View Full Version : Compelling look at TD's HOF candidacy
dogfish
12-08-2012, 12:10 AM
good stuff here. . .
:defense:
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/cold-hard-football-facts-blog/hall-fame-running-backs-who-is-worthy-gold-jacket/19885/
:salute:
Must...not...troll....this...have...to...fight urge.
Jsteve01
12-08-2012, 12:40 AM
This is compelling. Too bad much of the vote is done by idiots
Simple Jaded
12-08-2012, 12:43 AM
This is compelling. Too bad much of the vote is done by idiots
Biased idiots, if Davis had the same career for the Cowboys or Steelers he'd been a first ballot HoFer.......
He had a very brief career on one of the best teams of all-time. He played on a team that had a ground-breaking system. Is it stupid that he's not in the Hall of Fame? No. Should he be? Maybe. At this point, I wouldn't mind seeing him in, but this is not a robbery.
Canmore
12-08-2012, 12:57 AM
good stuff here. . .
:defense:
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/cold-hard-football-facts-blog/hall-fame-running-backs-who-is-worthy-gold-jacket/19885/
:salute:
Yes! These are stats that show how great Terrell Davis was especially in the post season. I'll say it again, TD was the most dominant post season back in the history of the NFL. When it comes to yards per game Davis pounds the competition. It isn't close. What would the numbers from Super Bowl 32 look like if Davis had played the second quarter? 200+ probably. Terrell Davis belongs in the HOF!
Simple Jaded
12-08-2012, 01:03 AM
Erroneous! This is a robbery!.......
Chef Zambini
12-08-2012, 01:18 AM
for a DECADE I have argued that TDs post season numbersw are better than ANY RB to ever play the game !
when running the ball is the hardest, TD was the BEST, QBs always get judged by their play=-off performances, lynn swann got in on his play-off performances, TD had a cereer cut short by injury and just likegayle sayers, voters sdhould consider the production in the time alloted !
if TDs career had been cut short because he was killed in a car crash, he would have been a first ballot HOFer!
voters should not penalize TD just because he is still alive !
I'd put Craig as much for the innovative versatility he pioneered as a feature back and equally dangerous receiver, but the idea guys like Curtis Martin belong in Canton and Terrell Davis doesn't is just ludicrous. The truly amazing thing about his playoff numbers isn't just that they are so much better than his already outstanding regular season stats, but they CONTINUED improving the DEEPER Denver went in the playoffs. Even when Jacksonville stunned Denver in its sole '96 playoff game, Davis' rushing average was a full 2 yards above his regular season average: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/D/DaviTe00/gamelog/1996/
He paid the Jags back the next year, averaging not quite 6 YPA (so slightly below the previous year) again and racking up 184 yards on the ground in the wildcard meeting; with the exception of the following game, his rushing total increased in each of that years remaing playoff games. How many players have rushed for 3 Super Bowl TDs? One: Terrell Davis in Super Bowl XXXII—even though he missed the whole second quarter! http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/D/DaviTe00/gamelog/1997/
The only time his stats didn't get better the closer he got to the Super Bowl was 1998, but that fact is somewhat mitigated by the fact he 1) ran for 2008 yds in the regular season and 2) ran for 199 in the first playoff game, against Miami (perhaps he resented gaining a season low 29 yards against them in a loss three weeks earlier.) http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/D/DaviTe00/gamelog/1998/
Now, I get that Curtis Martin played almost twice as long and racked up a lot more regular season yardage as a result, but guess who averaged about half a yard more per carry? Guess who has 345 more yards, 1.25 more per attempt and 50% more TDs in 2 LESS playoff games (and years)? THIS is a second ballot HoFer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Martin#Career_statistics but THIS is NO HoFer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrell_Davis#Career_rushing_statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrell_Davis#Career_rushing_statistics?) ? In what world does that make sense?
Chef's right, if phenomenal performance got Gale Sayers into the Hall despite a brief career, it should do the same for Terrell Davis. Of course, Denver is not Chicago.... ;)
What about the argument that Sayers got in because of sympathy and he would not get in today. As such, it was an obvious mistake and should not be replicated.
What about the argument that Sayers got in because of sympathy and he would not get in today. As such, it was an obvious mistake and should not be replicated.
I don't really think much of that argument. A sympathy induction would've gone to Brian Piccolo, not Sayers. Sayers got in by setting records and posting stellar stats on awful teams in a major media market until injury prematurely ended an amazing career. If Davis doesn't do the same it will only be because Denver is not Chicago.
I don't really think much of that argument. A sympathy induction would've gone to Brian Piccolo, not Sayers. Sayers got in by setting records and posting stellar stats on awful teams in a major media market until injury prematurely ended an amazing career. If Davis doesn't do the same it will only be because Denver is not Chicago.
That is simple inaccurate. While Sayers did set records, what made him a big name and what made him beloved, was his relationship to Piccolo and how public it became. I am not saying it was phony, either. If you don't have an understanding of that, then there's little to talk about and I apologize for wasting both of our time.
Yes! These are stats that show how great Terrell Davis was especially in the post season. I'll say it again, TD was the most dominant post season back in the history of the NFL. When it comes to yards per game Davis pounds the competition. It isn't close. What would the numbers from Super Bowl 32 look like if Davis had played the second quarter? 200+ probably. Terrell Davis belongs in the HOF!
I think the more time that passes, the more his stats, even with a brief career, will be looked at (especially the post season stats) and the factor of the "system" he ran in will be less. So, I think he will get in eventually, but it might take a while.
So what you're saying is that over time people will become more ignorant of the context of his career? Sweet!
MOtorboat
12-08-2012, 11:25 PM
So what you're saying is that over time people will become more ignorant of the context of his career? Sweet!
He is the greatest post season running back to ever live.
And that's not debateable. He should be in the Hall of Fame.
MOtorboat
12-08-2012, 11:29 PM
He literally averaged 40 yards per game more than ANY other person ever in the postseason.
Think about that. That is beyond remarkable.
Dzone
12-08-2012, 11:31 PM
HOF selection is a complete sham.
Maybe I will leave this signature on here until TD finally gets in
He is the greatest post season running back to ever live.
And that's not debateable. He should be in the Hall of Fame.
He is the greatest postseason back ever on one of the greatest teams ever. His career was too short to actually know how much of it was him and how much of it was the system. If you want proof of that, look at how many bad or average backs after him flourished in Denver. Jamal Lewis hit 2k yards, he's not a Hall of Famer. Chris Johnson is probably going to not make the Hall of Fame as well.
My point is that he has four years of actual production that matters. 25% of that was a nice but unspectacular 1100 yard season. So I strike what I said earlier, three years of actual real production. If you think that he's a HoFer, that's fine. However, the belly-aching that goes on here about how it's a robbery that he should be in is stupid. It's not a robbery, and if he is not in the hall, it's not a crime or unfair.
You're asking HoF voters to vote on four postseasons and four regular seasons.
Canmore
12-08-2012, 11:37 PM
I think the more time that passes, the more his stats, even with a brief career, will be looked at (especially the post season stats) and the factor of the "system" he ran in will be less. So, I think he will get in eventually, but it might take a while.
I hope you're right. I know that Canton seems to reward long careers and media darlings to some extent and Davis had a short career in Denver. Not exactly a recipe for induction. Still, to me, Terrell's resume stands out. I don't believe I have ever seen such dominating performances by a running back on the post season stage. Iirc Davis averaged 142.5 yards per game and nearly 5.6 yards per attempt. Compare Davis to anyone in any era and see what you think.
