Worst RB in the HOF (1 Viewer)

[Tau837]

Do you think Harris is better than half of the following guys:Campbell, Dickerson, Dorsett, Harris, Kelly, Payton, Riggins, Sanders, Sayers, Simpson and Thurman Thomas?

Not all but he accomplished more over his career than any of those guys. None of those guys were more important to their team than Harris was to the 1970 Steelers, a team that dominated a decade with great defense and a running attack in which he led.He deserves to be in the HoF.

Look, I agree Harris should be in the HOF. But I think you are very wrong to say he accomplished more in his career than Walter Payton. The only thing you could cite is the rings, but I think the number of HOFers Harris played with were more responsible for that than Harris was. Payton didn't have the privilege of playing with a team loaded with HOF talent.

I never said that Harris was a better RB than Walter Payton. Payton was a tremendous back and he played on some crappy teams over the course of his career as did Barry Sanders. However the ultimate accomplishment for a player is to make the playoffs and win championships. In that sense Harris accomplished more. That is all I was saying.As a longtime Steelers fan I can't tell you how much I have heard that Bradshaw, Harris, Swann, Stallworth, Dwight White, Greenwood, Shell, etc. were just marginal players and just fortunate to be surrounded by so much talent. You hear that about Chuck Noll too -- he wasn't a great coach just lucky to have all that talent.Well if all of these guys were just average then I would like to know who besides Greene, Lambert and Ham had the talent. The guys above weren't role players -- they were major contributors on one of the most dominant team in NFL history. I am not sure why people don't want to give them credit for their accomplishments.

When you say Harris accomplished more than the others, that makes me think of rushing titles and honors/awards. Clearly, Payton accomplished more than Harris on those fronts. From your description, what you really should have said was something like "Harris helped his team accomplish more than the others".I also took issue with your comment that none of the others were more important to their teams than Harris. Again, I think you probably really mean something a little different than that. Something tied to the Steelers' postseason success, suggesting that removing him from their team may have precluded that success, because he was an key player for them. But again, without the context, your claim is off base IMO. Payton did more for his team and thus was more important to the Bears. The Bears didn't have a HOF passing game like the Steelers did to fall back on if their RB didn't perform.As for your broader comments about the Steelers, I think Swann and Stallworth are the only ones who are particularly questionable. Harris is probably one of the weaker RBs in the HOF, but he belongs. Bradshaw, Webster, Lambert, Greene, Ham, and Blount all belong. I think Greenwood should be in too.

 

[dgreen]

Marcus Allen clearly does not deserve his spot in Canton. He had a couple great years, then hung around and gave average performances for a bunch of years.

I wouldn't say he had a "couple great years," assuming couple = 2. In his first 4 seasons, he averaged over 100 scrimmage yds per game each season (and he was just under 100/gm the following 2 seasons). He scored 57 TDs in 56 games those first 4 seasons. He was named ROY, 1st team All Pro twice, NFL MVP, and SB MVP in those first 4 seasons. Leading up to, and including, the 1983 SB, he put together one of the best postseason runs of all time. He totaled 584 yards and 5 TDs in three games that postseason.His overall postseason numbers are pretty impressive. In 16 games, he racked up 1,877 yards from scrimmage and 13 TDs and averaged 8.1 yds/touch.Yes, he gave some average performances...for a 24-year-old. Thing is, Allen was in his mid-30s when he was doing that. He surpassed 1000 yards from scrimmage at the age of 33, 34, 35, and 36. He wasn't really just "hang around" at the end of his career. He was still a productive player.Despite not being a big, bulky power guy, he was arguably the best short-yardage back of all time. His 123 rushing TDs is 3rd best all time and he's in no danger of dropping to 4th any time soon. He hit double-digit TDs 7 times in his career.He ranks 3rd all time in total TDs and 6th in yards from scrimmage. He'll likely drop one or two spots in each of those categories the next few years, but he'll still rank highly in both all time categories.

 

[Jous]

All his stats are nice and all and speak for his longevity, but the fact remains that from 1986-1997 he had nothing but average to slightly above average overall seasons for a starting RB. That's nice for piling up stats, but really should not do much for HOF credentials. I count 2 great seasons (84-85), one very good one (83), and then nothing more than slightly above average (although it was impressive that he was able to step in and do that well as a rookie).

IMO, that gives him very borderline HOF status. I would've felt better if he was one of those players who had to wait a decent while before he got it, and I would actually not have much of a problem with that. But he was definitely not one of those players who should've been rushed into the HOF on 1st or 2nd ballot or whatever he was.

