PDA

View Full Version : 2015 HOF Class Inductees



broncoslover115
08-08-2015, 04:14 PM
I am feeling really resentful tonight about the inductees. I believe that TD should have been inducted tonight over Jerome Bettis.

I know people cite that tired old reason that his career was cut short due to injury but jeez, even in his short career he was a beast. Jerome Bettis? Eh!

TD was interviewed this week by Chris Hall about it and you could feel and see the disappointment that he keeps getting so close but no cigar.

Oh well! East coast bias once again.

CoryWinget81
08-08-2015, 04:26 PM
Jerome Bettis is an overrated stat-compiler who is over romanticized because he was Stiller.

LSIGRAD09
08-08-2015, 04:37 PM
No disrespect to any of these inductees, but this class just seems "meh" to me.

broncoslover115
08-08-2015, 05:14 PM
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-training-camps/0ap3000000507846/Elway-on-Manning-At-39-you-can-t-do-it-all-yourself?icampaign=nflcom-cs-homepage-videoswap_generic_nfl

In the first part of this video, even Elway is pushing for TD to get in.

CDUB1620
08-08-2015, 05:16 PM
As a long time bronco fan, I don't like the chargers at all, but I have complete and utter respect for Junior Sean. He was one of the best linebackers to play the game. He gave the Broncos fits. It's very sad that he took his own life, and some say it is selfish to do such a thing. We need to remember him as the fierce competitor that he was, and not tragic way his life ended. The one thing his death did was bring more attention to the dangers of the game we love, in hopes that we will see no more of our beloved players' lives end that way. I'm putting away the rivalry for one day to celebrate a great football player and person, that was taken away too soon.

-Rod-
08-08-2015, 05:55 PM
I'm not watching. This class is a joke.

Houshmazode
08-08-2015, 06:01 PM
No disrespect to any of these inductees, but this class just seems "meh" to me.
I was thinking "meh" when I saw the title of the thread but decided against posting it till I read it because I thought it might be inappropriate.


Meh.

broncoslover115
08-08-2015, 06:17 PM
As a long time bronco fan, I don't like the chargers at all, but I have complete and utter respect for Junior Sean. He was one of the best linebackers to play the game. He gave the Broncos fits. It's very sad that he took his own life, and some say it is selfish to do such a thing. We need to remember him as the fierce competitor that he was, and not tragic way his life ended. The one thing his death did was bring more attention to the dangers of the game we love, in hopes that we will see no more of our beloved players' lives end that way. I'm putting away the rivalry for one day to celebrate a great football player and person, that was taken away too soon.

Beautifully said. He's the only reason I'm watching tonight.

LSIGRAD09
08-08-2015, 06:52 PM
Fantastic speech by Seau's daughter.

broncoslover115
08-08-2015, 07:31 PM
Fantastic speech by Seau's daughter.

It seems like they were able to get around the "no speech" clause by having her do it as an "interview." I had to stand up myself and she brought tears to my eyes. Amazing. I don't know how she didn't lose it up there. Awesome.

Colorado1876
08-08-2015, 07:34 PM
Jerome Bettis is an overrated stat-compiler who is over romanticized because he was Stiller.

What does that make Bill Polian and Peyton Manning?

Colorado1876
08-08-2015, 07:35 PM
It seems like they were able to get around the "no speech" clause by having her do it as an "interview." I had to stand up myself and she brought tears to my eyes. Amazing. I don't know how she didn't lose it up there. Awesome.
The NFL didn't want her speaking freely. Thank god for the PFHOF for letting her speak at all.

Broncoholic JS
08-08-2015, 07:56 PM
What does that make Bill Polian and Peyton Manning?

Hall of Famers. Why couldn't you include Brett Favre on this? Wasn't he the biggest stat-compiler?

Broncoholic JS
08-08-2015, 07:56 PM
As a Broncos fan, I hated you but also loved you. You were an awesome man who was gone too soon. I met you in 1996 and you were the nicest person. Congrats on your Hall of Fame induction, Junior Seau!! You deserve it
��
��
��

Frenchy180
08-08-2015, 08:10 PM
I really wish I didn't take it so personally that one of the greatest players I've ever seen play that game isn't in the Hall of Fame...

captainbronco
08-08-2015, 08:23 PM
Turned the tv on and saw bettis talking then immediately turned the channel in disgust

broncoslover115
08-08-2015, 08:38 PM
I really wish I didn't take it so personally that one of the greatest players I've ever seen play that game isn't in the Hall of Fame...


Turned the tv on and saw bettis talking then immediately turned the channel in disgust

Thank you for validating my feelings and my reason for starting this thread. I've been resentful all night about TD not being inducted.

captainbronco
08-08-2015, 08:43 PM
Thank you for validating my feelings and my reason for starting this thread. I've been resentful all night about TD not being inducted.

Yup he was a good back TD was better there i said it

broncojuan
08-08-2015, 09:06 PM
Gradishar, Meck, Louis, TJ, Atwater, TD, Stink, Nalen, and Rod Smith should be in without question, and Bronco Billy, Simon Fletcher (Andre Tippet is in and has similar stats), Dennis Smith, Jason Elem, Dan Reeves (4 Super Bowl with two different teams, how many can say that not named Don Shula?), Rick Upchurch, and Rich Jackson should at least be in the debate. Until the HOF starts making up for the lack of Broncos, they can kiss my grits

EddieMac
08-08-2015, 09:28 PM
Betis was a media darling.... Such a mediocre back... It a crime he is in before a lot of others,or even at all.

MH Stampede
08-09-2015, 12:58 AM
Gradishar, Meck, Louis, TJ, Atwater, TD, Stink, Nalen, and Rod Smith should be in without question, and Bronco Billy, Simon Fletcher (Andre Tippet is in and has similar stats), Dennis Smith, Jason Elem, Dan Reeves (4 Super Bowl with two different teams, how many can say that not named Don Shula?), Rick Upchurch, and Rich Jackson should at least be in the debate. Until the HOF starts making up for the lack of Broncos, they can kiss my grits

Dont forget Lionel Taylor.

MH Stampede
08-09-2015, 01:03 AM
Betis was a media darling.... Such a mediocre back... It a crime he is in before a lot of others,or even at all.

He built his legacy on average stats and longevity. Some would argue that some of his stats arent even average, notably his YPC.

Thing is, Bettis was never in the discussion for "best back in the league" during his tenure. Good, sure. But never at, or even near, the top.

TD was the polar opposite. During his run, he was considered to be the best back in the NFL. Yes, it was only a few years, but he was considered THE best during those 3 years or so. And this is a time when Emmit Smith and Barry Sanders were playing.

If you listen to defensive players he faced, they all say the same thing. That at the time, there were only 2 backs in the entire league that you had to change your defense for, that you had to completely alter what you do to defend, that you specifically gameplan against. One was Sanders, the other was TD.

You cant get any higher praise than that.

fallforward3y+
08-09-2015, 01:05 AM
Ah, my fellow posters what is it like when vanilla ice cream looks orange, lol.

Come on guys, really? It actually surprises you that Bettis is in over TD? Bettis is a top 10 all time rusher, I suppose that may in part be due to him being a 'stat compiler'(whatever that even means), but stats seem to be big in the HOF. Davis isn't even in the top 50 all time I believe. Total yards are flawed in several ways as a way to measure how good a RB is overall in several ways, believe me I agree there, however I am not hearing much of what I think is a good argument for TD over Bettis in this thread or the similar one from I believe earlier this year, it seems more like 'he couldn't have been better than our guy' bias.

Longevity has a lot to do with the HOF it seems, and IMO it should. Bettis played for longer, and was a very good back imo. The kind you could count on to get effective chunks of yards consistently(with good enough blocking, which is likely needed for all backs). TD did not do it for long enough to be HOF worthy, longevity is a part of it, otherwise why not put in every back who's had one great season.

Seriously people, get over your homerism lol.

captainbronco
08-09-2015, 05:11 AM
Ah, my fellow posters what is it like when vanilla ice cream looks orange, lol.

Come on guys, really? It actually surprises you that Bettis is in over TD? Bettis is a top 10 all time rusher, I suppose that may in part be due to him being a 'stat compiler'(whatever that even means), but stats seem to be big in the HOF. Davis isn't even in the top 50 all time I believe. Total yards are flawed in several ways as a way to measure how good a RB is overall in several ways, believe me I agree there, however I am not hearing much of what I think is a good argument for TD over Bettis in this thread or the similar one from I believe earlier this year, it seems more like 'he couldn't have been better than our guy' bias.

Longevity has a lot to do with the HOF it seems, and IMO it should. Bettis played for longer, and was a very good back imo. The kind you could count on to get effective chunks of yards consistently(with good enough blocking, which is likely needed for all backs). TD did not do it for long enough to be HOF worthy, longevity is a part of it, otherwise why not put in every back who's had one great season.

Seriously people, get over your homerism lol.

Haha weelll you are on a DENVER BRONCOS FORUM so there's that i could go on and on about how great TD was and how average bettis was but it wouldnt matter ill say this though a lot of fans outside of you would agree that TD was a dominate and game changing back but theyd also agree that he didnt do it long either
So theres an age old question what would you want in a player a long period of decent play or a few shorts years of dominace

broncoslover115
08-09-2015, 06:39 AM
Ah, my fellow posters what is it like when vanilla ice cream looks orange, lol.

Come on guys, really? It actually surprises you that Bettis is in over TD? Bettis is a top 10 all time rusher, I suppose that may in part be due to him being a 'stat compiler'(whatever that even means), but stats seem to be big in the HOF. Davis isn't even in the top 50 all time I believe. Total yards are flawed in several ways as a way to measure how good a RB is overall in several ways, believe me I agree there, however I am not hearing much of what I think is a good argument for TD over Bettis in this thread or the similar one from I believe earlier this year, it seems more like 'he couldn't have been better than our guy' bias.

Longevity has a lot to do with the HOF it seems, and IMO it should. Bettis played for longer, and was a very good back imo. The kind you could count on to get effective chunks of yards consistently(with good enough blocking, which is likely needed for all backs). TD did not do it for long enough to be HOF worthy, longevity is a part of it, otherwise why not put in every back who's had one great season.

Seriously people, get over your homerism lol.

Yeah, sorry, we are not being homers. One great season? :laugh: Clearly, you do not know the TD story then.

And we are not the only ones who believe TD should be in the HOF. OK, let's see what they have to say.

Here are several articles from a national perspective who make the case for TD to be in the hall.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12254558/terrell-davis-deserves-2015-hall-fame-induction-don-coryell-overdue

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000372268/article/why-terrell-davis-belongs-in-the-hall-of-fame

http://www.itsalloverfatman.com/broncos/entry/gut-reaction-terrell-davis-snubbed-again-by-hof-voters

Longevity - Explain Gayle Sayers then. It's not called the Hall of Longevity, It's called the Hall of Fame.

