Tiki a HOFer? (1 Viewer)

[Popinski]

I'm a Giants fan and right now, he is clearly not headed towards the Hall. If he puts together a few more very good seasons, maybe he has a shot at it. Fact is, right or not, his lack of TDs will be plenty to overcome.I could care less, however. Pro Bowls, and other awards like that hold little merit to me because they're simply based on popular opinion and are not an all knowing reality. Tiki should have been to more than one Pro Bowl. Also, one has to consider the quality of the offensive lines Tiki has been playing with, which haven't been anything special. Right now, Barber is the 2nd best RB in the NFL (behind LT). He is obviously a terrific runner, an outstanding receiving option (that still isn't utilized enough by Eli), and a very good pass blocker. That Coughlin doesn't have the brains to keep him there in goal line situations doesn't change that.And while Barber's career accomplishments may not measure up to that of Thurman Thomas, Bettis, and Martin, his peak value has been better than any of their peak years. He has been that good this season.

 

[Tau837]

Pro Bowls, and other awards like that hold little merit to me because they're simply based on popular opinion and are not an all knowing reality. Tiki should have been to more than one Pro Bowl.

I agree that he should have been a Pro Bowler in 2002. I see no other years that he was unjustly ommitted. Do you?I'm sure he'll make it this year. So he could/should have had 3 selections. Certainly makes him look better on the list I posted. But it's still not comparable to the elite RBs of his era.As for the popular opinion notion, it is pretty hard to argue that Tiki has simply been unfavored by popular opinion when he plays in NYC and is a likable guy. He has been overlooked once for Pro Bowls, and has not been overlooked for All NFL selection. If you don't buy popular opinion, show us where he deserved to be All NFL or a Pro Bowler other than 2002.

Also, one has to consider the quality of the offensive lines Tiki has been playing with, which haven't been anything special.

Why? Every player's results, whether they are good or bad, are based on their situation. There are other players who have excelled with poor OL play. It's not a valid excuse.

Right now, Barber is the 2nd best RB in the NFL (behind LT). He is obviously a terrific runner, an outstanding receiving option (that still isn't utilized enough by Eli), and a very good pass blocker. That Coughlin doesn't have the brains to keep him there in goal line situations doesn't change that.

What do you mean by "best" here? What makes Tiki superior to Larry Johnson "right now"? Shaun Alexander? Edgerrin James?

 

[jwvdcw]

I have a hard time believing so many people in this forum think Tiki is a HOFer.

For Tiki supporters, do you think he is in today? This notion is easily refuted. If you don't think he is in today, what are your assumptions for his future performance that will get him in? I'd like to see them, because they can probably also be refuted.

Let's review.

Hall of Fame RBs

Here are the modern era Halfbacks & Fullbacks, from HOF by Position:

Marion Motley (FB) 1946-1953, 1955

Charley Trippi (HB) 1947-1955

Doak Walker (HB) 1950-1955

Joe Perry (FB) 1948-1963

Hugh McElhenny (HB) 1952-1964

Frank Gifford (HB-FL) 1952-1960, 1962-1964

Jim Brown (FB) 1957-1965

Ollie Matson (HB) 1952, 1954-1966

John Henry Johnson (FB) 1954-1966

Paul Hornung (HB) 1957-1962, 1964-1966

Lenny Moore (HB) 1956-1967

Jim Taylor (FB) 1958-1967

Gale Sayers (HB) 1965-1971

Leroy Kelly (RB) 1964-1973

Larry Csonka (FB) 1968-1979

O.J. Simpson (RB) 1969-1979

Franco Harris (RB) 1972-1984

Earl Campbell (RB) 1978-1985

John Riggins (RB) 1971-1979, 1981-1985

Walter Payton (RB) 1975-1987

Tony Dorsett (RB) 1977-1988

Eric Dickerson (RB) 1983-1993

Marcus Allen (RB) 1982-1997

Barry Sanders (RB) 1989-1998

Careers ending in the 50s: 3

Careers ending in the 60s: 9

Careers ending in the 70s: 4

Careers ending in the 80s: 5

Careers ending in the 90s: 3

Looking at the last 3 decades before the 00s, the average is 4 RBs admitted. Do we assume the average jumps up in the 00s? It will have to for Tiki to get in, unless you feel he is a top 4 RB whose career ends this decade.

In his era

So, where does he rank with his contemporaries?

Times All NFL, for current or recent players not yet inducted, from All NFL:

4 - Emmitt Smith

3 - Marshall Faulk, Priest Holmes, Terrell Davis, Mike Alstott (FB)

2 - Thurman Thomas, Jerome Bettis, Curtis Martin

1 - Eddie George, Edgerrin James, Jamal Lewis, Ricky Williams, Ladainian Tomlinson

0 - Tiki Barber

So Tiki was never considered to be among the top two RBs in any season of his career. Bettis, Martin, & Thomas were selected two times each, yet there are people saying Tiki has been better than them.

How about Pro Bowls, from pro-football-reference.com?

8 - Emmitt Smith

7 - Marshall Faulk

6 - Jerome Bettis, Mike Alstott

5 - Curtis Martin, Thurman Thomas

4 - Eddie George, Ahman Green

3 - Priest Holmes, Terrell Davis, Edgerrin James, Corey Dillon

2 - Ladainian Tomlinson, Deuce McAllister, Stephen Davis, Shaun Alexander, Garrison Hearst, Warrick Dunn

1 - Tiki Barber, Jamal Lewis, Ricky Williams, Travis Henry, Michael Bennett, Clinton Portis

I didn't list all the Pro Bowlers during Tiki's career, but you get the idea: Tiki has not distinguished himself from his peers during his career. There are many guys who will not sniff the HOF who have earned more recognition in their careers.

If Tiki is doing that now, it is almost certainly too little, too late, unless he can do it for a fairly sustained length of time, unlikely due to his age (30 now, 31 before next season).

In addition to those contemporaries, what about Ricky Watters? Is he getting in? I think he was similar to Tiki but better. No one is clamoring for him to get in, but he is ahead of Tiki in every category, with a huge lead in TDs. He was a 5 time Pro Bowler and had 1117/12 in the postseason to add to his excellent regular season numbers.

Performance

From pro-football-reference.com:

                +--------------------------+-------------------------+                 |          Rushing         |        Receiving        |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| Year  TM |   G |   Att  Yards    Y/A   TD |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| 1997 nyg |  12 |   136    511    3.8    3 |    34    299   8.8    1 || 1998 nyg |  16 |    52    166    3.2    0 |    42    348   8.3    3 || 1999 nyg |  16 |    62    258    4.2    0 |    66    609   9.2    2 || 2000 nyg |  16 |   213   1006    4.7    8 |    70    719  10.3    1 || 2001 nyg |  14 |   166    865    5.2    4 |    72    577   8.0    0 || 2002 nyg |  16 |   303   1386    4.6   11 |    69    597   8.7    0 || 2003 nyg |  16 |   278   1216    4.4    2 |    69    461   6.7    1 || 2004 nyg |  16 |   322   1518    4.7   13 |    52    578  11.1    2 || 2005 nyg |  13 |   284   1357    4.8    6 |    37    392  10.6    2 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+|  TOTAL   | 135 |  1816   8283    4.6   47 |   511   4580   9.0   12 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+Not updated for yesterday, obviously. So Tiki has had 3 impressive seasons: 2002, 2004, 2005. Even in those years, was his performance amongst the top 3-4 by any NFL RB?In 2002, Tiki had 1985/11. Holmes had 2287/24. Williams had 2216/17. Tomlinson had 2172/15. Portis had 1872/17. Alexander had 1635/18. McAllister had 1740/16. Nope, not a top 3-4 performance.

In 2004, Tiki had 2096/15. It was a top 3-4 performance. He finished as fantasy RB #2.

This season, prior to this week (which is not yet posted at pro-football-reference.com), Alexander, Tomlinson, James, and Larry Johnson had thus far outperformed Tiki. Tiki's performance yesterday was huge, so there is a good chance he will end up with a top 3-4 season performance. Let's say he does.

That would be 2 top 3-4 seasons in his career, in 9 seasons. Again, I go back to my question up top: how many more do those of you who think he will get in think he is going to have? He needs at least two more at his current production level IMO, and I don't see that happening at age 31 & 32.

By the way, here is his career postseason data:

Year  Opp   Result  |  RSH    YD  TD  |  REC    YD  TD---------------------+-----------------+----------------- 1997  min  L,22-23  |   17    29   0  |    3    31   0 2000  phi  W,20-10  |   15    35   0  |    3    13   0 2000  min  W,41-0   |   12    69   0  |    4    21   0*2000  bal  L,7-34   |   11    49   0  |    6    26   0 2002  sfo  L,38-39  |   26   115   1  |    5    62   0---------------------+-----------------+-----------------TOTAL                |   81   297   1  |   21   153   0Not impressive. It doesn't hurt him obviously, but it also doesn't help him like it helps Terrell Davis & Thurman Thomas, for example.Ranks

Here are his historical ranks through last week, again from pfr.com:

Among the league's all-time top 50

Rushes: 33

Rushing yards: 24

Yards from scrimmage: 29

Things to note here. First, he is not even in the top 50 in rushing TDs or overall TDs. That hurts a lot IMO. You can argue that he wasn't given the goal line opportunities, but I would counter that (a) he didn't earn them and (b) it doesn't matter why, it just matters that he didn't get them.

