diminish Montana's accomplishments?Ok, maybe not a fair comparison. But, Denvers rushing attack has never produced anybody close to a 2000 season (from a single player). Denvers continued sucess should not be held against TD.

You're right, it's not a fair comparison. Montana and Young excelled for a far longer period of time. Denver's rushing attack (yardage) ranked with leading rusher:

1995: 5th Davis

1996: 1st Davis

1997: 4th Davis

1998: 2nd Davis

1999: 12th Gary

2000: 2nd Anderson

2001: 10th Davis

2002: 5th Portis

2003: 2nd Portis

2004: 4th Droughns

2005: 2nd Anderson

Denver's rushing attack has only finished out of the top 10 once since Davis retired and have placed in the top 5 five times in 7 years.

Again, it's longevity and the almost total lack of impact Davis' retirement has had on Denver's running game that would lead me to vote "not a hall of famer." I can understand how many people (particularly Bronco fans) would argue differently. Hell, I think Lynn Swann belongs in the Hall.

 

[moleculo]

No way. TD had a few very good years, but was that TD or was it Denver's system? I'd be much more inclined to vote TD into the hall if (a) he had played at his peak level for a longer period and (b) Denver not had such continued success running the ball after his departure.

so were Joe Montana/Steve Young that good, or were they a product of their system? Does Youngs sucess diminish Montana's accomplishments?Ok, maybe not a fair comparison. But, Denvers rushing attack has never produced anybody close to a 2000 season (from a single player). Denvers continued sucess should not be held against TD.

You're right, it's not a fair comparison. Montana and Young excelled for a far longer period of time. Denver's rushing attack (yardage) ranked with leading rusher:

1995: 5th Davis 1117 yds

1996: 1st Davis 1538 yds

1997: 4th Davis 1750 yds

1998: 2nd Davis 2008 yds

1999: 12th Gary 1159 yds

2000: 2nd Anderson 1487 yds

2001: 10th Davis 701 yds

2002: 5th Portis 1508 yds

2003: 2nd Portis 1591 yds

2004: 4th Droughns 1240 yds

2005: 2nd Anderson 1014 yds

Denver's rushing attack has only finished out of the top 10 once since Davis retired and have placed in the top 5 five times in 7 years.

Again, it's longevity and the almost total lack of impact Davis' retirement has had on Denver's running game that would lead me to vote "not a hall of famer." I can understand how many people (particularly Bronco fans) would argue differently. Hell, I think Lynn Swann belongs in the Hall.

like I said, since 1998, no denver back has approached 2000 yards. Portis was the closest, cracking 1500 2x, but he has since done that with another team - can you really say it was DEnvers system for him then? Droughns has also performed equally well for another team, with his 1232 yards last season. Gary is the only Denver back who has not equalled his sucess outside of Denver (The case is still open for MA).I will state that it is much more difficult (and better for the team) for a single back to put up 1500+ yards than RBBC. Just becasue Denver has been able to replicate TD's sucess w/ RBBC should not diminish that accomplishment.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I will state that it is better for the team for a single back to put up 1500+ yards than RBBC.

Why? And what does "better" mean?

 

[WhoDat]

But that's not really the point; I don't think Sims should make the HOF. But Davis isn't clearly on another level.

I don't think Sims should be in the HOF either but his talent level was FAR superior to T. Davis...FAR SUPERIOR. Davis was a good player in his own right but Sims was a very special player. There's a wide difference in ages posting on the boards but let's put this into perspective. You know all the hype Bush has right now? That was Billy Sims coming into the NFL. He was that good coming out of OU. I really enjoyed watching Davis play and hated to see his career, like Sims, end tragically to injury. It is unfortunate but those two guys were VERY far apart in natural talent. Likewise, there playing circumstances were VERY different.

 

[Marc Levin]

I will state that it is better for the team for a single back to put up 1500+ yards than RBBC.

Why? And what does "better" mean?

With two 1G rushers in 2005 and no 1500 yard rusher, they hosted the AFC Champ Game and were 13-3 in the regular season.

With a 1500 yard rusher in 2002 and 2003, they were 9-7 and 10-6, respectively, missed th eplayoffs one year, had no home playoff game the other year, and lost to Indie in the wild card game.

I'd say 2005 was more successful than 2002 or 2003.