Greatest Postseason Runner in NFL History
NFL MVP
SB MVP
2,000 yard rusher
Two SB winning teams

1. He was so dominant that the 6,413 yards rushing in his first four seasons rank as the second-highest total in league history to start a career, trailing only the 6,968 gained by Dickerson. During that time, he won league and Super Bowl MVPs and achieved what was then the fourth 2,000-yard season in league history, finishing with 2,008 in 1998.

2. He appeared in eight postseason games and surpassed 100 yards rushing in each of the final seven. The only other player to achieve seven 100-yard rushing performances in the postseason is Hall of Famer Emmitt Smith of the Cowboys, and he needed 17 games to do it, nine more than Davis. The only time Davis didn't reach triple digits was in his first career playoff game, when he finished with 91 yards on only 14 attempts.

3. On the list of the 20 top rushing performances in postseason history, Davis' name appears three times. No one else's name appears more than once.

4. Davis averaged 142.5 yards rushing a game in his playoff career, far exceeding anyone else who has appeared in at least five games. The second-highest average belongs to John Riggins at 110.7, then Eric Dickerson at 103.4. Smith, the league's all-time leading rusher, averaged 93.3 a game.

CoryWinget81
08-09-2015, 09:09 AM
Bettis was fat and slow and had no other athletic traits besides being able to avoid injury for most of his career.

3.8 yards up the guards ass 3500 times over 13 years apparently means HOF. :shrug:

Thomas Jones and Eddie George are HOFers too right? Bettis getting in the hall is like Testaverde getting in the hall.

Colorado1876
08-09-2015, 09:19 AM
Hall of Famers. Why couldn't you include Brett Favre on this? Wasn't he the biggest stat-compiler?Shouldn't every other GM that had a Super Bowl winning team be in the HOF then? Why isn't Mike Shanahan in the HOF?

Why isn't Favre on the HOF?

CoryWinget81
08-09-2015, 09:25 AM
Shouldn't every other GM that had a Super Bowl winning team be in the HOF then? Why isn't Mike Shanahan in the HOF?

Why isn't Favre on the HOF?


That's easy, Bojangles...Because he's not eligible. That's okay, I didn't expect you to know that, since, well, you don't really know much about the NFL.

Rancid
08-09-2015, 09:48 AM
I am not a Bettis fan and agree with most he benefited by 12-years with no major injuries. His 3.9 YPC Average ranks him in the bottom 3 of the top 30 Leading Gainers. He ranks 6th of all-time ground gainers.

To me, if Bettis is in the HOF discussion, then others should be included such as William Andrews, Terrell Davis, Chuck Muncie, Ottis Anderson, Roger Craig, etc. They were much more effective rushers at YPC, but their careers were cut short. Bo Jackson epitomizes this. Clearly the HOF is not interested in rushing capability and just duration.

Colorado1876
08-09-2015, 10:06 AM
That's easy, Bojangles...Because he's not eligible. That's okay, I didn't expect you to know that, since, well, you don't really know much about the NFL.

He retired after the 2009 season. He was eligible this year.

ruksak
08-09-2015, 10:15 AM
Shouldn't every other GM that had a Super Bowl winning team be in the HOF then? Why isn't Mike Shanahan in the HOF?

Why isn't Favre on the HOF?

Polian's teams went to 5 Super Bowls (Including 3 in a row). That's impressive, and they were all small market teams. He nearly created the fastest expansion Super Bowl team, almost.

Colorado1876
08-09-2015, 10:24 AM
Polian's teams went to 5 Super Bowls (Including 3 in a row). That's impressive, and they were all small market teams. He nearly created the fastest expansion Super Bowl team, almost.
So shouldn't every other GM with those accomplishments also be in the HOF then?

bronx_2003
08-09-2015, 10:58 AM
Regardless of TD, an average back like Bettis getting in the HOF completely devalues it for me

samparnell
08-09-2015, 11:51 AM
Mike Shanahan did not coach in 2009. He was HC in Washington from 2010-2013. So, when is he eligible for the HOF?

CoryWinget81
08-09-2015, 03:38 PM
He retired after the 2009 season. He was eligible this year.

Uh, no
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/2/5/7968327/hall-of-fame-2016-preview-brett-favre-terrell-owens

But please, keeping showing us all how much smarter you are than the rest of us, Bojangles.

Colorado1876
08-09-2015, 03:44 PM
Mike Shanahan did not coach in 2009. He was HC in Washington from 2010-2013. So, when is he eligible for the HOF?
Contributors can go in at any time. Shanahan was a GM for over ten years.

CoryWinget81
08-09-2015, 03:52 PM
Nope, sorry, Bojangles. Wrong again.

Colorado1876
08-09-2015, 03:56 PM
Nope, sorry, Bojangles. Wrong again.
You really like chicken/tap dancing.

baphamet
08-10-2015, 11:51 AM
cp to all the broncos fans giving my favorite charger player of all time love. :salute:

Freyaka
08-10-2015, 04:43 PM
I am feeling really resentful tonight about the inductees. I believe that TD should have been inducted tonight over Jerome Bettis.

I know people cite that tired old reason that his career was cut short due to injury but jeez, even in his short career he was a beast. Jerome Bettis? Eh!

TD was interviewed this week by Chris Hall about it and you could feel and see the disappointment that he keeps getting so close but no cigar.

Oh well! East coast bias once again.

Or how about Randy Gradishar...Give me one reason that Bettis is more worthy to be in the HoF than Gradishar? I'm pissed to be honest with you.

broncoslover115
08-10-2015, 05:00 PM
Or how about Randy Gradishar...Give me one reason that Bettis is more worthy to be in the HoF than Gradishar? I'm pissed to be honest with you.

Yup, I hear ya!

MH Stampede
08-11-2015, 12:24 AM
Ah, my fellow posters what is it like when vanilla ice cream looks orange, lol.

Come on guys, really? It actually surprises you that Bettis is in over TD? Bettis is a top 10 all time rusher, I suppose that may in part be due to him being a 'stat compiler'(whatever that even means), but stats seem to be big in the HOF. Davis isn't even in the top 50 all time I believe. Total yards are flawed in several ways as a way to measure how good a RB is overall in several ways, believe me I agree there, however I am not hearing much of what I think is a good argument for TD over Bettis in this thread or the similar one from I believe earlier this year, it seems more like 'he couldn't have been better than our guy' bias.

Longevity has a lot to do with the HOF it seems, and IMO it should. Bettis played for longer, and was a very good back imo. The kind you could count on to get effective chunks of yards consistently(with good enough blocking, which is likely needed for all backs). TD did not do it for long enough to be HOF worthy, longevity is a part of it, otherwise why not put in every back who's had one great season.

Seriously people, get over your homerism lol.

Davis averaged more yards per playoff game than any back in HISTORY. Is one of a very small handful to gain 2k yards. And did so while sitting out the second half of several games, and the 4th quarter of even more.

Educate yourself.

fallforward3y+
08-11-2015, 01:15 AM
Yeah, sorry, we are not being homers. One great season? :laugh: Clearly, you do not know the TD story then.

And we are not the only ones who believe TD should be in the HOF. OK, let's see what they have to say.

Here are several articles from a national perspective who make the case for TD to be in the hall.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12254558/terrell-davis-deserves-2015-hall-fame-induction-don-coryell-overdue

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000372268/article/why-terrell-davis-belongs-in-the-hall-of-fame

http://www.itsalloverfatman.com/broncos/entry/gut-reaction-terrell-davis-snubbed-again-by-hof-voters

Longevity - Explain Gayle Sayers then. It's not called the Hall of Longevity, It's called the Hall of Fame.

Greatest Postseason Runner in NFL History
NFL MVP
SB MVP
2,000 yard rusher
Two SB winning teams

1. He was so dominant that the 6,413 yards rushing in his first four seasons rank as the second-highest total in league history to start a career, trailing only the 6,968 gained by Dickerson. During that time, he won league and Super Bowl MVPs and achieved what was then the fourth 2,000-yard season in league history, finishing with 2,008 in 1998.

2. He appeared in eight postseason games and surpassed 100 yards rushing in each of the final seven. The only other player to achieve seven 100-yard rushing performances in the postseason is Hall of Famer Emmitt Smith of the Cowboys, and he needed 17 games to do it, nine more than Davis. The only time Davis didn't reach triple digits was in his first career playoff game, when he finished with 91 yards on only 14 attempts.

3. On the list of the 20 top rushing performances in postseason history, Davis' name appears three times. No one else's name appears more than once.

4. Davis averaged 142.5 yards rushing a game in his playoff career, far exceeding anyone else who has appeared in at least five games. The second-highest average belongs to John Riggins at 110.7, then Eric Dickerson at 103.4. Smith, the league's all-time leading rusher, averaged 93.3 a game.

Lol, well I guess if someone says they aren't being a homer that's enough proof right lol.

Yes, he had more than 1 good statistical season. The point of the 1 great season comment was to say yes, longevity should matter. If it doesn't matter how long you do it for, why not put in anyone who has one great season? TD only had four seasons in which he even topped 1000 yards, if you play more games your less likely to have a high average per game.

TD to me had too short of a career to even be considered for the HOF, regardless of postseason performance during that time.

As for Gale Sayers, he may have gotten in on reputation over performance. After all, any award based on human decision is prone to human error. He was quick, sure but Reggie Bush is also quick, one of the quickest backs I've ever watched. No offense to him, but I don't think he's HOF material. To elaborate more on my opinion of Sayers, I'd have to watch him more, I don't know much about his career to be honest.

I do however, have a hard time buying 'he just seemed so much more legendary' arguments that don't show up on the field. Regardless though, Gale seems to be the exception, not the rule. It seems like longevity is big in someone getting into the HOF. When your judging a player's career overall, I don't see how longevity wouldn't matter. How could it not matter how long you perform well for?

fallforward3y+
08-11-2015, 01:17 AM
Davis averaged more yards per playoff game than any back in HISTORY. Is one of a very small handful to gain 2k yards. And did so while sitting out the second half of several games, and the 4th quarter of even more.

Educate yourself. Not a single thing you listed makes me think he should be in the HOF, based my argument why would you think it would? Perhaps a reading comprehension course is in order since we're talking about educating ourselves? lol

Longevity is my issue, none of that argues for his longevity.

fallforward3y+
08-11-2015, 01:23 AM
Bettis was fat and slow and had no other athletic traits besides being able to avoid injury for most of his career.

3.8 yards up the guards ass 3500 times over 13 years apparently means HOF. :shrug:

Thomas Jones and Eddie George are HOFers too right? Bettis getting in the hall is like Testaverde getting in the hall.

It should be about effectiveness, not athleticism. Effectiveness is what gets it done, I'd rather have an effective less athletic player than a more athletic but less effective one.

Bettis was one of the best power backs of his time, all the way up to the end when we saw him plowing over Brian Urlacher at the goal line. He was consistently an effective runner, and did it for a long time. Backs with his style won't always have high YPC averages, but you only need 3.34 to move down field effectively. Bettis seems to have been a consistent chunks of effective yardage type of runner. A lot of backs have high YPCs but have more skewed stats and maybe aren't as effective as their YPC makes them look.