Second, it is unlikely Tiki will end his career in the top 10 in rushing yards. He would need another 3600+ rushing yards to get there, and that assumes that Dillon, James, Dunn, and/or Holmes don't push the bar higher. Of that group, James is the one that will likely get there ahead of Tiki.

So Tiki's only real claim will be based on yards from scrimmage. If he follows this year with two more 2000+ yard seasons, which I happen to think is unlikely, he will be at #8, assuming Bettis retires before then.

Does he get into the HOF because he is #8 in YFS? It's not enough IMO.

Timing

We must not only ask where Tiki will rank when he retires, but also where he will rank when he becomes eligible 5 years later. Will Owens or Harrison bump him down the YFS list?

And it is also true that Tiki will not only be competing with other RBs, but also with all other eligible players, coaches, & contributors. Will he be worthy of being one of up to 6 players/coaches/contributors selected in any given year?

Conclusion

Very good player, will not make the HOF.

I(and almost every other Tiki supporter) have been saying that Tiki is the most underrated player in football. If you want to statistically argue that, then thats fine. But showing pro bowls or all pros(which are voted upon) only support the notion that he is underrated.

 

[SSOG]

His TD numbers arent that good too. That could hurt.

He has proven imho that he can be a smaller successul goalline runner ala Priest Holmes, yet the coaches in NY have continually tried to pull him at the goalline.

I disagree. I really like Tiki but have always had issues with him at the goalline. IIRC when he was young, he didn't start because he stunk in short yardage spots and was "just a 3rd down back". Since, he, the G-men, and opposing Ds have learned he can beat just about anyone to the pylon in a footrace. The threat of that may open up some inside runs as guys cheat outside but he's no "pile mover".

Neither was Priest Holmes, but he still made a halfway decent goal line back.Do I think Tiki Barber is currently a HoFer? Nope. However, I think that if Barber continues to just keep getting better, I think he's a definite HoFer. Give him 2000 yards from scrimmage again next season, and I think he enters the discussion (because how many backs have 3 straight seasons with 2000 yards from scrimmage?). Give him two more years with 2000 from scrimmage, and I think he's almost a lock. I also love his career ypc, which should help his case a ton.

 

[Tau837]

I(and almost every other Tiki supporter) have been saying that Tiki is the most underrated player in football. If you want to statistically argue that, then thats fine. But showing pro bowls or all pros(which are voted upon) only support the notion that he is underrated.

That is a weak argument. The implication is that he was incorrectly ommitted from those honors. If you believe that, let's see you show which seasons he should have been All Pro or in the Pro Bowl when he wasn't selected. I already said that 2002 is the one time he didn't make the PB when he should have. There is no season in which he should have been All Pro, given that All Pro equals a top 2 NFL RB.If you really believe your argument, let's see you make a case with evidence instead of merely vague and unsubstantiated implications.

 

[jwvdcw]

I(and almost every other Tiki supporter) have been saying that Tiki is the most underrated player in football. If you want to statistically argue that, then thats fine. But showing pro bowls or all pros(which are voted upon) only support the notion that he is underrated.

That is a weak argument. The implication is that he was incorrectly ommitted from those honors. If you believe that, let's see you show which seasons he should have been All Pro or in the Pro Bowl when he wasn't selected. I already said that 2002 is the one time he didn't make the PB when he should have. There is no season in which he should have been All Pro, given that All Pro equals a top 2 NFL RB.If you really believe your argument, let's see you make a case with evidence instead of merely vague and unsubstantiated implications.

I think I made my case with my comparison to "Player X" a few threads up. Player X, by some accounts, is the greatest RB to ever play the game btw.

 

[Popinski]

I agree that he should have been a Pro Bowler in 2002. I see no other years that he was unjustly ommitted. Do you?

2000, over Dunn.

As for the popular opinion notion, it is pretty hard to argue that Tiki has simply been unfavored by popular opinion when he plays in NYC and is a likable guy.

Yes, he plays in NYC, but for whatever reason he is still underappreciated. Tiki's place in this town doesn't approach that of what it was for Sehorn, Jeter, Shockey, Strawberry, Gooden, Ewing, Sprewell, etc.

Why? Every player's results, whether they are good or bad, are based on their situation. There are other players who have excelled with poor OL play. It's not a valid excuse.

Because we are evaluating individual players here. If you want to discount the fact that Barber has played behind poor run-blocking lines, that's fine, but then realize you are evaluating multiple players at once, not just Barber. Football is a heavily interdependent sport, so to judge individual players, you have to factor in other variables.

What do you mean by "best" here? What makes Tiki superior to Larry Johnson "right now"? Shaun Alexander? Edgerrin James?

By 2nd best I mean that he is the 2nd RB I would most want to have on my team. My reasoning is that as a receiver, he is superior to all the names you mention and as a rusher, he is better than LJ and at worst comparable to the other two.

 

[shakeybarn]

In my opinion, a HOF player is one that helps shape and/or change the game.

that's takes out half the Hall... some good players in there, but many/most didn't "shape" or "change" the game of football. For instance, J.Unitas changed the game, but Elway, Montana and Marino didn't.

 

[Tau837]

Give him 2000 yards from scrimmage again next season, and I think he enters the discussion (because how many backs have 3 straight seasons with 2000 yards from scrimmage?).

Priest has 3 straight 2000+ seasons. Not to mention more Pro Bowls, All Pro selections, and huge edge in TDs. Do you think he will make the HOF? I don't.Marshall Faulk did it 4 straight seasons and will make the HOF. Faulk is probably the best example of someone who YFS will be a big factor for in voting. But he is currently 10th in rushing yards, and has scored 136 TDs, more than twice as many as Tiki. He also added 1121/8 in the postseason and was on a Super Bowl winner. Tiki doesn't compare to him.Payton did it and is obviously in the HOF. But not because of 3 straight 2000+ yard seasons. That was barely a footnote in his accomplishments. The public and media didn't care that Payton was the YFS leader when Emmitt broke his rushing yards record. Tiki doesn't compare to him.Jim Brown averaged 125 ypg for 3 straight seasons. This is the same pace as 2000 yards in 16 games. Did that matter? No. He got in because of his rushing dominance, and his 126 TDs. Again, Tiki doesn't compare.Not sure who else has done it. But there is no evidence that such an accomplishment would matter. It's the type of thing Tiki supporters are reaching for because he doesn't have a good case otherwise.

Give him two more years with 2000 from scrimmage, and I think he's almost a lock. I also love his career ypc, which should help his case a ton.

This would make him a lock because of his rank on the YFS list? You are implying this is all he would need.I think that would certainly be required, but he would also have to score a lot of TDs and earn some All Pro and Pro Bowl selections. He would also probably need to add another 3500+ rushing yards. He might also need to reach a Super Bowl again, or win MVP. None of those things, except maybe a Pro Bowl selection or two, is likely.

 

[Tau837]

I(and almost every other Tiki supporter) have been saying that Tiki is the most underrated player in football. If you want to statistically argue that, then thats fine. But showing pro bowls or all pros(which are voted upon) only support the notion that he is underrated.

That is a weak argument. The implication is that he was incorrectly ommitted from those honors. If you believe that, let's see you show which seasons he should have been All Pro or in the Pro Bowl when he wasn't selected. I already said that 2002 is the one time he didn't make the PB when he should have. There is no season in which he should have been All Pro, given that All Pro equals a top 2 NFL RB.If you really believe your argument, let's see you make a case with evidence instead of merely vague and unsubstantiated implications.

I think I made my case with my comparison to "Player X" a few threads up. Player X, by some accounts, is the greatest RB to ever play the game btw.

Sure. You can't take my challenge because there is no evidence there for you. He was ommitted from one Pro Bowl that he deserved. That's it. The simple fact is that he wasn't deserving in other years for Pro Bowl selection, and was never deserving of All Pro status.Nice try.

 

[Balco]

He will need 3-4 great years to even be considered. he has had two great years (This year and 2004) and two solid ones (2002-2003). Other than that there is not much to like in his other 5 years in the league. Not close yet, shouldn't even be considered.

 

[Tau837]

I agree that he should have been a Pro Bowler in 2002.  I see no other years that he was unjustly ommitted.  Do you?

2000, over Dunn.

Actually, if we are going to go back to determine who should have made it, we need to look at all candidates. Ahman Green was more deserving than Tiki (more rushing yards, rushing TDs, receptions, receiving TDs), and he didn't make it. So if Dunn should have been replaced, it was by Green, not Tiki. And all 3 other halfbacks selected outperformed Tiki.Close, but no cigar.