 

[Tyranny]

And neither is Priest Holmes

 

[moleculo]

But that's not really the point; I don't think Sims should make the HOF. But Davis isn't clearly on another level.

I don't think Sims should be in the HOF either but his talent level was FAR superior to T. Davis...FAR SUPERIOR. Davis was a good player in his own right but Sims was a very special player. There's a wide difference in ages posting on the boards but let's put this into perspective. You know all the hype Bush has right now? That was Billy Sims coming into the NFL. He was that good coming out of OU.

I really enjoyed watching Davis play and hated to see his career, like Sims, end tragically to injury. It is unfortunate but those two guys were VERY far apart in natural talent. Likewise, there playing circumstances were VERY different.

I agree completely. Unfortunately, it's not the Hall of Talent. I would have loved to see Sims play longer, and even with an above average team around him. Heck, I'd love to see what Archie Manning could do with a decent team.

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

As much as I hate to say it.... no.

TD was the classic team player.

Blew out his knee making a defensive play didn't he? A tackle or something after an INT or fumble return?

The fact that Olandis Gary and Mike Anderson stepped right in and performed at a high level diminishes what TD did.

But at the same time... I don't think Denver wins a Super Bowl without him. It really bothered me that it was 'all about John' after the game, as TD won that effin game for Denver.

I loved watching Terrell Davis go about his business.....

 

[Tau837]

But that's not really the point; I don't think Sims should make the HOF. But Davis isn't clearly on another level.

I don't think Sims should be in the HOF either but his talent level was FAR superior to T. Davis...FAR SUPERIOR. Davis was a good player in his own right but Sims was a very special player. There's a wide difference in ages posting on the boards but let's put this into perspective. You know all the hype Bush has right now? That was Billy Sims coming into the NFL. He was that good coming out of OU.

I really enjoyed watching Davis play and hated to see his career, like Sims, end tragically to injury. It is unfortunate but those two guys were VERY far apart in natural talent. Likewise, there playing circumstances were VERY different.

 

[Tau837]

Someone alluded to the fact that a precedent has been set for short career players making the HOF. Let me just head that one off before someone uses Sayers to justify Davis (it always happens). Previous post on the subject:

I addressed the Sayers-Davis comparison back in January:

I think Davis has just as strong a case as Sayers did

I must disagree.From Pro Football Hall of Fame:

Gale Eugene Sayers. . .Kansas All-America. . .Exceptional break-away runner. . .Scored rookie record 22 TDs, 132 points, 1965. . .Led NFL rushers, 1966, 1969. . .Named all-time NFL halfback, 1969. . . All-NFL five straight years. . .Player of Game in three Pro Bowls. . .Career totals: 9,435 combined net yards, 4,956 yards rushing, 336 points. . . NFL lifetime kickoff return leader. . .Born May 30, 1943, in Wichita, Kansas.

Gale Sayers burst upon the pro football scene in 1965 with the kind of an impact that the sport had not felt in many years. It is difficult to imagine a more dynamic debut than the one he enjoyed as a rookie. In his first heavy pre-season action, he raced 77 yards on a punt return, 93 yards on a kickoff return, and then startled everyone with a 25-yard scoring pass against the Los Angeles Rams.

In regular season, he scored four touchdowns, including a 96-yard game breaking kickoff return, against the Minnesota Vikings. And, in the next-to-last game, playing on a muddy field that would have stalled most runners, Gale scored a record-tying six touchdowns against the San Francisco 49ers. Included in his sensational spree were an 80-yard pass-run play, a 50-yard rush and a 65-yard punt return. For the entire season, Gale scored 22 touchdowns and 132 points, both then-rookie records.

Quiet, unassuming, and always ready to compliment a teammate for a key block, Sayers continued to sizzle in 1967 and well into the 1968 season. Then, in the ninth game, Sayers suffered a knee injury that required immediate surgery.

After a tortuous rehabilitation program, Gale came back in 1969 in a most spectacular manner, winding up with his second 1,000-yard rushing season and universal Comeback of the Year honors. But injuries continued to take their toll and, just before the 1972 season, Gale finally had to call it quits.

In his relatively short career, he compiled a record that can never be forgotten. His totals show 9,435 combined net yards, 4,956 yards rushing, and 336 points scored. At the time of his retirement he was the NFL's all-time leader in kickoff returns. He won All-NFL honors five straight years and was named Offensive Player of the Game in three of the four Pro Bowls in which he played.