Dzone
12-08-2012, 11:37 PM
Please, tell us what were the post season stats of Gale Sayers?
MOtorboat
12-08-2012, 11:38 PM
He is the greatest postseason back ever on one of the greatest teams ever. His career was too short to actually know how much of it was him and how much of it was the system. If you want proof of that, look at how many bad or average backs after him flourished in Denver. Jamal Lewis hit 2k yards, he's not a Hall of Famer. Chris Johnson is probably going to not make the Hall of Fame as well.
My point is that he has four years of actual production that matters. 25% of that was a nice but unspectacular 1100 yard season. So I strike what I said earlier, three years of actual real production. If you think that he's a HoFer, that's fine. However, the belly-aching that goes on here about how it's a robbery that he should be in is stupid. It's not a robbery, and if he is not in the hall, it's not a crime or unfair.
You're asking HoF voters to vote on four postseasons and four regular seasons.
The most dominant back for 1/10 of the history of the NFL regular season. The most dominant post season back ever. A two-time Super Bowl champion. Only one of five men to ever go over 2,000 yards in one season.
He absolutely is a Hall of Fame player.
I'll repeat it.
He averaged 40 more yards per game than any other human being in the playoffs at a skill position. 40 yards more, per game.
That isn't system. That's greatness.
Three seasons is three seasons. You're being a homer and deep inside, you know it.
MOtorboat
12-08-2012, 11:42 PM
Three seasons is three seasons. You're being a homer and deep inside, you know it.
Nope.
MOtorboat
12-08-2012, 11:44 PM
There is one human being alive who has two Super Bowl rings, one Super Bowl MVP, one NFL MVP and rushed for 2,000 yards in a single season.
That's Terrell Davis. He is a Hall of Fame player even if those idiots voting don't get it right.
Nope.
If he were on another team, you would not feel this way. As a matter of fact, almost none of the posters here would feel this way.
MOtorboat
12-08-2012, 11:45 PM
If he were on another team, you would not feel this way. As a matter of fact, almost none of the posters here would feel this way.
Please name another player who has rushed for 2,000 yards in the regular season, won an MVP, won a Super Bowl MVP and has two Super Bowl rings.
Go ahead.
I'm waiting.
Canmore
12-08-2012, 11:48 PM
The most dominant back for 1/10 of the history of the NFL regular season. The most dominant post season back ever. A two-time Super Bowl champion. Only one of five men to ever go over 2,000 yards in one season.
He absolutely is a Hall of Fame player.
I'll repeat it.
He averaged 40 more yards per game than any other human being in the playoffs at a skill position. 40 yards more, per game.
That isn't system. That's greatness.
Exactly... greatness. In a game measured by inches and tenths of yards Davis averaged over half a yard more per attempt in the post season than his closest competitor. Half a yard more per attempt! Unreal.
spikerman
12-08-2012, 11:54 PM
I may be misremembering (I'm too tired/lazy to look it up right now), but didn't Davis have another 1000 yard season after his knee surgery? I tend to agree with King's opinions a lot of the time, but this is where we part ways. Davis' 2000 yard season, post season numbers, 2 Super Bowl championships, 1 SB MVP, and 1 NFL MVP should make him a lock in my opinion. Part of the selection is based on the "eyeball test". If it was all stats, I doubt people like Terry Bradshaw would be in there. Can anyone honestly say that Curtis Martin was a better player than Terrell Davis? I don't believe Martin deserves enshrinement due to the fortune of good health while a (in my opinion) far superior back is left out because of a fluke play.
dogfish
12-08-2012, 11:59 PM
He is the greatest postseason back ever on one of the greatest teams ever. His career was too short to actually know how much of it was him and how much of it was the system. If you want proof of that, look at how many bad or average backs after him flourished in Denver. Jamal Lewis hit 2k yards, he's not a Hall of Famer. Chris Johnson is probably going to not make the Hall of Fame as well.
you know i love you. . . now stop being silly. . .
look, i can't convince you that TD is a HOFer when your mind's set against it, and i'm not even gonna try to budge your stubborn ass on the larger point. . .
:D
but please, just shush with that system nonsense-- you're brighter than that, bud, look a little deeper. . . i mean, did it help? duh, of course-- kinda like the earlier version of the same west coast offense helped guys named montana, rice and young put up ginormous stats. . . nobody ever holds it against them, and rightfully so. . . "jerry rice wouldn't have put up GOAT stats playing for shotty in cleveland". . . yea, so what? he played in SF-- and TD played in denver at the right time. . . just like terry bradshaw, jim kelly, troy and emmitt, ad nauseum. . .
the year before we got TD, our leading rusher went for 620 yards. . . TD put up 1,100, 1,500, 1,750, and 2000. . . nobody after him-- in the same system-- went for more than 1,500. . . portis did it twice, mike anderson once. . . portis is a guy who's put up HOF-type of numbers himself (NOT saying he IS a HOFer, just pure numbers!). . . the rest of those "great" seasons from the ZBS were 1,000-1,200 yards seasons. . . eight-HUNDRED yards shy of TD's best, and even portis' best season was over 400 yards shy of terrell's best. . .
do you hold it against lawrence taylor that he got to play OLB and blitz off the edge all the time, rather than lining up with his hand in the dirt and having to "earn" all his sacks against left tackles rather than fullbacks and TEs, like reggie and bruce smith did? do you hold it against LT that he played with pepper johnson? is mike singletary overrated because he played with dent, hampton and fridge?
TD wasn't ANYTHING resembling a system player-- he was an all-world player who was lucky enough to be put in a scheme that was ideal for him. . . the ZBS has produced some very impressive results, but no one else has come close to TD's '98 season. . . arian foster is a monster, and 1,600-some was his huge year. . .
That is simple inaccurate. While Sayers did set records, what made him a big name and what made him beloved, was his relationship to Piccolo and how public it became. I am not saying it was phony, either. If you don't have an understanding of that, then there's little to talk about and I apologize for wasting both of our time.
I never said it was phony, I said I doubt it got him into Canton, any more than throwing women off balconies and a brief nine year career kept Jim Brown out of it. It was "Brians Song," not "Gales;" if the HoF were going to induct anyone on that basis, it's pretty obvious whom it would have been. That doesn't diminish anything about their relationship or either mans character: It just means they have little to do with football.
Softskull
12-09-2012, 12:09 AM
He is the greatest post season running back to ever live.
And that's not debateable. He should be in the Hall of Fame.
Exactly. His per game yardage stat is ridiculous. Still my favorite Bronco all time, followed by Gradishar. I fear neither will ever make it.
Dzone
12-09-2012, 12:19 AM
TD was the Jim Brown of the post season. HOF selection committee needs to pull its head out of its ass. What a ******* joke.
Canmore
12-09-2012, 12:29 AM
you know i love you. . . now stop being silly. . .
TD wasn't ANYTHING resembling a system player-- he was an all-world player who was lucky enough to be put in a scheme that was ideal for him. . . the ZBS has produced some very impressive results, but no one else has come close to TD's '98 season. . . arian foster is a monster, and 1,600-some was his huge year. . .
Hit the nail on the head! He was an all-world player who was lucky enough to be put in a scheme that was ideal for him. He put up stratospheric numbers in it especially in the post season.
Please name another player who has rushed for 2,000 yards in the regular season, won an MVP, won a Super Bowl MVP and has two Super Bowl rings.
Go ahead.
I'm waiting.
That doesn't make him a hall of famer when he played four years of relevant football one of the greatest teams of all-time. As much as you want to say we know how good he is, we actually don't.