 

[Tau837]

2001

Player X: 16 games started, 1236 rush yards, 3.6 YPC, 367 rec yards, 1603 total yards

Tiki Barber: 9 games started, 865 rush yards, 5.2 YPC, 577 rec yards, 1442 total yards

2002

Player X: 16 games started, 1683 rush yards, 4.5 YPC, 489 rec yards, 2172 total yards

Tiki Barber: 15 games started, 1387 rush yards, 4.6 YPC, 597 rec yards, 1984 total yards

2003

Player X: 16 games started, 1645 rush yards, 5.3 YPC, 725 rec yards, 2370 total yards

Tiki Barber: 16 games started, 1216 rush yards, 4.4 YPC, 461 rec yards, 1677 total yards

2004

Player X: 15 games started, 1335 rush yards, 3.9 YPC, 441 rec yards, 1776 total yards

Tiki Barber: 14 games started, 1518 rush yards, 4.7 YPC, 578 rec yards, 2096 totaly yards

2005(as of this morning, so Tiki has one more game than Player X)

Player X: 13 games started, 1247 rush yards, 4.4 YPC, 339 rec yards, 1586 total yards

Tiki Barber: 14 games started, 1577 rush yards, 5.0 YPC, 421 rec yards, 1998 total yards

Recap and addittional info

Tiki Barber has always been taken out on the goalline, whereas player X is the full time RB, so the TD numbers are not close. Moreover, as you can see Tiki has many less starts than Player X, most probably due to the fact that the coaching staff has continually tried to force Tiki into a RBBC despite every conceivable stat showing that he deserves to be "the guy." Both have always had average-below average o-lines during this time period. Both have had similar talent surrounding them at the skill positions. Both are considered to be great team guys and great leaders. With those things in mind, lets recap:

Rushing yards: Tiki was better in 2 of the years. Player X was better in 3 of the years.

YPC: Tiki was better in 4 of the years. Player X was better in 1 of the years.

rec yards: Tiki was better in 4 of the years. Player X was better in 1 of the years.

Total yards: Tiki was better in 2 of the years. Player X was better in 3 of the years.

Thoughts?

This is laughable.Player X (Tominson) has been in the league for 5 years and has already outscored Tiki, in 9 years, by 20 TDs. He is already within ~1300 rushing yards of Tiki.

In terms of receiving, here is the comparison during those past 5 years (not including this week's game, not yet posted at pfr.com):

Tomlinson: 334/2361/8

Tiki: 299/2605/5

Not much of a gap there.

And what is even funnier is that you are comparing Tiki to a 5 year active player to make his HOF case.

In case you weren't aware of it, Tomlinson isn't in the HOF.

 

[Tau837]

As for the popular opinion notion, it is pretty hard to argue that Tiki has simply been unfavored by popular opinion when he plays in NYC and is a likable guy.

Yes, he plays in NYC, but for whatever reason he is still underappreciated.

Based on what? Does this simply go back to the same implication that he should have earned more accolades? I hear him mentioned all the time on ESPN. What is he missing that other guys get?

Why? Every player's results, whether they are good or bad, are based on their situation. There are other players who have excelled with poor OL play. It's not a valid excuse.

Because we are evaluating individual players here. If you want to discount the fact that Barber has played behind poor run-blocking lines, that's fine, but then realize you are evaluating multiple players at once, not just Barber. Football is a heavily interdependent sport, so to judge individual players, you have to factor in other variables.

Everything you say is true, but it has always been true for everyone. Who knows how Montana performs on a different team without Bill Walsh, Jerry Rice, and others? Who knows how Emmitt Smith performs without his OL and supporting cast? etc. Situational dependence is a given.Are there any guys in the HOF because they were close but played behind a poor OL, so the voters gave them credit for that and voted them in? I think not.

What do you mean by "best" here? What makes Tiki superior to Larry Johnson "right now"? Shaun Alexander? Edgerrin James?

By 2nd best I mean that he is the 2nd RB I would most want to have on my team. My reasoning is that as a receiver, he is superior to all the names you mention and as a rusher, he is better than LJ and at worst comparable to the other two.

OK, so it is subjective opinion. Understood. I think many objective observers would disagree that Tiki is a better rusher than all of those guys.

 

[my man otis]

Good article on Tiki in the Saturday Times. He basically stated that his goal is obviously a super bowl title, but he said that if he wins it he's most likely done.He thought 2006 would be the year - win a title, that is - but if it happens this year I bet he'd lean towards retirement if the Giants won it all this year.

 

[Popinski]

Based on what? Does this simply go back to the same implication that he should have earned more accolades? I hear him mentioned all the time on ESPN. What is he missing that other guys get?

Yes, now he is getting the praise he deserves. But it took pretty darn long. Earlier in the year, he was overshadowed by Eli who really was getting bailed out quite often by Plaxico/Shockey/etc. Perception has always trailed reality by a significant time period throughout Barber's career. That he is just a 3rd down back, that he is too small, not getting mentioned with the likes of even Green, Dillon, Martin, etc. up until recently, and so on.

Everything you say is true, but it has always been true for everyone. Who knows how Montana performs on a different team without Bill Walsh, Jerry Rice, and others? Who knows how Emmitt Smith performs without his OL and supporting cast? etc. Situational dependence is a given.Are there any guys in the HOF because they were close but played behind a poor OL, so the voters gave them credit for that and voted them in? I think not.

My point is that if you have equal rushing production from 2 RBs, but one clearly has a better offensive line in front of him, then the other player is the better rusher. I take it you understand where I'm coming from as you mention good examples including Montana, Smith, etc. Although you are absolutely correct that it is subjective, I would rather subjectively analyze that instead of assuming that all other factors are equal (which is not the case).As for how my point relates to the HOF, I was never arguing about that. Admittedly, I strayed off the HOF topic and was just stating how good I felt Tiki is. I don't know if the HOF voters have traditionally factored those things in much, but I'll take your word that they don't. And to me, that simply lessens the value of the Hall of Fame anyway.

 

[Tau837]

My point is that if you have equal rushing production from 2 RBs, but one clearly has a better offensive line in front of him, then the other player is the better rusher. I take it you understand where I'm coming from as you mention good examples including Montana, Smith, etc. Although you are absolutely correct that it is subjective, I would rather subjectively analyze that instead of assuming that all other factors are equal (which is not the case).As for how my point relates to the HOF, I was never arguing about that. Admittedly, I strayed off the HOF topic and was just stating how good I felt Tiki is. I don't know if the HOF voters have traditionally factored those things in much, but I'll take your word that they don't. And to me, that simply lessens the value of the Hall of Fame anyway.

I don't disagree that in this case it would be taken into account. However:1. You never truly have two situations in which all is equal except supporting cast.2. In that situation, my guess is that either both guys would make it or neither guy would make it. So, in terms of making it, the poor OL wouldn't be a factor.As for lessening the value of the Hall of Fame, I'm not sure why. We could never know for sure how another RB would have done behind Emmitt's line, or another WR or QB in Bill Walsh's system. I'm not sure why anyone would expect the HOF to vote someone in based on what might have happened. That doesn't really make much sense.Good discussion.

 

[jwvdcw]

2001

Player X: 16 games started, 1236 rush yards, 3.6 YPC, 367 rec yards, 1603 total yards

Tiki Barber: 9 games started, 865 rush yards, 5.2 YPC, 577 rec yards, 1442 total yards

2002

Player X: 16 games started, 1683 rush yards, 4.5 YPC, 489 rec yards, 2172 total yards

Tiki Barber: 15 games started, 1387 rush yards, 4.6 YPC, 597 rec yards, 1984 total yards

2003

Player X: 16 games started, 1645 rush yards, 5.3 YPC, 725 rec yards, 2370 total yards

Tiki Barber: 16 games started, 1216 rush yards, 4.4 YPC, 461 rec yards, 1677 total yards

2004

Player X: 15 games started, 1335 rush yards, 3.9 YPC, 441 rec yards, 1776 total yards

Tiki Barber: 14 games started, 1518 rush yards, 4.7 YPC, 578 rec yards, 2096 totaly yards

2005(as of this morning, so Tiki has one more game than Player X)

Player X: 13 games started, 1247 rush yards, 4.4 YPC, 339 rec yards, 1586 total yards

Tiki Barber: 14 games started, 1577 rush yards, 5.0 YPC, 421 rec yards, 1998 total yards

Recap and addittional info

Tiki Barber has always been taken out on the goalline, whereas player X is the full time RB, so the TD numbers are not close. Moreover, as you can see Tiki has many less starts than Player X, most probably due to the fact that the coaching staff has continually tried to force Tiki into a RBBC despite every conceivable stat showing that he deserves to be "the guy." Both have always had average-below average o-lines during this time period. Both have had similar talent surrounding them at the skill positions. Both are considered to be great team guys and great leaders. With those things in mind, lets recap:

Rushing yards: Tiki was better in 2 of the years. Player X was better in 3 of the years.

YPC: Tiki was better in 4 of the years. Player X was better in 1 of the years.

rec yards: Tiki was better in 4 of the years. Player X was better in 1 of the years.

Total yards: Tiki was better in 2 of the years. Player X was better in 3 of the years.

Thoughts?

This is laughable.Player X (Tominson) has been in the league for 5 years and has already outscored Tiki, in 9 years, by 20 TDs. He is already within ~1300 rushing yards of Tiki.

In terms of receiving, here is the comparison during those past 5 years (not including this week's game, not yet posted at pfr.com):

Tomlinson: 334/2361/8

Tiki: 299/2605/5

Not much of a gap there.

And what is even funnier is that you are comparing Tiki to a 5 year active player to make his HOF case.

In case you weren't aware of it, Tomlinson isn't in the HOF.

Ok, you stated that Tiki doesn't belong in the HOF because while his numbers were great he was never considered one of the best at his position for a prolonged stretch. My counter-point was that if you consider LT2 to be one of the best at his position over the past 5 years(which I'm sure 99% of the people here do), then you have to say the same about Tiki.Edited to add: You can't compare TDs between a player who is pulled at the goalline and a player who is not. It'd be another thing entirely if Tiki was terrible at short yardage running, but hes simply not. If you want, go look up the stats regarding his conversions on first and goals inside the 3 yard line and compare it to LT2. Or even better yet, compare that to Dayne and Jones who for some reason get goalline carries over Tiki.

