Which RB should be in the HOF but is currently not (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

We spend a bunch of time debating the HOF merits of modern players, but thought this would be a fun exercise. I tried to pick some guys, but obviously I'm leaving this one open. If you pick other, name your pick. If not, tell us why you voted for your guy.

Here are the PFR pages for these players:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MitcLy00.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/F/ForeCh00.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/AndeOt00.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/AndrWi00.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/R/RiggGe00.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BrowLa01.htm

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I'm really not sure that any on the list should be. The closest RBs on the list if Chuck Foreman as he was a tough, complete back and Otis Anderson (although he was more of a compiler), who was a solid back, had a few years where he was one of the best and had a resurgence that was capped off with him being Super Bowl MVP.

Both probably just miss out though.

The rest are average to above average RBs that really aren't in the discussion as HoFers imo.

 

[Adebisi]

I don't think I would put any of these guys in.

 

[David Yudkin]

Roger Craig?

Herschel Walker?

RBs overall appear to be well represented in the HOF.

 

[Matt Waldman]

Hard to justify any of the players with long careers but only a smaller peak.

I believe the best RB on that list is Falcons RB Williams Andrews, who I believe is head and shoulders better than any of the guys on this list. He made 4 Pro Bowls in 6 seasons, and had a 2000-yard rush/pass season before Roger Craig did it.

I'm giving anecdotal evidence, but Walter Payton was once asked if there was a runner in the NFL he would play with in the same backfield and Payton said William Andrews was the one guy he'd play with and block for as a FB. Coming from Payton, that's a huge compliment.

I've probably brought this up a million times whenever I mention Andrews, but he was as complete of a back as you would find in the early 80s. He had breakaway speed, but was also very powerful with excellent balance and could catch the ball as well as any back in football during that era.

I once saw him take a screen pass to the right flat, take a few steps, and lower his shoulder into a safety who had a direct angle to deliver a kill shot. When Andrews hit this safety, the defender was instantly knocked out and slid off him to the ground unconcious as Andrews barely broke stride for what was like a 70-yard score down the sideline.

That safety who had to be carried off the field and was still woozy was Ronnie Lott.

When a back has over 250 carries three times in a six-year career and he averaged 4.9, 4.5, and 4.7 ypc and in those same seasons has 51, 81, and 59 catches for at least an 9-12 yard per catch average, you're taking about a special player.

If ACL surgeries had the technology they do today, I'm willing to believe that Andrews would have had 3-4 more seasons of strong production. Instead, he tried to play that final year with nerve damage that cost him feeling in his big toe - a killer for an RB.

As a man, Andrews has run afoul of the law in recent years. As a running back, he was by far the best of this group and it is an impressive group.

He had 4 great seasons. Terrell Davis had 4 great seasons. Gale Sayers had 5 strong seasons. Andrews and Terrell Davis are the two guys with shortened careers I would consider. I would probably put Davis over Andrews if he were on the list, but I'm sure someone else will write him in and I want to vote for Andrews because I think he was an underrated monster when it comes to the history of the position.

 

[identikit]

Hard to justify any of the players with long careers but only a smaller peak. I believe the best RB on that list is Falcons RB Williams Andrews, who I believe is head and shoulders better than any of the guys on this list. He made 4 Pro Bowls in 6 seasons, and had a 2000-yard rush/pass season before Roger Craig did it. I'm giving anecdotal evidence, but Walter Payton was once asked if there was a runner in the NFL he would play with in the same backfield and Payton said William Andrews was the one guy he'd play with and block for as a FB. Coming from Payton, that's a huge compliment. I've probably brought this up a million times whenever I mention Andrews, but he was as complete of a back as you would find in the early 80s. He had breakaway speed, but was also very powerful with excellent balance and could catch the ball as well as any back in football during that era. I once saw him take a screen pass to the right flat, take a few steps, and lower his shoulder into a safety who had a direct angle to deliver a kill shot. When Andrews hit this safety, the defender was instantly knocked out and slid off him to the ground unconcious as Andrews barely broke stride for what was like a 70-yard score down the sideline. That safety who had to be carried off the field and was still woozy was Ronnie Lott. When a back has over 250 carries three times in a six-year career and he averaged 4.9, 4.5, and 4.7 ypc and in those same seasons has 51, 81, and 59 catches for at least an 9-12 yard per catch average, you're taking about a special player. If ACL surgeries had the technology they do today, I'm willing to believe that Andrews would have had 3-4 more seasons of strong production. Instead, he tried to play that final year with nerve damage that cost him feeling in his big toe - a killer for an RB. As a man, Andrews has run afoul of the law in recent years. As a running back, he was by far the best of this group and it is an impressive group. He had 4 great seasons. Terrell Davis had 4 great seasons. Gale Sayers had 5 strong seasons. Andrews and Terrell Davis are the two guys with shortened careers I would consider. I would probably put Davis over Andrews if he were on the list, but I'm sure someone else will write him in and I want to vote for Andrews because I think he was an underrated monster when it comes to the history of the position.

I remember him well.Not only a great rb, but a great football player.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

Lydell Mitchell was as good as Foreman. Basically the same type of player, both were not only good rushers, but also great receivers. Sort of Marshall Faulk before Marshall Faulk without the speed.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Roger Craig?

Herschel Walker?

RBs overall appear to be well represented in the HOF.

Wilbert Montgomery, Walker, Curt Warner and Craig would have been my next set of guys. If you count his USFL days (which you probably shouldn't), Walker's a shoe in. As is, Walker had only one big year and one very good year. I like my RBs to be runners first, so I guess I discount Walker and Craig a little bit. They had similar careers -- Craig had two great years and a bunch of average work. If you're going to go with a receiving RB, I'd take Mitchell, who was 3rd, 2nd (behind OJ) and 2nd (behind Payton) in yards for scrimmage for three straight years. Mitchell, Walker and Craig probably had similar peaks but Mitchell sustained that level the longest.