 

[dgreen]

All his stats are nice and all and speak for his longevity, but the fact remains that from 1986-1997 he had nothing but average to slightly above average overall seasons for a starting RB. That's nice for piling up stats, but really should not do much for HOF credentials. I count 2 great seasons (84-85), one very good one (83), and then nothing more than slightly above average (although it was impressive that he was able to step in and do that well as a rookie).IMO, that gives him very borderline HOF status. I would've felt better if he was one of those players who had to wait a decent while before he got it, and I would actually not have much of a problem with that. But he was definitely not one of those players who should've been rushed into the HOF on 1st or 2nd ballot or whatever he was.

1982 was a great season. It was a strike-shortened season and was only 9 games. 1,100 yards and 14 TDs in 9 games is pretty good.86-88 weren't HOF worthy, but they weren't horrible either. 89-92 contained injuries and Al Davis being an ### and a guy named Bo Jackson was in town. And, as I said, I actually consider 93-96 to be pretty remarkable given his age. Other HOF RBs had higher peaks and were then pretty much worthless by the age of 30. I think his ability to be productive longer than any other RB in history is notable when considering HOF worthiness.I agree, though, that he doesn't quite stand with other RBs who were inducted their first year.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Allen was incredibly awesome in '85, and regular old awesome in '82 and '84. He had an insanely awesome post-season in '83. He could have never played another down after 1985 and I think he'd be a worthy (but below average) HOFer.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

This poll is what you get when you focus too much on pro-football-reference and too little on the game itself. Csonka, Riggins and Franco were all fullbacks. Hard to compare their roles/positions with the classic RB like Sayers and Marcus Allen. Most would say these three were the last great fullbacks in the NFL. Sure they carry the ball but they were also asked to block, Csonka and Franco were both part of a lethal 1-2 punch on two of the greatest teams of all-time.

 

[Phase of the Game]

The op should have watched more football instead of reading about it.

I am not sure if he even has read anything other that stats about Hornung's career and what he meant to the Packers.

 

[Chase Stuart]

This poll is what you get when you focus too much on pro-football-reference and too little on the game itself. Csonka, Riggins and Franco were all fullbacks. Hard to compare their roles/positions with the classic RB like Sayers and Marcus Allen. Most would say these three were the last great fullbacks in the NFL. Sure they carry the ball but they were also asked to block, Csonka and Franco were both part of a lethal 1-2 punch on two of the greatest teams of all-time.

So if you could have any modern RB in the HOF, which would be your last pick? It's easy to knock a pick, because all of these guys were by definition elite RBs. Someone has to be at the bottom.

 

[Godsbrother]

When you say Harris accomplished more than the others, that makes me think of rushing titles and honors/awards. Clearly, Payton accomplished more than Harris on those fronts. From your description, what you really should have said was something like "Harris helped his team accomplish more than the others".I also took issue with your comment that none of the others were more important to their teams than Harris. Again, I think you probably really mean something a little different than that. Something tied to the Steelers' postseason success, suggesting that removing him from their team may have precluded that success, because he was an key player for them. But again, without the context, your claim is off base IMO. Payton did more for his team and thus was more important to the Bears.

Fair enough. However the Steelers had never won a playoff game in their entire history until Harris' rookie season, a season where he rushed for 5.6 yds/carry. The 1972 season, and the Immaculate Reception, changed a franchise from a perennial loser to a team that would dominate for the remainder of the decade and it is an attitude that has remained with the team to this day. You cannot imagine how much this means to Steelers fans, especially those that grew up watching the pathetic teams of the 60s. Joe Greene was once asked which player he felt was most important to the Steelers success of the 1970s and his response was "it all started with Franco".

The Bears didn't have a HOF passing game like the Steelers did to fall back on if their RB didn't perform.

Now here is something I can take issue with. The Steelers from 1972-1977 were a running team first and foremost. It wasn't until 1978 that the Steelers passing game became dominant and even then they relied heavily on Harris to provide the balance and grind out the clock. Many Steeler fans will tell you the greatest team was in 1976 team when they started out 1-4 and then Bradshaw missed the next 6 games. Bradshaw's replacement threw a total of ZERO TD passes that season yet the Steelers went on to win their final 9 games. That season Harris had almost 1300 total yards and scored a career high 14 TDs over a 14 game season. Bradshaw/Swann/Stallworth were great but they never posted really good numbers until 1978 because of their running game.

As for your broader comments about the Steelers, I think Swann and Stallworth are the only ones who are particularly questionable. Harris is probably one of the weaker RBs in the HOF, but he belongs. Bradshaw, Webster, Lambert, Greene, Ham, and Blount all belong. I think Greenwood should be in too.

