Bettis? Say what? [Archive]

topscribe

09-23-2007, 12:56 PM

Poet

09-23-2007, 01:03 PM

I just heard the beginning of an interview with Jerome Bettis on "American
Athlete." The interviewer began, "Jerome, you are one of the greatest running
backs of all time . . . "

Bettis? G.O.A.T.? He did a good job for the Steelers, but G.O.A.T.? :confused:

What do you think?

-----

The man has a lot of yards, and the man was a monster. I think that he could fall into that category, but I think he would be a "lesser" G.O.A.T if that makes sense. When I think of a G.O.A.T. I think of Jim Brown and Sayers, Sanders and those guys. I don't think Bettis should be penalized by his style of play, I mean it was extremely effective, but I don't know if he is well rounded enough to be a true G.O.A.T.

Chidoze

09-23-2007, 01:18 PM

He's not the GOAT, that goes to Sanders or Payton.

But he was a damn good running back and should be considered as one of the best. :salute:

Simple Jaded

09-23-2007, 01:29 PM

OMG!.....Haven't you seen him get up and dance after every single one yard gain?

That's a G.O.A.T if I've ever seen one.

Sarcasm, btw....

Tned

09-23-2007, 01:46 PM

Poet

09-23-2007, 02:02 PM

A very good back, but not one of the greatest back of all time.

I believe he is ranked fifth on the all time rushing list. I mean he is in the top five, does that not by default make him one of greatest backs of all time? I am not trying to be argumentative, but he was one of the most dominating backs ever. He was going up the gut and you where not going to stop him. I mean he was damn near impossible to stop on short yardage situations. He literally was the ultimate back for the playaction pass because you could hand him the ball so much that you had to respect the run first and foremost. He may not be the flashiest running backs ever, but I think if you are a top five or top ten back you are one of the all time greats, and I do not think that you can really name five better backs. Jim Brown (in my opinion the best ever, certainly many other backs have claim to that title) Walter Payton (spelling?), Barry Sanders, Emmit Smith and then in my opinion Bettis. I know guys like Dickerson and Marshall Faulk could very well be in that list, but the man got a lot of yards, and is in the top five of all time yards, can you really have that many yards and not be one of the all time greats?

Simple Jaded

09-23-2007, 02:34 PM

I believe he is ranked fifth on the all time rushing list. I mean he is in the top five, does that not by default make him one of greatest backs of all time? I am not trying to be argumentative, but he was one of the most dominating backs ever. He was going up the gut and you where not going to stop him. I mean he was damn near impossible to stop on short yardage situations. He literally was the ultimate back for the playaction pass because you could hand him the ball so much that you had to respect the run first and foremost. He may not be the flashiest running backs ever, but I think if you are a top five or top ten back you are one of the all time greats, and I do not think that you can really name five better backs. Jim Brown (in my opinion the best ever, certainly many other backs have claim to that title) Walter Payton (spelling?), Barry Sanders, Emmit Smith and then in my opinion Bettis. I know guys like Dickerson and Marshall Faulk could very well be in that list, but the man got a lot of yards, and is in the top five of all time yards, can you really have that many yards and not be one of the all time greats?

All you need is longevity:

Put it this way: If Jim Brown is someday out of the 10 in rushing yards, would you still consider him the best ever?

Point being, just because Bettis is up there on the list doesn't mean he's better than some of the players below him.

To be considered a G.O.A.T, imo, you at least have to be considered the best back in the league at some point in your career....I don't think he's ever been the best at any point in his career.

Case in point: Curtis Martin....

Slick

09-23-2007, 08:37 PM

topscribe

09-23-2007, 09:30 PM

I think Jerome was a heck of a back. GOAT. No. Top 5, maybe.

From what I've seen of Jim Brown, I'd say he was.

Barry Sanders and Sweetness deserve to be in the discussion.

In no particular order . . .

Jim Brown
Gayle Sayers
Walter Payton
Barry Sanders
O.J. Simpson (unfortunately)
Emmit Smith
Terrell Davis
Floyd Little
LaDanian Tomlinson
Earl Campbell
Larry Csonka
Tony Dorsett
Marcus Allen
Eric Di¢kerson
John Riggins

. . . to name a few.

No, I don't think Bettis is number 5. :coffee:

-----

Slick

09-23-2007, 09:59 PM

Poet

09-26-2007, 12:09 AM

All you need is longevity:

Put it this way: If Jim Brown is someday out of the 10 in rushing yards, would you still consider him the best ever?