 

[David Yudkin]

Herschel Walker is a tough one to evaluate, as his three prime seasons were in the USFL and effectively don't count at all. If Walker COULD count those numbers, he'd be at roughly 20,000 yards from scrimmage with 140+ career TD.

He would actually rank #1 all-time in all purpose yards (he already ranks 8th) and Top 5 in TD, rushing yards, and yards from scrimmage.

I realize that his USFL numbers are inflated and don't count, but it makes you wonder where he would have ranked had his prime years been in the NFL instead of the USFL.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Hard to justify any of the players with long careers but only a smaller peak. I believe the best RB on that list is Falcons RB Williams Andrews, who I believe is head and shoulders better than any of the guys on this list. He made 4 Pro Bowls in 6 seasons, and had a 2000-yard rush/pass season before Roger Craig did it. I'm giving anecdotal evidence, but Walter Payton was once asked if there was a runner in the NFL he would play with in the same backfield and Payton said William Andrews was the one guy he'd play with and block for as a FB. Coming from Payton, that's a huge compliment. I've probably brought this up a million times whenever I mention Andrews, but he was as complete of a back as you would find in the early 80s. He had breakaway speed, but was also very powerful with excellent balance and could catch the ball as well as any back in football during that era. I once saw him take a screen pass to the right flat, take a few steps, and lower his shoulder into a safety who had a direct angle to deliver a kill shot. When Andrews hit this safety, the defender was instantly knocked out and slid off him to the ground unconcious as Andrews barely broke stride for what was like a 70-yard score down the sideline. That safety who had to be carried off the field and was still woozy was Ronnie Lott. When a back has over 250 carries three times in a six-year career and he averaged 4.9, 4.5, and 4.7 ypc and in those same seasons has 51, 81, and 59 catches for at least an 9-12 yard per catch average, you're taking about a special player. If ACL surgeries had the technology they do today, I'm willing to believe that Andrews would have had 3-4 more seasons of strong production. Instead, he tried to play that final year with nerve damage that cost him feeling in his big toe - a killer for an RB. As a man, Andrews has run afoul of the law in recent years. As a running back, he was by far the best of this group and it is an impressive group. He had 4 great seasons. Terrell Davis had 4 great seasons. Gale Sayers had 5 strong seasons. Andrews and Terrell Davis are the two guys with shortened careers I would consider. I would probably put Davis over Andrews if he were on the list, but I'm sure someone else will write him in and I want to vote for Andrews because I think he was an underrated monster when it comes to the history of the position.

Good stuff, Matt.Like Ken Anderson, Fouts, Wes Chandler, and Marcus Allen, Andrews' reputation was hurt by having the strike happen in the prime of his career. I agree he was very good for four seasons and is underrated. In their best three years, Mitchell averaged 126 total yards/game and Andrews averaged 129 total yards/game. I'd give Mitchell the slight edge, though, as he was a bit better at scoring and Andrews was a bit of a fumbler.

 

[David Yudkin]

Roger Craig?

Herschel Walker?

RBs overall appear to be well represented in the HOF.

Wilbert Montgomery, Walker, Curt Warner and Craig would have been my next set of guys. If you count his USFL days (which you probably shouldn't), Walker's a shoe in. As is, Walker had only one big year and one very good year. I like my RBs to be runners first, so I guess I discount Walker and Craig a little bit. They had similar careers -- Craig had two great years and a bunch of average work. If you're going to go with a receiving RB, I'd take Mitchell, who was 3rd, 2nd (behind OJ) and 2nd (behind Payton) in yards for scrimmage for three straight years. Mitchell, Walker and Craig probably had similar peaks but Mitchell sustained that level the longest.

Another problem with Walker is he did so many things on the field that most years none of them really stood out. That being said, he ranked Top 10 in:Rushing TD - 5 times

Rushing yards - 2 times

YPC - 4 times

Recptions - 2 times

Yards from scrimmage - 4 times

All purpose yards - 7 times

Touches - 5 times

As you said, he only had 2 really stand out seasons, but unlikely some other backs he still played fairly well the rest of the time. With some other backs, they were dominant or barely played.

 

[Tau837]

As a running back, he was by far the best of this group and it is an impressive group. He had 4 great seasons. Terrell Davis had 4 great seasons. Gale Sayers had 5 strong seasons. Andrews and Terrell Davis are the two guys with shortened careers I would consider. I would probably put Davis over Andrews if he were on the list, but I'm sure someone else will write him in and I want to vote for Andrews because I think he was an underrated monster when it comes to the history of the position.

While I don't believe Andrews should be a HOFer, you still had a good post going until you compared him to Sayers. This is a common mistake, but Sayers was one of the few best ever. I have posted on why it is inappropriate to compare his short career to others with short careers, so if you're interested you can find it. Suffice it to say that it is not a credible argument.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'm really not sure that any on the list should be. The closest RBs on the list if Chuck Foreman as he was a tough, complete back and Otis Anderson (although he was more of a compiler), who was a solid back, had a few years where he was one of the best and had a resurgence that was capped off with him being Super Bowl MVP.Both probably just miss out though.The rest are average to above average RBs that really aren't in the discussion as HoFers imo.