I pretty much agree with this though I don't consider Harris weak.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The op should have watched more football instead of reading about it.

I am not sure if he even has read anything other that stats about Hornung's career and what he meant to the Packers.

Where would you rank Paul Hornung among all time RBs?

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

This poll is what you get when you focus too much on pro-football-reference and too little on the game itself. Csonka, Riggins and Franco were all fullbacks. Hard to compare their roles/positions with the classic RB like Sayers and Marcus Allen. Most would say these three were the last great fullbacks in the NFL. Sure they carry the ball but they were also asked to block, Csonka and Franco were both part of a lethal 1-2 punch on two of the greatest teams of all-time.

So if you could have any modern RB in the HOF, which would be your last pick? It's easy to knock a pick, because all of these guys were by definition elite RBs. Someone has to be at the bottom.

My point is only that they played different positions with different roles. Very hard to compare apples to oranges. But to answer your question I'd put Marcus Allen at the bottom. He was overused his last two years at USC and early with OAK, and became nearly irrelevant in what should have been the prime of his career.

 

[Chase Stuart]

This poll is what you get when you focus too much on pro-football-reference and too little on the game itself. Csonka, Riggins and Franco were all fullbacks. Hard to compare their roles/positions with the classic RB like Sayers and Marcus Allen. Most would say these three were the last great fullbacks in the NFL. Sure they carry the ball but they were also asked to block, Csonka and Franco were both part of a lethal 1-2 punch on two of the greatest teams of all-time.

So if you could have any modern RB in the HOF, which would be your last pick? It's easy to knock a pick, because all of these guys were by definition elite RBs. Someone has to be at the bottom.

My point is only that they played different positions with different roles. Very hard to compare apples to oranges. But to answer your question I'd put Marcus Allen at the bottom.

Riggins' role wasn't much different, and he's in the HOF for his work as a HB with the Redskins. And Franco and Csonka aren't in the HOF for their blocking abilities, either. Sure they were FBs, but they were both more runners than blockers, Harris especially.And as far as being a RB goes, Allen at his peak was much more dominant than either of the three big backs.

 

[dgreen]

This poll is what you get when you focus too much on pro-football-reference and too little on the game itself. Csonka, Riggins and Franco were all fullbacks. Hard to compare their roles/positions with the classic RB like Sayers and Marcus Allen. Most would say these three were the last great fullbacks in the NFL. Sure they carry the ball but they were also asked to block, Csonka and Franco were both part of a lethal 1-2 punch on two of the greatest teams of all-time.

So if you could have any modern RB in the HOF, which would be your last pick? It's easy to knock a pick, because all of these guys were by definition elite RBs. Someone has to be at the bottom.

My point is only that they played different positions with different roles. Very hard to compare apples to oranges. But to answer your question I'd put Marcus Allen at the bottom.

Riggins' role wasn't much different, and he's in the HOF for his work as a HB with the Redskins. And Franco and Csonka aren't in the HOF for their blocking abilities, either. Sure they were FBs, but they were both more runners than blockers, Harris especially.

FB has a different meaning today than it used to. Jim Brown was a FB. Jim Taylor was a FB.

 

[Tau837]

The Bears didn't have a HOF passing game like the Steelers did to fall back on if their RB didn't perform.

Now here is something I can take issue with. The Steelers from 1972-1977 were a running team first and foremost. It wasn't until 1978 that the Steelers passing game became dominant and even then they relied heavily on Harris to provide the balance and grind out the clock. Many Steeler fans will tell you the greatest team was in 1976 team when they started out 1-4 and then Bradshaw missed the next 6 games. Bradshaw's replacement threw a total of ZERO TD passes that season yet the Steelers went on to win their final 9 games. That season Harris had almost 1300 total yards and scored a career high 14 TDs over a 14 game season. Bradshaw/Swann/Stallworth were great but they never posted really good numbers until 1978 because of their running game.

I think you're confused. I was using Payton to show that your statements about Harris were off base. In this case, Harris played on teams with 2 HOF WRs, a HOF QB, and a HOF C. That is fact... there is nothing to take issue with. Payton did not play with such high caliber offensive teammates.I didn't say anything to imply the Steelers weren't a run-oriented team, nor is this a numbers-based issue. The fact is, defenses had to be aware that the Steelers had a very capable passing game, and in many cases that likely influenced how they chose to defend the Steelers' running game. That was to Harris's benefit.The Bears were also run-oriented, obviously. But the passing offenses Payton played with were typically among the worst in the NFL throughout his career. Unlike with the Steelers, Payton's opponents were free to focus solely on stopping him.I'm interested to see any argument you have to put forth countering anything I've said here.