If you have great consistent effectiveness, and do it for the long time, to me that is pretty impressive.

CoryWinget81
08-11-2015, 06:04 AM
It should be about effectiveness, not athleticism. Effectiveness is what gets it done, I'd rather have an effective less athletic player than a more athletic but less effective one.

Bettis was one of the best power backs of his time, all the way up to the end when we saw him plowing over Brian Urlacher at the goal line. He was consistently an effective runner, and did it for a long time. Backs with his style won't always have high YPC averages, but you only need 3.34 to move down field effectively. Bettis seems to have been a consistent chunks of effective yardage type of runner. A lot of backs have high YPCs but have more skewed stats and maybe aren't as effective as their YPC makes them look.

If you have great consistent effectiveness, and do it for the long time, to me that is pretty impressive.

Do you think Fred Taylor is a HOFer?

Freyaka
08-11-2015, 10:08 AM
Not a single thing you listed makes me think he should be in the HOF, based my argument why would you think it would? Perhaps a reading comprehension course is in order since we're talking about educating ourselves? lol

Longevity is my issue, none of that argues for his longevity.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12254558/terrell-davis-deserves-2015-hall-fame-induction-don-coryell-overdue

Let's be honest...you do need to get your freaking facts straight...

Davis appeared in eight post season games and surpassed 100 yards rushing in each of the final seven, the only other player to achieve this feat was Emit Smith another HoF player.

On the list of top 20 rushing performances in postseason history Davis name appears three times, no one else appears more than once.

Of backs who have appeared in at least 5 post-season games Davis averaged 142.5, the next best was John Riggins at 110.7, that's a difference of 31.8 YPG!!! That's a huge difference, that's how much more effective he was CONSISTENTLY through 8 post-season games than EVERY BACK IN THE NFL EVER! EVER!!!! That's not some small feat that is huge! If Davis was above average in the regular season, he was a god among men when it came to the post season, no back in history ever came close to accomplishing what he did and I have zero doubt that we would have never won a single Superbowl with out him.

You knock his longevity, Sayers is in the HoF with 10 less games that Davis. So if Sayers deserves it, why not Davis?

The fact of the matter is, in a 5 year span he had 6,413 rushing yards, 7,594 all purpose yards and 61 TDs. He only had 7 fumbles on 1457 touches (that's one fumble every 208 touches which is a dang good number)

It amazes me how biased against Davis you are...none of these are just minor accomplishments that any back can and does do all the time. These are all one of a kind accomplishments. Name one back in history (not already in the HoF) that has done everything that Davis does.

It is incredibly narrowminded to look at his total stats and say (well...he didn't play long enough) Bettis in no way, shape or for deserves to be in the HoF....Literally the only thing he did was play at an average to slightly above average level for a really long time. That should not be enough...He was only all pro twice in his carrier, he never led the league in rushing, he has no rushing titles and has only 6 pro bowl selections...He is the definition of an average running back and the only reason he made it into the hall of fame is because there is a huge bias for east coast teams when it comes to the HoF.

broncoslover115
08-11-2015, 12:22 PM
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12254558/terrell-davis-deserves-2015-hall-fame-induction-don-coryell-overdue

Let's be honest...you do need to get your freaking facts straight...

Davis appeared in eight post season games and surpassed 100 yards rushing in each of the final seven, the only other player to achieve this feat was Emit Smith another HoF player.

On the list of top 20 rushing performances in postseason history Davis name appears three times, no one else appears more than once.

Of backs who have appeared in at least 5 post-season games Davis averaged 142.5, the next best was John Riggins at 110.7, that's a difference of 31.8 YPG!!! That's a huge difference, that's how much more effective he was CONSISTENTLY through 8 post-season games than EVERY BACK IN THE NFL EVER! EVER!!!! That's not some small feat that is huge! If Davis was above average in the regular season, he was a god among men when it came to the post season, no back in history ever came close to accomplishing what he did and I have zero doubt that we would have never won a single Superbowl with out him.

You knock his longevity, Sayers is in the HoF with 10 less games that Davis. So if Sayers deserves it, why not Davis?

The fact of the matter is, in a 5 year span he had 6,413 rushing yards, 7,594 all purpose yards and 61 TDs. He only had 7 fumbles on 1457 touches (that's one fumble every 208 touches which is a dang good number)

It amazes me how biased against Davis you are...none of these are just minor accomplishments that any back can and does do all the time. These are all one of a kind accomplishments. Name one back in history (not already in the HoF) that has done everything that Davis does.

It is incredibly narrowminded to look at his total stats and say (well...he didn't play long enough) Bettis in no way, shape or for deserves to be in the HoF....Literally the only thing he did was play at an average to slightly above average level for a really long time. That should not be enough...He was only all pro twice in his carrier, he never led the league in rushing, he has no rushing titles and has only 6 pro bowl selections...He is the definition of an average running back and the only reason he made it into the hall of fame is because there is a huge bias for east coast teams when it comes to the HoF.
Don't bother Frey, he doesn't care and his mind is made up. TD will eventually get in the HOF as he gets closer in the process every year. This year he made it to the final 15.

You and I know if he was just your average RB, he wouldn't even be in the discussion or nominated by the voters. Let it go. It's not worth arguing with him about it.

fallforward3y+
08-11-2015, 09:23 PM
Do you think Fred Taylor is a HOFer?

I could see that, yes. One of the most underrated backs there ever was probably.

fallforward3y+
08-11-2015, 09:36 PM
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12254558/terrell-davis-deserves-2015-hall-fame-induction-don-coryell-overdue

Let's be honest...you do need to get your freaking facts straight...

Davis appeared in eight post season games and surpassed 100 yards rushing in each of the final seven, the only other player to achieve this feat was Emit Smith another HoF player.

On the list of top 20 rushing performances in postseason history Davis name appears three times, no one else appears more than once.

Of backs who have appeared in at least 5 post-season games Davis averaged 142.5, the next best was John Riggins at 110.7, that's a difference of 31.8 YPG!!! That's a huge difference, that's how much more effective he was CONSISTENTLY through 8 post-season games than EVERY BACK IN THE NFL EVER! EVER!!!! That's not some small feat that is huge! If Davis was above average in the regular season, he was a god among men when it came to the post season, no back in history ever came close to accomplishing what he did and I have zero doubt that we would have never won a single Superbowl with out him.

You knock his longevity, Sayers is in the HoF with 10 less games that Davis. So if Sayers deserves it, why not Davis?

The fact of the matter is, in a 5 year span he had 6,413 rushing yards, 7,594 all purpose yards and 61 TDs. He only had 7 fumbles on 1457 touches (that's one fumble every 208 touches which is a dang good number)

It amazes me how biased against Davis you are...none of these are just minor accomplishments that any back can and does do all the time. These are all one of a kind accomplishments. Name one back in history (not already in the HoF) that has done everything that Davis does.

It is incredibly narrowminded to look at his total stats and say (well...he didn't play long enough) Bettis in no way, shape or for deserves to be in the HoF....Literally the only thing he did was play at an average to slightly above average level for a really long time. That should not be enough...He was only all pro twice in his carrier, he never led the league in rushing, he has no rushing titles and has only 6 pro bowl selections...He is the definition of an average running back and the only reason he made it into the hall of fame is because there is a huge bias for east coast teams when it comes to the HoF.

Who says I think Sayers deserves it? Like I said, I haven't followed his career very closely so I don't really want to say too much there. Although, I strongly suspect it's one of those 'reputation' things, where he got in more based on a reputation over actual HOF worthy performance.

As for the rest, I'm not saying TD wasn't a great back in the short time he played, but that kind of is the key for me...in the short time he played.

You can tell yourself whatever you want, that there is some conspiracy against the Broncos, East Coast bias, my own personal bias against TD in particular, but to me longevity is HUGE. To me, if a player doesn't meet certain longevity requirements, I probably won't think their career was HOF worthy. To me longevity is HUGE.

I would be very surprised if there aren't many out there who also agree that longevity is huge as well, it really doesn't seem that crazy of a belief, or even unusual. The fact that you seem to think no one could possibly just feel longevity is extremely important, and that it has to be some bias against the Broncos/TD makes me think it is homerism that is driving your thinking.

#87Birdman
08-11-2015, 10:12 PM
Who says I think Sayers deserves it? Like I said, I haven't followed his career very closely so I don't really want to say too much there. Although, I strongly suspect it's one of those 'reputation' things, where he got in more based on a reputation over actual HOF worthy performance.

As for the rest, I'm not saying TD wasn't a great back in the short time he played, but that kind of is the key for me...in the short time he played.

You can tell yourself whatever you want, that there is some conspiracy against the Broncos, East Coast bias, my own personal bias against TD in particular, but to me longevity is HUGE. To me, if a player doesn't meet certain longevity requirements, I probably won't think their career was HOF worthy. To me longevity is HUGE.

I would be very surprised if there aren't many out there who also agree that longevity is huge as well, it really doesn't seem that crazy of a belief, or even unusual. The fact that you seem to think no one could possibly just feel longevity is extremely important, and that it has to be some bias against the Broncos/TD makes me think it is homerism that is driving your thinking.

Well since longivity is all you think matters means your opinion isn't really worth anything. The hof has players with careers shorter than td . Hof is for the best players to play the game.

You think it should be the longest to play the game which is a joke. Great players don't deserve the hall just those long time playing players.

Should just change the name to hall of players who played a long time and don't really need to accomplish much other than playing a long time.......

Seriously you honestly think a great players that are one of the best at their position don't deserve to be placed in a hall for the best players?

Well I guess they should just get rid of voters they aren't needed according to you. Just need someone to go through eligible players and take those who have the most time in the league because obviously they must be the best ever to last so long in the league.

fallforward3y+
08-11-2015, 11:00 PM
Well since longivity is all you think matters means your opinion isn't really worth anything. The hof has players with careers shorter than td . Hof is for the best players to play the game.

You think it should be the longest to play the game which is a joke. Great players don't deserve the hall just those long time playing players.

Should just change the name to hall of players who played a long time and don't really need to accomplish much other than playing a long time.......

Seriously you honestly think a great players that are one of the best at their position don't deserve to be placed in a hall for the best players?

Well I guess they should just get rid of voters they aren't needed according to you. Just need someone to go through eligible players and take those who have the most time in the league because obviously they must be the best ever to last so long in the league.

It's Tuesday, no need for an overreaction Monday response. I never said longevity was all that matters, I said it was big. It isn't the only thing that matters, but it is big. The key is being a good player for a long time, not just at one point in time. Putting words in people's mouths isn't a good arguing tactic, although I suppose you thought it was worth a try.

Bettis was a very good player for a long time. Effectiveness doesn't always have to have a big flash to it. It's funny how the more people make points to try and make it seems like TD is an obvious choice over Bettis, the more it seems like homerism to me. No, playing for a long time alone is not enough to get into the HOF for me, but you do realize that you probably won't last as long as Bettis did in the league if you aren't pretty good by league standards right? Bettis was running over Brian Urlacher at an age when most backs have been out of the league for awhile. To me, he is very deserving of being in the HOF.