Point being, just because Bettis is up there on the list doesn't mean he's better than some of the players below him.

To be considered a G.O.A.T, imo, you at least have to be considered the best back in the league at some point in your career....I don't think he's ever been the best at any point in his career.

Case in point: Curtis Martin....

I say this respectfully, if I come across as being abrasive or a jerk I apologize, I am more of a smack talk type of guy.

Could it be that we are disrespecting longevity then? I mean being RB for that long takes something more then just working out a lot or being "tough", I think it takes heart. And a lot of heart too. And maybe at one point in time Bettis was the best back in football, he certainly the one Steeler that you HAD to stop, and most teams could not. It says a lot to me when you are a one dimensional back (unless you count blocking, some do and some do not) and you can not be stopped. The Steelers lined up Jerome Bettis and you knew what they where going to do, and most of the time you couldn't do anything about it. When you stack the box and you penetrate the line of scrimmage and the RB still picks up 4 yards that is domination in my eyes. And Bettis was a great back to win with, not a great back to have in my opinion. Reggie Bush is highly talented player, but do you think that you could really win a SB with him as your featured back? Bettis is the perfect back for any team that wants to grind out a game and milk the clock for what it is worth. And that is a good way to win Sb games. I know that I may be a younger football fan and that I have not seen as many great backs as a lot of you have, but I think he is a top five back. I could very well be wrong, but I think there is a strong case to be made for Bettis.

Poet

09-26-2007, 12:15 AM

In no particular order . . .

Jim Brown
Gayle Sayers
Walter Payton
Barry Sanders
O.J. Simpson (unfortunately)
Emmit Smith
Terrell Davis
Floyd Little
LaDanian Tomlinson
Earl Campbell
Larry Csonka
Tony Dorsett
Marcus Allen
Eric Di¢kerson
John Riggins

. . . to name a few.

No, I don't think Bettis is number 5. :coffee:

-----

Csonka? Csonka was a FB was he not, and Csonka was a worse version of Jerome Bettis.

Gale Sayers is all potential. When you actually look up what he did the legend of Gale Sayers kind of just dies.

Terrel Davis? I hate to call anyone a homer, but come on. It takes more then THREE great years to be better then Jerome Bettis. Was he a great talent, sure but that is a huge stretch.

topscribe

09-26-2007, 02:02 AM

Csonka? Csonka was a FB was he not, and Csonka was a worse version of Jerome Bettis.

Gale Sayers is all potential. When you actually look up what he did the legend of Gale Sayers kind of just dies.

Terrel Davis? I hate to call anyone a homer, but come on. It takes more then THREE great years to be better then Jerome Bettis. Was he a great talent, sure but that is a huge stretch.
So you remember Csonka and Sayers, do you? Or do you? I have seen every
major running back since Jim Taylor and Jim Brown. Have you?

And yes, I would take Terrell Davis in his prime before Bettis in a heartbeat.
And it would not be a good idea to call me a homer. Unless you can say that
alllllllllllllllllllll of the running backs I listed were Broncos.

:tsk:

-----

Poet

09-26-2007, 11:48 AM

So you remember Csonka and Sayers, do you? Or do you? I have seen every
major running back since Jim Taylor and Jim Brown. Have you?

And yes, I would take Terrell Davis in his prime before Bettis in a heartbeat.
And it would not be a good idea to call me a homer. Unless you can say that
alllllllllllllllllllll of the running backs I listed were Broncos.

:tsk:

-----

Terrell Davis had three great years. The hall of fame inducts players for a hall of fame career. Three great years does not make you one of the best running backs of all time. Comparing Terrell Davis to Jerome Bettis is an insult to Jerome Bettis. That would be like me comparing Carson Palmer to John Elway.

You also had Floyd Little above Jerome Bettis? Little has how many less yards then Jerome Bettis? Jerome Bettis had great longevity, Floyd little had......oh he was a Bronco, thats right. If you combine the yardage of Davis and Little then you equal Jerome Bettis.

Mike

09-26-2007, 11:59 AM

Terrell Davis had three great years. The hall of fame inducts players for a hall of fame career. Three great years does not make you one of the best running backs of all time. Comparing Terrell Davis to Jerome Bettis is an insult to Jerome Bettis. That would be like me comparing Carson Palmer to John Elway.

You also had Floyd Little above Jerome Bettis? Little has how many less yards then Jerome Bettis? Jerome Bettis had great longevity, Floyd little had......oh he was a Bronco, thats right. If you combine the yardage of Davis and Little then you equal Jerome Bettis.

