Is (Insert Player Here) A Hall of Famer?

[KG]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

I don't think it makes sense to ever compare "fringe" players. If he's on the bubble then he has a chance to get in but the odds are still that he doesn't (especially talking about the NFL HOF). Just bc Bettis beat those odds doesn't mean anyone else will. Now if his resume compares to HOF locks, then there'd be a case. Some may argue that your scenario actually puts him above Bettis... don't know that I'd argue against that either. But if he's just knocking on the door, the fact that they opened it for Bettis wouldn't help his case.

How can you not compare fringe players? They're all competing to get in and one getting in def hurts the chances of someone else at the same position getting the nod. We're entering the territory where most of us have actually seen someone's entire career including college so we know these guys in & out and can measure their impact. Marshawn's name doesn't immediately ring out right when I think of HOF running backs but who's to say that with a few more big years (individually & as a team) that it won't.

I agree with 55 in that I rate him higher than Bettis but I understand the politics of the HOF.

[rangerrick012]

Quote: Originally Posted by 55

Bettis was actually below borderline. Nice guy with a cutesy little nickname for all the kiddies, sure. On the field though, hardly above replacement level other than 1-2 solid seasons. He just benefitted by playing on a team with a run first philosophy for a long time and was extremely lucky with injuries.

You're marginalizing Bettis quite a bit with this assessment. Saying he was extremely lucky with injuries - I thought that was called durability?

4th most carries of all time, 8 seasons of 1000+ yds, 4 seasons of 1300+ yards, 9 seasons of 7+ TDs. And its not like Mike Tomczak, Kordell, or Tommy Maddox were putting that much fear into teams by passing the ball.

[55]

Quote: Originally Posted by rangerrick012

You're marginalizing Bettis quite a bit with this assessment. Saying he was extremely lucky with injuries - I thought that was called durability? 4th most carries of all time, 8 seasons of 1000+ yds, 4 seasons of 1300+ yards, 9 seasons of 7+ TDs. And its not like Mike Tomczak, Kordell, or Tommy Maddox were putting that much fear into teams by passing the ball.

1997 was his one and only "great" year. That's it.

He also failed to average 4 yards per carry in 7 of his last 8 seasons and in 9 of his entire 13. His career yards per carry is also under 4 which is mediocre as hell. He was also a pretty lousy receiver out of the backfield and he left a lot to be desired in pass protection for a guy his size. He was just an accumulator who stayed healthy until his last few years. Nothing more, nothing less.

[rangerrick012]

Quote: Originally Posted by 55

1997 was his one and only "great" year. That's it. He also failed to average 4 yards per carry in 7 of his last 8 seasons and in 9 of his entire 13. His career yards per carry is also under 4 which is mediocre as hell. He was also a pretty lousy receiver out of the backfield and he left a lot to be desired in pass protection for a guy his size. He was just an accumulator who stayed healthy until his last few years. Nothing more, nothing less.

His career ypc went down bc of his later years when he was primary a goal line back.

1993 - 1429 yds, 7 TDs, 4.9 ypc
1996 - 1431 yds, 11 TDs, 4.5 ypc
1997 - 1665 yds, 7 TDs, 4.4 ypc
2000 - 1341 yds, 8 TDs, 3.8 ypc

I'd call all of those good to great years.

But I'm not really big on stats when it comes to HOF. When I watched Bettis, the way he played, he looked like one of the best and WAS one of the best RB of his era. Again you try to discredit his numbers by calling him an accumulator. So instead of 'durable' he was 'lucky with injuries' and instead of longevity he was an 'accumulator'.

As if he was putting up worthless numbers on losing teams. He was a workhorse back on a team where for most parts he had to be THE guy on offense...it's not like that team was winning because of Kordell or any of the receivers they had (before Hines Ward and Plax came around).

[redsox4evur]

Quote: Originally Posted by 55

He was also a pretty lousy receiver out of the backfield and he left a lot to be desired in pass protection for a guy his size. He was just an accumulator who stayed healthy until his last few years. Nothing more, nothing less.

During his time there weren't really that many guys who were catching the ball out of the backfield. The only one I can think of is Marshall Faulk. There were more power running backs during his time then guys who catching the ball. It was when Bettis started to get older that the receiving back started to become popular. Also his receiving stats are comparable to Barry Sanders and Emmitt Smith. Who each played around the same time as him. Bettis was around 200 yards per season. And Sanders and Smith had like 300-350 per season receiving.

[bkrich83]

Looking at Bettis was he really outstanding compared to his peers? I'd say no. Good back but never really considered great. Good career but I don't see the justification to vote him in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by 55

Bettis was actually below borderline. Nice guy with a cutesy little nickname for all the kiddies, sure. On the field though, hardly above replacement level other than 1-2 solid seasons. He just benefitted by playing on a team with a run first philosophy for a long time and was extremely lucky with injuries.

I won't argue whether or not Bettis should or shouldn't be in the HOF bc the fact is he IS in, and that alone puts him at worse on the "fringe" level (if he were below he'd be out).

Quote: Originally Posted by KG

How can you not compare fringe players? They're all competing to get in and one getting in def hurts the chances of someone else at the same position getting the nod. We're entering the territory where most of us have actually seen someone's entire career including college so we know these guys in & out and can measure their impact. Marshawn's name doesn't immediately ring out right when I think of HOF running backs but who's to say that with a few more big years (individually & as a team) that it won't. I agree with 55 in that I rate him higher than Bettis but I understand the politics of the HOF.

You're misreading my point as it applies to this discussion. What I'm saying is Bettis is a fringe player who is in the HOF. But just bc he's in it doesn't mean another player with similar stats to his should also get in. The fact that he was on the fringe means he could just as easily be out. If we're evaluating a player to see if they should be in the HOF we should be comparing their careers to players that are no doubt HOFers.

What you're describing is comparing two players who are both on the fringe of getting in, rather than comparing one who may be on the fringe of getting in to one who is already in... hope that makes more sense.

[KG]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

You're misreading my point as it applies to this discussion. What I'm saying is Bettis is a fringe player who is in the HOF. But just bc he's in it doesn't mean another player with similar stats to his should also get in. The fact that he was on the fringe means he could just as easily be out. If we're evaluating a player to see if they should be in the HOF we should be comparing their careers to players that are no doubt HOFers. What you're describing is comparing two players who are both on the fringe of getting in, rather than comparing one who may be on the fringe of getting in to one who is already in... hope that makes more sense.

If you are in you're no longer fringe no matter how many years you had to wait. You become the standard by which others are measured. That's where I disagree. In my opinion there are no fringe enshrined HOF'ers.

It's not to discredit current HOF'ers (although we/I sort of am with Bettis) but to see how those up for vote compare as well as stack up against their competitors (those also up for vote).