Yes, you should have to be a good player, and you also should have to be good for a long time imo. Both are key, however the key is BOTH. That to me is part of having one of the best all time CAREERS, a lengthy career, where you were good for a long time. Otherwise, why not let anyone who was ever among the best at their position at any point in time, for however short a time. After all, they were among the best right?

So yes, the best at their positions should get in....if they were good for long enough. I do however, hope you enjoyed typing your response.

Freyaka
08-12-2015, 04:55 AM
Who says I think Sayers deserves it? Like I said, I haven't followed his career very closely so I don't really want to say too much there. Although, I strongly suspect it's one of those 'reputation' things, where he got in more based on a reputation over actual HOF worthy performance.

As for the rest, I'm not saying TD wasn't a great back in the short time he played, but that kind of is the key for me...in the short time he played.

You can tell yourself whatever you want, that there is some conspiracy against the Broncos, East Coast bias, my own personal bias against TD in particular, but to me longevity is HUGE. To me, if a player doesn't meet certain longevity requirements, I probably won't think their career was HOF worthy. To me longevity is HUGE.

I would be very surprised if there aren't many out there who also agree that longevity is huge as well, it really doesn't seem that crazy of a belief, or even unusual. The fact that you seem to think no one could possibly just feel longevity is extremely important, and that it has to be some bias against the Broncos/TD makes me think it is homerism that is driving your thinking.

It's not the hall of longevity...It's the hall of fame, it's what you've done in your career that seperates you from others in similar situations. What distinguishes you from all others? Davis distinguished himself even in a short time...Bettis just played average for a long time. The only thing that distinguishes him from any other player is he lasted longer...big freaking deal. That is minor and not hall worthy. It doesn't take skill to last longer, it takes being lucky enough to not get injured...Longevity should not be a primary contributing factor.

And there is a bias...I mean seriously.

Denver

Willie Brown (1963-1966)
Tony Dorsett (1988)
John Elway (1983-1998)
Floyd Little (1967-1975)
Shannon Sharpe (1990-99, 2002-03)
Gary Zimmerman (1993-1997)

Only the bottom four made their primary contributions to this team. So basically we have 4 HoFers. Steelers have 21...Giants 20...Cowboys 15....Hell the chargers who have never done anything significant as an organization have 8. So tell me, how is it that a team with two superbowl wins, 7 AFC championships and 13 division titles only have 4 players in the hall of fame? In fact...the only teams with less hall of famers than us are the bucs, the seahawks and the expansion teams...Explain how that makes any sense if there isn't a huge bias towards the large market east coast teams?

broncoslover115
08-12-2015, 05:21 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again. TD will eventually get in the HOF. It's inevitable. He gets closer every year. If he wasn't great, EVEN with his shortened career, he wouldn't be nominated by the voters.

He probably won't make it next year because Favre and TO are eligible and are most likely first ballot. Well at least Farve is.

But he will of which I have no doubt. And I could care less what fans from other teams think about it. What TD was able to accomplish in his time is astounding and that's all I need to know. And if anyone really wants to know how great he was, watch his Football Life.

And yes, there is an east coast bias. There always has been and always will be. It still occurs today and not just in relation to the HOF. It occurs with TV coverage, sports reporting, etc. Small market teams don't get nearly the same coverage as teams like the Steelers, Pats, Cowboys, Giants, Eagles, 49ers, and their players also aren't recognized and inducted into the HOF as much either.

The bias also happens in baseball, basketball and hockey too. And everyone knows it. Larger market teams make more money for the networks. No denying it.

fallforward3y+
08-12-2015, 05:48 AM
It's not the hall of longevity...It's the hall of fame, it's what you've done in your career that seperates you from others in similar situations. What distinguishes you from all others? Davis distinguished himself even in a short time...Bettis just played average for a long time. The only thing that distinguishes him from any other player is he lasted longer...big freaking deal. That is minor and not hall worthy. It doesn't take skill to last longer, it takes being lucky enough to not get injured...Longevity should not be a primary contributing factor.

And there is a bias...I mean seriously.

Denver


Only the bottom four made their primary contributions to this team. So basically we have 4 HoFers. Steelers have 21...Giants 20...Cowboys 15....Hell the chargers who have never done anything significant as an organization have 8. So tell me, how is it that a team with two superbowl wins, 7 AFC championships and 13 division titles only have 4 players in the hall of fame? In fact...the only teams with less hall of famers than us are the bucs, the seahawks and the expansion teams...Explain how that makes any sense if there isn't a huge bias towards the large market east coast teams?

I think Bettis was a bit better than average. Being good for a long time does take skill, skill to keep up how well you play is part of continuing to play at that level. Sorry, but I don't buy that someone still playing very well when most RBs retire is nothing more than luck to not get injured, it isn't just injury that makes someone's level of play go down. Keeping up your skills is part of it.

At this point, we're really just arguing over whether or not longevity should be important or not. Sorry, but there probably isn't anything you can say to make me think it shouldn't be a HUGE factor in judging someone's career.

As for the East Coast bias, it isn't always as simple as the best teams having the most HOFers. Some teams may have several great players but poor chemistry, not show up in big games etc. thus not win as many. The Chiefs had 6 pro bowlers in a 2-14 season I think, but I doubt that was Chiefs bias.

broncoslover115
08-12-2015, 06:30 AM
I think Bettis was a bit better than average. Being good for a long time does take skill, skill to keep up how well you play is part of continuing to play at that level. Sorry, but I don't buy that someone still playing very well when most RBs retire is nothing more than luck to not get injured, it isn't just injury that makes someone's level of play go down. Keeping up your skills is part of it.

At this point, we're really just arguing over whether or not longevity should be important or not. Sorry, but there probably isn't anything you can say to make me think it shouldn't be a HUGE factor in judging someone's career.

As for the East Coast bias, it isn't always as simple as the best teams having the most HOFers. Some teams may have several great players but poor chemistry, not show up in big games etc. thus not win as many. The Chiefs had 6 pro bowlers in a 2-14 season I think, but I doubt that was Chiefs bias.

Bias doesn't have to do with whether a team has 6 pro bowlers during a season, bias has to do with media coverage, TV coverage, etc. I'll give you another example and remove it from the "east coast bias."

The Dallas Cowboys have been mediocre for almost a decade. Yet, they still get top coverage constantly. The media focuses on them all the time. It has nothing to do with their play. Let's face it, they have sucked and have only won one playoff game in over 10 years. But because they are in a huge market, they get constant coverage and make a lot of money for the networks. That's what we mean by bias.

During the NBA finals and the World Series, the media talked constantly about, if x teams were playing, it wouldn't be nearly as good for TV coverage, nobody would care. Nobody would watch. All the media cares about is ratings. Bias has to do with whether the teams will draw in people to watch. The Red Sox and Yankees are always going to get more media coverage than the Minnesota Twins or another smaller market baseball team. The Bruins and Chicago Blackhawks are always going to get more coverage and their players are always going to get more coverage and recognition than a smaller market hockey team. You know it and I know it.

So when small market teams don't get the same exposure, the same level of recognition as the large market teams do, their players aren't as watched, noticed and therefore recognized. Thus, those players who are as great in smaller markets as those in large market teams are also not recognized and inducted into the HOF as players coming from larger market teams.

And yes, no one is going to change each other's mind, which is why I told Frey to stop trying. I know TD will be inducted, it's just a matter of time. So, this debate is for naught. But, please don't give me the crap that there isn't bias in sports reporting, because there is. And don't give me the garbage that there isn't bias in who gets into the HOF because there is. If we take TD out of the conversation and talk about players like Steve Atwater and Randy Gradishar ...those guys not being in the HOF is an absolute joke.

MH Stampede
08-14-2015, 10:48 PM
Not a single thing you listed makes me think he should be in the HOF, based my argument why would you think it would? Perhaps a reading comprehension course is in order since we're talking about educating ourselves? lol

Longevity is my issue, none of that argues for his longevity.

So your point is, to get in the Hall, you simply need not get injured?

SERIOUSLY?

MH Stampede
08-14-2015, 10:52 PM
my own personal bias against TD in particular

And that, is why you believe what you do.

Personal bias.

Obviously, it has absolutely nothing to do with anything else.

Now, why is it that you despise the single most effective playoff runner in NFL history?

fallforward3y+
08-14-2015, 11:26 PM
I never said that ALL you had to do was play a long time, I said that playing long enough was a requirement for me to consider you HOF worthy. Now, how about you take some time to figure out the difference.

Consider this puzzle: If all razzies are lazzies and all lazzies are mazzies, does that therefore mean that all mazzies are razzies? Ponder that, if you get the answer wrong that may relate to our problem ;)

The idea that keeping up a high level of play for a long time is part of having an all time great career doesn't seem all that crazy. I get the feeling that if I said this on another forum, one where you wouldn't expect there to be bias one way or another that people wouldn't act like what I'm saying is ridiculous.

That is in part what makes this all seem like homerism to me, it seems that because a criteria does not seem to favor TD so you act like no one could possibly actually think that way for any reason other than bias.

MH Stampede
08-15-2015, 01:20 AM
I never said that ALL you had to do was play a long time, I said that playing long enough was a requirement for me to consider you HOF worthy. Now, how about you take some time to figure out the difference.

Consider this puzzle: If all razzies are lazzies and all lazzies are mazzies, does that therefore mean that all mazzies are razzies? Ponder that, if you get the answer wrong that may relate to our problem ;)

The idea that keeping up a high level of play for a long time is part of having an all time great career doesn't seem all that crazy. I get the feeling that if I said this on another forum, one where you wouldn't expect there to be bias one way or another that people wouldn't act like what I'm saying is ridiculous.

That is in part what makes this all seem like homerism to me, it seems that because a criteria does not seem to favor TD so you act like no one could possibly actually think that way for any reason other than bias.

Averaging 140 yards over your career in the playoffs, the highest in all of NFL history, isnt homerism.

Its a fact.

#87Birdman
08-15-2015, 01:32 AM
It's Tuesday, no need for an overreaction Monday response. I never said longevity was all that matters, I said it was big. It isn't the only thing that matters, but it is big. The key is being a good player for a long time, not just at one point in time. Putting words in people's mouths isn't a good arguing tactic, although I suppose you thought it was worth a try.

Bettis was a very good player for a long time. Effectiveness doesn't always have to have a big flash to it. It's funny how the more people make points to try and make it seems like TD is an obvious choice over Bettis, the more it seems like homerism to me. No, playing for a long time alone is not enough to get into the HOF for me, but you do realize that you probably won't last as long as Bettis did in the league if you aren't pretty good by league standards right? Bettis was running over Brian Urlacher at an age when most backs have been out of the league for awhile. To me, he is very deserving of being in the HOF.