 

[TenTimes]

Consider me in the camp that thinks Tiki should get some kind of compensation for having been pulled at the goalline all those years.

 

[Tau837]

Ok, you stated that Tiki doesn't belong in the HOF because while his numbers were great he was never considered one of the best at his position for a prolonged stretch. My counter-point was that if you consider LT2 to be one of the best at his position over the past 5 years(which I'm sure 99% of the people here do), then you have to say the same about Tiki.

You're wrong. Yes, LT is one of the best over the past few years. While fantasy ranking isn't used for HOF consideration, it does nicely measure total yards and TDs. Consider the difference between them in the past 5 years:Tomlinson:Year Value Pos. Rank Overall Rank--------------------------------------------------2001 85 7 112002 155 3 32003 202 3 32004 130 3 52005 174 2 2-------------------------------------------------- 746Barber:

Year        Value        Pos. Rank    Overall Rank--------------------------------------------------2001          33            15             382002         112             7              82003          44            15             342004         142             2              42005         110             5              5--------------------------------------------------             441

It's not close over the 5 year period. It's close in 2004 & 2005.

You can't compare TDs between a player who is pulled at the goalline and a player who is not. It'd be another thing entirely if Tiki was terrible at short yardage running, but hes simply not. If you want, go look up the stats regarding his conversions on first and goals inside the 3 yard line and compare it to LT2. Or even better yet, compare that to Dayne and Jones who for some reason get goalline carries over Tiki.

This logic is baffling. Here is logic similar to yours: You can't compare receiving yards and TDs between a RB who plays in an offense that doesn't throw to its RBs and a player who plays in an offense that does. So when comparing Tiki to such players (e.g., Dillon, Bettis, etc.), we have to ignore his receiving production. That is obviously wrong, just as your statement is wrong.If Tiki wasn't in there at the goal line, it's because he didn't prove to his coaches that he deserved to be there. Maybe they weren't convinced he was effective. Before last year, it could easily have been due to his propensity to fumble, which certainly couldn't be blamed on anyone but himself. But don't kid yourself... his coaches are putting the personnel on the field in those situations that they think are most likely to help the team.This year, Jacobs has scored 6 TDs in 14 carries inside the 6 yard line. Tiki has scored 3 TDs in 10 such carries. Looks to me like Jacobs is more productive there, though it is a small sample size. But why would Coughlin change that when it is working? Meanwhile, LT is on the field because he is the Chargers' most productive RB in those situations.

 

[Tau837]

By the way, as long as we're comparing Tiki and LT, don't forget LT has thrown 4 TDs to Tiki's 0. And don't forget that Tiki has lost at least 14 fumbles over the past 5 years, compared to LT's 8 or 9 (depending on the source).Side note: interesting that it is hard to find accurate fumble data. NFL.com and ESPN.com have considerably different totals. pro-football-reference.com doesn't have them.

 

[Csonka4life]

The Matthews brothers might make it before the Barbers. Also I'm not sure that Ronde is a hall of famer and if he becomes one it will be as a veteran. The pro football hall of fame has ignored cornerbacks. Granted the position wasn't as important as it has become since the no chuck rule came into affect. If Roger Wherli is waiting Ronde will have to wait forever......... Ps the only hall of fame brothers I know of are the Waners in baseball and the Espositos in hockey. Marcus Allen and his brother Damon will be(most likely) the first in football. Unless the Fluties beat them to it in the CFL........

 

[jwvdcw]

By the way, as long as we're comparing Tiki and LT, don't forget LT has thrown 4 TDs to Tiki's 0.  And don't forget that Tiki has lost at least 14 fumbles over the past 5 years, compared to LT's 8 or 9 (depending on the source).

Side note:  interesting that it is hard to find accurate fumble data.  NFL.com and ESPN.com have considerably different totals.  pro-football-reference.com doesn't have them.

Agree or disagree with these statements:1.Apart for touchdowns, Tiki Barber and LT2 have been very similar in the past few years, and one could argue that either has better stats than the other.

2.LT2's and Tiki's supporting casts have been similar the past few years.

3.LT2 is one of the best RBs in the game over the past 5 years, maybe even the best.

4.Tiki has not been given a chance at being a full time goalline rusher in the past 5 years.

 

[SSOG]

Give him 2000 yards from scrimmage again next season, and I think he enters the discussion (because how many backs have 3 straight seasons with 2000 yards from scrimmage?).

Priest has 3 straight 2000+ seasons. Not to mention more Pro Bowls, All Pro selections, and huge edge in TDs. Do you think he will make the HOF? I don't.Marshall Faulk did it 4 straight seasons and will make the HOF. Faulk is probably the best example of someone who YFS will be a big factor for in voting. But he is currently 10th in rushing yards, and has scored 136 TDs, more than twice as many as Tiki. He also added 1121/8 in the postseason and was on a Super Bowl winner. Tiki doesn't compare to him.

Payton did it and is obviously in the HOF. But not because of 3 straight 2000+ yard seasons. That was barely a footnote in his accomplishments. The public and media didn't care that Payton was the YFS leader when Emmitt broke his rushing yards record. Tiki doesn't compare to him.

Jim Brown averaged 125 ypg for 3 straight seasons. This is the same pace as 2000 yards in 16 games. Did that matter? No. He got in because of his rushing dominance, and his 126 TDs. Again, Tiki doesn't compare.

Not sure who else has done it. But there is no evidence that such an accomplishment would matter. It's the type of thing Tiki supporters are reaching for because he doesn't have a good case otherwise.

So, let's see... if Barber joins the 2000 yfs in 3-straight seasons club, he'll be in with Marshall Faulk, Priest Holmes, Walter Peyton, and Jim Brown? That's some pretty good company, if you ask me.I don't think anyone will be voting and will say "How many straight 2000 yard seasons did he have?" I do think, however, that if he does it for 3+ straight seasons, he will have demonstrated a very strong track record of excellence. Especially if he winds up leading the league in yards from scrimmage over each of those seasons, as he did last year and as he is on pace for this year.

I'm not saying 3 straight 2000+ seasons will make him a slam dunk. I'm just saying if he manages 3 straight 2000+ seasons, and he ISN'T AT LEAST IN THE CONVERSATION, well then that's a real travesty.

 

[jwvdcw]

Born in 1982, started watching football in late 80s/early 90s. The list of best backs I've ever seen:1. E Smith2. M Faulk3. LT24. Barry5. Tiki6. TD7. Thomas8. C Mart9. Edge10. S AlexanderI'm sure I forgot a name or two, as I did this quickly, so please don't berate me with "how can you possibly leave so and so off?"

 

[Tau837]

By the way, as long as we're comparing Tiki and LT, don't forget LT has thrown 4 TDs to Tiki's 0.  And don't forget that Tiki has lost at least 14 fumbles over the past 5 years, compared to LT's 8 or 9 (depending on the source).

Side note:  interesting that it is hard to find accurate fumble data.  NFL.com and ESPN.com have considerably different totals.  pro-football-reference.com doesn't have them.

Agree or disagree with these statements:1.Apart for touchdowns, Tiki Barber and LT2 have been very similar in the past few years, and one could argue that either has better stats than the other.

2.LT2's and Tiki's supporting casts have been similar the past few years.

3.LT2 is one of the best RBs in the game over the past 5 years, maybe even the best.

4.Tiki has not been given a chance at being a full time goalline rusher in the past 5 years.

1. They have been fairly close, but, no, one cannot argue that Barber has been better over that period. Prior to this week, LT had 9613 total yards (including 106 passing yards) compared to Barber's 8947. And LT has roughly half as many turnovers. (And I don't agree with ignoring TDs anyway.)2. I'm not really sure about this one. The Chargers are 38-41 over the past 5 years, including postseason, and the Giants are 37-42. Each made the postseason once. Since these two are the primary components of their teams' running games, perhaps it makes sense to look at their teams' passing games & defenses.

Passing game ranks (yardage, from pfr.com):

NYG: 10, 7, 9, 25, 11 - average 12th

SD: 13, 23, 22, 18, 10 - average 17th

Defense ranks (yardage, from pfr.com):

NYG: 16, 10, 26, 13, 20 - average 17th

SD: 10, 30, 27, 18, 14 - average 20th

They aren't far off, but it appears that Tiki has had a better supporting cast.

3. Agreed.

4. Agree, but we clearly differ on the implications of this. You apparently think it has nothing to do with Tiki himself, and I disagree.

Also, it isn't like he has had no opportunity. I don't know where to find split stats for 2001, but FBG goes back to 2002. During that time, Tiki scored 23 TDs on 52 carries inside the 6. Tomlinson scored 42 TDs on 82 such carries over the same time period. Give Tiki 30 more carries to equal Tomlinson's total and apply his success rate and he would have scored another 13 rushing TDs. That would still leave him 11 TDs behind Tomlinson, counting LT's 4 passing TDs.

I can't believe I have been drawn into this. If you think Tiki has been as good as LT over the past 5 years, you are in the minority. And if you believe that, there is clearly no way you will see the rest of the factual basis for why Tiki will not make the HOF.

 

[Tau837]

Give him 2000 yards from scrimmage again next season, and I think he enters the discussion (because how many backs have 3 straight seasons with 2000 yards from scrimmage?).