Though not clearly stated above, Sayers was ROY in 1965.Sayers was Michael Vick electric. His career averages:

- 5.0 yards per rush (Davis 4.6)

- 11.7 yards per catch (Davis 7.6)

- 14.5 yards per punt return

- 30.6 yards per kickoff return

- 27.8 yards per completion (but only 6.2 yards per attempt)

Sayers had tremendous impact on special teams, as well as in both the running and passing games on offense. Davis didn't have quite the same overall impact. And, frankly, from the averages shown above, Sayers appears to have been more talented, though I realize it is difficult to compare across eras, offenses, etc.

Sayers played only 2 games in each of his last 2 seasons, unable to overcome injury. So he effectively played only 5 seasons, and he was named All Pro each time. In contrast, Davis played 3 great seasons, 1996-1998. He was All Pro in each of those seasons. But as a rookie, while very impressive for a first year RB, he was not one of the top backs in the NFL. IMO, as great as he was in the next 3 seasons, 3 great seasons makes less of a case than 5 great seasons.

Also, Sayers career was truly done after his 5 year run, as he was able to play only a total of 4 more games over the next 2 seasons. Davis may have actually hurt his case by lingering longer, playing a total of 20 more games over 3 additional seasons after his injury.

I'm not really sure what to think of Sayers being named "All Time NFL halfback" in 1969, but it sounds like an honor that transcends single season awards. I don't recall Davis ever receiving such an award.

And IMO it also does not help Davis's case that Gary, Anderson, Portis, and Droughns have looked so great in the same offense. It certainly raises at least the possibility that Davis's numbers were at least aided by an amazing offensive line/system. In particular, it hurts that Gary went on to play poorly elsewhere, and Portis, while not playing poorly, did not play at the same elite level when he moved on.

I feel that Sayers deserves to be in and Davis does not. And I expect the voters will ultimately agree on Davis.

Davis clearly benefitted from playing in one of the best rushing attacks in NFL history. He also played with one of the few best QBs in NFL history. And a HOF TE.One player other than Sayers made the Pro Bowl during the 5 seasons he was healthy: Mike Ditka, once. And consider that there were only 16 teams in the league then, so it was easier to make it. Even Ditka only had one good season during Sayers' career. And there was no one else on the offense to give him much help.

There is no doubt that Sayers was more HOF worthy than Davis. None.

As to whether people "forget" about Davis's postseason accomplishments, are you kidding me? That is the only reason he is ever in a HOF conversation.

This was focused on comparing Sayers and Davis, but some of it is relevant here, and it certainly makes it clear that I don't support Davis for the HOF. I searched for some of my other posts on this over the years but couldn't find any. I did start a thread a while back to look at HOF candidates in the next 5 or 6 years: LINK

 

[moleculo]

Someone alluded to the fact that a precedent has been set for short career players making the HOF. Let me just head that one off before someone uses Sayers to justify Davis (it always happens). Previous post on the subject:

...

This was focused on comparing Sayers and Davis, but some of it is relevant here, and it certainly makes it clear that I don't support Davis for the HOF. I searched for some of my other posts on this over the years but couldn't find any. I did start a thread a while back to look at HOF candidates in the next 5 or 6 years: LINK

Sayers> TD. got it. I don't think anyone disputes that fact. Sayers is a better RB than probably anyone besides Payton and Brown, IMO.However, Sayers does not represent the minimum threshold to make it in - he is a data point illustrating that there is a precident for guys with short, bright, careers in the HOF.

 

[Tau837]

Someone alluded to the fact that a precedent has been set for short career players making the HOF.  Let me just head that one off before someone uses Sayers to justify Davis (it always happens).  Previous post on the subject:

...

This was focused on comparing Sayers and Davis, but some of it is relevant here, and it certainly makes it clear that I don't support Davis for the HOF.  I searched for some of my other posts on this over the years but couldn't find any.  I did start a thread a while back to look at HOF candidates in the next 5 or 6 years:  LINK

Sayers> TD. got it. I don't think anyone disputes that fact. Sayers is a better RB than probably anyone besides Payton and Brown, IMO.However, Sayers does not represent the minimum threshold to make it in - he is a data point illustrating that there is a precident for guys with short, bright, careers in the HOF.