Yes, you should have to be a good player, and you also should have to be good for a long time imo. Both are key, however the key is BOTH. That to me is part of having one of the best all time CAREERS, a lengthy career, where you were good for a long time. Otherwise, why not let anyone who was ever among the best at their position at any point in time, for however short a time. After all, they were among the best right?

So yes, the best at their positions should get in....if they were good for long enough. I do however, hope you enjoyed typing your response.

So you go on about how playing a long time is a big part but not the only part... Than proceed to mention the other part by saying you just need to be good...

How many players make it a long time in the NFL not being good?

If you are average or bad you don't play a long time therefore what I typed to confirmed you can just go down the list of time playing and is eligible because you don't play a long time without being at least good. Otherwise you get replaced for cheaper.

But you must be right and only good players should get in not great players that produced great seasons for longer than an average NFL career... O and lets not forget that great players that have made it with short careers they don't matter to you because they are nobodies.

So you a okay good player is better that a great player. Hall of Fame is for great players and yes there is a difference between a player that flashes for 1 season and a great player that produces till an injury cuts it short. But nope just go down the list of time playing and pick that way because only good players will be on that list because bad players don't play a long time. And when you say Bettis is a bit better than average you really burn all hope as that really narrows down how good they have to be. They just have to be a bit better than average so you say I put words in your mouth but more likely you dug yourself a hole and now have to live in that fact that like I said get the list of longest careers and just go down it for your method.

fallforward3y+
08-15-2015, 01:35 AM
Averaging 140 yards over your career in the playoffs, the highest in all of NFL history, isnt homerism.

Its a fact.

Bettis being 6th in NFL history in rushing and Davis being 53rd all the time also is.

You see, I can play the let's list a stat even though it doesn't actually refute the point the other is making game also.

fallforward3y+
08-15-2015, 02:03 AM
So you go on about how playing a long time is a big part but not the only part... Than proceed to mention the other part by saying you just need to be good...

How many players make it a long time in the NFL not being good?

If you are average or bad you don't play a long time therefore what I typed to confirmed you can just go down the list of time playing and is eligible because you don't play a long time without being at least good. Otherwise you get replaced for cheaper.

But you must be right and only good players should get in not great players that produced great seasons for longer than an average NFL career... O and lets not forget that great players that have made it with short careers they don't matter to you because they are nobodies.

So you a okay good player is better that a great player. Hall of Fame is for great players and yes there is a difference between a player that flashes for 1 season and a great player that produces till an injury cuts it short. But nope just go down the list of time playing and pick that way because only good players will be on that list because bad players don't play a long time. And when you say Bettis is a bit better than average you really burn all hope as that really narrows down how good they have to be. They just have to be a bit better than average so you say I put words in your mouth but more likely you dug yourself a hole and now have to live in that fact that like I said get the list of longest careers and just go down it for your method.

Wow, ok. You like to read what you want to read don't you. Let's see if I can explain this better...the 'a bit better than average' comment was shall we say 'sarcasm'(not sure if that's the right word), as a way of saying he was a well above average player. Similar to how someone might say 'I think killing someone is a bit beyond misconduct' even though they likely think it is far beyond misconduct.

Perhaps I should apologize for being unclear, but since people seem to like twisting my words I have a feeling you figured I meant that, but are now trying to make it seem like I meant something I didn't.

Yes, I think you have to be well above average to make the hall of fame, but that you also have to play well for a long time. BOTH are requirements. THE BEST PLAYERS WHO PLAYED LONG ENOUGH.

THE BEST PLAYERS WHO PLAYED LONG ENOUGH
THE BEST PLAYERS WHO PLAYED LONG ENOUGH
THE BEST PLAYERS WHO PLAYED LONG ENOUGH
THE BEST PLAYERS WHO PLAYED LONG ENOUGH

I do wonder though, what tactic you'll use to try and say I'm saying nothing at all but how long you play matters. I also never said players with short careers are nobodies, I said I didn't think short careers were hall of fame worthy. I suppose that there isn't a middle ground between hall of fame and nobody though. I don't refer to people as 'nobodies', but I think I know what you meant. Even so though, you can be a great player and still not deserve the HOF in my book.

On the point of longevity though, it is a bit ridiculous how the significance of that is being down played. Longevity is difficult to do, hence why most backs are out of the league before Bettis was. It is not an easy task, and it does involve more than not getting injured in my book. That kind of longevity in and of itself is not average, it is a remarkable feat. Stop acting like it's somehow a downgrade to the HOF if you say a very impressive feat matters a lot. Plus, Bettis was a very effective back. His style wasn't one that created a high rushing average, but consistency over a long period of time is a hard thing to get, a very hard thing to get even for great players. Great effectiveness does not always have to be flashy. I'm looking most at effectiveness when I judge a player, and Bettis was a very effective runner for a long time.

It seems some of you will really go out on a limb to defend TD and knock Bettis.

#87Birdman
08-15-2015, 06:58 AM
Wow, ok. You like to read what you want to read don't you. Let's see if I can explain this better...the 'a bit better than average' comment was shall we say 'sarcasm'(not sure if that's the right word), as a way of saying he was a well above average player. Similar to how someone might say 'I think killing someone is a bit beyond misconduct' even though they likely think it is far beyond misconduct.

Perhaps I should apologize for being unclear, but since people seem to like twisting my words I have a feeling you figured I meant that, but are now trying to make it seem like I meant something I didn't.

Yes, I think you have to be well above average to make the hall of fame, but that you also have to play well for a long time. BOTH are requirements. THE BEST PLAYERS WHO PLAYED LONG ENOUGH.

THE BEST PLAYERS WHO PLAYED LONG ENOUGH
THE BEST PLAYERS WHO PLAYED LONG ENOUGH
THE BEST PLAYERS WHO PLAYED LONG ENOUGH
THE BEST PLAYERS WHO PLAYED LONG ENOUGH

I do wonder though, what tactic you'll use to try and say I'm saying nothing at all but how long you play matters. I also never said players with short careers are nobodies, I said I didn't think short careers were hall of fame worthy. I suppose that there isn't a middle ground between hall of fame and nobody though. I don't refer to people as 'nobodies', but I think I know what you meant. Even so though, you can be a great player and still not deserve the HOF in my book.

On the point of longevity though, it is a bit ridiculous how the significance of that is being down played. Longevity is difficult to do, hence why most backs are out of the league before Bettis was. It is not an easy task, and it does involve more than not getting injured in my book. That kind of longevity in and of itself is not average, it is a remarkable feat. Stop acting like it's somehow a downgrade to the HOF if you say a very impressive feat matters a lot. Plus, Bettis was a very effective back. His style wasn't one that created a high rushing average, but consistency over a long period of time is a hard thing to get, a very hard thing to get even for great players. Great effectiveness does not always have to be flashy. I'm looking most at effectiveness when I judge a player, and Bettis was a very effective runner for a long time.

It seems some of you will really go out on a limb to defend TD and knock Bettis.

So now you are spinning it to best to play a long time. You are a joke. It had been good players to play a long time now it is best. You can't even keep your story straight.

Seems you will keep twisting your story to bash TD who was a great back for several seasons before a freak injury to support an good back who was never great but played a long time.

Great players should be in the hall of fame period. Davis did more in 4 years than Bettis ever achieved in his career. If Bettis was a great player he should have been able to you know been able to have a four year stretch that was even close to TD but he doesn't.

captainbronco
08-15-2015, 09:20 AM
Wow, ok. You like to read what you want to read don't you. Let's see if I can explain this better...the 'a bit better than average' comment was shall we say 'sarcasm'(not sure if that's the right word), as a way of saying he was a well above average player. Similar to how someone might say 'I think killing someone is a bit beyond misconduct' even though they likely think it is far beyond misconduct.

Perhaps I should apologize for being unclear, but since people seem to like twisting my words I have a feeling you figured I meant that, but are now trying to make it seem like I meant something I didn't.

Yes, I think you have to be well above average to make the hall of fame, but that you also have to play well for a long time. BOTH are requirements. THE BEST PLAYERS WHO PLAYED LONG ENOUGH.

THE BEST PLAYERS WHO PLAYED LONG ENOUGH
THE BEST PLAYERS WHO PLAYED LONG ENOUGH
THE BEST PLAYERS WHO PLAYED LONG ENOUGH
THE BEST PLAYERS WHO PLAYED LONG ENOUGH

I do wonder though, what tactic you'll use to try and say I'm saying nothing at all but how long you play matters. I also never said players with short careers are nobodies, I said I didn't think short careers were hall of fame worthy. I suppose that there isn't a middle ground between hall of fame and nobody though. I don't refer to people as 'nobodies', but I think I know what you meant. Even so though, you can be a great player and still not deserve the HOF in my book.

On the point of longevity though, it is a bit ridiculous how the significance of that is being down played. Longevity is difficult to do, hence why most backs are out of the league before Bettis was. It is not an easy task, and it does involve more than not getting injured in my book. That kind of longevity in and of itself is not average, it is a remarkable feat. Stop acting like it's somehow a downgrade to the HOF if you say a very impressive feat matters a lot. Plus, Bettis was a very effective back. His style wasn't one that created a high rushing average, but consistency over a long period of time is a hard thing to get, a very hard thing to get even for great players. Great effectiveness does not always have to be flashy. I'm looking most at effectiveness when I judge a player, and Bettis was a very effective runner for a long time.

It seems some of you will really go out on a limb to defend TD and knock Bettis.

Fact still remains the HOF is for the BEST PLAYERS BEST PLAYERS BEST PLAYERS BEST PLAYERS not mediocre players that played for a long time its not called hall of longevity all we broncos fans are trying to tell you is that TD was considered ONE OF THE BEST PLAYERS during which guys like emmitt smith and barry sanders were running around TD is deserving of the HOF cause you know achievements should count for something and his stats arent bad respect that wooooooo

fallforward3y+
08-15-2015, 02:03 PM
So now you are spinning it to best to play a long time. You are a joke. It had been good players to play a long time now it is best. You can't even keep your story straight.

Seems you will keep twisting your story to bash TD who was a great back for several seasons before a freak injury to support an good back who was never great but played a long time.

Great players should be in the hall of fame period. Davis did more in 4 years than Bettis ever achieved in his career. If Bettis was a great player he should have been able to you know been able to have a four year stretch that was even close to TD but he doesn't.

Ok, this has become puzzling. Do you actually not understand what I am saying, or are you just pretending not to. I do find it strange that one could keep up the 'I'm going to act like you said something else even if I get what you mean' game for this long....but then again you may not have a good argument against what I said and figure you need to to keep up the charade.

Do you really not understand what 'best players who played long enough means'...it means, the best players among those who played long enough, not that those who played long enough are the best. I'm not sure I can come up with another example to explain what I mean, and I'm not sure I should because you may simply be pretending not to get it, perhaps your even having a laugh seeing how long I will actually argue with you.

I did point out though, that longevity in and of itself is a pretty big accomplishment. It alone does not make you the best, but it is quite a remarkable feat.

fallforward3y+
08-15-2015, 02:27 PM
Fact still remains the HOF is for the BEST PLAYERS BEST PLAYERS BEST PLAYERS BEST PLAYERS not mediocre players that played for a long time its not called hall of longevity all we broncos fans are trying to tell you is that TD was considered ONE OF THE BEST PLAYERS during which guys like emmitt smith and barry sanders were running around TD is deserving of the HOF cause you know achievements should count for something and his stats arent bad respect that wooooooo

Bettis was not mediocre, he was well above a mediocre RB. He was a great, very effective back for a very long time.

For me, hall of fame should be about the best CAREERS. Part of a good career to me is being good for a long time. TD was great in his short time sure, but that's the key. If he had lasted long enough, I could see it sure, but he didn't play long enough. Sure, it is unfortunate that injury caused it, however we shouldn't automatically presume he would have continued to play at a high level for many more years, that's the problem, we don't know.

Like I said longevity is a tough task in and of itself. This is really one of the few places where I've seen people act like it isn't. Playing at a high level, for a long time is very hard, and Bettis did that. He was running over Brian Urlacher at the goal line at an age when most backs would be out of the league for a long time. People are talking about how TD accomplished more than Bettis did and etc....well...there are things Bettis did that TD never did as well.

You guys should have taken broncolovers advice, because I have not heard a single thing that convinces me TD should be in the hall of fame, and if you continue down the same road you probably won't ever convince me. Like I said, being the best for a short period of time for me is not enough, that to me is not enough to have a hall of fame worthy career. You can do great things, and not be HOF worthy. The HOF is a very high standard.

You can keep repeating 'it's not the hall of longevity' as if I said that's the ONLY thing a player should have to do to get in, but what I am saying is playing a long time is ONE requirement. There is a difference. I don't know if some of you are simply acting like you don't understand the difference, or if your actually not getting it.

EddieMac
08-15-2015, 02:32 PM
Bettis being 6th in NFL history in rushing and Davis being 53rd all the time also is.

You see, I can play the let's list a stat even though it doesn't actually refute the point the other is making game also.

Vinny Testaverde is 9th all time passing yards and played for a long time.

Kurt Warner player a far shorter career and is only 34th on the list. He has incredible post season records ( sound familiar)

I guess if one should be in the HOF its Tesaverde

sounds reasonable - because VT is one of the best of the long time players......

broncoslover115
08-15-2015, 02:44 PM
Doesn't matter. He will be voted in much to your chagrin. It's just a matter of time. Like I said, he gets closer every year.

It's silly really to try to convince you. It's like a question that was posed yesterday on NFLN last night that set me off.

They were previewing the Seattle/Denver game and the question was "who has more to prove..Peyton or Russell Wilson?

It incensed me just because they asked the question. I was thinking..Peyton doesn't need to prove anything to anyone, especially to the guys sitting on the panel. Then LaDanlian Tomlinson started going off about PM only having 1 SB.

Really LT? You're sitting there and you never have NEVER WON ANYTHING and you expect PM to have to prove something to you? YOU LT? Who the hell are you?
What have you won? NOTHING!!

Same with this discussion. TD is going to be a HOFer. It is inevitable. And we don't need to prove anything to you. His career speaks for itself.

fallforward3y+
08-15-2015, 04:22 PM
Vinny Testaverde is 9th all time passing yards and played for a long time.

Kurt Warner player a far shorter career and is only 34th on the list. He has incredible post season records ( sound familiar)

I guess if one should be in the HOF its Tesaverde

sounds reasonable - because VT is one of the best of the long time players......

I don't consider VT to be one of the best of the long time players. That would be something like Favre, Manning or Brady and Montana. He would be an example to me of someone who played for a long time but isn't HOF worthy. Like I said, playing a long time a lone isn't enough. Bettis though, to me is different.

It's hard to say who I think deserves it more between the two, because really I don't think either of them should be in the Hall of Fame.

captainbronco
08-15-2015, 04:25 PM
Bettis was not mediocre, he was well above a mediocre RB. He was a great, very effective back for a very long time.

For me, hall of fame should be about the best CAREERS. Part of a good career to me is being good for a long time. TD was great in his short time sure, but that's the key. If he had lasted long enough, I could see it sure, but he didn't play long enough. Sure, it is unfortunate that injury caused it, however we shouldn't automatically presume he would have continued to play at a high level for many more years, that's the problem, we don't know.

Like I said longevity is a tough task in and of itself. This is really one of the few places where I've seen people act like it isn't. Playing at a high level, for a long time is very hard, and Bettis did that. He was running over Brian Urlacher at the goal line at an age when most backs would be out of the league for a long time. People are talking about how TD accomplished more than Bettis did and etc....well...there are things Bettis did that TD never did as well.

You guys should have taken broncolovers advice, because I have not heard a single thing that convinces me TD should be in the hall of fame, and if you continue down the same road you probably won't ever convince me. Like I said, being the best for a short period of time for me is not enough, that to me is not enough to have a hall of fame worthy career. You can do great things, and not be HOF worthy. The HOF is a very high standard.

You can keep repeating 'it's not the hall of longevity' as if I said that's the ONLY thing a player should have to do to get in, but what I am saying is playing a long time is ONE requirement. There is a difference. I don't know if some of you are simply acting like you don't understand the difference, or if your actually not getting it.

Bettis lasted in the nfl longer but TD had way more accomplishments and showed up big when it counted it would be because of bettis that the steelers never won a super bowl that year but whatever its a moot point i dont care what you say TD deserves to be in the HOF over mediocre bettis

fallforward3y+
08-15-2015, 04:35 PM
Doesn't matter. He will be voted in much to your chagrin. It's just a matter of time. Like I said, he gets closer every year.

It's silly really to try to convince you. It's like a question that was posed yesterday on NFLN last night that set me off.

They were previewing the Seattle/Denver game and the question was "who has more to prove..Peyton or Russell Wilson?

It incensed me just because they asked the question. I was thinking..Peyton doesn't need to prove anything to anyone, especially to the guys sitting on the panel. Then LaDanlian Tomlinson started going off about PM only having 1 SB.

Really LT? You're sitting there and you never have NEVER WON ANYTHING and you expect PM to have to prove something to you? YOU LT? Who the hell are you?
What have you won? NOTHING!!

Same with this discussion. TD is going to be a HOFer. It is inevitable. And we don't need to prove anything to you. His career speaks for itself.

If he gets in he gets in, I won't make a fuss over it. In truth, players don't need to prove anything to even the HOF committee, their opinions wouldn't be how I measured my career if I were in the NFL, it's people's opinions. Not to say I wouldn't like the praise, or be thankful but whatever I did in my career would be the same whether they vote me in or not.

Whatever they want to do is fine. Like many fans, I like to share my opinion, and debating I suppose can be fun, discussion can be good. Like I said though, the HOF committee can do what they do, I don't consider them voting someone in to have some special credibility that can't be argued reasonably.

I do agree on the '1 SB' argument being stupid though. LT was a great player, and never winning a SB ring doesn't change that, and to me doesn't even make his career any less impressive....but.....he brought it on himself, he has never been on a team that won one and he's knocking a guy for only having one, lol.

It was like when I remember an Eagles fan liking a meme about the Cowboys not winning a SB for a long time on facebook. I'm not a Cowboys fan, but it was hard to resist posting 'no SB wins' memes for the Eagles. They have never won any and they're making fun of the Cowboys for not winning one in awhile, lol.

fallforward3y+
08-15-2015, 05:40 PM
Bettis lasted in the nfl longer but TD had way more accomplishments and showed up big when it counted it would be because of bettis that the steelers never won a super bowl that year but whatever its a moot point i dont care what you say TD deserves to be in the HOF over mediocre bettis

I don't think 1 instance should exclude someone from the HOF, that seems a bit much. Jerry Rice fumbled in a playoff game I believe vs GB, which would have cost them the game if it had been called a fumble, I believe this was before instant replay.

I also, am not swayed by what your saying, and I don't think Bettis was mediocre at all.

captainbronco
08-15-2015, 06:20 PM
I don't think 1 instance should exclude someone from the HOF, that seems a bit much. Jerry Rice fumbled in a playoff game I believe vs GB, which would have cost them the game if it had been called a fumble, I believe this was before instant replay.

I also, am not swayed by what your saying, and I don't think Bettis was mediocre at all.

Then we'll leave it at that i know bettis was medicore and you dont

fallforward3y+
08-15-2015, 06:29 PM
Then we'll leave it at that i know bettis was medicore and you dont

Or that I know he wasn't and you don't.

That was me, impulsively wanting the last word.

captainbronco
08-15-2015, 07:42 PM
Or that I know he wasn't and you don't.

That was me, impulsively wanting the last word.

Or you're just all about the long medicore career over a short career with more achievements than half of the RBs in the HOF that was me being equally as impulsive getting the last last word

MH Stampede
08-16-2015, 10:31 PM
Bettis being 6th in NFL history in rushing and Davis being 53rd all the time also is.

You see, I can play the let's list a stat even though it doesn't actually refute the point the other is making game also.

The only reason Bettis is ranked is due to not being hurt.

Bettis was never a game changer either.

Davis, was.

At that time, in the NFL, there were only 2 backs that defenses had to radically alter what they did, when the faced them. One was Sanders, the other was Davis.

Bettis was never that kind of player.

MH Stampede
08-16-2015, 10:32 PM
THE BEST PLAYERS WHO PLAYED LONG ENOUGH
THE BEST PLAYERS WHO PLAYED LONG ENOUGH
THE BEST PLAYERS WHO PLAYED LONG ENOUGH
THE BEST PLAYERS WHO PLAYED LONG ENOUGH
.

Except Bettis was never one of "the best".

Your argument, is invalid.

By your own standards.

MH Stampede
08-16-2015, 10:33 PM
Ok, this has become puzzling. Do you actually not understand what I am saying, or are you just pretending not to. I do find it strange that one could keep up the 'I'm going to act like you said something else even if I get what you mean' game for this long....but then again you may not have a good argument against what I said and figure you need to to keep up the charade.

Do you really not understand what 'best players who played long enough means'...it means, the best players among those who played long enough, not that those who played long enough are the best. I'm not sure I can come up with another example to explain what I mean, and I'm not sure I should because you may simply be pretending not to get it, perhaps your even having a laugh seeing how long I will actually argue with you.

I did point out though, that longevity in and of itself is a pretty big accomplishment. It alone does not make you the best, but it is quite a remarkable feat.

I think most everyone in this thread understands both sides of the argument.

And most everyone agrees, you're just plain wrong.

MH Stampede
08-16-2015, 10:34 PM
I don't consider VT to be one of the best of the long time players. That would be something like Favre, Manning or Brady and Montana. He would be an example to me of someone who played for a long time but isn't HOF worthy. Like I said, playing a long time a lone isn't enough. Bettis though, to me is different.

It's hard to say who I think deserves it more between the two, because really I don't think either of them should be in the Hall of Fame.

That is a hypocritical conclusion, because those things are precisely your criteria.