 

[Godsbrother]

The Bears didn't have a HOF passing game like the Steelers did to fall back on if their RB didn't perform.

Now here is something I can take issue with. The Steelers from 1972-1977 were a running team first and foremost. It wasn't until 1978 that the Steelers passing game became dominant and even then they relied heavily on Harris to provide the balance and grind out the clock. Many Steeler fans will tell you the greatest team was in 1976 team when they started out 1-4 and then Bradshaw missed the next 6 games. Bradshaw's replacement threw a total of ZERO TD passes that season yet the Steelers went on to win their final 9 games. That season Harris had almost 1300 total yards and scored a career high 14 TDs over a 14 game season. Bradshaw/Swann/Stallworth were great but they never posted really good numbers until 1978 because of their running game.

I think you're confused. I was using Payton to show that your statements about Harris were off base. In this case, Harris played on teams with 2 HOF WRs, a HOF QB, and a HOF C. That is fact... there is nothing to take issue with. Payton did not play with such high caliber offensive teammates.I didn't say anything to imply the Steelers weren't a run-oriented team, nor is this a numbers-based issue. The fact is, defenses had to be aware that the Steelers had a very capable passing game, and in many cases that likely influenced how they chose to defend the Steelers' running game. That was to Harris's benefit.The Bears were also run-oriented, obviously. But the passing offenses Payton played with were typically among the worst in the NFL throughout his career. Unlike with the Steelers, Payton's opponents were free to focus solely on stopping him.I'm interested to see any argument you have to put forth countering anything I've said here. :whoosh:

I am not confused at all and I agree with you on most of your points. However the Steelers passing game was not that great of a unit until the latter part of the 70s. Up until that time an opponents game plan was to stop the Steelers running game first and that was Harris. Take a look at the run-to-pass ratios of those teams if you don't believe me, it was ridiculously lopsided in favor of the run.I never said that Harris was a better back than Payton. I agree that Payton was superior but I do not believe that he (or any of the other RBs mentioned in the previous post) was more important to his team than Harris was to the Steelers. Harris was the catalyst in the transformation of a perennial loser into a team that won 4 championships in 6 years and was one of the most dominant teams in NFL history. He was (and still is) as important to the Steelers as any back has ever been for their team.

 

[Despyzer]

Tony Dorsett is the toughest one to justify HOFyness.

I agree. There are too many former Broncos in the Hall as it is.

 

[zdaddy]

Tony Dorsett is the toughest one to justify HOFyness.

I agree. There are too many former Broncos in the Hall as it is.

Not that anyone would consider him a Bronco except for a hater such as yourself.If Sayers is in TD should get in. TD had four great years, compared to Sayers five. TD's years were better than Sayers, also TD took his team to level of one of the best teams of all time.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

This poll is what you get when you focus too much on pro-football-reference and too little on the game itself. Csonka, Riggins and Franco were all fullbacks. Hard to compare their roles/positions with the classic RB like Sayers and Marcus Allen. Most would say these three were the last great fullbacks in the NFL. Sure they carry the ball but they were also asked to block, Csonka and Franco were both part of a lethal 1-2 punch on two of the greatest teams of all-time.

So if you could have any modern RB in the HOF, which would be your last pick? It's easy to knock a pick, because all of these guys were by definition elite RBs. Someone has to be at the bottom.

My point is only that they played different positions with different roles. Very hard to compare apples to oranges. But to answer your question I'd put Marcus Allen at the bottom.

Riggins' role wasn't much different, and he's in the HOF for his work as a HB with the Redskins. And Franco and Csonka aren't in the HOF for their blocking abilities, either. Sure they were FBs, but they were both more runners than blockers, Harris especially.And as far as being a RB goes, Allen at his peak was much more dominant than either of the three big backs.

Lydell Mitchell might disagree, better yet watch Franco seconds before the Immaculate Reception.

 

[Chase Stuart]

This poll is what you get when you focus too much on pro-football-reference and too little on the game itself. Csonka, Riggins and Franco were all fullbacks. Hard to compare their roles/positions with the classic RB like Sayers and Marcus Allen. Most would say these three were the last great fullbacks in the NFL. Sure they carry the ball but they were also asked to block, Csonka and Franco were both part of a lethal 1-2 punch on two of the greatest teams of all-time.

So if you could have any modern RB in the HOF, which would be your last pick? It's easy to knock a pick, because all of these guys were by definition elite RBs. Someone has to be at the bottom.

My point is only that they played different positions with different roles. Very hard to compare apples to oranges. But to answer your question I'd put Marcus Allen at the bottom.

Riggins' role wasn't much different, and he's in the HOF for his work as a HB with the Redskins. And Franco and Csonka aren't in the HOF for their blocking abilities, either. Sure they were FBs, but they were both more runners than blockers, Harris especially.And as far as being a RB goes, Allen at his peak was much more dominant than either of the three big backs.

Lydell Mitchell might disagree, better yet watch Franco seconds before the Immaculate Reception.

Mitchell was a better runner than Harris, and that's why he was ahead of him in college.

Franco Harris isn't in the HOF because he was a great blocker. Harris was the leading rusher on the Steelers for 12 straight years.

 

[zdaddy]

Tony Dorsett is the toughest one to justify HOFyness.

I agree. There are too many former Broncos in the Hall as it is.

Not that anyone would consider him a Bronco except for a hater such as yourself.If Sayers is in TD should get in. TD had four great years, compared to Sayers five. TD's years were better than Sayers, also TD took his team to level of one of the best teams of all time.

Its not about comparing stats from across eras.

Who is comparing stats? The argument against Davis is that he only had 4 productive years. Sayers only had 5, so my argument is that if 5 is enough for Sayers than 4 should be enough for Davis. Both players would have been effective for many years if not for injury.And when I say that TD's years were better than Sayers, I say in regards to what they did for their team. TD made his team the best there was for two straight years, throw in 96 (they were the best team that year right up until Jacksonville). Through that it, plus the fact that TD was the best back in the game for three straight years, you can't justify Sayers being in there with out having Davis in there.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

This poll is what you get when you focus too much on pro-football-reference and too little on the game itself. Csonka, Riggins and Franco were all fullbacks. Hard to compare their roles/positions with the classic RB like Sayers and Marcus Allen. Most would say these three were the last great fullbacks in the NFL. Sure they carry the ball but they were also asked to block, Csonka and Franco were both part of a lethal 1-2 punch on two of the greatest teams of all-time.

So if you could have any modern RB in the HOF, which would be your last pick? It's easy to knock a pick, because all of these guys were by definition elite RBs. Someone has to be at the bottom.

My point is only that they played different positions with different roles. Very hard to compare apples to oranges. But to answer your question I'd put Marcus Allen at the bottom.

Riggins' role wasn't much different, and he's in the HOF for his work as a HB with the Redskins. And Franco and Csonka aren't in the HOF for their blocking abilities, either. Sure they were FBs, but they were both more runners than blockers, Harris especially.And as far as being a RB goes, Allen at his peak was much more dominant than either of the three big backs.

Lydell Mitchell might disagree, better yet watch Franco seconds before the Immaculate Reception.

Mitchell was a better runner than Harris, and that's why he was ahead of him in college.

Franco Harris isn't in the HOF because he was a great blocker. Harris was the leading rusher on the Steelers for 12 straight years.

Ahh...but the Nittany Lion that you are...you should know that Mitchell was not ahead of Franco...Franco was the fullback, Lydell the halfback. Franco did everything, his hustle created one of the greatest football plays of all-time. Franco is in the Hall of Fame because he was a cornerstone of the greatest football team of all-time.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Tony Dorsett is the toughest one to justify HOFyness.

I agree. There are too many former Broncos in the Hall as it is.

Not that anyone would consider him a Bronco except for a hater such as yourself.If Sayers is in TD should get in. TD had four great years, compared to Sayers five. TD's years were better than Sayers, also TD took his team to level of one of the best teams of all time.

Its not about comparing stats from across eras.

True, but Davis was one of the two best RBs over a four-year span, finished in the top two in rushing three out of those four years, and was arguably the best postseason RB ever (with a sick YPC of 5.6 in the playoffs). People can talk all they want about other RBs doing well in Denver, but none of the others ever went over 1,500 yards (which Davis did three times), except Clinton Portis, who is a possible HoFer himself, none of them ever went over 2,000 yards in a season, and none of them ever won an MVP award (something Davis did twice). TD's awesome resume speaks for itself. If lack of longevity keeps him out, so be it, but that will be a shame.

 

[Tau837]

Tony Dorsett is the toughest one to justify HOFyness.

I agree. There are too many former Broncos in the Hall as it is.

Not that anyone would consider him a Bronco except for a hater such as yourself.If Sayers is in TD should get in. TD had four great years, compared to Sayers five. TD's years were better than Sayers, also TD took his team to level of one of the best teams of all time.

Its not about comparing stats from across eras.