Dzone
12-09-2012, 12:45 AM
If those broncos teams were some of the greatest of all time, then there should be way more broncos in the HOF from that team. Put the Tom Nalen in, Rod Smith Atwater, maybe put Schereth in the HOF , Al Williams and Smith
The Steelers and 49ers and cowboys have too many damn players in the hall of fame that didnt deserve it.
Softskull
12-09-2012, 12:46 AM
That doesn't make him a hall of famer when he played four years of relevant football one of the greatest teams of all-time. As much as you want to say we know how good he is, we actually don't.
Here's the thing King. He could have play 5 more mediocre years and not another playoff game and his number would still be ostentatious. He was a freak. Does anyone care about the last five years of Emmit's career? He really made most of his damage in a short period. TD just missed those wheelchair/drooling years. His resume is strong.
Canmore
12-09-2012, 12:50 AM
That doesn't make him a hall of famer when he played four years of relevant football one of the greatest teams of all-time. As much as you want to say we know how good he is, we actually don't.
He was one of the greatest players on an all time great team. Elway, Sharpe and Zimmerman are in. Davis was the vaunted Denver running game. He deserves induction.
BroncoTech
12-09-2012, 01:13 AM
If he were on another team, you would not feel this way. As a matter of fact, almost none of the posters here would feel this way.
Actually you are quite wrong. Like Barry and Peyton, TD was the type of player that would fill our competitors stadiums just to watch him and Elway. Living in the bay area I know TD was often the topic of water cooler talk in an area that had 2 other football franchises. When you bought a ticket to see TD play you were almost assured to see him break a 40 to 60 yard run. He was just plain spectacular to watch. With or without consideration of his stats he deserves the gold jacket and won't be denied.
So are you saying that right now people include his name as one of the best ever? Because that's what I'm talking about, not if he was relevant to fans at the height of his career.
BroncoTech
12-09-2012, 01:28 AM
So are you saying that right now people include his name as one of the best ever? Because that's what I'm talking about, not if he was relevant to fans at the height of his career.
Absolutely, if the measure of a running back is the amount of yards gained in a season then he is among the top 5.
Absolutely, if the measure of a running back is the amount of yards gained in a season then he is among the top 5.
No, they don't. I have never heard anyone, in real life, ever say his name as a top ten or top five back. What that means is amongst the very best of all-time, he does not typically belong as an auto-include. Because he is not an auto-include, he deserves scrutiny. The fact that you guys just sorta view the four relevant seasons thing as irrelevant makes my point for me.
The measure of a back or of any player is a career.
Dzone
12-09-2012, 01:38 AM
Broncos have always gotten the shaft by the HOF. Screw the HOF
BroncoTech
12-09-2012, 01:38 AM
No, they don't. I have never heard anyone, in real life, ever say his name as a top ten or top five back. What that means is amongst the very best of all-time, he does not typically belong as an auto-include. Because he is not an auto-include, he deserves scrutiny. The fact that you guys just sorta view the four relevant seasons thing as irrelevant makes my point for me.
The measure of a back or of any player is a career.
What that means is you've succumbed to the east coast cowboys/jets bias.
Softskull
12-09-2012, 01:40 AM
So are you saying that right now people include his name as one of the best ever? Because that's what I'm talking about, not if he was relevant to fans at the height of his career.
I think that most people that objectively review his credentials would consider TD if not one of the greatest (since you and others require some longevity clause), certainly worthy of the HOF.
Dzone
12-09-2012, 01:41 AM
The measure of Gale Sayers career is weak, very weak. And a very short career. He just played when there weren't very many teams so he got in easy. Use the same measuring stick that you use to put Sayers in the HOF and you cant deny that TD deserves to be in
Jsteve01
12-09-2012, 01:46 AM
Absolutely, if the measure of a running back is the amount of yards gained in a season then he is among the top 5.
No, they don't. I have never heard anyone, in real life, ever say his name as a top ten or top five back. What that means is amongst the very best of all-time, he does not typically belong as an auto-include. Because he is not an auto-include, he deserves scrutiny. The fact that you guys just sorta view the four relevant seasons thing as irrelevant makes my point for me.
The measure of a back or of any player is a career.question king. Do you think Martin Bettis Craig deserve induction? What about Martin? Ithink the thing that I keep thinking and yes I'd say it regardless of the team is that we are discussing a player who had an unprecedented stretch at his position. Was the key cog on two championship teams and his career was cut short by injury. There is no doubt that had he not blown the knee he wwould have gone on to a fantastic career. You don't keep a Guy like that out. You just dont
Where do Martin and Craig rank on the all-time rushing list?
dogfish
12-09-2012, 02:11 AM
Where do Martin and Craig rank on the all-time rushing list?
well, your boy craig ranks 39th, homes. . . :wave:
he played 11 freaking seasons, and ranks ten spots ahead of terrell. . . :welcome:
how many rushing titles do they have between them? how many all-pro selections? MVPs? super bowl MVPs? how many rings does martin have? how many would craig have if he'd played somewhere else?
craig was the 5th or 6th best player on his own team, FFS. . .
well, your boy craig ranks 39th, homes. . . :wave:
how many rushing titles do they have between them? how many all-pro selections? MVPs? super bowl MVPs? how many rings does martin have? how many would craig have if he'd played somewhere else?
craig was the 5th or 6th best player on his own team, FFS. . .
When is Craig my boy? He's not a Hall of Famer to me. And he was the tenth best player on his team if you count the defense.
Bettis is where on that list?
Jsteve01
12-09-2012, 02:24 AM
Again which of those 4 if any do you think should make it?
Chef Zambini
12-09-2012, 02:25 AM
What about the argument that Sayers got in because of sympathy and he would not get in today. As such, it was an obvious mistake and should not be replicated.people who say that NEVER saw gayle sayers play ! he was spectacular, an often over-used word, but it applied to gayle sayers and circe du soliel.
Chef Zambini
12-09-2012, 02:38 AM
the broncos of the late 90's were considered one of the great teams of all times because of TD !
how many SBs did JFE win without TD?
TDs post season numbers distinguish him as one of the greatest runningbacks of all time !
running is toughest in the post season because the teams you face have earned their spot by stopping the run! doubt it? take a look at all the other backs in the HOF ! look at their regular season averages and check out the universal DECLINE of those averges once they get into the play-offs ,
ALL BUT TD !
king of absurd says the HOF is a measure of a players career/ well in TD, short career, he was stellar !
league MVP, superbowl MVP
a member of the 2k club as well !
until TD gets in to the HOF, canton will just be another place in ohio to go bowling.
people who say that NEVER saw gayle sayers play ! he was spectacular, an often over-used word, but it applied to gayle sayers and circe du soliel.
I have seen him play. Never try to speak to my knowledge, old man. I know more than you do, you retard.
Bettis and Martin are Hall of Famers, Jaded. They had careers, not three years of relevance.
Chef Zambini
12-09-2012, 03:06 AM
are you refering to icky woods?
Jsteve01
12-09-2012, 03:09 AM
Bettis and Martin are Hall of Famers, Jaded. They had careers, not three years of relevance. you and I clearly see things differently. Neither of them were even close to being in the conversation of being the best back in the league during their careers. Td was in that conversation with Barry and enmity. Sorry pretty good don't compare to great and td was truly great during his career.