Gayle Sayers says you don't know what you are talking about.

TD was head and shoulders above Bettis. Ask any knowledgable fan (that eliminates Chiefs/Raider fans :D) who they would take in their prime and I bet 90% would take Davis. No, comparing Bettis to Davis is an insult to Davis. He was that good.

Bettis was a good back. But his yardage is so high because of the length of his career.

Bettis 13 seasons 3479 att / 13662 yds / 3.9avg / 91 td - 200 rec. 1449 yds 3tds

Davis 8 seasons 1655 att / 7607 yds / 4.6 avg / 60 td - 169 rec 1280 yds 5 tds 4 seasons hurt

In roughly 5 total season, Davis halved Bettis' numbers in yards and almost caught him in tds.

Poet

09-26-2007, 12:12 PM

Gayle Sayers says you don't know what you are talking about.

TD was head and shoulders about Bettis. Ask any knowledgable fan (that eliminates Chiefs/Raider fans) who they would take in their prime and I bet 90% would take Davis. No, comparing Bettis to Davis is an insult to Davis. He was that good.

People tout the abilities of Gale Sayers because of what he could have done, not what he actually did. What he DID do was three thousand yard seasons, what he COULD have done. Once again when your prime only lasts three years you do not have longevity. If someone is going to say that a RB is better then then a RB that has almost TWICE as many yards as they do they better have been a force in the league for more then three or four years. And that's what the career of Terrell Davis was, three or four good years. So Priest Holmes is better then Jerome Bettis right? Seriously, it does not matter how good you where for a short period of time in your career, it does not matter what you COULD have done, it matters what you DID.

topscribe

09-26-2007, 12:41 PM

People tout the abilities of Gale Sayers because of what he could have done, not what he actually did. What he DID do was three thousand yard seasons, what he COULD have done. Once again when your prime only lasts three years you do not have longevity. If someone is going to say that a RB is better then then a RB that has almost TWICE as many yards as they do they better have been a force in the league for more then three or four years. And that's what the career of Terrell Davis was, three or four good years. So Priest Holmes is better then Jerome Bettis right? Seriously, it does not matter how good you where for a short period of time in your career, it does not matter what you COULD have done, it matters what you DID.

How good a RB is, as with any position, is how well they perform on the field.
I watched virtually all of them on the field. Bettis was nowhere near Sayers,
Brown, Sanders, Davis, Payton, Dorsett, or Campbell, among others, as a
RB. He was comparable to Csconka, Riggins, Taylor, et al. That is still
mighty good, but he has to be categorized where he belongs . . . a very
fine back in the annals of football history, but not among the handful of
elite.

IMHO.

-----

Poet

09-26-2007, 12:55 PM

How good a RB is, as with any position, is how well they perform on the field.
I watched virtually all of them on the field. Bettis was nowhere near Sayers,
Brown, Sanders, Davis, Payton, Dorsett, or Campbell, among others, as a
RB. He was comparable to Csconka, Riggins, Taylor, et al. That is still
mighty good, but he has to be categorized where he belongs . . . a very
fine back in the annals of football history, but not among the handful of
elite.

IMHO.

-----

I think that you and I value things differently. To me longevity is one of the biggest things ever. I would rather have a guy who puts up good numbers for a long time then I go who puts up great numbers for a short time. That brings stability to the organization, I have that player to always fall back on. What Terrell Davis was sick, he had one of the best years ever followed by dominant years, but at the same point in time after that he just kind of was gone. My problem with Gale Sayers is that he was a great talent, but he did not put up great numbers. It is my assertion that what you could have done is irrelevant, because then would Bo Jackson not be one of the all time greats? He had just as much talent and god given ability as any back who ever played stepped on the football field. As far as Sanders goes, I know he was great, you don't put up THOSE numbers if you are great, but I want a back who can bang it in the middle. Lord knows that with a better line he would have the all time record even with his shorter career. If I had to start a team at RB I would want first and foremost Jim Brown. It is my belief that he is the best of all time. After that I would want Walter Payton and then Jerome Bettis. A lot of guys have flashier numbers then he does, but very few players in the history of the NFL dominated like he did. The Bus didn't run outside, he was going in almost the exact same place every time, and if you could stop him you would beat the Steelers. The problem was that very few teams could stop Bettis. Bettis is a top five back in my opinion, but to be fair it is just an opinion. I can't prove you wrong, and you cannot prove me wrong. With so many factors and different eras and rules it is just preference over which back you like. Barry Sanders has a case for it for sure, but at the same point in time so does Jim Brown. I guess it is discussions like these that let you go back and look at all the all time greats and just remember how great they where.