Who is comparing stats? The argument against Davis is that he only had 4 productive years. Sayers only had 5, so my argument is that if 5 is enough for Sayers than 4 should be enough for Davis. Both players would have been effective for many years if not for injury.And when I say that TD's years were better than Sayers, I say in regards to what they did for their team. TD made his team the best there was for two straight years, throw in 96 (they were the best team that year right up until Jacksonville). Through that it, plus the fact that TD was the best back in the game for three straight years, you can't justify Sayers being in there with out having Davis in there.

You are off base IMO. Sayers was much more worthy than Davis. Old post on this:

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.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Tony Dorsett is the toughest one to justify HOFyness.

I agree. There are too many former Broncos in the Hall as it is.

Not that anyone would consider him a Bronco except for a hater such as yourself.If Sayers is in TD should get in. TD had four great years, compared to Sayers five. TD's years were better than Sayers, also TD took his team to level of one of the best teams of all time.

I always wonder why people say if Sayers had five great years and TD had four great years, TD should be in. Why don't they say if TD had four great years and Paul Hornung had three good years, TD should be in?

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

Harris was not great, he stayed healthy and played on a great team.

Like Emmitt Smith

That is a pretty accurate comparison, IMO.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Harris was not great, he stayed healthy and played on a great team.

Like Emmitt Smith

That is a pretty accurate comparison, IMO.

Emmitt led the league in rushing four times; Harris's best four seasons ranked 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th. No comparison, IMO.

 

[Mr. Mojo]

Harris was not great, he stayed healthy and played on a great team.

Like Emmitt Smith

That is a pretty accurate comparison, IMO.

Emmitt led the league in rushing four times; Harris's best four seasons ranked 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th. No comparison, IMO.

Emmitt was the key to that team. When he was out, they struggled. When Aikman, was out, it didn't matter that much.

 

[dgreen]

Harris was not great, he stayed healthy and played on a great team.

Like Emmitt Smith

That is a pretty accurate comparison, IMO.

Emmitt led the league in rushing four times; Harris's best four seasons ranked 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th. No comparison, IMO.

Emmitt was the key to that team. When he was out, they struggled. When Aikman, was out, it didn't matter that much.

They had a 0.570 winning percentage with Aikman as the starter and 0.481 when he didn't start.

 

[twitch]

Wow. Tough poll, tough crowd. Are we really knockin' HOFers? Man. Hard to use the terms worst and Hall of Famer in the same sentence. Im ashamed to even admit who I voted for.

 

[Godsbrother]

Wow. Tough poll, tough crowd. Are we really knockin' HOFers? Man. Hard to use the terms worst and Hall of Famer in the same sentence.

Agree 100%

 

[billyjoe]

Wow. Tough poll, tough crowd. Are we really knockin' HOFers? Man. Hard to use the terms worst and Hall of Famer in the same sentence.

Agree 100%

Mostly agree.Gale Sayers? Wow. If anyone thinks he needs to be voted out of the HOF, they really need to hand back their football fan card, and just switch to baseball. You could go on for pages about how Sayers DOMINATED. You just can't talk about the greatest RBs ever to play, without mentioning him. Stats don't really tell the whole story. You really have to talk to people who played in his era. Watched games in that era.

To be the NFL hall of fame is one of the hardest to get in. Art Monk is the only guy I really believe shouldn't be there. He basically got voted in because they were sick of debating him in the HOF meetings (which is well documented). I have a hard time kicking any RB out.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Wow. Tough poll, tough crowd. Are we really knockin' HOFers? Man. Hard to use the terms worst and Hall of Famer in the same sentence. Im ashamed to even admit who I voted for.

Fair, but think of the flip side -- do you think there are non-HOF RBs that are better than some HOF RBs?

 

[Ghost Rider]

Wow. Tough poll, tough crowd. Are we really knockin' HOFers? Man. Hard to use the terms worst and Hall of Famer in the same sentence. Im ashamed to even admit who I voted for.

Calm down. I doubt anyone thinks that these lesser HoFers were crappy players or anything; maybe just a bit overrated or something to that effect.

 

[Touchdown Syndrome]

To have included Sayers in this poll is ridiculous, and IMO whoever voted/votes for him is pretty ignorant.

 

[Don Quixote]

I'm not trying to knock Leroy Kelly, but since it took him longer get into the HOF than some others on the list, any reason he's not a poll option?

 

[Kevrunner]

I was a huge Riggins fan when he was with the Skins, but I'd put him at the bottom of this list, and I don't think he should be in the Hall. He was an average running back until his last few seasons.

I'd put Terrell Davis in before Riggins. TD's peak was higher and longer than Riggins', and if he had been able to continue playing I'd expect his later years would have been more productive than Riggins' early years.