All of these guys were above average, IMO, and were dominant RBs at times. My usual litmus test for HOF is whether or not they're better than half the (modern) guys already in; in that case, I'd say no to all of them. On the other hand, I think several of these guys compare favorably to Dorsett, and all of them could be argued as more dominant players than Harris, Riggins, or Csonka. I'd put all of these guys behind Marcus Allen and the rest of the modern HOF RBs already in. Once Faulk, Emmitt and LT get in, and at least one of Martin/James/Holmes/Davis/Barber, I suspect these six RBs will pretty much become a footnote in history. So consider this one last chance to talk about them .

 

[Tau837]

To answer the post question:

Other - None.

I don't think any of the players listed in the OP or any others mentioned to this point - Terrell Davis, Roger Craig, Herschel Walker, Wilbert Montgomery, Curt Warner - should make the HOF. Nor do I think any of them will make it, unless via the veteran committee route, which is fairly unpredictable IMO.

 

[David Yudkin]

To answer the post question:Other - None.I don't think any of the players listed in the OP or any others mentioned to this point - Terrell Davis, Roger Craig, Herschel Walker, Wilbert Montgomery, Curt Warner - should make the HOF. Nor do I think any of them will make it, unless via the veteran committee route, which is fairly unpredictable IMO.

IMO, all the guys mentioned from roughly the last 10 or so years are hurt by the large number of guys that have gone on to longer careers and better career totals. Given that players today can play for longer and still be productive in doing it, the guys with a handful of top seasons and not much else likely will stand very little chance.

 

[SR388]

Out of that list Larry Brown is my favorite. And this is coming from a Cowboys fan.

He was simply amazing. Think Barry sanders before Barry. Played on some truly God-awful Redskins teams and got ran into the ground.

 

[Chase Stuart]

As a running back, he was by far the best of this group and it is an impressive group. He had 4 great seasons. Terrell Davis had 4 great seasons. Gale Sayers had 5 strong seasons. Andrews and Terrell Davis are the two guys with shortened careers I would consider. I would probably put Davis over Andrews if he were on the list, but I'm sure someone else will write him in and I want to vote for Andrews because I think he was an underrated monster when it comes to the history of the position.

While I don't believe Andrews should be a HOFer, you still had a good post going until you compared him to Sayers. This is a common mistake, but Sayers was one of the few best ever. I have posted on why it is inappropriate to compare his short career to others with short careers, so if you're interested you can find it. Suffice it to say that it is not a credible argument.

I'd be curious to at least see the footnotes to this. As far as being a RB goes, Leroy Kelly matched Sayers year for year in the second half of the '60s. Kelly was on a better teams with much better lines (not that anyone cares when it applies to Jim Brown), but it's not as though Sayers was far and away the best RB in the league when he played.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Other: Roger Craig

 

[Chase Stuart]

Out of that list Larry Brown is my favorite. And this is coming from a Cowboys fan.He was simply amazing. Think Barry sanders before Barry. Played on some truly God-awful Redskins teams and got ran into the ground.

That's a good one. He averaged 141 YFS/G in 1972, making him the first player after Jim Brown (who just did it once) to average over 140 yards from scrimmage per game in a single season. After him, only O.J. (2x) and Payton (1x) hit that mark in the '70s.

 

[On The Rocks]

I think there are others more worthy - but I have always thought some of the AFL guys deserve some consideration - and heading my list is Cookie Gilcrist.

"lookie...lookie...here comes Cookie!"

 

[Jason Wood]

I would have to say 'None.' I always though Craig would get in for his body of work combined with the bling on his hand, but of those listed in the poll, I think they're all card carrying members of the "Hall of Very Good." Soon to be joined by Tiki Barber, Shaun Alexander and Fred Taylor.

 

[SteevieG]

Andrews gets overlooked often because he played for the (back then) lowly Atlanta Falcons (I'm a Falcon fan, too). Whatever success they had when he was on the team was largely because of him. Does that make him HOF material? Not sure, but it was a pleasure watching him play football.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I'm really not sure that any on the list should be. The closest RBs on the list if Chuck Foreman as he was a tough, complete back and Otis Anderson (although he was more of a compiler), who was a solid back, had a few years where he was one of the best and had a resurgence that was capped off with him being Super Bowl MVP.Both probably just miss out though.The rest are average to above average RBs that really aren't in the discussion as HoFers imo.

All of these guys were above average, IMO, and were dominant RBs at times. My usual litmus test for HOF is whether or not they're better than half the (modern) guys already in; in that case, I'd say no to all of them. On the other hand, I think several of these guys compare favorably to Dorsett, and all of them could be argued as more dominant players than Harris, Riggins, or Csonka. I'd put all of these guys behind Marcus Allen and the rest of the modern HOF RBs already in. Once Faulk, Emmitt and LT get in, and at least one of Martin/James/Holmes/Davis/Barber, I suspect these six RBs will pretty much become a footnote in history. So consider this one last chance to talk about them .

Perhaps I was a little harsh and definately should have pointed out (although I wouldn't have done it near as well as Matt) that Andrews' talent deserves mention but his career was just too short to merit consideration.You seem to indicate that Curtis Martin isn't a "sure thing". While it could surely be argued that Martin was never dominant and is perhaps a compiler do to remaining healthly I don't see how the 4th all time leading rusher doesn't get in. On top of being a "professional" runner, he was a class act.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I would have to say 'None.' I always though Craig would get in for his body of work combined with the bling on his hand, but of those listed in the poll, I think they're all card carrying members of the "Hall of Very Good." Soon to be joined by Tiki Barber, Shaun Alexander and Fred Taylor.

I agree with Taylor. Alexander's numbers are terrific and HOF worthy, but I don't think anyone believes he's as good as his numbers. Tiki's been argued back and forth several times on this board, and I think he's likely to get in and I believe he's a borderline candidate but I'd tip him in. Same probably goes for James. Both backs are slightly tarnished by watching their teams win rings the year they left. Unlike James, TD, Holmes and Alexander, Tiki produced playing with bad supporting casts.