Chef Zambini
12-09-2012, 03:24 AM
its not the hall of duration.
if so schlereth would already be in !
there are 100 guys with more catches than lynn swann. he is in because he was spectacular, especially in the post season !
most FG kickersd play 15-20 years, often they are their franchises leading scorer. are they in the HOF, hell no, its not about hangin around for a long time, its about being one of the very best during your time on the field ! that is the essence of TD!
the very best when he played, better than ANTONE at his position when it mattered most, the play-offs !
Simple Jaded
12-09-2012, 03:33 AM
Bettis and Martin are Hall of Famers, Jaded. They had careers, not three years of relevance.
Say what?.......
Say what?.......
Where them boys at for all time rushing yards?
Simple Jaded
12-09-2012, 03:41 AM
Where them boys at for all time rushing yards?
I actually have no idea what you're talking about but I think it's worth a google.......
I actually have no idea what you're talking about but I think it's worth a google.......
Where dem boys? WHERE DEM BOYS!?!??! WHERE DEY AT!?!?
Simple Jaded
12-09-2012, 03:43 AM
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/rush_yds_career.htm
Took two seconds.......
Simple Jaded
12-09-2012, 03:46 AM
Now do some basic math.
Dude what the **** are you babbling about? Are you high?.......
Simple Jaded
12-09-2012, 03:49 AM
Jsteve brought those names, not me.......
Skinny
12-09-2012, 09:46 AM
If Larry Csonka can make the HoF, Terrell deserves to be in Hall. Short career or not, he put up just about the same exact numbers.
In 96', Terrell reached 1,000 yards in 10 games (1,055), 8 games in 97' (1,068), and in 98' he reached a 1,000 yards (1,001) in just 7 games. Only Jim Brown and OJ Simpson have accomplished that.
I understand why some fans don't believe he's worthy of it. I think there are valid arguments for both sides of the debate.
But i think bottom line it comes down to was TD considered one of the best in the game when he played. When he was voted league MVP, not only was he voted the best player in the league, he was voted the best player (Offensive Player of the Year) at his position with the likes of Emmitt Smith, Barry Sanders, Curtis Martin, Jerome Bettis, and Marshall Faulk in the prime of their careers. 5 of the top 10 rushing leaders of all time. TD earned his right to have his mug bronzed and placed next to those guys.
HORSEPOWER 56
12-09-2012, 10:17 AM
He had a very brief career one one of the best teams of all-time. He played on a team that had a ground-breaking system. Is it stupid that he's not in the Hall of Fame? No. Should he be? Maybe. At this point, I wouldn't mind seeing him in, but this is not a robbery.
You're just bitter because Kenny Anderson has been overlooked (criminally) for this long... ;). If we all said Anderson should be in, too - would you come around? :lol:
BroncoJoe
12-09-2012, 10:21 AM
Sorry, but anyone that simply dismisses Davis' career as HOF worthy simply did not pay attention to what he did on the field. He was feared more than John Elway during those years and every team lined up to stop him. And they didn't. We're not talking about a one year fluke. The only thing that stopped Davis was a broken knee. Nothing else ever did.
Is he a lock? I personally believe so - orange glasses or not. Do I think he'll get in? No, and that is an injustice.
rationalfan
12-09-2012, 11:15 AM
This makes me laugh: people who call the media stupid for not voting TD into the hall, yet they use the media-voted MVP awards as reasons why TD should be in the hall. Bias, indeed.
For what it's worth, I think the hall of fame is irrelevant; something fans put entirely too much emphasis on.
Dzone
12-09-2012, 11:24 AM
Curtis Martin. Ridiculous.
MOtorboat
12-09-2012, 11:57 AM
This makes me laugh: people who call the media stupid for not voting TD into the hall, yet they use the media-voted MVP awards as reasons why TD should be in the hall. Bias, indeed.
For what it's worth, I think the hall of fame is irrelevant; something fans put entirely too much emphasis on.
Two wholly separate processes with different voters. AP MVP voters change almost yearly. HOF voters only change if one of the voters dies or retires.
IMO, if Barry Sanders is in the HOF, so should be TD. Barry has more regular season eye poppers, but TD still has playoff records to this day and he was a Super Bowl MVP. Barry's Lions won ONE playoff game in his 10 years.
You just compared a back who walked away from breaking the all-time rushing record to a guy who was on one of the greatest teams ever.
That's a bad comparison my friend. Why would I take TD over Emmitt Smith in the playoffs? They both had insane teams around them, and Smith has more games and a better body of work. That's the problem, no one is willing to address the incredibly short career. It's either "but he had insane numbers for three years," or "but...Sayers is in and if TD isn't it's not fair!"
You just compared a back who walked away from breaking the all-time rushing record to a guy who was on one of the greatest teams ever.
That's a bad comparison my friend. Why would I take TD over Emmitt Smith in the playoffs? They both had insane teams around them, and Smith has more games and a better body of work. That's the problem, no one is willing to address the incredibly short career. It's either "but he had insane numbers for three years," or "but...Sayers is in and if TD isn't it's not fair!"
Singular accomplishments man. And Barry didn't retire because he didn't want to break the record. He retired because he wasn't in love with football anymore.
Chef Zambini
12-09-2012, 12:46 PM
and king*& continues to ignore that TD was a big part of what made the broncos a great team !
how many SB did JFE win without TD?
TD was on a great team so his contributions are diminished?
what an assinine statement! please remove all the steelers, packers and cowboys from canton, they were the benificiaries of being on great teams.
ludicrous arguement against TD ! is that all you got? do you live in canton?
go bowling.
Singular accomplishments man. And Barry didn't retire because he didn't want to break the record. He retired because he wasn't in love with football anymore.
But that's how you judge an individual, on what they did. If Elway never won a SB, that somehow would have made him a worse player? No.
As I understand it, his love of football died with the love of playing for the Lions and the record and his idol, Payton, were a part of it.
Were I to craft an argument for TD, it would this - His career was brutally short and that was unfortunate for everyone. He was beloved by his teammates and around the league. He was and is a good person and a role model. He was not arrogant but had charisma, he was engaging as a representative to the NFL. Denver's system for backs, and that's exactly what it was, could make anyone look good. What it could not do, was make anyone look elite. For three years TD was elite and after a summary of those years, he would have been viewed as the best, at least by most.
That then leaves you with a decision to make as a viewer of the game. How much of it was him, and how much of it was the system? Were I to argue for TD, I would say that years later, Portis, another huge talent, did some special things with that system. While TD's players on the line were superior to Portis', the significance of this was not huge.
So for three actual years he had a legendary run that has not been duplicated. And while his team was amongst the greatest ever and though he had more of a supporting cast on offense than even Emmitt Smith, you have to reward what he achieved. Or, in other words, round up. Refusing to actually acknowledge the weakness of his career is childish homerism and it baffles me that so many stud posters do it. Argue that he could run for big plays, gritty yards and everything in between. While he was on a great team that was great without him, they still got greater with him. That it was reciprocal.
Not some bullshit about how incredibly amazing he was and how awesome it was, an actual argument. Not giving him credit for an entire SB run on offense and team accomplishments. When these threads pop up, it amazes me how many of you forget that line, Elway, Smith and Sharpe.
After reading that, I almost want him in directly.
MOtorboat
12-09-2012, 12:59 PM
But that's how you judge an individual, on what they did. If Elway never won a SB, that somehow would have made him a worse player? No.
As I understand it, his love of football died with the love of playing for the Lions and the record and his idol, Payton, were a part of it.