I watched all of the Skins games from the early 70's to the early 90's and by far John Riggins was the best offensive player from those years that I saw. But you are probably right that Riggins was overrated if you are comparing him to fellow HOFer's. Even he doesn't disagree with you. Here is a piece from an interview Riggins did in September 2004 with the Pittsburgh Sports Report:PSR: Are there any running backs that play the game the way you did?

JR: Oh yeah. There's nothing that I did that was unique. In all honesty, I think that I'm probably one of the most overrated people that ever came down the road. I had a helluva lot of talent, I will say that - People have a hard time with that and they try to tell me that's not the case, so maybe I don't even know what I was thinking or what I was doing. But I guess you could say that I wasn't the most committed or dedicated football player.

So I have to say that almost every one of them plays the game better than I did. Basically the genetic pool is the same, so it starts with talent, but after that what is it? It's commitment. And as I said, I certainly wasn't one of the most committed. I think these guys today - well, I look around and I don't see a John Riggins out there, someone just out there for the fun and games.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'm not trying to knock Leroy Kelly, but since it took him longer get into the HOF than some others on the list, any reason he's not a poll option?

I looked at the RBs with the fewest number of dominant seasons -- to me, that's Riggins/Csonka/Harris/Dorsett. I added in Allen because I know many find him overrated and I added in Sayers because of the short career/lack of team success. I don't judge QBs or RBs on team success, but I know lots of people do.IMO, Kelly and Sayers would fit in the same tier when you're ranking HOFers. If I had to put another one on there, he would have been the guy.

 

[brutha]

I have always maintained that that the HOF is about more than numbers,

states the obvious but you're spitting into the wind.lol - hof threads here are always a joke. I knew the older RBs would get way more votes.PS the poll was set up wrong because you had to pick someone in the 2d part.

 

[Mr. Mojo]

Harris was not great, he stayed healthy and played on a great team.

Like Emmitt Smith

That is a pretty accurate comparison, IMO.

Emmitt led the league in rushing four times; Harris's best four seasons ranked 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th. No comparison, IMO.

Emmitt was the key to that team. When he was out, they struggled. When Aikman, was out, it didn't matter that much.

They had a 0.570 winning percentage with Aikman as the starter and 0.481 when he didn't start.

I don't know where you got your numbers from but I saw a stat that the last few years of Aikman's career, both he and Jason Garrett (who?) had the same win % as starter for the Cowboys. Emmitt was the man, Aikman was Trent Green on a better team.

 

[Fear The Turtle]

FWIW, don't know if it's been mentioned in the thread but Riggins sat out a year in his prime over a contract dispute.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Harris was not great, he stayed healthy and played on a great team.

Like Emmitt Smith

That is a pretty accurate comparison, IMO.

Emmitt led the league in rushing four times; Harris's best four seasons ranked 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th. No comparison, IMO.

Emmitt was the key to that team. When he was out, they struggled. When Aikman, was out, it didn't matter that much.

They had a 0.570 winning percentage with Aikman as the starter and 0.481 when he didn't start.

I don't know where you got your numbers from but I saw a stat that the last few years of Aikman's career, both he and Jason Garrett (who?) had the same win % as starter for the Cowboys. Emmitt was the man, Aikman was Trent Green on a better team.

Jason Garrett went 2-0 for the Cowboys during their run in the early-to-mid '90s.But your comment doesn't make much sense, since Trent Green's one of the best passers in league history.

 

[moleculo]

But your comment doesn't make much sense, since Trent Green's one of the best passers in league history.

wat?

 

[Kevin Ashcraft]

But your comment doesn't make much sense, since Trent Green's one of the best passers in league history.

wat?

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/lead...ting_career.htmGreen is 17th in career passer rating.

Aikman is 38th

Green also has a better TD-INT ratio and Yards per Attempt

Ironically they were both sacked the same amount of times.

 

[Mr. Mojo]

Harris was not great, he stayed healthy and played on a great team.

Like Emmitt Smith

That is a pretty accurate comparison, IMO.

Emmitt led the league in rushing four times; Harris's best four seasons ranked 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th. No comparison, IMO.

Emmitt was the key to that team. When he was out, they struggled. When Aikman, was out, it didn't matter that much.

They had a 0.570 winning percentage with Aikman as the starter and 0.481 when he didn't start.

I don't know where you got your numbers from but I saw a stat that the last few years of Aikman's career, both he and Jason Garrett (who?) had the same win % as starter for the Cowboys. Emmitt was the man, Aikman was Trent Green on a better team.