 

[buster c]

Out of that list Larry Brown is my favorite. And this is coming from a Cowboys fan.He was simply amazing. Think Barry sanders before Barry. Played on some truly God-awful Redskins teams and got ran into the ground.

That's a good one. He averaged 141 YFS/G in 1972, making him the first player after Jim Brown (who just did it once) to average over 140 yards from scrimmage per game in a single season. After him, only O.J. (2x) and Payton (1x) hit that mark in the '70s.

appreciate the inclusion of #43 here, Chase. Most likely never saw him run, but he and OJ were the 1a and 1b for a short while there in the early 70's. while he will likely never sniff Canton, IMO he was the toughest RB in modern Redskin history. Lombardi saw something special in him and he went from long-shot to make the '69 team to the starter to, eventually, NFL MVP in '72. Actually, the first name I though of when I saw this thread was Terry Metcalf. He may have been 'Faulk before Faulk'

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'm really not sure that any on the list should be. The closest RBs on the list if Chuck Foreman as he was a tough, complete back and Otis Anderson (although he was more of a compiler), who was a solid back, had a few years where he was one of the best and had a resurgence that was capped off with him being Super Bowl MVP.Both probably just miss out though.The rest are average to above average RBs that really aren't in the discussion as HoFers imo.

All of these guys were above average, IMO, and were dominant RBs at times. My usual litmus test for HOF is whether or not they're better than half the (modern) guys already in; in that case, I'd say no to all of them. On the other hand, I think several of these guys compare favorably to Dorsett, and all of them could be argued as more dominant players than Harris, Riggins, or Csonka. I'd put all of these guys behind Marcus Allen and the rest of the modern HOF RBs already in. Once Faulk, Emmitt and LT get in, and at least one of Martin/James/Holmes/Davis/Barber, I suspect these six RBs will pretty much become a footnote in history. So consider this one last chance to talk about them .

Perhaps I was a little harsh and definately should have pointed out (although I wouldn't have done it near as well as Matt) that Andrews' talent deserves mention but his career was just too short to merit consideration.You seem to indicate that Curtis Martin isn't a "sure thing". While it could surely be argued that Martin was never dominant and is perhaps a compiler do to remaining healthly I don't see how the 4th all time leading rusher doesn't get in. On top of being a "professional" runner, he was a class act.

Oh I think Martin is a lock and a very worthy person, but I didn't want his detractors to sidetrack this thread . Even still, he isn't on the Faulk/Emmitt/LT level so I thought best not to put him there.

 

[Jason Wood]

I'm going to assume Curtis Martin, Jerome Bettis, Marshall Faulk and LaDainian Tomlinson are locks. I'm not sure how many other RBs from this generation will find their way in. For as much as I loathe the Giants, I liked Tiki [as a player], but I think the lack of bling and the late start as a primary RB will hurt him. Not sure he'll be remembered as a great one, and don't think his stats merit early ballot induction.

 

[Tau837]

As a running back, he was by far the best of this group and it is an impressive group.

He had 4 great seasons. Terrell Davis had 4 great seasons. Gale Sayers had 5 strong seasons. Andrews and Terrell Davis are the two guys with shortened careers I would consider. I would probably put Davis over Andrews if he were on the list, but I'm sure someone else will write him in and I want to vote for Andrews because I think he was an underrated monster when it comes to the history of the position.

While I don't believe Andrews should be a HOFer, you still had a good post going until you compared him to Sayers. This is a common mistake, but Sayers was one of the few best ever. I have posted on why it is inappropriate to compare his short career to others with short careers, so if you're interested you can find it. Suffice it to say that it is not a credible argument.

I'd be curious to at least see the footnotes to this. As far as being a RB goes, Leroy Kelly matched Sayers year for year in the second half of the '60s. Kelly was on a better teams with much better lines (not that anyone cares when it applies to Jim Brown), but it's not as though Sayers was far and away the best RB in the league when he played.

Here's one I found with the search function, focused on Terrell Davis vs. Sayers:

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.

 

[Tau837]

I'm really not sure that any on the list should be. The closest RBs on the list if Chuck Foreman as he was a tough, complete back and Otis Anderson (although he was more of a compiler), who was a solid back, had a few years where he was one of the best and had a resurgence that was capped off with him being Super Bowl MVP.

Both probably just miss out though.

The rest are average to above average RBs that really aren't in the discussion as HoFers imo.

All of these guys were above average, IMO, and were dominant RBs at times. My usual litmus test for HOF is whether or not they're better than half the (modern) guys already in; in that case, I'd say no to all of them. On the other hand, I think several of these guys compare favorably to Dorsett, and all of them could be argued as more dominant players than Harris, Riggins, or Csonka. I'd put all of these guys behind Marcus Allen and the rest of the modern HOF RBs already in. Once Faulk, Emmitt and LT get in, and at least one of Martin/James/Holmes/Davis/Barber, I suspect these six RBs will pretty much become a footnote in history. So consider this one last chance to talk about them .

Perhaps I was a little harsh and definately should have pointed out (although I wouldn't have done it near as well as Matt) that Andrews' talent deserves mention but his career was just too short to merit consideration.You seem to indicate that Curtis Martin isn't a "sure thing". While it could surely be argued that Martin was never dominant and is perhaps a compiler do to remaining healthly I don't see how the 4th all time leading rusher doesn't get in. On top of being a "professional" runner, he was a class act.

Martin was ROY and made 1st team All Pro once. Andrews has no comparable honors. Martin is a HOF lock, and deservedly so.

 

[Tau837]

I would have to say 'None.' I always though Craig would get in for his body of work combined with the bling on his hand, but of those listed in the poll, I think they're all card carrying members of the "Hall of Very Good." Soon to be joined by Tiki Barber, Shaun Alexander and Fred Taylor.

I agree with Taylor. Alexander's numbers are terrific and HOF worthy, but I don't think anyone believes he's as good as his numbers. Tiki's been argued back and forth several times on this board, and I think he's likely to get in and I believe he's a borderline candidate but I'd tip him in. Same probably goes for James. Both backs are slightly tarnished by watching their teams win rings the year they left. Unlike James, TD, Holmes and Alexander, Tiki produced playing with bad supporting casts.

I strongly doubt Tiki makes it, and I don't think he deserves to make it. Not sure about James, and obviously he isn't done yet... but James has equaled or surpassed Tiki in just about every measure, despite playing 13 fewer games. They are close, but James is ahead IMO.

 

[Matt Waldman]

As a running back, he was by far the best of this group and it is an impressive group. He had 4 great seasons. Terrell Davis had 4 great seasons. Gale Sayers had 5 strong seasons. Andrews and Terrell Davis are the two guys with shortened careers I would consider. I would probably put Davis over Andrews if he were on the list, but I'm sure someone else will write him in and I want to vote for Andrews because I think he was an underrated monster when it comes to the history of the position.

While I don't believe Andrews should be a HOFer, you still had a good post going until you compared him to Sayers. This is a common mistake, but Sayers was one of the few best ever. I have posted on why it is inappropriate to compare his short career to others with short careers, so if you're interested you can find it. Suffice it to say that it is not a credible argument.

I think you assumed I compared him favorably to Sayers. I did not. I'm just showing how close in terms of strong seasons Andrews and Davis were before they got hurt. Sayers is often considered a glaring exception to the rule that you need a long career to be in the HOF. I'm not sure I would put either Andrews or Davis in the HOF, but the point I was making is that if there is a player on that last Chase provided who deserves more cred than he got, it was Andrews.Sayers was an insanely great player on another level. Andrews, IMO is better than the guys on this list, but Sayers as a pure runner/football player is probably at another level.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I would have to say 'None.' I always though Craig would get in for his body of work combined with the bling on his hand, but of those listed in the poll, I think they're all card carrying members of the "Hall of Very Good." Soon to be joined by Tiki Barber, Shaun Alexander and Fred Taylor.

I agree with Taylor. Alexander's numbers are terrific and HOF worthy, but I don't think anyone believes he's as good as his numbers. Tiki's been argued back and forth several times on this board, and I think he's likely to get in and I believe he's a borderline candidate but I'd tip him in. Same probably goes for James. Both backs are slightly tarnished by watching their teams win rings the year they left. Unlike James, TD, Holmes and Alexander, Tiki produced playing with bad supporting casts.

I strongly doubt Tiki makes it, and I don't think he deserves to make it. Not sure about James, and obviously he isn't done yet... but James has equaled or surpassed Tiki in just about every measure, despite playing 13 fewer games. They are close, but James is ahead IMO.

I think Edge is slightly ahead of Tiki statistically, but I think what Barber's done with his supporting cast is more impressive.

 

[Chase Stuart]

JWB,

I agree that Sayers' returner abilities are awesome. When weighing his HOF case, they certainly matter. He was one of the best returners ever. But I think it's worth looking at just Sayers the RB, too. Looking just at him as a RB, how much does that drop your support for him?

 

[Matt Waldman]

I'm really not sure that any on the list should be. The closest RBs on the list if Chuck Foreman as he was a tough, complete back and Otis Anderson (although he was more of a compiler), who was a solid back, had a few years where he was one of the best and had a resurgence that was capped off with him being Super Bowl MVP.

Both probably just miss out though.

The rest are average to above average RBs that really aren't in the discussion as HoFers imo.

All of these guys were above average, IMO, and were dominant RBs at times. My usual litmus test for HOF is whether or not they're better than half the (modern) guys already in; in that case, I'd say no to all of them. On the other hand, I think several of these guys compare favorably to Dorsett, and all of them could be argued as more dominant players than Harris, Riggins, or Csonka. I'd put all of these guys behind Marcus Allen and the rest of the modern HOF RBs already in. Once Faulk, Emmitt and LT get in, and at least one of Martin/James/Holmes/Davis/Barber, I suspect these six RBs will pretty much become a footnote in history. So consider this one last chance to talk about them .

Perhaps I was a little harsh and definately should have pointed out (although I wouldn't have done it near as well as Matt) that Andrews' talent deserves mention but his career was just too short to merit consideration.You seem to indicate that Curtis Martin isn't a "sure thing". While it could surely be argued that Martin was never dominant and is perhaps a compiler do to remaining healthly I don't see how the 4th all time leading rusher doesn't get in. On top of being a "professional" runner, he was a class act.

Martin was ROY and made 1st team All Pro once. Andrews has no comparable honors. Martin is a HOF lock, and deservedly so.

Wait a minute...So Andrews is a 4-time pro bowler and Martin is a 5-time pro bowler, but because Andrews didn't make ROY or the All-Pro team there's nothing comparable? I disagree there... ROY and All-Pro honors are not voted on by his peers, but the pro bowl is. I'll put way more stock in NFL players, coaches, and personnel. If you're going to say there's no basis for comparison, do it based on something more meaningful. Martin was a terrific player but Andrews was a 4-time pro bowl player out of 6 seasons and Martin did it 5 times out of 11. The fact that Martin was healthy enough to have an extra 5 seasons of play makes it a "no comparison" situation, not some media based honors like ROY and All-Pro.