Priest has 3 straight 2000+ seasons. Not to mention more Pro Bowls, All Pro selections, and huge edge in TDs. Do you think he will make the HOF? I don't.Marshall Faulk did it 4 straight seasons and will make the HOF. Faulk is probably the best example of someone who YFS will be a big factor for in voting. But he is currently 10th in rushing yards, and has scored 136 TDs, more than twice as many as Tiki. He also added 1121/8 in the postseason and was on a Super Bowl winner. Tiki doesn't compare to him.

Payton did it and is obviously in the HOF. But not because of 3 straight 2000+ yard seasons. That was barely a footnote in his accomplishments. The public and media didn't care that Payton was the YFS leader when Emmitt broke his rushing yards record. Tiki doesn't compare to him.

Jim Brown averaged 125 ypg for 3 straight seasons. This is the same pace as 2000 yards in 16 games. Did that matter? No. He got in because of his rushing dominance, and his 126 TDs. Again, Tiki doesn't compare.

Not sure who else has done it. But there is no evidence that such an accomplishment would matter. It's the type of thing Tiki supporters are reaching for because he doesn't have a good case otherwise.

So, let's see... if Barber joins the 2000 yfs in 3-straight seasons club, he'll be in with Marshall Faulk, Priest Holmes, Walter Peyton, and Jim Brown? That's some pretty good company, if you ask me.I don't think anyone will be voting and will say "How many straight 2000 yard seasons did he have?" I do think, however, that if he does it for 3+ straight seasons, he will have demonstrated a very strong track record of excellence. Especially if he winds up leading the league in yards from scrimmage over each of those seasons, as he did last year and as he is on pace for this year.

I'm not saying 3 straight 2000+ seasons will make him a slam dunk. I'm just saying if he manages 3 straight 2000+ seasons, and he ISN'T AT LEAST IN THE CONVERSATION, well then that's a real travesty.

I figured that's what you would highlight from the post. You ignored the parts where I said that Priest won't make it and the others will or did make it based on their other accomplishments, not this reason... and thus this doesn't really help Tiki.

 

[SSOG]

Give him 2000 yards from scrimmage again next season, and I think he enters the discussion (because how many backs have 3 straight seasons with 2000 yards from scrimmage?).

Priest has 3 straight 2000+ seasons. Not to mention more Pro Bowls, All Pro selections, and huge edge in TDs. Do you think he will make the HOF? I don't.Marshall Faulk did it 4 straight seasons and will make the HOF. Faulk is probably the best example of someone who YFS will be a big factor for in voting. But he is currently 10th in rushing yards, and has scored 136 TDs, more than twice as many as Tiki. He also added 1121/8 in the postseason and was on a Super Bowl winner. Tiki doesn't compare to him.

Payton did it and is obviously in the HOF. But not because of 3 straight 2000+ yard seasons. That was barely a footnote in his accomplishments. The public and media didn't care that Payton was the YFS leader when Emmitt broke his rushing yards record. Tiki doesn't compare to him.

Jim Brown averaged 125 ypg for 3 straight seasons. This is the same pace as 2000 yards in 16 games. Did that matter? No. He got in because of his rushing dominance, and his 126 TDs. Again, Tiki doesn't compare.

Not sure who else has done it. But there is no evidence that such an accomplishment would matter. It's the type of thing Tiki supporters are reaching for because he doesn't have a good case otherwise.

So, let's see... if Barber joins the 2000 yfs in 3-straight seasons club, he'll be in with Marshall Faulk, Priest Holmes, Walter Peyton, and Jim Brown? That's some pretty good company, if you ask me.I don't think anyone will be voting and will say "How many straight 2000 yard seasons did he have?" I do think, however, that if he does it for 3+ straight seasons, he will have demonstrated a very strong track record of excellence. Especially if he winds up leading the league in yards from scrimmage over each of those seasons, as he did last year and as he is on pace for this year.

I'm not saying 3 straight 2000+ seasons will make him a slam dunk. I'm just saying if he manages 3 straight 2000+ seasons, and he ISN'T AT LEAST IN THE CONVERSATION, well then that's a real travesty.

I figured that's what you would highlight from the post. You ignored the parts where I said that Priest won't make it and the others will or did make it based on their other accomplishments, not this reason... and thus this doesn't really help Tiki.

I'm not saying he would be a lock. But don't you think Priest Holmes will at least be DISCUSSED for the Hall of Fame? That's all I'm saying. 3 straight 2000+ yard seasons, and Barber would at least be in the DISCUSSION for the HoF.

 

[Bri]

Walter Peyton,

I'm a poor typist and grammar person. That said, please don't confuse Payton and Peyton

 

[Tau837]

I'm not saying he would be a lock. But don't you think Priest Holmes will at least be DISCUSSED for the Hall of Fame? That's all I'm saying. 3 straight 2000+ yard seasons, and Barber would at least be in the DISCUSSION for the HoF.

Sure. If he makes it three in a row, here is how the discussion will go:Moderator: "How about Tiki Barber? Pros: He had 3 straight 2000 yard seasons. Ranks #(around top 10) in YFS. Nice guy. Cons: Made only 3 Pro Bowls and no All Pro teams. Not on any Super Bowl winners. Didn't do much in postseason. Didn't score many TDs."

"Oh, and we just recently elected Emmitt Smith, Marshall Faulk, Jerome Bettis, Curtis Martin, and Thurman Thomas, all from the same position, and there are a lot of other positions with deserving players."

Voters: "No. Next."

If you call that discussion, then I agree with you.

 

[SSOG]

I'm not saying he would be a lock. But don't you think Priest Holmes will at least be DISCUSSED for the Hall of Fame? That's all I'm saying. 3 straight 2000+ yard seasons, and Barber would at least be in the DISCUSSION for the HoF.

Sure. If he makes it three in a row, here is how the discussion will go:Moderator: "How about Tiki Barber? Pros: He had 3 straight 2000 yard seasons. Ranks #(around top 10) in YFS. Nice guy. Cons: Made only 3 Pro Bowls and no All Pro teams. Not on any Super Bowl winners. Didn't do much in postseason. Didn't score many TDs."

"Oh, and we just recently elected Emmitt Smith, Marshall Faulk, Jerome Bettis, Curtis Martin, and Thurman Thomas, all from the same position, and there are a lot of other positions with deserving players."

Voters: "No. Next."

If you call that discussion, then I agree with you.

No, I call making the original list of 80+, and having a shot (although not a certainty) to make it to the 25 or 15 man cutdown, as being "in the discussion".

 

[Tau837]

I'm not saying he would be a lock. But don't you think Priest Holmes will at least be DISCUSSED for the Hall of Fame? That's all I'm saying. 3 straight 2000+ yard seasons, and Barber would at least be in the DISCUSSION for the HoF.

Sure. If he makes it three in a row, here is how the discussion will go:Moderator: "How about Tiki Barber? Pros: He had 3 straight 2000 yard seasons. Ranks #(around top 10) in YFS. Nice guy. Cons: Made only 3 Pro Bowls and no All Pro teams. Not on any Super Bowl winners. Didn't do much in postseason. Didn't score many TDs."

"Oh, and we just recently elected Emmitt Smith, Marshall Faulk, Jerome Bettis, Curtis Martin, and Thurman Thomas, all from the same position, and there are a lot of other positions with deserving players."

Voters: "No. Next."

If you call that discussion, then I agree with you.

No, I call making the original list of 80+, and having a shot (although not a certainty) to make it to the 25 or 15 man cutdown, as being "in the discussion".

OK, I've been talking about the top 6 or less in a given year, while you've been talking about the top 80+. Different conversations. I have no problem agreeing that Tiki will make top 80+ at some point.

 

[SSOG]

OK, I've been talking about the top 6 or less in a given year, while you've been talking about the top 80+. Different conversations. I have no problem agreeing that Tiki will make top 80+ at some point.

I think another 2000+ yard season guarantees him a spot in the top 80. I think reaching the top 10 in yards from scrimmage more or less guarantees him a spot in the first 25 man cutdown.Personally, I don't think he should get in. I don't think ANYONE should get in until the hall starts electing freaking offensive linemen. Seriously, there are 5 times as many OLs on the field as QBs on the majority of plays (sometimes only 2.5 times as many, and other times as much as 7 times as many, but we're talking 99% of the time). Why, then are there more QBs than OLs in Canton? Are there just more good players at the QB position? Or perhaps those players only look good because they had some dominant OLs in front of them. I say Canton closes its doors to all glory boys for 5 years and elects nobody but Offensive Linemen, and maybe the occasional defensive tackle or safety. Then, after that, there needs to be a mandate that for every QB, RB, or WR that gets in, there has to be an OL that gets in, too.

 

[Rockchild]

These types of discussions are always interesting but I think without seeing the final numbers on a player and a sobering 5 year wait to take some of the emotion out of it it is difficult to fully evaluate borferline players like Tiki,and Rod and Jimmy Smith. That aside, I don't think Tiki will get in. He's been a very good player that has been somewhat underappreciated but I don't think after all is said and done he will have the numbers or recognition to get in. Part of it will be the other RB's being inducted or eligible at the same time and his lack of recognition, fair or not, as a top back. What might help him would be a MVP or a Super Bowl win. I like Tiki but not as a HOFer. When he's eligible will play a role in is chances too. If he's up for election with Faulk, Holmes, George, Martin, Bettis and Dillon it could prove very difficult for his chances.