He is a data point that guys with short careers as good as his can make the HOF. I'm not aware of any other short career player with a career as good as his. I posted that to head off mention of him as a precedent for Davis, as it doesn't work, as well as because the post makes a few relevant points about Davis's career. If you have another favorite short career guy, post him and we'll explain why that doesn't work either.

 

[David Yudkin]

The other thing to consider when comparing Sayers to Davis is that medicine and science in the 60s was nowhere near what it is today. Back in the day, a serious knee injury quite often was career threatening and from what I remember reading about Sayers, he had a knee injury and returned but after suffering a second he was done.

In this era, many players are fortunate to extend their careers due to advances in surgeries, therapies, conditioning, etc. While that doesn't change the fact that Davis tried to return to where he was and couldn't, the fact that others have been able to get banged up and play may go against TD. Similarly, with fewer players being able to have long careers inm the 60s, it obviously did not hurt Sayers so much.

 

[Bri]

The other thing to consider when comparing Sayers to Davis is that medicine and science in the 60s was nowhere near what it is today. Back in the day, a serious knee injury quite often was career threatening and from what I remember reading about Sayers, he had a knee injury and returned but after suffering a second he was done.

In this era, many players are fortunate to extend their careers due to advances in surgeries, therapies, conditioning, etc. While that doesn't change the fact that Davis tried to return to where he was and couldn't, the fact that others have been able to get banged up and play may go against TD. Similarly, with fewer players being able to have long careers inm the 60s, it obviously did not hurt Sayers so much.

Stinks he's one of the few that medical advances didn't seem to help.IMO He and Priest didn't play long enough, assuming Priest is done.

 

[MarshallRob]

Someone alluded to the fact that a precedent has been set for short career players making the HOF.  Let me just head that one off before someone uses Sayers to justify Davis (it always happens).  Previous post on the subject:

...

This was focused on comparing Sayers and Davis, but some of it is relevant here, and it certainly makes it clear that I don't support Davis for the HOF.  I searched for some of my other posts on this over the years but couldn't find any.  I did start a thread a while back to look at HOF candidates in the next 5 or 6 years:  LINK

Sayers> TD. got it. I don't think anyone disputes that fact. Sayers is a better RB than probably anyone besides Payton and Brown, IMO.However, Sayers does not represent the minimum threshold to make it in - he is a data point illustrating that there is a precident for guys with short, bright, careers in the HOF.

He is a data point that guys with short careers as good as his can make the HOF. I'm not aware of any other short career player with a career as good as his. I posted that to head off mention of him as a precedent for Davis, as it doesn't work, as well as because the post makes a few relevant points about Davis's career. If you have another favorite short career guy, post him and we'll explain why that doesn't work either.

Lynn Swann's probably a better comparison. A few great years, a short career, and heroics in several Super Bowl wins. Of course if Swann's induction was a mistake as I know many believe (if I recall earlier HOF threads correctly), then putting Davis in just compounds the error.Shifting gears, in an earlier post Chase Stuart referred to Roger Staubach's "lesser credentials" and said "his accomplishments aren't Montana, Elway or Young, but they're HOF worthy." That’s shortchanging Staubach. He was a first-ballot Hall of Famer and better than his Hall of Fame contemporaries Bradshaw, Griese, Tarkenton, and Namath. Staubach's cumulative numbers don't look that great today because: (1) he played in a run-dominated, low-percentage passing era; and (2) he missed five years because he was serving in the U.S. Navy. He should get some credit for the missed seasons. He did retire holding the NFL's all-time highest career passer rating. He and Young were similar players to me.

 

[Tau837]

Someone alluded to the fact that a precedent has been set for short career players making the HOF.  Let me just head that one off before someone uses Sayers to justify Davis (it always happens).  Previous post on the subject:

...

This was focused on comparing Sayers and Davis, but some of it is relevant here, and it certainly makes it clear that I don't support Davis for the HOF.  I searched for some of my other posts on this over the years but couldn't find any.  I did start a thread a while back to look at HOF candidates in the next 5 or 6 years:  LINK

Sayers> TD. got it. I don't think anyone disputes that fact. Sayers is a better RB than probably anyone besides Payton and Brown, IMO.However, Sayers does not represent the minimum threshold to make it in - he is a data point illustrating that there is a precident for guys with short, bright, careers in the HOF.

He is a data point that guys with short careers as good as his can make the HOF. I'm not aware of any other short career player with a career as good as his. I posted that to head off mention of him as a precedent for Davis, as it doesn't work, as well as because the post makes a few relevant points about Davis's career. If you have another favorite short career guy, post him and we'll explain why that doesn't work either.

Lynn Swann's probably a better comparison. A few great years, a short career, and heroics in several Super Bowl wins. Of course if Swann's induction was a mistake as I know many believe (if I recall earlier HOF threads correctly), then putting Davis in just compounds the error.Shifting gears, in an earlier post Chase Stuart referred to Roger Staubach's "lesser credentials" and said "his accomplishments aren't Montana, Elway or Young, but they're HOF worthy." That’s shortchanging Staubach. He was a first-ballot Hall of Famer and better than his Hall of Fame contemporaries Bradshaw, Griese, Tarkenton, and Namath. Staubach's cumulative numbers don't look that great today because: (1) he played in a run-dominated, low-percentage passing era; and (2) he missed five years because he was serving in the U.S. Navy. He should get some credit for the missed seasons. He did retire holding the NFL's all-time highest career passer rating. He and Young were similar players to me.

I agree Swann is a better comparison than Sayers, and I am one who feels Swann does not deserve to be in the HOF, same as Davis.

 

[Marc Levin]

I think Davis has just as strong a case as Sayers did

Just Win Baby, this is a misquote - I never said this.

 

[Ghost Rider]

The fact that Olandis Gary and Mike Anderson stepped right in and performed at a high level diminishes what TD did.

Really? Does the fact that Steve Young and Jeff Garcia stepped right in and performed high levels diminish what Joe Montana did?

 

[SSOG]

Davis had 4 great year (really 3 great years and one very good one). He struggled his way through 3 other seasons and was basically not much more than a footnote in those years.

IMO, players that don't have at least 5 solid years under their belts are going to have a lot of trouble mustering much HOF consideration.

There are several guys that played well but got hurt or did great for a while and then did very little (off the top of my head Priest Holmes, Billy Sims, Sterling Sharpe, Gerald Riggs, William Andrews, Herman Moore, Kurt Warner) Are these guys HOF worthy?

I agree that on the side of great stats and using the "dominant player" philosophy that Davis would merit consideration, but he really did not have much of a career in terms of longevity.

And in recent years, guys with short careers have not garnered much attention.

So if Terrell Davis had another "solid year" (say 1200 yards rushing and 12 TDs), he'd suddenly meet that 5-year criteria and qualify? How about we just count the postseason as a 5th season?I think Davis is going to muster a TON of HoF consideration. I don't know if he'll get in or not, but I do know that he'll be a very hot topic when he comes up.

As far as Kurt Warner goes... I think Kurt Warner isn't a good comparison to Terrell Davis. Kurt Warner's career wasn't ended, he just declined drastically. Terrell Davis never declined. He was injured, yes, but he never declined. Nobody could ever say that Terrell Davis was healthy and not one of the 3-4 best RBs in the NFL.

I think Davis will get a lot of attention. I think he is so far above the other "short career" guys that he'll definitely get some heavy consideration. I also think that Terrell Davis is going to set the standard as to whether short-career but DOMINANT players will really get into the HoF. I think in future years, the arguements will say "Well, Davis got in, so ______ deserves it" or "If Davis never got in, then neither should ______". Priest Holmes might very well find his name in those discussions one day (although he was never near the level of dominance that Davis was at, imo).

As for how I feel... I think it's a very close thing, that could very well go either way. I always thought that he had a good shot at the HoF. Of course, I also always thought that that was just blind homerism until I read Dr. Z say that he'd support TD for the HoF.

Edit: Also, to reinforce just how dominant he was during that 4-season span

1 league MVP

2 offensive PoYs

3 All-pro selections

3 AFC Offensive PoY selections

1 SB MVP

As for his rookie season being merely a "good" year... if I recall correctly, he's still the lowest-drafted rookie to rush for 1,000 yards ever.

On a fantasy-related note, his 1998 season had the highest VBD score I've ever seen. It might not be the highest VBD score ever, but I'd be willing to bet that it's top-5 in modern NFL history. Not that this should have any bearing at all on his HoF induction (or lack thereof), it's just interesting to note that no single player has ever done more to guarantee fantasy teams a championship than Terrell Davis did in 1998.