 

[Chase Stuart]

As for Martin and Andrews, Martin's peak was sustained for longer. Andrews had one awesome year -- 1983. Martin had three awesome years -- 2004, 2001 and 1995. But it's certainly arguable that Martin wasn't better than Andrews when they were both at their best, just that Martin had more dominant seasons.

 

[BusterTBronco]

I voted "Other"

Terrell Davis is better than all of those guys.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I voted "Other"Terrell Davis is better than all of those guys.

Thanks, but I was looking for older players.

 

[Matt Waldman]

As for Martin and Andrews, Martin's peak was sustained for longer. Andrews had one awesome year -- 1983. Martin had three awesome years -- 2004, 2001 and 1995. But it's certainly arguable that Martin wasn't better than Andrews when they were both at their best, just that Martin had more dominant seasons.

What do you define as an awesome year, because Andrews had more yards from scrimmage in three of his six years than Martin ever did...Andrews' '80,'81, and '83 were pretty awesome.

Year G GS Att Yds TD Lng Y/A Y/G A/G Rec Yds Y/R TD Lng R/G Y/G YScm RRTD Fmb

1979 15 15 239 1023 3 23 4.3 68.2 15.9 39 309 7.9 2 34 2.6 20.6 1332 5 5

1980* 16 16 265 1308 4 33 4.9 81.8 16.6 51 456 8.9 1 26 3.2 28.5 1764 5 6

1981* 16 16 289 1301 10 29 4.5 81.3 18.1 81 735 9.1 2 70 5.1 45.9 2036 12 12

1982* 9 9 139 573 5 19 4.1 63.7 15.4 42 503 12.0 2 86 4.7 55.9 1076 7 1

1983* 16 16 331 1567 7 27 4.7 97.9 20.7 59 609 10.3 4 40 3.7 38.1 2176 11 6

Martin's '95, '01, and '04 don't compare in terms of ypc or yards from scrimmage. Touchdowns? Martin has him beat, but not anywhere else.

Year G GS Att Yds TD Lng Y/A Y/G A/G Rec Yds Y/R TD Lng R/G Y/G YScm RRTD Fmb

1995* 16 15 368 1487 14 49 4.0 92.9 23.0 30 261 8.7 1 27 1.9 16.3 1748 15 5

1996* 16 15 316 1152 14 57 3.6 72.0 19.8 46 333 7.2 3 41 2.9 20.8 1485 17 4

1997 13 13 274 1160 4 70 4.2 89.2 21.1 41 296 7.2 1 22 3.2 22.8 1456 5 3

1998* 15 15 369 1287 8 60 3.5 85.8 24.6 43 365 8.5 1 23 2.9 24.3 1652 9 5

1999 16 16 367 1464 5 50 4.0 91.5 22.9 45 259 5.8 0 34 2.8 16.2 1723 5 2

2000 16 16 316 1204 9 55 3.8 75.3 19.8 70 508 7.3 2 31 4.4 31.8 1712 11 2

2001* 16 16 333 1513 10 47 4.5 94.6 20.8 53 320 6.0 0 27 3.3 20.0 1833 10 2

2002 16 16 261 1094 7 35 4.2 68.4 16.3 49 362 7.4 0 28 3.1 22.6 1456 7 0

2003 16 16 323 1308 2 56 4.0 81.8 20.2 42 262 6.2 0 29 2.6 16.4 1570 2 2

2004*+ 16 16 371 1697 12 25 4.6 106.1 23.2 41 245 6.0 2 22 2.6 15.3 1942 14 2[

Sorry about the stats, I have to format that better...

Martin was definitely a terrific player and his sustained skill will likely earn him a HOF induction. Andrews won't earn it, but I think he's a fun guy to argue because if you look at his ypc, yards per scrimmage, and consistency of three really strong years out of six, he's underrated. I'm just trying my best to summon an argument for Andrews because some of the stats are there and it makes good discussion.

 

[Carver]

A case for...

Corey Dillon

150 Games

13,154 Total yards

89 total TD's

In comparison to...

Roger Craig

165 Games

13,100 Total yards

73 Total TD's

&

Otis Anderson

182 Games

13,335 Total yards

86 Total TD's

Dillon did the bulk of his damage while playing on some truly hideous Bungle teams in the late 90's early 00's. IMO, Dillon was as close as we have seen to what Bo Jackson's career may have looked like. He was the perfect combination of raw power and speed. Had he played on better teams, we might be talking about one of the all time greats right now.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Herschel Walker is a tough one to evaluate, as his three prime seasons were in the USFL and effectively don't count at all. If Walker COULD count those numbers, he'd be at roughly 20,000 yards from scrimmage with 140+ career TD.He would actually rank #1 all-time in all purpose yards (he already ranks 8th) and Top 5 in TD, rushing yards, and yards from scrimmage.I realize that his USFL numbers are inflated and don't count, but it makes you wonder where he would have ranked had his prime years been in the NFL instead of the USFL.

I remember watching Herschel Walker and he wasn't a great NFL back. I know you mentioned the fact it was USFL but I want mention the importance of that statement, because USFL was in the middle of college ball and NFL.I never thought Herschel was great for Dallas. One of the best trades of all time in the NFL was Dallas getting RID of H. Walker for the picks they got.To me, Roger Craig was way better than H. Walker. Roger Craig was outstanding.......was he a HOFER, close. To me, that could go either way and if they don't allow him in......then I hope they keep that bar up for all positions for all time.

 

[Chase Stuart]

As for Martin and Andrews, Martin's peak was sustained for longer. Andrews had one awesome year -- 1983. Martin had three awesome years -- 2004, 2001 and 1995. But it's certainly arguable that Martin wasn't better than Andrews when they were both at their best, just that Martin had more dominant seasons.