 

[Bri]

OK, I've been talking about the top 6 or less in a given year, while you've been talking about the top 80+.  Different conversations.  I have no problem agreeing that Tiki will make top 80+ at some point.

I think another 2000+ yard season guarantees him a spot in the top 80. I think reaching the top 10 in yards from scrimmage more or less guarantees him a spot in the first 25 man cutdown.Personally, I don't think he should get in. I don't think ANYONE should get in until the hall starts electing freaking offensive linemen. Seriously, there are 5 times as many OLs on the field as QBs on the majority of plays (sometimes only 2.5 times as many, and other times as much as 7 times as many, but we're talking 99% of the time). Why, then are there more QBs than OLs in Canton? Are there just more good players at the QB position? Or perhaps those players only look good because they had some dominant OLs in front of them. I say Canton closes its doors to all glory boys for 5 years and elects nobody but Offensive Linemen, and maybe the occasional defensive tackle or safety. Then, after that, there needs to be a mandate that for every QB, RB, or WR that gets in, there has to be an OL that gets in, too.

that's an odd but interesting thought.

 

[dpeease]

No no no. Tiki will have to win a ring and have a few monster (2000+ total yards and 10 TDs p/year) years to even be considered for the HOF. There are simply too many other elite rbs in this era for Tiki to get in. If you guys haven't noticed, the HOF is getting very stingy with its selections. If he gets in, it will be more about what he did as a person than what he did on the football field.

 

[stevec]

OK, I've been talking about the top 6 or less in a given year, while you've been talking about the top 80+.  Different conversations.  I have no problem agreeing that Tiki will make top 80+ at some point.

I think another 2000+ yard season guarantees him a spot in the top 80. I think reaching the top 10 in yards from scrimmage more or less guarantees him a spot in the first 25 man cutdown.Personally, I don't think he should get in. I don't think ANYONE should get in until the hall starts electing freaking offensive linemen. Seriously, there are 5 times as many OLs on the field as QBs on the majority of plays (sometimes only 2.5 times as many, and other times as much as 7 times as many, but we're talking 99% of the time). Why, then are there more QBs than OLs in Canton? Are there just more good players at the QB position? Or perhaps those players only look good because they had some dominant OLs in front of them. I say Canton closes its doors to all glory boys for 5 years and elects nobody but Offensive Linemen, and maybe the occasional defensive tackle or safety. Then, after that, there needs to be a mandate that for every QB, RB, or WR that gets in, there has to be an OL that gets in, too.

Okay by me slowing the QB train, but it's not just OL:QB: 21

RB: 24

WR: 19

TE: 6

OL: 31

DL: 27

LB: 16

DB: 17

K/P: 1

Based on a fairly typical 23 man lineup, giving specialists 1 spot you'd get the following:

QB - 21

RB - 42

WR - 42

TE - 21

OL - 105

DL - 84

LB - 63

DB - 84

Specialist(Kicker/Punter, etc.) - 21

Making every other year a QB free year would be a good start to fix the balance.

 

[MyAwesomePrizeAlias]

Since this is partly a popularity contest, Tiki will get in.

 

[Texasmouth]

I hate the damn Giants, since I am a Cowboys fan, but I can't see why this guy is so under rated. I think he is a great back and a game changer. I know I wouldn't want to face him in the playoffs. Once that big ### rookie they have gets more comfortable playing, they are going to be almost unstoppable together. Tiki is a hall of famer in my book.

 

[FF Thinker]

No no no. Tiki will have to win a ring and have a few monster (2000+ total yards and 10 TDs p/year) years to even be considered for the HOF. There are simply too many other elite rbs in this era for Tiki to get in.

If you guys haven't noticed, the HOF is getting very stingy with its selections. If he gets in, it will be more about what he did as a person than what he did on the football field.

He doesn't have the ring yet but he does have some of the numbers you asked for:2005= 1,998 yds + 10 TDs (2 games to play)

2004= 2,096 yds + 15 TDs

2002= 1,984 yds + 11 TDs

He has also averaged 1,939 yds and 9.75 TDs over the past 4 yrs (with 2 more games to pad those stats.

I am not sure if he will get in but he definitely meets the statistics criteria that you named.

 

[Tau837]

No no no. Tiki will have to win a ring and have a few monster (2000+ total yards and 10 TDs p/year) years to even be considered for the HOF. There are simply too many other elite rbs in this era for Tiki to get in.

If you guys haven't noticed, the HOF is getting very stingy with its selections. If he gets in, it will be more about what he did as a person than what he did on the football field.

He doesn't have the ring yet but he does have some of the numbers you asked for:2005= 1,998 yds + 10 TDs (2 games to play)

2004= 2,096 yds + 15 TDs

2002= 1,984 yds + 11 TDs

He has also averaged 1,939 yds and 9.75 TDs over the past 4 yrs (with 2 more games to pad those stats.

I am not sure if he will get in but he definitely meets the statistics criteria that you named.

I'm pretty sure he meant a few MORE such seasons.

 

[GiantsRule]

The "ring" is the weakest argument in pro sports. Seriously. It has to stop if you want to have serious discussions about HOF potential.Manning doesn't need to win a damn thing for the rest of his career (and likely won't). Many feel Favre won his lone championship on luck. Dan Marino is still considered by many to be the greatest passer of all time.It's talent and what you mean to your team. Tiki has it. A few more seasons of similar production and he'll have a strong case for at least a second-ballot bid regardless even if the Giants don't even go to the playoffs.

 

[David Yudkin]

The "ring" is the weakest argument in pro sports. Seriously. It has to stop if you want to have serious discussions about HOF potential.

Manning doesn't need to win a damn thing for the rest of his career (and likely won't). Many feel Favre won his lone championship on luck. Dan Marino is still considered by many to be the greatest passer of all time.

It's talent and what you mean to your team. Tiki has it. A few more seasons of similar production and he'll have a strong case for at least a second-ballot bid regardless even if the Giants don't even go to the playoffs.

The question then becomes how likely is Tiki to get another 6,000 yards being on the wrong side of 30. Most other backs have hit the wall near that age . . .

 

[GiantsRule]

He also doesn't have the tread on the tires of other backs that were the full-time workhorses since the beginning of their careers. Tiki was primarily a kick/punt returner and change of pace back for the first few years.

And the guy just keeps getting BETTER every year.

The "ring" is the weakest argument in pro sports. Seriously. It has to stop if you want to have serious discussions about HOF potential.

Manning doesn't need to win a damn thing for the rest of his career (and likely won't). Many feel Favre won his lone championship on luck. Dan Marino is still considered by many to be the greatest passer of all time.

It's talent and what you mean to your team. Tiki has it. A few more seasons of similar production and he'll have a strong case for at least a second-ballot bid regardless even if the Giants don't even go to the playoffs.

The question then becomes how likely is Tiki to get another 6,000 yards being on the wrong side of 30. Most other backs have hit the wall near that age . . .

 

[Koya]

Think about it - Tiki is a guy who has been in the league a good number of years.Two years ago, we wouldnt even consider HAVING this conversation about Tiki and the hall.

 

[SSOG]

The "ring" is the weakest argument in pro sports. Seriously. It has to stop if you want to have serious discussions about HOF potential.

Manning doesn't need to win a damn thing for the rest of his career (and likely won't). Many feel Favre won his lone championship on luck. Dan Marino is still considered by many to be the greatest passer of all time.

It's talent and what you mean to your team. Tiki has it. A few more seasons of similar production and he'll have a strong case for at least a second-ballot bid regardless even if the Giants don't even go to the playoffs.

The question then becomes how likely is Tiki to get another 6,000 yards being on the wrong side of 30. Most other backs have hit the wall near that age . . .

Everything I've seen (i.e. research I did before drafting Mike Anderson) has lead me to believe that it's the workload more than the age that leads a back to break down. As crazy as it sounds, Barber only has 348 more career touches than LaDanian Tomlinson, meaning we should potentially consider him and Tomlinson as just one "year" apart in age.Fun stat for you. Barber has 348 more touches for 3356 more yards than Tomlinson. Sure, you can come up with all sorts of TD comparisons between Tomlinson and Barber, all in the favor of Tomlinson, but is there a more compelling statistic than that LT2 would need to average 9.65 yards per touch next season for his yards per touch to catch up to Barber's?

 

[Tau837]

Everything I've seen (i.e. research I did before drafting Mike Anderson) has lead me to believe that it's the workload more than the age that leads a back to break down. As crazy as it sounds, Barber only has 348 more career touches than LaDanian Tomlinson, meaning we should potentially consider him and Tomlinson as just one "year" apart in age.

Here is one article that touches on this subject: How Important Is Age?

One more note before we leave running backs. It's not at all clear to me how much of the "aging" process comes in the form of the physical pounding running backs take, and how much is just general age-based decay that we all experience. For example, Stephen Davis is 26 this year, but it's possible that his body thinks he's more like 24 because he hasn't taken nearly as many hits in his NFL career as most backs have by the time they're 26. That's not an unreasonable assertion. On the other hand, studies have shown that baseball players (hitters, anyway) peak right around the same time -- age 27 or 28 -- and they don't take any physical pounding. It's a tough call, but my opinion (i.e. guess) is that the pattern we see here for RBs is due to regular old aging and is not being unduly accelerated by the particular physical requirements of the job. I'm inclined to treat Davis like any other 26-year-old, but I won't try to change your mind if you think otherwise.