BroncoFanDK
08-16-2015, 11:41 PM
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12254558/terrell-davis-deserves-2015-hall-fame-induction-don-coryell-overdue

Let's be honest...you do need to get your freaking facts straight...

Davis appeared in eight post season games and surpassed 100 yards rushing in each of the final seven, the only other player to achieve this feat was Emit Smith another HoF player.

On the list of top 20 rushing performances in postseason history Davis name appears three times, no one else appears more than once.

Of backs who have appeared in at least 5 post-season games Davis averaged 142.5, the next best was John Riggins at 110.7, that's a difference of 31.8 YPG!!! That's a huge difference, that's how much more effective he was CONSISTENTLY through 8 post-season games than EVERY BACK IN THE NFL EVER! EVER!!!! That's not some small feat that is huge! If Davis was above average in the regular season, he was a god among men when it came to the post season, no back in history ever came close to accomplishing what he did and I have zero doubt that we would have never won a single Superbowl with out him.

You knock his longevity, Sayers is in the HoF with 10 less games that Davis. So if Sayers deserves it, why not Davis?

The fact of the matter is, in a 5 year span he had 6,413 rushing yards, 7,594 all purpose yards and 61 TDs. He only had 7 fumbles on 1457 touches (that's one fumble every 208 touches which is a dang good number)

It amazes me how biased against Davis you are...none of these are just minor accomplishments that any back can and does do all the time. These are all one of a kind accomplishments. Name one back in history (not already in the HoF) that has done everything that Davis does.

It is incredibly narrowminded to look at his total stats and say (well...he didn't play long enough) Bettis in no way, shape or for deserves to be in the HoF....Literally the only thing he did was play at an average to slightly above average level for a really long time. That should not be enough...He was only all pro twice in his carrier, he never led the league in rushing, he has no rushing titles and has only 6 pro bowl selections...He is the definition of an average running back and the only reason he made it into the hall of fame is because there is a huge bias for east coast teams when it comes to the HoF.

You are also forgetting TD's 1997 and 1998 seasons are the best two seasons seasons by any running back in history.

The HOF choice of Bettis is a joke - Morten Andersen - the person that has the NFL record for points scored, TD that has the best two RB seasons, and he and Kurt Warner are the only League MVP & SB MVP's to not be in the hall.

I cannot find the NFL video but this article is written off it:



http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/nfl-network-list-best-rushing-seasons-shows-why-175616187.html
NFL Network counted down the top 10 rushing seasons in NFL history, postseason included, and the same guy is No. 1 and No. 2 on the list. And that player isn't in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, even though he's eligible.

But, Terrell Davis should be in the Hall of Fame.

Davis' 1997 season (2,331 yards) was No. 2 on the list. His 1998 season (2,476) was No. 1. This wasn't a subjective list, it was just a ranking of total rushing yards in a season, counting the playoffs. And Davis finished far ahead of No. 3, Eric Dickerson's 2,212 yards in 1984.

Now, if you want to subjectively rank O.J. Simpson's 2,003-yard season first, or Adrian Peterson's incredible 2012, or Eric Dickerson's record-setting 2,105 regular-season yards as the greatest season of all time, that's fine. Davis even argued that Simpson has the greatest regular season ever. If you want to wonder if NFL Network put out this segment because Davis is back working for them, that's fair too.

But it does show that, historically, Davis was probably much better than most people remember.

Davis got hurt. That's the only reason he's not in the Hall of Fame. He was well on his way. He was great for his first four years, rushing for 6,413 yards and 56 touchdowns. He blew out his ACL in 1999 when a teammate hit him as he tried to make a tackle after an interception, and he was never the same. Just bad luck.

Longevity matters in arguments about all-time greats, but there should be a different curve for running backs and their notoriously short careers. Davis was incredibly durable before the horrible knee injury, with 1,106 regular-season carries from 1996-98 and a huge playoff load in two long playoff runs as well. He was the opposite of a compiler (FootballOutsiders.com also presented a great extended argument about Davis' Hall of Fame credentials recently). He was the best player in the NFL in 1998, rushing for 2,008 yards, averaging 5.1 yards per carry, scoring 23 total touchdowns and winning the MVP award. He added 468 yards in that postseason on the way to Denver winning a Super Bowl.
And the postseason is why Davis was among the all-time greats. It makes little sense that some judge a quarterback's entire career by playoff wins or losses, but the same doesn't apply for Davis.

His playoff resume is unreal. Seven straight 100-yard playoff games (all Broncos wins), and the only time he didn't reach that mark he had 91 yards. He rushed for 581 yards in the 1997 postseason as the key player in Denver's first Super Bowl title. He won Super Bowl MVP in an upset against the Packers, a game in which John Elway completed just 12 passes for 123 yards, no passing touchdowns and an interception. Davis carried the Broncos that day.

Davis had 1,140 yards and 12 touchdowns with a 5.6-yard average in eight playoff games, and won two titles. It's easy to double that and realize that's a 2,280-yard, 24-touchdown pace over 16 games, and that came in the playoffs against the best competition. The Broncos were 7-1 in Davis' playoff career. Had a quarterback put up comparable numbers at his position in back-to-back Super Bowl years, they might waive the five-year waiting period in Canton.

Davis hasn't gotten that respect, and he might not. Nobody has been put in the Hall of Fame with just four elite years (Gale Sayers is closest, with five). But we over-celebrate postseason accomplishments for others (quarterbacks, mostly, for whatever weird reason), and Davis was one of the best playoff players ever. Too bad a freak knee injury kept Davis from doing more.

The Hall of Fame is for the all-time greats of the game. It's hard to argue Davis wasn't in that class, even if it didn't last very long.

#87Birdman
08-16-2015, 11:49 PM
Except Bettis was never one of "the best".

Your argument, is invalid.

By your own standards.

Yup that is why I'm just ignoring him now he first started with good players playing a long time and I called him out on it after he constantly said Bettis was good not great.

But after I called him out it switched to great players and all of a sudden Bettis is a great player. He spins his story so much it is comical.

Bettis never had any great seasons but he is a great player all of a sudden because he had yards to go with long career but apply that to qbs like Eddiemac did and now it doesn't apply since it doesn't fit his agenda.

baphamet
08-17-2015, 01:00 PM
i'm not saying bettis belongs in the HOF over TD but how do you broncos fans feel about floyd little being in the HOF?

fallforward3y+
08-17-2015, 10:22 PM
Yup that is why I'm just ignoring him now he first started with good players playing a long time and I called him out on it after he constantly said Bettis was good not great.

But after I called him out it switched to great players and all of a sudden Bettis is a great player. He spins his story so much it is comical.

Bettis never had any great seasons but he is a great player all of a sudden because he had yards to go with long career but apply that to qbs like Eddiemac did and now it doesn't apply since it doesn't fit his agenda.

Wow, just wow. It's hard to tell if you actually believe what you right or not.

Sometimes, I may use the term 'good' in general, not necessarily feeling I need to express it with a strong adjective of 'great'. I think you may be fixating too much on those terms, they aren't exactly terms that contradict each other, depending on how you use them I suppose.

I also said that neither Vinny nor Kurt belonged in the HOF, because again...longevity alone isn't enough. So nothing I said about that contradicts what I've said in this thread either.

Like I said, I feel Bettis was good enough, Vinny was not. Bettis was one of the best power backs in the league through most of the time he played, a very effective ball carrier. I believe he was often used as a short yardage back which likely hurt his YPC, but he was at least, among the best in a craft to me. As a ball carrier, he was very effective. Vinny T as a QB wasn't as productive at his position as Bettis was imo, though comparing apples and oranges is tough.

Also, if your responding to my posts it doesn't seem like your ignoring me ;)

Keep trying though, it seems like it's fun for you to do so.

fallforward3y+
08-17-2015, 10:25 PM
That is a hypocritical conclusion, because those things are precisely your criteria.

Neither qualify in both criterias, so it isn't.

Vinny T played plenty long enough to me, but imo wasn't good enough.

Warner has been an elite QB, but wasn't a good QB(by NFL Standards)for a long enough time imo, though at a point elite imo. Same reason I exclude TD.

fallforward3y+
08-17-2015, 10:30 PM
Except Bettis was never one of "the best".

Your argument, is invalid.

By your own standards.

Best in terms of career overall, not the best individual seasons.

BroncoFanDK
08-18-2015, 12:30 AM
Best in terms of career overall, not the best individual seasons.

That is an absolutely ridiculous criteria when you argue that having the SIXT best career rushing total trumps scoring the most points in NFL history.

Morten Andersen has scored 2544 points over a 25 year career in the NFL - it is ludicrous to put a sixt ranked rusher with a 13 year career in over that. It just shows how absurd the HOF system is. Some of the NFL All time leaders are left out where good but not great players get in based on where they played.

Bettis was very good - TD had the best two seasons of any RB in history

fallforward3y+
08-18-2015, 12:45 AM
That is an absolutely ridiculous criteria when you argue that having the SIXT best career rushing total trumps scoring the most points in NFL history.

Morten Andersen has scored 2544 points over a 25 year career in the NFL - it is ludicrous to put a sixt ranked rusher with a 13 year career in over that. It just shows how absurd the HOF system is. Some of the NFL All time leaders are left out where good but not great players get in based on where they played.

Bettis was very good - TD had the best two seasons of any RB in history

Ummmm...I didn't argue that Bettis should have gotten in over Morten Andersen. If we're talking Bettis vs Andersen we have a very different debate. Morten Andersen should be there imo. However, I was talking about Bettis vs TD.

Your own article even says, no RB has ever gotten in with only 4 elite seasons(and I'm not sure 95 should even count as one). I just think you need to have more good seasons than what TD had. Plus, it's 1 and 2 by an NFL Network ranking, that doesn't exactly make it a hard fact. I think LaDanian Tomlinson's 2006 campaign may rank above those 2, for instance, as one example if we're talking purely statistical.

BroncoFanDK
08-18-2015, 04:38 AM
Ummmm...I didn't argue that Bettis should have gotten in over Morten Andersen. If we're talking Bettis vs Andersen we have a very different debate. Morten Andersen should be there imo. However, I was talking about Bettis vs TD.

Your own article even says, no RB has ever gotten in with only 4 elite seasons(and I'm not sure 95 should even count as one). I just think you need to have more good seasons than what TD had. Plus, it's 1 and 2 by an NFL Network ranking, that doesn't exactly make it a hard fact. I think LaDanian Tomlinson's 2006 campaign may rank above those 2, for instance, as one example if we're talking purely statistical.

No player before TD and Kurt Warner have been both SB MVP and League MVP without getting in the HOF

You cannot question that the yardage that TD produced in 1997 and in 1998 are the highest totals ever for a RB (Reg Season + Post Season). We can always discuss statistics but for RB's it seems they are always ranked based on yards, and there no one can touch TD.