Jason Garrett went 2-0 for the Cowboys during their run in the early-to-mid '90s.But your comment doesn't make much sense, since Trent Green's one of the best passers in league history.

Aikman = better than average QB but that's allTrent Green = better than average QB but that's all

In other words they're very comparable.

Except one has three rings because he was on a great team.

Trent Green won't be voted to the Hall of Fame at all (Aikman was on first ballot).

 

[obxlegends]

When Dorsett retired he was 2nd ALL-TIME in rushing. Throw in a Super Bowl and that's pretty hard to knock.

 

[moleculo]

But your comment doesn't make much sense, since Trent Green's one of the best passers in league history.

wat?

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/lead...ting_career.htmGreen is 17th in career passer rating.

Aikman is 38th

Green also has a better TD-INT ratio and Yards per Attempt

Ironically they were both sacked the same amount of times.

If this is your position, you must also accept that Culpepper is also one of the best passers in league history, as he is 11th.

 

[moleculo]

When Dorsett retired he was 2nd ALL-TIME in rushing. Throw in a Super Bowl and that's pretty hard to knock.

everyone else on this list except Sayers was SB MVP - Dorsett was not. Dorsett never led the league in rushing and had only three seasons where he was a top 5 back. He was named all-pro just once.

 

[obxlegends]

When Dorsett retired he was 2nd ALL-TIME in rushing. Throw in a Super Bowl and that's pretty hard to knock.

everyone else on this list except Sayers was SB MVP - Dorsett was not. Dorsett never led the league in rushing and had only three seasons where he was a top 5 back. He was named all-pro just once.

Why is it important to be Super Bowl MVP? I don't think that has ANYTHING to do with Hall of Fame credentials. When Dorsett retired he has more rushing yards than EVERYONE who's ever played the game except Walter Payton. He rushed for 1,000 yards in his first 8 non-strike shortened (which he led the NFC) seasons. Dorsett is also the only player in the history of football to ever achieve: A national college championship, a Heisman Trophy, be a College Hall of Famer, Super Bowl, and be elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame.I don't even know why Chase included him on this list.

 

[Chase Stuart]

When Dorsett retired he was 2nd ALL-TIME in rushing. Throw in a Super Bowl and that's pretty hard to knock.

everyone else on this list except Sayers was SB MVP - Dorsett was not. Dorsett never led the league in rushing and had only three seasons where he was a top 5 back. He was named all-pro just once.

Why is it important to be Super Bowl MVP? I don't think that has ANYTHING to do with Hall of Fame credentials. When Dorsett retired he has more rushing yards than EVERYONE who's ever played the game except Walter Payton. He rushed for 1,000 yards in his first 8 non-strike shortened (which he led the NFC) seasons. Dorsett is also the only player in the history of football to ever achieve: A national college championship, a Heisman Trophy, be a College Hall of Famer, Super Bowl, and be elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame.I don't even know why Chase included him on this list.

Dorsett has more fumbles than any RB in NFL history.Dorsett wasn't a star receiver or a star TD guy. In other words, he made his living based on rushing yards. But he only ranked in the top five in rushing in three seasons. That's very good, but when the comparisons are to HOF RBs, that doesn't stand out. As for ranking 2nd when he retired, he had almost 2,000 rushing yards at the end of his career that were garbage yards. They don't bolster his HOF case, IMO. And without those garbage, over the hill yards, he wouldn't have ranked so high.His college awards are irrelevant to this discussion.Dorsett is a worthy HOF, but he's definitely in the bottom half of modern RBs. Emmitt is way ahead of him.

 

[jetpack]

When Dorsett retired he was 2nd ALL-TIME in rushing. Throw in a Super Bowl and that's pretty hard to knock.

everyone else on this list except Sayers was SB MVP - Dorsett was not. Dorsett never led the league in rushing and had only three seasons where he was a top 5 back. He was named all-pro just once.

Why is it important to be Super Bowl MVP? I don't think that has ANYTHING to do with Hall of Fame credentials. When Dorsett retired he has more rushing yards than EVERYONE who's ever played the game except Walter Payton. He rushed for 1,000 yards in his first 8 non-strike shortened (which he led the NFC) seasons. Dorsett is also the only player in the history of football to ever achieve: A national college championship, a Heisman Trophy, be a College Hall of Famer, Super Bowl, and be elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame.I don't even know why Chase included him on this list.

Couldn't agree more. To me, this poll has little historical perspective to it at all. The fact that all the "worst" HOFers (save Sayers) played in the 70s is a dead giveaway. It's about the same quality of rationale as judging Walter Payton and Barry Sanders solely on the quality of their playoff stats. Just my 2 cents.