Were I to craft an argument for TD, it would this - His career was brutally short and that was unfortunate for everyone. He was beloved by his teammates and around the league. He was and is a good person and a role model. He was not arrogant but had charisma, he was engaging as a representative to the NFL. Denver's system for backs, and that's exactly what it was, could make anyone look good. What it could not do, was make anyone look elite. For three years TD was elite and after a summary of those years, he would have been viewed as the best, at least by most.
That then leaves you with a decision to make as a viewer of the game. How much of it was him, and how much of it was the system? Were I to argue for TD, I would say that years later, Portis, another huge talent, did some special things with that system. While TD's players on the line were superior to Portis', the significance of this was not huge.
So for three actual years he had a legendary run that has not been duplicated. And while his team was amongst the greatest ever and though he had more of a supporting cast on offense than even Emmitt Smith, you have to reward what he achieved. Or, in other words, round up. Refusing to actually acknowledge the weakness of his career is childish homerism and it baffles me that so many stud posters do it. Argue that he could run for big plays, gritty yards and everything in between. While he was on a great team that was great without him, they still got greater with him. That it was reciprocal.
Not some bullshit about how incredibly amazing he was and how awesome it was, an actual argument. Not giving him credit for an entire SB run on offense and team accomplishments. When these threads pop up, it amazes me how many of you forget that line, Elway, Smith and Sharpe.
After reading that, I almost want him in directly.
The weakness is his short career.
He was the most dominant player in the league for a four year stretch. He is the only player in the history of the NFL to win an MVP, SB MVP and rush for 2,000 yards.
Yes. The weakness is that he had an extremely short career. But that's about the only weakness out there.
Chef Zambini
12-09-2012, 01:02 PM
You're an idiot, I know more football than you do, I'm smarter than you and I wish you would die. You are a stupid old man and you make this place worse.yes, that is a very compelling arguement as to why TD does not deserve to be in the HOF, and it makes perfectly clear why TD can never expect to be invited to canton.
I can understand why MODS continue to support your freedom of speech, with your penchant for always keeping it classy, and on suibject.
what an encouragement for on-lookers to be a part of the fesitvities !
all you MODS should be proud for fostering this kind of dialogue.
how many new members in the last year?
IMO, if Barry Sanders is in the HOF, so should be TD. Barry has more regular season eye poppers, but TD still has playoff records to this day and he was a Super Bowl MVP. Barry's Lions won ONE playoff game in his 10 years.
That's not really fair; it's not Barrys fault arguably the best pure runner to ever play the game couldn't drag his hopeless Lions teams to the playoffs. That's like saying the Seahawks were so awful Steve Largent shouldn't be in the Hall; the second statement does not follow from the first.
rationalfan
12-09-2012, 01:16 PM
This makes me laugh: people who call the media stupid for not voting TD into the hall, yet they use the media-voted MVP awards as reasons why TD should be in the hall. Bias, indeed.
For what it's worth, I think the hall of fame is irrelevant; something fans put entirely too much emphasis on.
Two wholly separate processes with different voters. AP MVP voters change almost yearly. HOF voters only change if one of the voters dies or retires.
It's not high school, a new crop of journalists doesn't just go away every 12 months. trust me on this one.
MOtorboat
12-09-2012, 01:19 PM
It's not high school, a new crop of journalists doesn't just go away every 12 months. trust me on this one.
You're right. I don't know anything about this.
:rolleyes:
rationalfan
12-09-2012, 01:37 PM
I have no idea what you know about the media. Truly.
Mo knows the most about the media out of anyone. It's almost like it's his job or something.
Chef Zambini
12-09-2012, 02:39 PM
The weakness is his short career.
He was the most dominant player in the league for a four year stretch. He is the only player in the history of the NFL to win an MVP, SB MVP and rush for 2,000 yards.
Yes. The weakness is that he had an extremely short career. But that's about the only weakness out there.bingo! his career was short, due to injury!
whats wrong with his stats or performance, NOTHING. is he arguably the best Rb EVER in the post season, absolutely !
he is as deserving as anyone, based on his performance during his careeer to be in the HOF !
"the king" says he was on a great team so that disqulifies him !
rationalfan
12-09-2012, 02:43 PM
Mo knows the most about the media out of anyone. It's almost like it's his job or something.
Is it? Those of us outside the inner circle of this forum wouldn't know.
The weakness is his short career.
He was the most dominant player in the league for a four year stretch. He is the only player in the history of the NFL to win an MVP, SB MVP and rush for 2,000 yards.
Yes. The weakness is that he had an extremely short career. But that's about the only weakness out there.
In most cases I believe that career longevity should definitely be a governing factor in a player's HoF eligibility. In TD's case though, he was one of the most dominant RBs to play football for that stretch and his career was essentially ruined by his own offensive lineman (inadvertently). Because of that reason we won't ever know what the rest of his career would have entailed, but I believe that he should be let in just because of how dominant he was while he was playing.
I can understand why MODS continue to support your freedom of speech, with your penchant for always keeping it classy, and on suibject.
For the same reason you're still allowed to troll every thread you post in.
That's not really fair; it's not Barrys fault arguably the best pure runner to ever play the game couldn't drag his hopeless Lions teams to the playoffs. That's like saying the Seahawks were so awful Steve Largent shouldn't be in the Hall; the second statement does not follow from the first.
Reason why is irrelevant. What he did in his career versus what TD did in his career carry an equal weight, in my opinion. I feel that TD should be in Canton just like Sayers and Sanders.
I have no idea what you know about the media. Truly.
He knows more about it than pretty much all of us combined.
"the king" says he was on a great team so that disqulifies him !
Actually, that's not at all what King said. And that isn't the point he was trying to make.
rationalfan
12-09-2012, 03:18 PM
I have no idea what you know about the media. Truly.
He knows more about it than pretty much all of us combined.
I'm not certain of that.
MOtorboat
12-09-2012, 03:54 PM
I'm not certain of that.
Explain the two processes for us then. Enlighten us.
That then leaves you with a decision to make as a viewer of the game. How much of it was him, and how much of it was the system? Were I to argue for TD, I would say that years later, Portis, another huge talent, did some special things with that system. While TD's players on the line were superior to Portis', the significance of this was not huge.
Portis' best years were nowhere Davis'. In fact, Davis AVERAGED more yards in his four healthy seasons than Portis gained in his BEST one. And that's the guy generally considered the best of Davis' successors; I have nothing but love for Olandis Gary and Mike Anderson, but we need only look at their careers to see that Portis' accomplishments were about more than the ZBS, and so were Davis' much greater ones.
So for three actual years he had a legendary run that has not been duplicated.
That ought to be enough by itself; it was for Earl Campbell, another undeniably HoF calibre back I love to death.
And while his team was amongst the greatest ever and though he had more of a supporting cast on offense than even Emmitt Smith
Sorry, no. My dad raised me on the Cowboys (there's a reason why I refer to Davis as "TD II" rather than "TD,") and I'm a huge fan of Emmitt, too, but he had at least as much offensive help as Davis did. Larry Allen, Erik Williams, Mark Tuinei, Nate Newton and Derek Kennard to block for him? Allen was still making Pro Bowls two years after Emmitt retired; Williams was so dominant he prompted an offensive version of the old Deacon Jones rule against head slaps, and Newton was a huge terrifying roadgrader who flattened anyone who got in his way. Now, the Broncos Super Bowl champ offensive lines were undoubtedly elite, but in the early '90s the 'Boys offensive line did more to make the position sexy and well paid than anyone since Jerry Kramer.