Fun stat for you. Barber has 348 more touches for 3356 more yards than Tomlinson. Sure, you can come up with all sorts of TD comparisons between Tomlinson and Barber, all in the favor of Tomlinson, but is there a more compelling statistic than that LT2 would need to average 9.65 yards per touch next season for his yards per touch to catch up to Barber's?

Yes. TDs, which you dismissed, are more compelling. And LT has more total yards than Tiki in the last 5 seasons, so it is only the fact that Tiki has had an extra 4 seasons that gives him that "lead".

 

[SSOG]

Here is one article that touches on this subject: How Important Is Age?

One more note before we leave running backs. It's not at all clear to me how much of the "aging" process comes in the form of the physical pounding running backs take, and how much is just general age-based decay that we all experience. For example, Stephen Davis is 26 this year, but it's possible that his body thinks he's more like 24 because he hasn't taken nearly as many hits in his NFL career as most backs have by the time they're 26. That's not an unreasonable assertion. On the other hand, studies have shown that baseball players (hitters, anyway) peak right around the same time -- age 27 or 28 -- and they don't take any physical pounding. It's a tough call, but my opinion (i.e. guess) is that the pattern we see here for RBs is due to regular old aging and is not being unduly accelerated by the particular physical requirements of the job. I'm inclined to treat Davis like any other 26-year-old, but I won't try to change your mind if you think otherwise.

I find it hard to accept a comparison between baseball and football, both because of the huge differences in contact leves, and because of the career longevity in baseball. Still, an interesting read. My guess runs contrary, and I'll point out Anderson's remarkable recoveries to support it. Heck, Champ Bailey is 28 or so, too, and he just made several "miraculous" recoveries this season, including returning from a separated shoulder that doctors projected would sideline him for 2 weeks in TWO DAYS. Either way, we don't have anything we didn't have before- meaningless speculation. The only way we'll ever settle this arguement is if the sample size of 30+ year old RBs with 1000 or fewer career carries drastically increases. In the meantime, I'll just point out that the two best examples in recent history of an RB earning the starting role late in life with little wear-and-tear are Priest Holmes and Mike Anderson.

Fun stat for you. Barber has 348 more touches for 3356 more yards than Tomlinson. Sure, you can come up with all sorts of TD comparisons between Tomlinson and Barber, all in the favor of Tomlinson, but is there a more compelling statistic than that LT2 would need to average 9.65 yards per touch next season for his yards per touch to catch up to Barber's?

Yes. TDs, which you dismissed, are more compelling. And LT has more total yards than Tiki in the last 5 seasons, so it is only the fact that Tiki has had an extra 4 seasons that gives him that "lead".

TDs are not more compelling. If I saw that Tomlinson had twice as many TDs per touch inside the 5-yard line, then that would be compelling. In the meantime, the TD disparity simply tells me that Tomlinson was given more opportunities to score. It reminds me of a statistic someone threw out once, "first downs per carry". I saw the numbers, and wouldn't you know it, the 5 RBs with the most "first downs per carry" also were the 5 RBs with the fewest yards to go per carry. What a coincidence, eh?Tomlinson has more TDs. I would guess that he's also had proportionately more opportunities to score those TDs.

And Tiki Barber's 4 extra seasons don't give him that "lead" in yards per touch. Tiki Barber could have played 72 extra seasons and he wouldn't necessarily have a lead in yards per touch. I'm not saying that it's amazing that Barber has more yards than Tomlinson- that's not at all amazing. What's amazing is that for Tomlinson to equal Barber's career yards per touch, he would have to average 10 yards per touch over a FULL SEASON. That's RIDICULOUS. If Tiki keeps producing at exactly the rate he's produced over his career, and Tomlinson gets an average number of touches, he'll need 10 yards per touch to bring his career averages in line with Tiki's.

You see, the only really accurate ways to compare to players is AVERAGES. A player who has played more years, and gotten more touches, will almost always have more yards. It's no coincidence that Marino holds NFL records for both yards and pass attempts- the second had a very strong impact on the first. But you can easily compare Marino's AVERAGES (yards per attempt, yards per completion, int %, QB rating, TD%, etc) to other QBs who don't have NEARLY as many attempts. And if you compare Barber's AVERAGES to Tomlinson's, Barber blows Tomlinson out of the water.

 

[Tau837]

Here is one article that touches on this subject: How Important Is Age?

One more note before we leave running backs. It's not at all clear to me how much of the "aging" process comes in the form of the physical pounding running backs take, and how much is just general age-based decay that we all experience. For example, Stephen Davis is 26 this year, but it's possible that his body thinks he's more like 24 because he hasn't taken nearly as many hits in his NFL career as most backs have by the time they're 26. That's not an unreasonable assertion. On the other hand, studies have shown that baseball players (hitters, anyway) peak right around the same time -- age 27 or 28 -- and they don't take any physical pounding. It's a tough call, but my opinion (i.e. guess) is that the pattern we see here for RBs is due to regular old aging and is not being unduly accelerated by the particular physical requirements of the job. I'm inclined to treat Davis like any other 26-year-old, but I won't try to change your mind if you think otherwise.

I find it hard to accept a comparison between baseball and football, both because of the huge differences in contact leves, and because of the career longevity in baseball. Still, an interesting read. My guess runs contrary, and I'll point out Anderson's remarkable recoveries to support it. Heck, Champ Bailey is 28 or so, too, and he just made several "miraculous" recoveries this season, including returning from a separated shoulder that doctors projected would sideline him for 2 weeks in TWO DAYS.

I'm not sure when this became a discussion about recovery time. It is not surprising that players recover faster today than in the past, nor is it surprising that older players are performing better for longer. Sports medicine has advanced tremendously over the years, as has training techniques and the amount of time devoted to training.

None of that has anything to do with whether or not a player had many touches a early in his career.

The only way we'll ever settle this arguement is if the sample size of 30+ year old RBs with 1000 or fewer career carries drastically increases. In the meantime, I'll just point out that the two best examples in recent history of an RB earning the starting role late in life with little wear-and-tear are Priest Holmes and Mike Anderson.

I guess I'm not sure what you are arguing at this point. I thought you were saying that Tiki's number of career touches is low enough that he will perform longer at a high level than other similarly talented RBs with more touches earlier in their career. Is that your point here?

If so, how exactly does Priest Holmes help your case? Yes, Priest was not worked heavily in the first 4 years of his career (459 total carries and 88 total receptions in those first 4 years). Then he moved to KC and had 3 straight high workload, All NFL caliber seasons. At the end of 2003, Holmes was 30 and had just had 2110 total yards and 27 TDs. He had played 62 of 64 possible games over his previous 4 seasons. Then what? He proceeded to miss 17 games over his next 2 seasons. One could easily draw a comparison between Tiki's current season and Priest's 2003 season, TDs notwithstanding... Tiki is the same age as Priest was in 2003. How does this progression help Tiki's case?

And how does Mike Anderson help Tiki's case? He is on pace for 1326 total yards this season. That is substantially less than Tiki's recent performances, and such a performance will not be enough to help Tiki's HOF chances. And, besides, Anderson only had 626 carries and 61 receptions in his career entering this season. Tiki's workload is far beyond that, at 1845 carries and 516 receptions, which means this is comparing apples and oranges with respect to workload.

Fun stat for you. Barber has 348 more touches for 3356 more yards than Tomlinson. Sure, you can come up with all sorts of TD comparisons between Tomlinson and Barber, all in the favor of Tomlinson, but is there a more compelling statistic than that LT2 would need to average 9.65 yards per touch next season for his yards per touch to catch up to Barber's?

Yes. TDs, which you dismissed, are more compelling. And LT has more total yards than Tiki in the last 5 seasons, so it is only the fact that Tiki has had an extra 4 seasons that gives him that "lead".

TDs are not more compelling. If I saw that Tomlinson had twice as many TDs per touch inside the 5-yard line, then that would be compelling. In the meantime, the TD disparity simply tells me that Tomlinson was given more opportunities to score. It reminds me of a statistic someone threw out once, "first downs per carry". I saw the numbers, and wouldn't you know it, the 5 RBs with the most "first downs per carry" also were the 5 RBs with the fewest yards to go per carry. What a coincidence, eh?

Tomlinson has more TDs. I would guess that he's also had proportionately more opportunities to score those TDs.

FBG only has splits for the past 4 years. Tiki has 23 TDs in 52 carries (44%) from the 5 yard line and closer. Tomlinson has 42 TDs in 84 such carries (50%).

From the opponent's 6-20, Tiki has 6 TDs in 150 carries (4%) over that span. Tomlinson has 12 TDs in 160 such carries (7.5%).

From the rest of the field, Tiki has 5 TDs in 1014 carries (0.5%) over that span. Tomlinson has 7 TDs in 1083 such carries (0.6%).

Perhaps these numbers aren't compelling, but Tomlinson has been more effective from every area on the field. So it is not explained only by the fact that he has had more opportunities at the goal line.

Fun stat for you. Barber has 348 more touches for 3356 more yards than Tomlinson. Sure, you can come up with all sorts of TD comparisons between Tomlinson and Barber, all in the favor of Tomlinson, but is there a more compelling statistic than that LT2 would need to average 9.65 yards per touch next season for his yards per touch to catch up to Barber's?

Yes. TDs, which you dismissed, are more compelling. And LT has more total yards than Tiki in the last 5 seasons, so it is only the fact that Tiki has had an extra 4 seasons that gives him that "lead".