What do you define as an awesome year, because Andrews had more yards from scrimmage in three of his six years than Martin ever did......Martin's '95, '01, and '04 don't compare in terms of ypc or yards from scrimmage. Touchdowns? Martin has him beat, but not anywhere else. ...Martin was definitely a terrific player and his sustained skill will likely earn him a HOF induction. Andrews won't earn it, but I think he's a fun guy to argue because if you look at his ypc, yards per scrimmage, and consistency of three really strong years out of six, he's underrated. I'm just trying my best to summon an argument for Andrews because some of the stats are there and it makes good discussion.

Use the PRE button on PFR, then put the data in code tags here.

Rush Rush Rush Rush Rush Rush Rush Rece Rece Rece Rece Rece Rece Rece			  Year	 Age  Tm Pos  G GS  Att  Yds   TD  Lng  Y/A  Y/G  A/G  Rec  Yds  Y/R   TD  Lng  R/G  Y/G YScm RRTD Fmb1980*	 25 ATL  FB 16 16  265 1308	4   33  4.9 81.8 16.6   51  456  8.9	1   26  3.2 28.5 1764	5   61981*	 26 ATL  FB 16 16  289 1301   10   29  4.5 81.3 18.1   81  735  9.1	2   70  5.1 45.9 2036   12  121983*	 28 ATL  RB 16 16  331 1567	7   27  4.7 97.9 20.7   59  609 10.3	4   40  3.7 38.1 2176   11   6

Rush  Rush Rush Rush Rush  Rush Rush Rece Rece Rece Rece Rece Rece Rece			   Year	 Age  Tm Pos   G  GS  Att   Yds   TD  Lng  Y/A   Y/G  A/G  Rec  Yds  Y/R   TD  Lng  R/G  Y/G  YScm RRTD Fmb1995*	 22 NWE  RB  16  15  368  1487   14   49  4.0  92.9 23.0   30  261  8.7	1   27  1.9 16.3  1748   15   52001*	 28 NYJ  RB  16  16  333  1513   10   47  4.5  94.6 20.8   53  320  6.0	0   27  3.3 20.0  1833   10   22004*+	31 NYJ  RB  16  16  371  1697   12   25  4.6 106.1 23.2   41  245  6.0	2   22  2.6 15.3  1942   14   2

I don't consider '80 an awesome year because he had just five TDs and just good receiving numbers combined with just good rushing numbers. I don't consider 81 an awesome year because he had 12 fumbles.Martin's '95, '01 and '04 are all big rushing yardage and big TD seasons without big fumbles. I'd put that year on the same level as Andrews' '83 season, but ahead of '80 (because of the low TD numbers and lack of anything extraordinary there) and '81 (12 fumbles!!). FYI, Martin had 1942 YFS in '04, which is higher than all but two (and not three) of Andrews seasons.

 

[Chase Stuart]

A case for...

Corey Dillon

150 Games

13,154 Total yards

89 total TD's

In comparison to...

Roger Craig

165 Games

13,100 Total yards

73 Total TD's

&

Otis Anderson

182 Games

13,335 Total yards

86 Total TD's

Dillon did the bulk of his damage while playing on some truly hideous Bungle teams in the late 90's early 00's. IMO, Dillon was as close as we have seen to what Bo Jackson's career may have looked like. He was the perfect combination of raw power and speed. Had he played on better teams, we might be talking about one of the all time greats right now.

I prefer my RBs to run the ball well, so I'd put Anderson a bit above Craig. Obviously Craig benefited from playing with Rice and Montana/Young for the bulk of his career, but he never was the workhorse RB. He was losing carries to Wendell Tyler and Joe Cribbs, which isn't something that would happen to an elite RB.That said, I think Dillon's production leaves him about as far from being a HOFer as Craig's did. He only had two big years in Cincinnati in addition to his big year NE. Talentwise, probably a HOFer, but not based on what he did. His production falls behind contemporaries like Faulk, Emmitt, Holmes, LT, TD, Portis, Barber, Alexander, Martin, James and arguably guys like Bettis, Westbrook, Ahman Green, Stephen Davis, Larry Johnson, Eddie George, Fred Taylor, Ricky Watters and Jamal Lewis. Just too many guys that he didn't distance himself from, production wise, IMO.

 

[David Yudkin]

Herschel Walker is a tough one to evaluate, as his three prime seasons were in the USFL and effectively don't count at all. If Walker COULD count those numbers, he'd be at roughly 20,000 yards from scrimmage with 140+ career TD.He would actually rank #1 all-time in all purpose yards (he already ranks 8th) and Top 5 in TD, rushing yards, and yards from scrimmage.I realize that his USFL numbers are inflated and don't count, but it makes you wonder where he would have ranked had his prime years been in the NFL instead of the USFL.

I remember watching Herschel Walker and he wasn't a great NFL back. I know you mentioned the fact it was USFL but I want mention the importance of that statement, because USFL was in the middle of college ball and NFL.I never thought Herschel was great for Dallas. One of the best trades of all time in the NFL was Dallas getting RID of H. Walker for the picks they got.To me, Roger Craig was way better than H. Walker. Roger Craig was outstanding.......was he a HOFER, close. To me, that could go either way and if they don't allow him in......then I hope they keep that bar up for all positions for all time.

Not sure what to tell you. Even being underutilized all but one year, Walker averaged 116 yards from scrimmage a game in his first stint with Dallas, scoring 32 times in 49 games. That's not just good, that's excellent.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Herschel Walker is a tough one to evaluate, as his three prime seasons were in the USFL and effectively don't count at all. If Walker COULD count those numbers, he'd be at roughly 20,000 yards from scrimmage with 140+ career TD.He would actually rank #1 all-time in all purpose yards (he already ranks 8th) and Top 5 in TD, rushing yards, and yards from scrimmage.I realize that his USFL numbers are inflated and don't count, but it makes you wonder where he would have ranked had his prime years been in the NFL instead of the USFL.

I remember watching Herschel Walker and he wasn't a great NFL back. I know you mentioned the fact it was USFL but I want mention the importance of that statement, because USFL was in the middle of college ball and NFL.I never thought Herschel was great for Dallas. One of the best trades of all time in the NFL was Dallas getting RID of H. Walker for the picks they got.To me, Roger Craig was way better than H. Walker. Roger Craig was outstanding.......was he a HOFER, close. To me, that could go either way and if they don't allow him in......then I hope they keep that bar up for all positions for all time.

Not sure what to tell you. Even being underutilized all but one year, Walker averaged 116 yards from scrimmage a game in his first stint with Dallas, scoring 32 times in 49 games. That's not just good, that's excellent.

Besides Eric Dickerson, who was a better RB in 1987 and 1988?

 

[Matt Waldman]

Herschel Walker is a tough one to evaluate, as his three prime seasons were in the USFL and effectively don't count at all. If Walker COULD count those numbers, he'd be at roughly 20,000 yards from scrimmage with 140+ career TD.He would actually rank #1 all-time in all purpose yards (he already ranks 8th) and Top 5 in TD, rushing yards, and yards from scrimmage.I realize that his USFL numbers are inflated and don't count, but it makes you wonder where he would have ranked had his prime years been in the NFL instead of the USFL.

I remember watching Herschel Walker and he wasn't a great NFL back. I know you mentioned the fact it was USFL but I want mention the importance of that statement, because USFL was in the middle of college ball and NFL.I never thought Herschel was great for Dallas. One of the best trades of all time in the NFL was Dallas getting RID of H. Walker for the picks they got.To me, Roger Craig was way better than H. Walker. Roger Craig was outstanding.......was he a HOFER, close. To me, that could go either way and if they don't allow him in......then I hope they keep that bar up for all positions for all time.

Not sure what to tell you. Even being underutilized all but one year, Walker averaged 116 yards from scrimmage a game in his first stint with Dallas, scoring 32 times in 49 games. That's not just good, that's excellent.

Chase, thanks for the tip on the formatting. Walker was such an enigma to evaluate because he was really a different style runner in college and early in his pro career than the middle-to-late stages of his NFL years. That stat David mentions tells you what he could have been more consistently if he didn't go the USFL first. In college, Walker ran with an abandon that you often saw from Walter Payton and now see from Adrian Peterson. He would throw his body around, lower his shoulders into hits, and ran with longer strides in the open field. As his pro career progressed he was more of a tip-toe strider, even when in the open field. He was still very fast, but I don't know whether it was the toll of the beating he took in college and his earlier pro years or what, but he was more tentative. In college, I think the description that he was as big and physical as Earl Campbell but had the speed of O.J. Simpson was a good description on ESPN's Greatest College Runner's ever segment.

 

[Toads]

Davis, Terrell

 

[David Yudkin]

Davis, Terrell

Davis didn't meet the time line listed. But IMO his biggest selling point is his post-season resume, when he added another 1140 rushing yards and 12 TD . . . in EIGHT GAMES.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I'm really not sure that any on the list should be. The closest RBs on the list if Chuck Foreman as he was a tough, complete back and Otis Anderson (although he was more of a compiler), who was a solid back, had a few years where he was one of the best and had a resurgence that was capped off with him being Super Bowl MVP.

Both probably just miss out though.

The rest are average to above average RBs that really aren't in the discussion as HoFers imo.

All of these guys were above average, IMO, and were dominant RBs at times. My usual litmus test for HOF is whether or not they're better than half the (modern) guys already in; in that case, I'd say no to all of them. On the other hand, I think several of these guys compare favorably to Dorsett, and all of them could be argued as more dominant players than Harris, Riggins, or Csonka. I'd put all of these guys behind Marcus Allen and the rest of the modern HOF RBs already in. Once Faulk, Emmitt and LT get in, and at least one of Martin/James/Holmes/Davis/Barber, I suspect these six RBs will pretty much become a footnote in history. So consider this one last chance to talk about them .

Perhaps I was a little harsh and definately should have pointed out (although I wouldn't have done it near as well as Matt) that Andrews' talent deserves mention but his career was just too short to merit consideration.You seem to indicate that Curtis Martin isn't a "sure thing". While it could surely be argued that Martin was never dominant and is perhaps a compiler do to remaining healthly I don't see how the 4th all time leading rusher doesn't get in. On top of being a "professional" runner, he was a class act.

Martin was ROY and made 1st team All Pro once. Andrews has no comparable honors. Martin is a HOF lock, and deservedly so.

I agree completely. I just meant that he never appeared to be a dominant back to most, based on his running style. He was never flashy, he was just a solid, smart, tough runner that got the job done. Personally I think he's a first ballot guy.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I think I'd go with Terrell Davis, and agree with the comments that none of the guys you listed belong.

[broken record]Unlike Ken Anderson, whose exclusion continues to be a joke.[/broken record]

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think I'd go with Terrell Davis, and agree with the comments that none of the guys you listed belong.[broken record]Unlike Ken Anderson, whose exclusion continues to be a joke.[/broken record]

I agree that TD is an obvious choice over these guys. He's Marcus Allen with a longer peak and a lack of endless average seasons. But I was curious to hear the thoughts on these guys on the list. I think Mitchell and Foreman have the best cases, but all can make some sort of argument. I wouldn't be shocked to see one of these guys make it.