Add to that Troy Aikmans precision accuracy, Michael Irvins ability to get open, Daryl Johnston doing for fullbacks what Allen, Newton and Williams did for linemen and Jay Novacek consistently finding ways to get open and haul in first downs on 3rd and 17. Let's not forget Alvin Harper either, whose departure after the second Super Bowl let teams double cover Irvin and stack the box on Emmitt to significantly slow the Dallas offense despite the talent it had everywhere else (part of the problem was Newton and others starting to loaf, but this isn't a detailed history of the Cowboys.) Emmitt was just one of many elite players, but that doesn't disqualify him from the Hall or tarnish his accomplishments.
you have to reward what he achieved.
Um, wasn't your previous sentence
for three actual years he had a legendary run that has not been duplicated.? Rewarding what he achieved (a three year legendary run that has not been duplicated) is all anyone is suggesting.
Or, in other words, round up. Refusing to actually acknowledge the weakness of his career is childish homerism and it baffles me that so many stud posters do it. Argue that he could run for big plays, gritty yards and everything in between. While he was on a great team that was great without him, they still got greater with him. That it was reciprocal.
They weren't that great without him; they had been, but in the three years before Davis became the starter Denver went 9-7, 7-9 and 8-8. Not exactly a portrait of greatness. We added other vital assets along with Davis (e.g. Neil Smith and Gary Zimmerman,) but let's not pretend that Davis just happened to show up on an established dynasty that took him along for the ride.
Not some bullshit about how incredibly amazing he was and how awesome it was, an actual argument. Not giving him credit for an entire SB run on offense and team accomplishments. When these threads pop up, it amazes me how many of you forget that line, Elway, Smith and Sharpe.
After reading that, I almost want him in directly.
I don't forget any of them, but other backs have had comparable assets, and none came near what Davis did for three straight years. Rod Smith was everything a WR should be on and off the field but, purely as a player, I'd take Irvin every day of the week and twice on Super Bowl Sunday. On 3rd and 17, I'd much rather have Novacek than Sharpe (after all, our go-to guy in those situations was Eddie Mac.)
Trust me, we know our Super Bowl championship roster at least as well as you do—and still think the case for Terrell Davis in Canton is open and shut.
Reason why is irrelevant. What he did in his career versus what TD did in his career carry an equal weight, in my opinion. I feel that TD should be in Canton just like Sayers and Sanders.
No argument there. I think the best suggestion for those who question the qualifications of any of those three is to watch tapes of their games. Of course, if they did that Curtis Martin would be in trouble. :tongue:
Sanders did plenty; I'm pretty sure he's the only guy other than OJ to gain 2000 yards in just 14 games (the year Davis had 2000, Sanders had 53 in his first two games and 2000 in the rest; even Dickerson needed 15 games to reach 2000 when he set the record.) Jim Brown's the only back to average 100 yds/game for an entire career—because Sanders only averaged a "mere" 99.8/game. Barry Sanders was a world class, once-in-a-lifetime talent who 100% deserves to be in the Hall; that he never reached the Super Bowl is one of the great NFL injustices, but that's life. The rest of the Lions were incredibly awful when the Packers had their best teams since Lombardis day, so he only reached the playoffs once, but achieved greatness unparallelled by anyone else (except for the year Davis also gained 2000 rushing yards.)
I love curbing the numbers of new members.
Joel, elway is better than aikman by a mile. Sharpe actually was superior to Irvin if you
look at the numbers. Their line dominated by force, yours was finesse and scheme, people struggle to stop it to this day.
As far as Martin goes, if you think he's not hall of fame worthy, please never respond to a post I make again. Year in and year out he produced and towards the end of his career he led the league in rushing. He never had a dominant line .
I guess longevity doesn't matter, or consistency, when it's your guy.
rationalfan
12-09-2012, 05:09 PM
I'm not certain of that.
Explain the two processes for us then. Enlighten us.
That's not my point, to get in an online pissing match. My point is that I have no idea how much you know about the media. I still don't.
That's not my point, to get in an online pissing match. My point is that I have no idea how much you know about the media. I still don't.
Would "a shit load more than any of us" suffice? MO is kind of...well he is a big deal...height obviously not factored in.
MOtorboat
12-09-2012, 05:25 PM
That's not my point, to get in an online pissing match. My point is that I have no idea how much you know about the media. I still don't.
Your point was that the MVP voters and the Hall of Fame voters are all the same, because they're all media, therefore there's no possible way we can use MVP's in our argument and then complain about the people voting for it.
First, you have to know what the processes are if you're going to claim things like that. No?
Secondly, I, too a fault, have repeatedly defended media, because I do understand the process.
Thirdly, the way the processes for both awards work, there is room for bias in one and not for the other. And MVP voters do change, where Hall of Fame voters don't. Is it like your sarcastic, condescending remark about a senior class? No. But over the course of the last 14 years since Davis' MVP, I can guarantee that the voters list has changed quite a bit. Whereas, the Hall of Fame voters list hasn't changed all that much. Most of the guys on the list have been there for a while, because its a lifetime appointment.
So how does that change how people vote? Well, they've heard the arguments for every Bronco on that list before and have rejected them numerous times. Am I saying it's necessarily a specific bias against the Broncos? No. But the way the process works, voters aren't likely to change their opinions, therefore there is an inherent bias in how the system works. Unlike the MVP voters, who have a whole new performance to evaluate when judging who they vote for each year.
Simple Jaded
12-09-2012, 05:29 PM
Does MO's appartment smell of rich mahogany?.......
Does MO's appartment smell of rich mahogany?.......
He has many leather bound books.
I love curbing the numbers of new members.
I only support curbing the numbers of undeserving members.
Joel, elway is better than aikman by a mile.
Never said he wasn't, though I think "a mile" might be pushing it. Elway was a freak though; it's very hard to think of anyone I could sincerely call better.
Sharpe actually was superior to Irvin if you
look at the numbers.
Er, which numbers are those? TDs? Irvin 65; Sharpe 62. Yards? Irvin 11,904; Sharpe 10,060. Receiving average? Irvin 15.9; Sharpe 12.3 Sharpe had 65 more catches, but he also played two more years, so that's hardly surprising; Irvin still had more yards and TDs with his 65 FEWER catches. Not that I think comparing WRs to TEs is really a fair fight unless we have a way to include blocking.
line dominated by force, yours was finesse and scheme, people struggle to stop it to this day.
Their line learned judo in the offseason so it could use defenders force and speed against them; they had plenty of finesse, but ALSO the strength and size to get down in the dirt and deliver the line surge to force their way into the endzone on 4th and G at the 2. Over the past decade, many a Broncos fan has lamented the light ZBS linemans difficulty in doing that.
Even were that not all true, wtf difference does it make HOW each line was easily the most dominant of its era? Either they dominated all comers, greatly benefiting their elite runners AND passers, or did not; in both cases, they did. If Davis' achievements are mostly owing to his stellar line, Smiths are no less so—yet Emmitt never gained 2000 yards in a season or scored 3 rushing TDs in a Super Bowl. When Denver faced goal to go against the Packers late in the second half, eight GB defenders shot to the left to stop a blind Terrell Davis because they feared HIM, not our line, letting Elway effortlessly jog to the right and the endzone. He had an uncovered receiver right in front of him who could've scored just as easily, too: The whole Packers D was after Davis, because he scared them that much. He STILL scored 3 rushing TDs on them that day, the only time ANY back has ever done that in a Super Bowl, so they had good cause for fear. Hall of Fame cause. ;)
As far as Martin goes, if you think he's not hall of fame worthy, please never respond to a post I make again. Year in and year out he produced and towards the end of his career he led the league in rushing. He never had a dominant line .
He was good, but never great; that's not good enough if our priority is curbing new members.
I guess longevity doesn't matter, or consistency, when it's your guy.
Consistency matters, but longevity doesn't matter much to me whether it's my guy or someone elses. We aren't talking about an anomalous one hit wonder who fell off the face of the earth the very next season. Davis was legitimately and CONSISTENTLY that good, until the combination of a generative illness and a fluke play prematurely ended his career despite his indescribable talent.
rationalfan
12-09-2012, 05:50 PM
Your point was that the MVP voters and the Hall of Fame voters are all the same, because they're all media, therefore there's no possible way we can use MVP's in our argument and then complain about the people voting for it.
First, you have to know what the processes are if you're going to claim things like that. No?
Secondly, I, too a fault, have repeatedly defended media, because I do understand the process.
Thirdly, the way the processes for both awards work, there is room for bias in one and not for the other. And MVP voters do change, where Hall of Fame voters don't. Is it like your sarcastic, condescending remark about a senior class? No. But over the course of the last 14 years since Davis' MVP, I can guarantee that the voters list has changed quite a bit. Whereas, the Hall of Fame voters list hasn't changed all that much. Most of the guys on the list have been there for a while, because its a lifetime appointment.
So how does that change how people vote? Well, they've heard the arguments for every Bronco on that list before and have rejected them numerous times. Am I saying it's necessarily a specific bias against the Broncos? No. But the way the process works, voters aren't likely to change their opinions, therefore there is an inherent bias in how the system works. Unlike the MVP voters, who have a whole new performance to evaluate when judging who they vote for each year.
first: yes, i understand all that. so would anyone who regularly reads Peter King's MMQB article. still doesn't answer my query.
second: my point wasn't that the mvp and hof voting processes are the same, that's your inference. my point was that it was amusing to me that people want to discredit the media voters for not pushing TD into the HOF, but want to credit the media for voting TD an MVP. it's hypocrisy; and, again, funny to me.
now, are the voting processes for each "award" the same, no. you're right about that. however, your point that the voters are vastly different for each "award" is not right. the voting parties are not identical. but they're not as far apart as you might think. nor is your belief that there's a large turnover in the AP voting members. after working at daily newspapers for more than a decade i can tell you there's not much turnover in the sports writing ranks. the writers (at least the ones with enough seniority to merit voting privileges) generally like where they are and what they do. however, i believe you're spot on about the HOF voters accustomed to the same player pitches every year (i've never been in those meetings, but from reading Peter King's columns, that's the gist i get).
third: again, i'm not trying to be pissy with you. there's just too much self-appointed "authority" on the internet. sometimes i challenge it; particularly when people throw out their "knowledge" of the media.
Simple Jaded
12-09-2012, 06:08 PM
He has many leather bound books.
Does he love scotch. Scotchy, scotch, scotch?.......
MOtorboat
12-09-2012, 06:14 PM
first: yes, i understand all that. so would anyone who regularly reads Peter King's MMQB article. still doesn't answer my query.
second: my point wasn't that the mvp and hof voting processes are the same, that's your inference. my point was that it was amusing to me that people want to discredit the media voters for not pushing TD into the HOF, but want to credit the media for voting TD an MVP. it's hypocrisy; and, again, funny to me.
now, are the voting processes for each "award" the same, no. you're right about that. however, your point that the voters are vastly different for each "award" is not right. the voting parties are not identical. but they're not as far apart as you might think. nor is your belief that there's a large turnover in the AP voting members. after working at daily newspapers for more than a decade i can tell you there's not much turnover in the sports writing ranks. the writers (at least the ones with enough seniority to merit voting privileges) generally like where they are and what they do. however, i believe you're spot on about the HOF voters accustomed to the same player pitches every year (i've never been in those meetings, but from reading Peter King's columns, that's the gist i get).
third: again, i'm not trying to be pissy with you. there's just too much self-appointed "authority" on the internet. sometimes i challenge it; particularly when people throw out their "knowledge" of the media.
Fair enough. We have very similar credentials.
However, I saw a 2009 list and a 2012 list of the voters and there seemed to be a significant change in it, but of course, I cannot find the 2009 list now.
Does he love scotch. Scotchy, scotch, scotch?.......
He's friends with Merlon Olson.
topscribe
12-09-2012, 06:24 PM
That is simple inaccurate. While Sayers did set records, what made him a big name and what made him beloved, was his relationship to Piccolo and how public it became. I am not saying it was phony, either. If you don't have an understanding of that, then there's little to talk about and I apologize for wasting both of our time.
What made Sayers beloved was his relationship to Piccolo. What made him a
big name was what he accomplished that has resulted in his remaining in the
argument for the G.O.A.T. among RBs and kick returners to this day.
What Joel said is accurate. I watched Sayers all through his career. Therefore,
I will say that since Sayers got in, so should TD. By the same token, if TD does
not get in, neither should have Sayers, IMO.
Simple Jaded
12-09-2012, 06:38 PM
He's friends with Merlon Olson.
Sounds like the kinda man who discovered the wheel and built the Eiffel Tower out of metal and brawn?.......
Sounds like the kinda man who discovered the wheel and built the Eiffel Tower out of metal and brawn?.......
Precisely
What made Sayers beloved was his relationship to Piccolo. What made him a
big name was what he accomplished that has resulted in his remaining in the
argument for the G.O.A.T. among RBs and kick returners to this day.
What Joel said is accurate. I watched Sayers all through his career. Therefore,
I will say that since Sayers got in, so should TD. By the same token, if TD does
not get in, neither should have Sayers, IMO.
I live in Illinois and I am damn near indoctrinated in Chicago Bears culture by default. I am in the same situation that you are with your Cardinals in term of coverage, lots of "bears duds," to borrow your terminology.
Sayers got a pity vote in. Between people speculating on the "what could have been," as opposed to the more intelligent and responsible "what actually was," and Brian's Song, he got in. He had Hall of Fame talent and could do amazing things. The voters went out and tried to right a terrible injustice. It's a notion that I have always found stupid. Injuries are part of the game, and in those days certain injuries ended careers. They didn't reach out with that philosophy then for anyone else. He was a Bear and beloved.
That is why he is in the Hall of Fame.
Take that a step further, my friend. If that was a mistake, which is the point of contention here, then it would be a mistake to replicate that same action just for precedent. If you accidentally cut yourself by running with scissors, you don't do it again. The difference here is that TD actually had more of something that resembled a career in terms of accomplishments. This is the career of Sayers.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SayeGa00.htm
In his day 1000 yards was splendid any anything close to that was still really good. He had five years of a career.
If you combined the years of relevant football that they played, that would have been a career in terms of length.
If I had a choice, I would put TD in over Sayers for several reasons. Mostly importantly, he is a class act, whereas Gale Sayers has this chip on his shoulder about everything. He's taken shots at Lovie, Cutler, Urlacher and IIRC he said something to the effect of the Saints don't deserve to exist after bountygate.
Jsteve01
12-09-2012, 07:31 PM
You've got a dirty whorish mouth.
You've got a dirty whorish mouth.
You've got a purty mouth.
Simple Jaded
12-09-2012, 07:51 PM
You've got a dirty whorish mouth.
Why don't you go back to your home on Whore Island?.......
Why don't you go back to your home on Whore Island?.......
You have entirely too much pubic hair
Simple Jaded
12-09-2012, 07:58 PM
You have entirely too much pubic hair
You are a smelly pirate hooker.......
