Now that it is all over...

[Donutrun Jellies]

He'll get in, just like Emmitt, because he hung around long enough to pad his stats.

 

1311768[/snapback]

 

 

 

Hmmmmm. Interesting. ESmith might have earned it for me even without padding, I'll have to think on that one. My beloved Lynn Swann? He made some Hall of Fame catches -- but did he have a Hall of Fame career? Can we just put five or six catches in the Hall??

 

You see, I'm a pretty hardliner on HOF -- the "what a spectacular play/game/year" or the "good for a long time" doesn't do it for me. That's what has weakened baseball's "Hall of Very Good".

 

I'd prefer three dominant years as "admittedly one of the best at his position", one monster year as clearly best at his position, and then some longevity stirred in. Certainly, there are ways around this equation, but this is what gets my first ballot vote. Bettis has class, was a great back, and is an entertainer. I'm not sure he was actually dominant long enough to be considered a HOFer. Simple sustained "good playerness" itself doesn't get my vote.

[tonorator]

he should get in, and it doesn't matter that he's gay.

[Dragon]

He never had what you would really call a stand out season. 

 

1311780[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

1993, 1996, 1997, and 2000 weren't too shabby.

[Skrappy1]

You see, I'm a pretty hardliner on HOF -- the "what a spectacular play/game/year" or the "good for a long time" doesn't do it for me. 

 

I'd prefer three dominant years as "admittedly one of the best at his position", one monster year as clearly best at his position, and then some longevity stirred in.  Certainly, there are ways around this equation, but this is what gets my first ballot vote.  Bettis has class, was a great back, and is an entertainer.  I'm not sure he was actually dominant long enough to be considered a HOFer.  Simple sustained "good playerness" itself doesn't get my vote.

 

1311799[/snapback]

 

 

 

Well said.

 

Interestingly, I just turned on WFAN, and they just started talking about this very subject. They are going over his numbers as we speak.

Edited February 7, 2006 by Skrappy1

[Dragon]

Well said.

 

Interestingly, I just turned on WFAN, and they just started talking about this very subject. They are going over his numbers as we speak.

 

1311814[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I originally posted this - In his first 9 years, he was a beast. That's right, NINE years. He must have averaged over 1200 yds per season, and averaged close to 300 attempts per season. He was at or over 4.0 yds per carry. Now, I am not disputing that his last few seasons were a shell of his former self, but put it all together and the Bus probably should be a first ballot entree. And, no, I'm not a "homer". I'm also not going to let the emotion of the last few days taint the facts.

[mggoilers]

I think I'd rather have Terrell Davis in the HOF. He at least dominated the game for 3-4 years, and was one of the best backs in the game. he has 2 rings.

Priest Holmes dominated the game for 2-3 years also...The Sandy Koufax Argument.

 

Marshall Faulk is a better back also.

 

Bettis isn't even in my top 10 in the modern era. He was very limited and was basically a 2 down back for most of his career.

 

Great guy.

He is a questionable Pro Football HOFer, hey he's already in the bowling hall of fame. The Pro Hall is a popularity contest, so he attitude throughout his career will serve him well.

 

If Faulk retires, he'll be the 2nd best back on the stage that day.

[Skrappy1]

Interestingly, I just turned on WFAN, and they just started talking about this very subject. They are going over his numbers as we speak.

 

1311814[/snapback]

 

 

 

Mike and Dog agreed with the majority in here...YES, he will get in, but they do not consider him a HOFer and would not vote for him. They actually made a case that Ottis Anderson could be more worthy than Bettis (I don't think I'd agree, but they at least showed the case could be made).

 

I think I'd rather have Terrell Davis in the HOF.  He at least dominated the game for 3-4 years, and was one of the best backs in the game.  he has 2 rings.

Priest Holmes dominated the game for 2-3 years also...The Sandy Koufax Argument. 

 

Marshall Faulk is a better back also.

 

Bettis isn't even in my top 10 in the modern era.  He was very limited and was basically a 2 down back for most of his career.

 

Great guy.

He is a questionable Pro Football HOFer, hey he's already in the bowling hall of fame.  The Pro Hall is a popularity contest, so he attitude throughout his career will serve him well.

 

If Faulk retires, he'll be the 2nd best back on the stage that day.

 

1311833[/snapback]

 

 

 

Davis and Koufax is an excellent comparison.

Edited February 7, 2006 by Skrappy1

[mggoilers]

Those guys are nuts. Ottis was a brittle back, who had some good years. See him like a Fred Taylor with Taylor having more ability.