topscribe

09-26-2007, 01:27 PM

I think that you and I value things differently. To me longevity is one of the biggest things ever. I would rather have a guy who puts up good numbers for a long time then I go who puts up great numbers for a short time. That brings stability to the organization, I have that player to always fall back on. What Terrell Davis was sick, he had one of the best years ever followed by dominant years, but at the same point in time after that he just kind of was gone. My problem with Gale Sayers is that he was a great talent, but he did not put up great numbers. It is my assertion that what you could have done is irrelevant, because then would Bo Jackson not be one of the all time greats? He had just as much talent and god given ability as any back who ever played stepped on the football field. As far as Sanders goes, I know he was great, you don't put up THOSE numbers if you are great, but I want a back who can bang it in the middle. Lord knows that with a better line he would have the all time record even with his shorter career. If I had to start a team at RB I would want first and foremost Jim Brown. It is my belief that he is the best of all time. After that I would want Walter Payton and then Jerome Bettis. A lot of guys have flashier numbers then he does, but very few players in the history of the NFL dominated like he did. The Bus didn't run outside, he was going in almost the exact same place every time, and if you could stop him you would beat the Steelers. The problem was that very few teams could stop Bettis. Bettis is a top five back in my opinion, but to be fair it is just an opinion. I can't prove you wrong, and you cannot prove me wrong. With so many factors and different eras and rules it is just preference over which back you like. Barry Sanders has a case for it for sure, but at the same point in time so does Jim Brown. I guess it is discussions like these that let you go back and look at all the all time greats and just remember how great they where.

You make some good points. However, I believe you are arguing as to who
had the most successful career with his team, whereas I am arguing as to
who was the the best performer on the field. There is a difference.

This is why, although they are a factor, numbers do not necessarily
comprise a major factor in such an evaluation. Sayers did not put up as
good of numbers because he did not have the supporting cast: He played
on a pathetic team. Floyd Little, incidentally, is an other example of that:
an elite back by talent who was brought down by the worst offensive line
I have ever witnessed.

I am going by what I have observed. When I watched the Steelers play, I
was impressed by how the Steelers moved the ball. I do not recall singling
Bettis out in my mind very often as to what he was doing. It was always
the Steelers offense as a whole. I do remember being impressed by the
gaping holes that OL habitually created.

Sayers, on the other hand, constantly caught my eye, individually, as to
what he was doing. You could have used my mouth as a garage as I
watched him do his thing. Same with Brown, Little, Sanders, Simpson, et al.

Sorry, but I still have to place Bettis as among the best of the very good,
but not in the elite. He was the beneficiary of a superb supporting cast.

-----

Poet

09-27-2007, 04:24 PM

You make some good points. However, I believe you are arguing as to who
had the most successful career with his team, whereas I am arguing as to
who was the the best performer on the field. There is a difference.

This is why, although they are a factor, numbers do not necessarily
comprise a major factor in such an evaluation. Sayers did not put up as
good of numbers because he did not have the supporting cast: He played
on a pathetic team. Floyd Little, incidentally, is an other example of that:
an elite back by talent who was brought down by the worst offensive line
I have ever witnessed.

I am going by what I have observed. When I watched the Steelers play, I
was impressed by how the Steelers moved the ball. I do not recall singling
Bettis out in my mind very often as to what he was doing. It was always
the Steelers offense as a whole. I do remember being impressed by the
gaping holes that OL habitually created.

Sayers, on the other hand, constantly caught my eye, individually, as to
what he was doing. You could have used my mouth as a garage as I
watched him do his thing. Same with Brown, Little, Sanders, Simpson, et al.

Sorry, but I still have to place Bettis as among the best of the very good,
but not in the elite. He was the beneficiary of a superb supporting cast.

-----

I understand that a supporting cast is a really big deal, but in my opinion Bettis was the lynch pin of that offense in his prime. If you want to beat the Colts you have to stop Manning first and foremost, if you wanted to beat the 9ers you had to be able to stop Jerry Rice, if you wanted to beat the Steelers you had to stop Bettis. I guess I am just a huge fan of longevity, I think that to have a truly great career you have to have at least some longevity. It is easier to be great for a few years then be a consistent top player for many years. I suppose this debate has prolly come to an end, we won't cover any new ground. I disagree with you, but thank you for the discussion. All time great discussions are always fun, unless you do it with a Steelers fan.:ahhhhh: