This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Same amount of rushing yards as Riggins, more than OJ and they are both in.
And four times as many as Bronko Nagurski, who is also in.
Absolutely, and Ronnie Brown is closing in on Gale Sayers. There are the stat requirements (given an era...which neither Riggins or OJ were in the same as Dillon) and there also is the "eye test" and overall impact. If you look at what Dillon did throughout his career it is quite impressive. But the HOF is for the truly elite and I just don't see how he falls into that category. He had many elite moments (more than most), but there were a ton of 13 for 36 days mixed in. His closest contemporary may be Curtis Martin and while Martin never quite hit the same accolades, he was bankable for 70 yards per game rushing...and I don't mean an average of 155, 37, 62, 25 over a 4 game span (in before the Cincy versus Jets arguement...Martin made the Jets of his era).
I liked Dillon I just don't think he will make it in, I do understand the pro arguement. I think Martin will make it. 
Lydell Mitchell and Chuck Foremen could make a case also if Dillon is allowed in the HOF.Chuck Foreman had 6000 yds rushing, 3000+ yds receiving, 350 receptions and 74 tds.Mitchell had over 6500 rushing yards, he had 376 receptions and 3200+ yards receiving. He also scored 47 tds.Neither of these guys are in the HOF and were a LOT more valuable in the passing game than Dillon as well as being good runners. I don't see how Dillon can be in if neither of these guys are. Sure, Dillon had over 11000 rushing yds but he also had 2618 attempts in 10 years. Foreman only had 1556 attempts and Mitchell had 1675 attempts. That's over 3 seasons in attempts more for Dillon. If you factor 3 seasons for each of Foreman and Mitchell at 1500 yds rush/rec in their prime, that would equal Dillon in total yards for a career.There's no chance unless Dillon becomes a coach and wins a few Super Bowls in that capacity.
Just wondering about the criteria. Riggins who is in and Dillons career numbers are pretty equal with Dillon having a better YPC than Riggins 4.3 to 3.9. And a better YPG average. 75-69.Lydell Mitchell and Chuck Foremen could make a case also if Dillon is allowed in the HOF.Chuck Foreman had 6000 yds rushing, 3000+ yds receiving, 350 receptions and 76 tds.Mitchell had over 6500 rushing yards, he had 376 receptions and 3200+ yards receiving. He also scored 47 tds.Neither of these guys are in the HOF and were a LOT more valuable in the passing game than Dillon as well as being good runners. I don't see how Dillon can be in if neither of these guys are. Sure, Dillon had over 11000 rushing yds but he also had 2618 attempts in 10 years. Foreman only had 1556 attempts and Mitchell had 1675 attempts. That's over 3 seasons in attempts more for Dillon. If you factor 3 seasons for each of Foreman and Mitchell at 1500 yds rush/rec in their prime, that would equal Dillon in total yards for a career.There's no chance unless Dillon becomes a coach and wins a few Super Bowls in that capacity.
Riggins had 27 more tds than Dillon, played bigger on the biggest stage more often, and he's not as ugly as Dillon. What about Chuck Foreman? He had over 9000 yds and 74 tds in over 1100 fewer attempts than Dillon. Factor Foreman's 1500 rush / rec yds per year in his prime in 1100 more attempts, that would be better numbers than Dillon. Pretty sure he would have eclipsed the 15 td difference in those 1100 attempts also.Just wondering about the criteria. Riggins who is in and Dillons career numbers are pretty equal with Dillon having a better YPC than Riggins 4.3 to 3.9. And a better YPG average. 75-69.Lydell Mitchell and Chuck Foremen could make a case also if Dillon is allowed in the HOF.Chuck Foreman had 6000 yds rushing, 3000+ yds receiving, 350 receptions and 74 tds.Mitchell had over 6500 rushing yards, he had 376 receptions and 3200+ yards receiving. He also scored 47 tds.Neither of these guys are in the HOF and were a LOT more valuable in the passing game than Dillon as well as being good runners. I don't see how Dillon can be in if neither of these guys are. Sure, Dillon had over 11000 rushing yds but he also had 2618 attempts in 10 years. Foreman only had 1556 attempts and Mitchell had 1675 attempts. That's over 3 seasons in attempts more for Dillon. If you factor 3 seasons for each of Foreman and Mitchell at 1500 yds rush/rec in their prime, that would equal Dillon in total yards for a career.There's no chance unless Dillon becomes a coach and wins a few Super Bowls in that capacity.
You are aware that Mattingly is not in the HOF, right? Neither is Curtis Martin, if he is the Martin you are referring to, although I expect he will eventually make it.Dillon is not even close to deserving.
Actually a lot of people on this board have spent a lot of time analyzing not only individual chances for the Hall of Fame, but also historical context for selection. So far most of the people I've seen respond in this thread are the same folks I've seen intensely debate a great many others over the years. There is very little, if any, historical context for someone of Dillon's pedigree to make the Pro Football Hall of Fame. That's not close mindedness, that's educated and informed context.'Brewtown said:
The "what if" game can be (and has been) played with just about any player (and it should go both ways, if one is to play that game, i.e. would the "greats" have been great on different teams). There are a myriad of factors that go in to both team success and individual player success, and I do believe that some amount of luck is involved for any player to have (or not have) a HOF career. It's just the nature of the beast.But the HOF is not about what could have been. It's about what was. And Dillon was not a HOFer. He's just not that important to the history of the game.
So now we're putting players in the HOF because of the results of one game. Got it.'Brewtown said:
Amen. Sometimes I feel like I harp on this, but it happens again and again. The HOF is about the career that the player actually had. This is a lot different than if we're talking about "who is the better player", which is essentially asking if we put the two players in the same sets of situations who would do better overall? It's why things like multiple Super Bowls are a fairly important thing in a HOF discussion, while they have much less relevance in a who is the better player discussion.
Dillon was never 1st team or 2nd team All Pro.Presumably you are referring to 2004 as the year, when he was "finally given the chance on a good team" since that was his first year in New England. Martin and Tomlinson were 1st team All Pro that season; Alexander and James were second team All Pro. Tiki Barber was also better that year.As someone already pointed out, Dillon was never better than 6th best at any point in his career. As a general rule, players who were 6th best (or worse) at their position in their era rarely get any HOF consideration... nor should they.
You forgot Marshall Faulk. So LT is a lock and Faulk is in. Martin will likely get in due his longevity and being the 4th all time leading rusher. If you look at the players who predominately played in the 90s: Barry, Emmitt, and Thurman Thomas were the only RBs to make it.
Most of the backs you reference here also have very little shot at the Hall of Fame. The others who do are, in fact, much more credible HOF candidates than Dillon regardless of your own Bengals fandom.
Can you expound on this some more? When I hear something's "put on the map again" I generally take that to mean it's been made relevant again. During Dillon's time in Cincy the team was never above 0.500 (and was only 8-8 once, Dillon's final year there when it looks like Rudi Johnson was taking over). Was "Bengal Nation" really growing during this period (which included a 2-win, a 3-win and two 4-win seasons) because of Dillon?
Some other Dillon contemporaries that you left out:Barry SandersTerrell DavisPriest HolmesLT2Marshall FaulkAnd yes, Fred Taylor was a better RB than Dillon.If all of those guys end up in, that's hardly a whole era of RBs not getting in. I'd say 5 or 6 guys from a 10 year period is plenty.
Bettis is a classic compiler.