 

If Taylor had TD's and stayed healthy, he would be in the discussion too when he retired.

[Skrappy1]

Hmmmmm.  Interesting.  ESmith might have earned it for me even without padding, I'll have to think on that one. 

1311799[/snapback]

 

 

 

Again, I don't think there's any question whatsoever that Emmitt was HOF worthy. His early numbers are fantastic, and he did win 3 Super Bowls. While I don't think Super Bowl wins should be a deciding HOF factor on a player - too many team factors outside his control affect that - they should give that player an extra something if he is a borderline HOFer...but Emmitt is a no-brainer.

 

Pro Football Reference.com has an interesting feature in that it shows each player's years and places amongst the top 10 in the NFL at his position. I think this tells a lot about exactly how good a player was relative to his peers, and for how long a period of time.

 

Below are Emmitt's:

Seasons among the league's top 10

 

Rushing yards: 1990-10, 1991-1, 1992-1, 1993-1, 1994-3, 1995-1, 1996-8, 1998-5, 1999-4

Rushing TDs: 1990-5t, 1991-2, 1992-1, 1993-3t, 1994-1, 1995-1, 1996-5, 1998-4, 1999-4, 2000-10t

Yards from scrimmage: 1991-3, 1992-2, 1993-1, 1994-3, 1995-1, 1996-9, 1998-10

Rush/Receive TDs: 1990-9t, 1991-3, 1992-1, 1993-6t, 1994-1, 1995-1, 1996-3t, 1998-5t, 1999-3t

 

And here are Bettis':

Seasons among the league's top 10

 

Rushing yards: 1993-2, 1994-9, 1996-3, 1997-3, 2000-9

Rushing TDs: 1993-9t, 1996-6t, 2004-4t, 2005-10t

Yards from scrimmage: 1993-3, 1996-4, 1997-4

Rush/Receive TDs: 1996-9t, 2004-10t

 

And then for PopeFlick, here are Curtis Martin's:

Seasons among the league's top 10

 

Rushing yards: 1995-3, 1996-9, 1997-8, 1998-8, 1999-2, 2001-2, 2004-1

Rushing TDs: 1995-3, 1996-2, 1998-8t, 2000-10t, 2001-4t, 2004-8t

Yards from scrimmage: 1995-5, 1996-8, 1997-10, 1998-6, 1999-5, 2000-9, 2001-4, 2004-3

Rush/Receive TDs: 1995-6, 1996-2, 2001-10t, 2004-7t

Edited February 7, 2006 by Skrappy1

[Doc Holliday]

As has been said , there is alot of players that are not in that deserve it more than Bettis, but at the same time there is alot of players in the HOF that don't deserve to be in as much as Bettis.

 

As was said the football HOF is a joke. until they figure out how to give offensive lineman some kind of stat there will contunue to be loads of 0 lineman that should in there ahead of Bettis and many many more.

 

The fact that Lynn Swann is in the HOF is the biggest joke IMO of the whole deal.he was a average WR that got in because of 1 or 2 catches out of all of them. I think he averaged like 35 catches a season. I understand that offenses were not as explosive back then but even back then 35 catches per season would not get you in the hall.

 

Bettis was a great back who did what good RB's do, take the yards that the defense gives you without having lots of carries where you lose yards. but IMO if I was going to revote the HOF bettis would probably not make it because of his lack of break away speed.

[McNasty]

Emmitt is overrated. If it hadn't been for that Offensive line, which I could have run for 2,00 yds behind, he wouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as Rod Smart.

[Doc Holliday]

Emmitt is overrated. If it hadn't been for that Offensive line, which I could have run for 2,00 yds behind, he wouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as Rod Smart.

 

1312026[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Emmit definately benefitted from a great line. But to me he is the definition of hall of famer. He holds records, he had longetivity, great team player, smart player, playoff records, rings. He may have been overrated, but only if you call him the best ever, you don't have to be the best ever, you just have to be great...and Emmit was.

[mggoilers]

Emmitt is overrated. If it hadn't been for that Offensive line, which I could have run for 2,00 yds behind, he wouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as Rod Smart.

 

1312026[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Are you high? The O-line was very solid, but how many potential HOFer's on that line? One, Larry Allen who showed up in the middle of Emmitt's run. Who has been a bit overrated over the last 4-5 years.

 

Those Cowboy teams were loved by the media due to the outspoken behavior of the entire team. They have been covered by the media more than any team in recent memory. There were no clamps put on those teams. You could get quotes from the Owner on down. They got lots of attention. Your perception is tainted.

 

Consistency is what made Emmitt great. He showed up every week. He ran for 100 yards, they won. He played, he played hurt, and he played in big games.

 

I'm a Cowboy fan, but I'm not crazy about Emmitt. There is no denying his greatness. Credit his defense, they made plays to get the ball back for that offense. Blame Irvin for falling down within the 5 yard line giving Emmitt easy TD's. Give Johnston some credit. He played on some great teams, and he was the arguably the best player on every one of those teams.

 

Emmitt was productive at every level, but he is the Tim Hardaway of broadcasting.

Edited February 7, 2006 by mggoilers

[NinersIn2006!]

He is defintely in...maybe not the first ballot, but he is 100% defintely a hall of famer...

[McNasty]

sorry guys, just having a little fun.

 

Since it's the start of the offseason, I was trying to see if I could get the Emmitt vs Barry debate going again. Being a Philly fan, I wouldn't piss on Emmitt if he were on fire, but I wouldn't seriously argue that he didn't deserve to be in the HOF, even if he is a no-class bum that hung around way past his prime just to collect his individual titles, and to have more souvenir balls to sell in a mini-mall for $500 a pop.

 

Bettis probably will get in, and even though I like him, I don't know if I really feel he deserves it.

[Skrappy1]

I was trying to see if I could get the Emmitt vs Barry debate going again.

1312241[/snapback]

 

 

 

That's no debate at all, we all know Barry was better.

[Furd]

I pulled this from another thread:

 

You can't deny him with those numbers. But if you look at them a bit, you can't avoid the "longevity" stigma.

 

He's been in the league for 13 years. He's only been in the top 10 in rushing yards 5 times (2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 9th, 9th). You'll note that only 3 of these iare in the top 5.

 

He's been in the top 10 in rushing TDs four times (9th, 6th, 4th, 10th). You'll note that only 1 of these is in the top 5.

 

And his playoff numbers have been pretty pedestrian:

 

 

1996  ind  W,42-14  |   25   102   2  |    1     4   01996  nwe  L,3-28   |   13    43   0  |    2    -1   01997  nwe  W,7-6    |   25    67   0  |    1     7   01997  den  L,21-24  |   23   105   1  |    1     3   02001  nwe  L,17-24  |    9     8   1  |    0     0   02002  cle  W,36-33  |    1    -2   0  |    0     0   02002  ten  L,31-34  |    3     6   0  |    0     0   02004  nyj  W,20-17  |   27   101   1  |    1    21   02004  nwe  L,27-41  |   17    64   1  |    0     0   02005  cin  W,31-17  |   10    52   1  |    0     0   02005  ind  W,21-18  |   17    46   1  |    0     0   02005  den  W,34-17  |   15    39   1  |    0     0   0

 

 

You can now throw in the Superbowl, in which he did nothing meaningful and was the 3rd best RB in the game. (Why this should have any effect on the HOF voting is beyond me.)

 

He had a couple really good years early in his career, his last few years have been poor, and he was consistently good for a pretty long stretch in the middle.

 

So, as far as HOF inductees go, I think that he is pretty lackluster.

[Chavez]

Those guys are nuts.  Ottis was a brittle back, who had some good years.

 

1311898[/snapback]

 

 

 

Played in 86 out of a possible 89 games his first 6 years, toting the rock at about a 20 carry per game/300 carry per year pace (accounting for the 9 game strike season in 82), not to mention his 266 catches (average of about 50 per year). Average was a tidy 85 ypg and he was over 4 ypc all 6 years.

 

His top ten stats:

 

Rushing yards: 1979-3, 1980-3, 1981-5t, 1983-8, 1984-9

Rushing TDs: 1980-6t, 1989-2t, 1990-5t

Yards from scrimmage: 1979-3, 1980-5, 1981-6, 1983-5, 1984-5

 

Yeah, he was as durable as tissue paper. Obviously, he had some difficulties from 85-87, but starting in '88 (only 200 yds but 8 tds as a goal-line back), he resurrected his career quite nicely - in 89-90 he produced 1800 rushing yds and 25 tds with one 1000 yd season in which he carried Super Bowl winning offense on his back. Oh yeah, if he's marginal that Super Bowl MVP trophy on the mantle looks nice as well.

 

I think he's at worst a bubble candidate; I'd probably vote him in on the basis that his early career dominance was missed because he played for the woeful Cards and his late-career rennaisance was highly inspiring.

[Chavez]

Are you high?  The O-line was very solid, but how many potential HOFer's on that line?  One, Larry Allen who showed up in the middle of Emmitt's run.

 

1312087[/snapback]

 

 

 

Erm, Erik Williams, Stepnoski, Tuinei, Newton, and Gogan were all at least Pro Bowl level players; at least 3 of them damaged their HoF candidacy with off-field issues.

[Chavez]

nope, he's played forever.  Longevity is great, but he never led the league in rushing. 

 

In 6 of his 13 years, he DID NOT break 1000 yards!!!!

He only had double digit TD's in 2 seasons!!!!

 

A solid pro and college player, but not a HOF.

 

 

1311765[/snapback]

 

 

 

As far as Bettis, I'd say he is to RBs as Dan Reeves is to coaches and Art Monk is to WRs.

 

And I think at least one of the other two not being in is CRIMINAL.

[mggoilers]

Erm, Erik Williams, Stepnoski, Tuinei, Newton, and Gogan were all at least Pro Bowl level players; at least 3 of them damaged their HoF candidacy with off-field issues.

 

1312589[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Making the Pro Bowl is quite the accomplishment. I think Flozell Adams made 2, and Larry Allen keeps making them.

 

Crap, even Mike Vick has made a team. I'm not diminishing the Cowboys, they had solid O-lines and Moose was a stud lead blocker. Emmitt had ability.

 

The strength of those early 90's SB team was the defense.

 

Saying that and getting back on subject.

 

Bettis will get into the hall of fame, is he worthy? He played nice with the media, and will be one of them soon. I don't believe Monk belongs in the Hall of Fame. He was solid, but Sterling Sharpe was more dominant during his stretch. 5 Pro Bowls in 7 years, 1100 yards in 5 of his 7 seasons...Sandy Koufax rule.

 

Monk played a long time, but only had 5 1,000 yard seasons in 16 seasons. Only 3 Pro Bowls. In 16 seasons, he was only a top 4 WR in his conference 3 TIMES.

[Pope Flick]

See this is one of the problems here...you try and have a civilized discussion and people start screaming that people are hating/bagging on people, blah, blah, blah. I haven't seen anyone yet "hate" on Bettis, or say, man Bettis SUCKED. He was no doubt a very solid player for a long time, and may be a great guy. That shouldn't necessarily get him enshrined in the Hall though.

 

FWIW, I think Martin has been a better player than Bettis, and he should get in. His overall numbers are better than Bettis' while playing in 24 less games. He is one of 2 players (Barry Sanders being the other) with over 1,000 yards rushing in his first 10 seasons. He's been an excellent receiving back, and he has won a rushing title. Again, not to slight Bettis, but Curtis has been a better player.

 

1311794[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

I am being civilized, and put down several reasons for him to be inducted. Notably, that he's #5 ALL TIME on the rushing list. If that doesn't constitute a "lock" of a spot due to a grand chievement through his performance, then what else do you want?

 

I've read the "I'm a hardliner" opinions, and although they are valid, they also seem a bit extreme. Achievement through longevity is a legitimate way into the hall, along with brief dominance a la Gale Sayers. There is certainly more than one road into the hall, but they are all of the "best of their time" variety. Bettis has been one of the best backs of the last 20 years, since Payton retired.

 

Bettis is a first ballot-type player. Unless they pull a Monk at him, and don't even get me started on that - I hate defending Redskins.

[Piranha]

He'll get in.

[Chavez]

I don't believe Monk belongs in the Hall of Fame.  He was solid, but Sterling Sharpe was more dominant  during his stretch.  5 Pro Bowls in 7 years, 1100 yards in 5 of his 7 seasons...Sandy Koufax rule.

 

Monk played a long time, but only had 5 1,000 yard seasons in 16 seasons.  Only 3 Pro Bowls.  In 16 seasons, he was only a top 4 WR in his conference 3 TIMES.

 

1312728[/snapback]

 

 

 

I figured everyone would assume I was saying Monk not being in was the travesty when I was actually talking about Reeves.

 

But nonetheless, I agree with you in principle on Monk (there were several years where he wasn't even the best WR on his TEAM - but I think anyone who retires as the all-time receptions leader was obviously good enough for long enough to justify inclusion) and 100% on Sterling Sharpe - the guy was 2nd only to Rice when you compare apples-to-apples from 89-94 - as you can see here.

[jgcoach]

He'll get in, just like Emmitt, because he hung around long enough to pad his stats.

 

1311768[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Emmitt didn't get in on longevity. He had a great career.