LT was a fantastic player and deserving of the HOF, but if the best 4 year performance of any running back in NFL history is not worthy of the HOF, what is?

fallforward3y+
08-18-2015, 05:52 AM
No player before TD and Kurt Warner have been both SB MVP and League MVP without getting in the HOF

You cannot question that the yardage that TD produced in 1997 and in 1998 are the highest totals ever for a RB (Reg Season + Post Season). We can always discuss statistics but for RB's it seems they are always ranked based on yards, and there no one can touch TD.

LT was a fantastic player and deserving of the HOF, but if the best 4 year performance of any running back in NFL history is not worthy of the HOF, what is?

A longer career, with more good seasons may be. A few fantastic seasons shouldn't necessarily be enough in my book. A few great seasons without very many more good ones doesn't scream 'hall of fame career' to me. It's hard for me think of a guy without several good seasons as a hall of famer, regardless of how great of a 2 season stretch they may have had. I don't think Warner should be in the HOF either.

Yards aren't a perfect stat, I don't want it to sound like I think a back should be judged on yards stats alone, however something to consider is that TD played more games in 97 and 98 than many other backs with great statistical seasons. which helps the total yards. I don't like team accomplishments playing too much into it, where I knock a back for his team not going all the way. Don't get me wrong, still great seasons...but it seems a little bit of 'jumping the gun' to say the 2 best ever as if it is an undisputed fact.

MH Stampede
08-19-2015, 10:54 PM
A longer career, with more good seasons may be. A few fantastic seasons shouldn't necessarily be enough in my book. A few great seasons without very many more good ones doesn't scream 'hall of fame career' to me. It's hard for me think of a guy without several good seasons as a hall of famer, regardless of how great of a 2 season stretch they may have had. I don't think Warner should be in the HOF either.

Yards aren't a perfect stat, I don't want it to sound like I think a back should be judged on yards stats alone, however something to consider is that TD played more games in 97 and 98 than many other backs with great statistical seasons. which helps the total yards. I don't like team accomplishments playing too much into it, where I knock a back for his team not going all the way. Don't get me wrong, still great seasons...but it seems a little bit of 'jumping the gun' to say the 2 best ever as if it is an undisputed fact.

Obviously, the facts of his career are just not enough to persuade you. Your arguments are all over the place, using standards for one player but not another.

You're just plain wrong. And everyone here has tried and tried again to show how, and why. But you just keep saying longevity is why he doesnt deserve the Hall, and then say for other players longevity is all that really mattered, and then say for even others that longevity doesnt count.

You spin as much as a politician does.

fallforward3y+
08-20-2015, 12:38 AM
Obviously, the facts of his career are just not enough to persuade you. Your arguments are all over the place, using standards for one player but not another.

You're just plain wrong. And everyone here has tried and tried again to show how, and why. But you just keep saying longevity is why he doesnt deserve the Hall, and then say for other players longevity is all that really mattered, and then say for even others that longevity doesnt count.

You spin as much as a politician does.

I said that longevity is a big part of it,not that it's all that matters. Longevity alone can exclude a player in my book if they don't meet the requirements, however playing for a long time alone is not enough to be in the HOF. For me to think a player's career was Hall of Fame worthy, they have to meet requirements for both longevity, and effectiveness during.

Perhaps your hoping that if you say it enough you'll convince me that my logic isn't consistent, or perhaps you figure that if it is said enough you'll convince yourself.

MH Stampede
08-20-2015, 09:25 PM
I said that longevity is a big part of it,not that it's all that matters. Longevity alone can exclude a player in my book

You believe Bettis deserves it. Therefore your first sentence is incompatible with itself.

The second sentence, means that no matter how great a player is, unless they play 10+ years they arent good enough, no matter what they accomplished.

Your criteria is straight up ridiculous.

fallforward3y+
08-21-2015, 01:53 AM
You believe Bettis deserves it. Therefore your first sentence is incompatible with itself.

The second sentence, means that no matter how great a player is, unless they play 10+ years they arent good enough, no matter what they accomplished.

Your criteria is straight up ridiculous.

Look, I don't want to argue about this for 1,000 posts like the threads about the Patriots cheating.

I already said I did think Bettis was also good enough. I also never said 10 or more years, but I do think it takes more than 4 good seasons(though I suppose what a 'good' season is is subjective).

You can think it's ridiculous if you want to, but I have a very hard time believing if I posted this on a non Broncos forum that this argument would be seen as so ridiculous. Sure, you may find SOME non Broncos fans who agree, but on probably any other forum, I would guess that several posters would find my argument very reasonable. My guess is it would be split between whether or not he should be in the HOF or not, and a much lower % of the posters would likely think that TD is a clear and obvious choice.

MH Stampede
08-21-2015, 11:01 PM
Look, I don't want to argue about this for 1,000 posts like the threads about the Patriots cheating.

I already said I did think Bettis was also good enough. I also never said 10 or more years, but I do think it takes more than 4 good seasons(though I suppose what a 'good' season is is subjective).

You can think it's ridiculous if you want to, but I have a very hard time believing if I posted this on a non Broncos forum that this argument would be seen as so ridiculous. Sure, you may find SOME non Broncos fans who agree, but on probably any other forum, I would guess that several posters would find my argument very reasonable. My guess is it would be split between whether or not he should be in the HOF or not, and a much lower % of the posters would likely think that TD is a clear and obvious choice.

your probably right about arguing this on a Broncos forum.

TD did not have 4 good seasons.

He had 4 historically great seasons, including playoffs, and his accomplishments during that stretch are unmatched by any runner in NFL history.

Those are statistical facts, not open to argument. You can debate whether or not he should be in the Hall, thats your right. But to say those were "subjectively good seasons" is flatout untrue, no matter how you spin it.

fallforward3y+
08-22-2015, 02:00 AM
your probably right about arguing this on a Broncos forum.

TD did not have 4 good seasons.

He had 4 historically great seasons, including playoffs, and his accomplishments during that stretch are unmatched by any runner in NFL history.

Those are statistical facts, not open to argument. You can debate whether or not he should be in the Hall, thats your right. But to say those were "subjectively good seasons" is flatout untrue, no matter how you spin it.

Good is always a subjective term imo, sometimes I get a bit 'technical'. I do believe they were 4 good seasons, and 3 great ones.

MH Stampede
08-22-2015, 07:45 AM
Good is always a subjective term imo, sometimes I get a bit 'technical'. I do believe they were 4 good seasons, and 3 great ones.

So being great, to the point of being historically great, accomplishing things no other runner in all of NFL history has ever done before or since, isnt good enough to be in the Hall?

/boggle

bronx_2003
08-22-2015, 10:31 AM
Bettis was a good power back and component in a Steelers team that won with D. My problem with him is he was never a top 5 back in any season, he never had to be game-planned for, so how he can be anywhere near the HOF is wrong imo.

Todays example are Seattle. They win with D, have a QB that game manages, and a power running game. The difference is Lynch is 100 times the back that Bettis was.

As far as the TD/Bettis argument goes. If 50 franchises were starting up now and could pick ANY RB in history (in their prime) for their franchise TD would probable be top 10-15. Bettis wouldn't be picked at all.

fallforward3y+
08-22-2015, 08:19 PM
So being great, to the point of being historically great, accomplishing things no other runner in all of NFL history has ever done before or since, isnt good enough to be in the Hall?

/boggle

I've already explained it. Your fixating on what suits your argument, and ignoring what doesn't likely due to the aforementioned homerism.

fallforward3y+
08-22-2015, 08:36 PM
Bettis was a good power back and component in a Steelers team that won with D. My problem with him is he was never a top 5 back in any season, he never had to be game-planned for, so how he can be anywhere near the HOF is wrong imo.

Todays example are Seattle. They win with D, have a QB that game manages, and a power running game. The difference is Lynch is 100 times the back that Bettis was.

As far as the TD/Bettis argument goes. If 50 franchises were starting up now and could pick ANY RB in history (in their prime) for their franchise TD would probable be top 10-15. Bettis wouldn't be picked at all.

Jerome Bettis had 1,665 rushing yards in his best season...Marshawn Lynch has never had that many in one. Bettis's 2nd best season also had more yards than Lynch's 2nd best...and Bettis's 3rd best season also had more yards than Lynch's 3rd best.

I think your '100 times the back he was' thing is pretty exaggerated..I would say he isn't even better than Bettis was in his prime. Sometimes, reputations can be misleading imo.

MH Stampede
08-24-2015, 10:35 PM
I've already explained it. Your fixating on what suits your argument, and ignoring what doesn't likely due to the aforementioned homerism.

Yea, you have tried.

And all you have done is spin in circles. No coherent argument at all.

MH Stampede
08-24-2015, 10:38 PM
Jerome Bettis had 1,665 rushing yards in his best season...Marshawn Lynch has never had that many in one. Bettis's 2nd best season also had more yards than Lynch's 2nd best...and Bettis's 3rd best season also had more yards than Lynch's 3rd best.

I think your '100 times the back he was' thing is pretty exaggerated..I would say he isn't even better than Bettis was in his prime. Sometimes, reputations can be misleading imo.

But again....the only reason he got yards, is because he got a high of number of carries without getting hurt.

It sure as heck wasnt because he had a high average.

Give a guy that fails to get 4+ YPC enough chances, and he'll make 1000+ yards. Jerome is proof of that.

fallforward3y+
08-25-2015, 11:27 PM
Yea, you have tried.

And all you have done is spin in circles. No coherent argument at all.

I repeat the same arguments because imo they apply to most of the things that have been said to refute what I say.

fallforward3y+
08-25-2015, 11:43 PM
But again....the only reason he got yards, is because he got a high of number of carries without getting hurt.

It sure as heck wasnt because he had a high average.

Give a guy that fails to get 4+ YPC enough chances, and he'll make 1000+ yards. Jerome is proof of that.

YPC is tricky. 3.34 is enough to move the chains, 1/3 of 10 yards. Yet, that is a low average by NFL Standards...even though most backs probably don't have a great percentage of times they get 3.34. However, if you do get around that consistently, your probably being pretty effective.

Bettis was more of a 'consistent chunks' type of back it seems, he didn't get as many big runs to help inflate the stats. He also was often used in short yardage I believe, which hurts your average because 2 yards is a long run in those situations.

MH Stampede
08-25-2015, 11:55 PM
YPC is tricky. 3.34 is enough to move the chains, 1/3 of 10 yards. Yet, that is a low average by NFL Standards...even though most backs probably don't have a great percentage of times they get 3.34. However, if you do get around that consistently, your probably being pretty effective.

Bettis was more of a 'consistent chunks' type of back it seems, he didn't get as many big runs to help inflate the stats. He also was often used in short yardage I believe, which hurts your average because 2 yards is a long run in those situations.

Oh come on

Every feature back in the league gets short yardage carries. That is a really really bad excuse.

fallforward3y+
08-26-2015, 12:02 AM
Oh come on

Every feature back in the league gets short yardage carries. That is a really really bad excuse.

That wasn't the only reason I gave, and not every back does. Jacobs got them when Barber was there 05-06, McGahee got them for Rice when he was there I believe. Teams having a 'short yardage specialist' isn't that uncommon.