And Tiki Barber's 4 extra seasons don't give him that "lead" in yards per touch. Tiki Barber could have played 72 extra seasons and he wouldn't necessarily have a lead in yards per touch. I'm not saying that it's amazing that Barber has more yards than Tomlinson- that's not at all amazing. What's amazing is that for Tomlinson to equal Barber's career yards per touch, he would have to average 10 yards per touch over a FULL SEASON. That's RIDICULOUS. If Tiki keeps producing at exactly the rate he's produced over his career, and Tomlinson gets an average number of touches, he'll need 10 yards per touch to bring his career averages in line with Tiki's.

You see, the only really accurate ways to compare to players is AVERAGES. A player who has played more years, and gotten more touches, will almost always have more yards. It's no coincidence that Marino holds NFL records for both yards and pass attempts- the second had a very strong impact on the first. But you can easily compare Marino's AVERAGES (yards per attempt, yards per completion, int %, QB rating, TD%, etc) to other QBs who don't have NEARLY as many attempts. And if you compare Barber's AVERAGES to Tomlinson's, Barber blows Tomlinson out of the water.

This statement isn't true as stated. You have to consider situations. For example, situational backs tend to have higher averages than workhorse backs, and two players can have better supporting players around them.

That said, I think your main point is that Tiki has averaged more yards per touch, which is a credit to him. Clearly his averages per carry and reception are the strongest part of his game.

I'm not sure if there was more to your point or not. I debated Tomlinson vs. Barber earlier in the thread, and the bottom line is that during the past 5 years Tomlinson has more yards, more TDs, and fewer turnovers. I feel pretty confident in saying that any NFL team would take the guy with more yards, more TDs, and fewer turnovers over the guy who has better average yards per touch.

 

[SSOG]

I'm not sure when this became a discussion about recovery time. It is not surprising that players recover faster today than in the past, nor is it surprising that older players are performing better for longer. Sports medicine has advanced tremendously over the years, as has training techniques and the amount of time devoted to training.

I was using recovery time as something that was measurable. If a player gets injured, it's hard to say if it was because of his age or if it was just a fluke thing, but recovery time is clearly measurable. The arguement is that a player's age makes them more injury prone, and I respond by saying just look at how older players with low workloads have bounced back- just as well as young players with low workloads. I agree that it was a tangent.

I guess I'm not sure what you are arguing at this point. I thought you were saying that Tiki's number of career touches is low enough that he will perform longer at a high level than other similarly talented RBs with more touches earlier in their career. Is that your point here?If so' date=' how exactly does Priest Holmes help your case? Yes, Priest was not worked heavily in the first 4 years of his career (459 total carries and 88 total receptions in those first 4 years). Then he moved to KC and had 3 straight high workload, All NFL caliber seasons. At the end of 2003, Holmes was 30 and had just had 2110 total yards and 27 TDs. He had played 62 of 64 possible games over his previous 4 seasons. Then what? He proceeded to miss 17 games over his next 2 seasons. One could easily draw a comparison between Tiki's current season and Priest's 2003 season, TDs notwithstanding... Tiki is the same age as Priest was in 2003. How does this progression help Tiki's case?[/quote']

I was off on a tangent. I wasn't really talking about Tiki. I even said that I think now that Tiki is in the top 30 all-time in carries, he can't be considered a back with a light career workload anymore.

And how does Mike Anderson help Tiki's case? He is on pace for 1326 total yards this season. That is substantially less than Tiki's recent performances, and such a performance will not be enough to help Tiki's HOF chances. And, besides, Anderson only had 626 carries and 61 receptions in his career entering this season. Tiki's workload is far beyond that, at 1845 carries and 516 receptions, which means this is comparing apples and oranges with respect to workload.

Again, I was off on a tangent about whether age or workload are more likely to make a back more injury prone. I acknowledge that Barber has both age AND workload going against him.

Besides, what did I say about comparing players? Look at their averages. One of my favorite statistics is called "success rate", which measures what percentage of a player's runs were successful. The definition of "success" is gaining 40% of the required yards on 1st down, 60% on second down, or 100% on 3rd or 4th down. For instance, running for 17 yards is nice, but it's not a successful run if it came on 3rd and 28. Anyway, Mike Anderson is 3rd in the league in success rate, behind only James and Larry Johnson. Just because he's not getting a ton of yards doesn't mean he has been less than fantastic this season.

Once again, though, I was off the discussion of Tiki's hall chances, and was now on the tangent of age vs. workload as they relate to RB injury rates- which, admittedly, has nothing to do with Barber, since he has both age AND workload.

FBG only has splits for the past 4 years. Tiki has 23 TDs in 52 carries (44%) from the 5 yard line and closer. Tomlinson has 42 TDs in 84 such carries (50%).From the opponent's 6-20' date=' Tiki has 6 TDs in 150 carries (4%) over that span. Tomlinson has 12 TDs in 160 such carries (7.5%).

From the rest of the field, Tiki has 5 TDs in 1014 carries (0.5%) over that span. Tomlinson has 7 TDs in 1083 such carries (0.6%).

Perhaps these numbers aren't compelling, but Tomlinson has been more effective from every area on the field. So it is not explained only by the fact that he has had more opportunities at the goal line.[/quote']

See, now we're off the tangent and back on the discussion of Barber vs. Tomlinson. These numbers show that Tomlinson has been slightly better at scoring TDs, and given a lot more opportunities. Clearly, Tomlinson is a better red-zone runner than Barber, but it's not a huge margin. At the same time, looking at the numbers, Barber has been drastically better between the 20s (looking at yards per touch). I'm not saying that Barber is better than Tomlinson, just that he belongs in the same sentence. Both are great at everything they do, but Barber's marginally better at getting you into the red zone, and Tomlinson's better at scoring once you get there. If Tomlinson is considered a "great" back, then Barber has to be, too. If Tomlinson is considered an "exceptional" back, then Barber has to be, too. This is all I am trying to say. Nothing more, nothing less. As to what this has to do with his hall chances... nothing at all. Give him another 2000 yard season and he'll at least deserve to make the semi-finalist list, and will have a puncher's chance at the first cutdown. Beyond that, I wouldn't expect anything.

This statement isn't true as stated. You have to consider situations. For example' date=' situational backs tend to have higher averages than workhorse backs, and two players can have better supporting players around them.[/quote']The statement is still true as stated, you're just adding more detail. Yes, different situations will yield different results. A guy who is in a lot more 3rd and longs will average more yards per carry, since the defense is playing pass. Ah... but he won't average more yards per THIRD AND LONG. See, you can specifically refine those averages to look at whatever numbers you want and make comparisons, as long as you're careful not to shrink the sample size too small entirely. You want to know who was better at a fourth quarter comeback between a guy on a bad team and a guy on a good team, you can do that. Just look at their average performance when trailing in the 3rd quarter, and you get rid of any bias that results from one player having more time spent in that situation than the other.

The one flaw with averages, which is a flaw with EVERY means of evaluating football players, is that you can't separate the play of a player from the play of his teammates. Was Montana great because he was throwing to Rice, or was Rice great because Montana was throwing to him? Stuff like that always has to be kept in mind, sort of the "human adjustment" when looking at numbers. Still, don't think that objective analysis is so much better because of this bias- "objective" analysis carries the same bias. Denver is 2nd in the league running the ball, and 3rd in the league in pass protection, but didn't send a single lineman to the pro bowl. That's an example of people not giving credit where it's due. There are also nearly as many QBs as OLs in the hall of fame, despite there having been 5 times as many starting OLs in football history. That's another example of bias in separating performances. I guess what I'm getting at is that comparing averages isn't a perfect means of comparing players, but it doesn't have any faults that every other means of football analysis doesn't have, too. I think it's the strongest way to make an arguement about one player being better than another, and you can always note the bias in the commentary.

That said' date=' I think your main point is that Tiki has averaged more yards per touch, which is a credit to him. Clearly his averages per carry and reception are the strongest part of his game.I'm not sure if there was more to your point or not. I debated Tomlinson vs. Barber earlier in the thread, and the bottom line is that during the past 5 years Tomlinson has more yards, more TDs, and fewer turnovers. I feel pretty confident in saying that any NFL team would take the guy with more yards, more TDs, and fewer turnovers over the guy who has better average yards per touch.

I wouldn't feel so confident. I would rather have a guy who averages 5 yards per carry on 200 carries than a guy who averages 3 yards per carry on 350 carries. An extreme example, I know, but sometimes points are best illustrated by extreme examples.

Here's another example for you. Drew Bledsoe lead the league in passing yardage in 1994, but averaged a mere 6.6 yards per attempt (and set an NFL record for passing attempts). Would you rather have a guy who threw 691 times at 6.6 yards per attempts, or a guy who threw 550 times at 7.6 yards per attempts?

And here's a statistic for you. The statistic that corresponds best between winning and losing (other than points, obviously), is yards per attempt passing and yards per attempt passing allowed. Not total yards passing and total yards allowed.

Here's another one. Jake Plummer has one career (almost) 500 yard passing game. It came in a loss.

Quality is a lot more important than quantity. Not that it's that cut and dried with Barber and Tomlinson, since Barber they both have both quality and quantity, Barber is simply more quality and Tomlinson is simply more quantity. I'm just trying to demonstrate that Tomlinson has not CLEARLY been better than Barber over the past 4 years, regardless of what most media-types would have you believe.