You are a smelly pirate hooker.......
TD should be in the HoF
TD should be in the HoF
That was the most offensive thing on this page. ;)
spikerman
12-09-2012, 08:41 PM
That was the most offensive thing on this page. ;)
I think you misspelled "accurate". ;)
Dapper Dan
12-09-2012, 09:18 PM
If you have one or two good seasons, I can see it being a fluke. Chris Johnson has no excuse. He's simply playing horrible.
When you look at great players or HOF players, you think of several things. You think of stats, you think of awards, you think of the post season, and you think of the Super Bowls. TD never played badly. He had an injury problem after some great seasons. His career was cut short because of injury, not because he was a bad football player. People look too much into longevity. When you're a great player, you're a great player. These guys on the panels are suppose to see that. They're not suppose to just look at some record list and pick names.
topscribe
12-09-2012, 09:32 PM
I live in Illinois and I am damn near indoctrinated in Chicago Bears culture by default. I am in the same situation that you are with your Cardinals in term of coverage, lots of "bears duds," to borrow your terminology.
Sayers got a pity vote in. Between people speculating on the "what could have been," as opposed to the more intelligent and responsible "what actually was," and Brian's Song, he got in. He had Hall of Fame talent and could do amazing things. The voters went out and tried to right a terrible injustice. It's a notion that I have always found stupid. Injuries are part of the game, and in those days certain injuries ended careers. They didn't reach out with that philosophy then for anyone else. He was a Bear and beloved.
That is why he is in the Hall of Fame.
Take that a step further, my friend. If that was a mistake, which is the point of contention here, then it would be a mistake to replicate that same action just for precedent. If you accidentally cut yourself by running with scissors, you don't do it again. The difference here is that TD actually had more of something that resembled a career in terms of accomplishments. This is the career of Sayers.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SayeGa00.htm
In his day 1000 yards was splendid any anything close to that was still really good. He had five years of a career.
If you combined the years of relevant football that they played, that would have been a career in terms of length.
If I had a choice, I would put TD in over Sayers for several reasons. Mostly importantly, he is a class act, whereas Gale Sayers has this chip on his shoulder about everything. He's taken shots at Lovie, Cutler, Urlacher and IIRC he said something to the effect of the Saints don't deserve to exist after bountygate.
Of course, you're referring to Sayers' first five years. He was actually in the
NFL for seven, but the last two were essentially a comeback attempt that
failed. But in his first five years, he earned Pro Bowl honors in four of them and
was first team All-Pro in all five.
You also have to consider his punt and kick returning. He was one of the
greatest in history there, too. I'm sure he had the sympathy of a lot of people
(he had mine, and I didn't need "Brian's Song" to know the story. I was an
adult observer by then). But he is in the HOF because he deserves it. Period.
I'm not going to try to compare him to TD or to try to assess which one is
better or more deserving, especially from the standpoint of personal
character. Not all who are in the HOF are necessarily nice guys, and not all
of the nice guys are in the HOF. Good players are there. That is why they
are there.
So my viewpoint is, from my personal observation of both players, Sayers
is in the HOF because he should be there, and so TD should also be there,
IMHO.
.
You don't think of three seasons of actual production. You don't think of "how good was he as an individual," and put him in when you don't actually know that. Jamal Lewis is not a great back. Chris Johnson is not a great back. You don't have to be a great player to get 2k yards.
MOtorboat
12-09-2012, 10:06 PM
You don't think of three seasons of actual production. You don't think of "how good was he as an individual," and put him in when you don't actually know that. Jamal Lewis is not a great back. Chris Johnson is not a great back. You don't have to be a great player to get 2k yards.
But Davis was.
But Davis was.
He was great for three years. I agree.
I will summarize this - I do not think he is a hall of famer. I think he is borderline and in my estimation he falls short. With that being said, if he gets in it will be nice because he's not totally undeserving. He would add class to the establishment, if you catch my drift. He's a good man, a good person and was a great back, briefly. He was a positive indictment on the culture of Broncos football and the NFL. It is a shame that he got injured.
I have said my piece.
TXBRONC
12-11-2012, 10:55 AM
Dude what the **** are you babbling about? Are you high?.......
He's high on bacon.
Chef Zambini
12-11-2012, 11:54 AM
king 87, why is lynn swann in the hall of fame/
pity?
longevity?
top numbers?
or is it because of spectacular plays in big games?
well of course it is the latter, because the first 3 do not qualify.
TD has better play-off numbers than ANY running back EVER !
ever!
thats a pretty strong longevity comment !
does not matter how long any other back played, TDs numbers are BETTER !
TD was the BEST when it mattered most !
CoachChaz
12-11-2012, 12:00 PM
Until there is a guideline written about what the qualifications are for entering the hall, we can make an argument for A LOT of players. If this guy is in...why isnt that guy? The Hall just seems to lose it's value and honor every year as fans argue to have every player to ever wear the uniform voted in. I stopped paying attention to it.
Based on the standards that I hold and how I regard a worthy member of the Hall...TD wouldnt get in, Swann wouldnt be in and the same can be said for a bunch of others. Obviously my opinion doesnt matter, so I'll choose to disregard the process
Simple Jaded
12-11-2012, 03:59 PM
He's high on bacon.
Oh, well that's understandable.......
Ravage!!!
12-11-2012, 04:15 PM
I believe Vinny Testeverde had a very long career, and has compiled a WEALTH of cumulative stats. Is he a HoF worthy QB??
Obviously longevity is important in some areas, but should it really be the ONLY thing? King, you are trying to take away from Davis' career because it was cut short.... ok. Name me another RB that had a short career that has anywhere NEAR the kind of stats, and or league impact, that Davis had?
If you are SERIOUSLY trying to say that Terrell Davis was a "system's back"... and only succeeded because of the team he was on, then the conversation ends here because you obviously are blind to the truth as to just how great he was on the field.
I mean, if Davis was "just a systems back".. then surely there are other RBs in the NFL history that had a "short burst" of success that could be compared to Davis.... that are NOT in the HoF, right?
CoachChaz
12-11-2012, 04:25 PM
I think longevity absolutely plays a part in making it to the Hall. If a rookie running back comes in and rushes for 2500 yards and 31 TD's and goes on to tear it up in the playoffs and wins the Super Bowl and all the MVP awards...and then loses a leg in an accident in the off-season...is he HoF worthy? IMO...no.
I have more respect for the guys that do it season after season and have the career numbers that reflect their constant dominance. I loved TD...but I dont think he is HoF. Jus my opinion
AlWilsonizKING
12-11-2012, 04:28 PM
I often wonder what TDs numbers would look like and what records he would have if Shannahan didn't pull him from games all the time. I can remember games he had over 200 yards and was pulled because we were up by so much.
TD in the HOF!
PEACE!!!
Bettis and Martin are Hall of Famers, Jaded. They had careers, not three years of relevance.
No way Martin was a better player than TD. Anyone that actually watches the games can tell you that.
Martin was an average back that put up numbers due to longevity. BFD.
TD was special, a true game changer.
Martin was a back who put up good numbers for his entire career. Towards the tail end of his career he hit 1600 yards. That proves to you that he was never an average back. He was a rock and widely respected by his peers and coaches around the league. Kraft still fumes about losing him to this day. I guess when you defend TD you have to spit in the face of longevity and act like it doesn't matter. I have lost respect for you Slim.
You are smelly.
Martin was a back who put up good numbers for his entire career. Towards the tail end of his career he hit 1600 yards. That proves to you that he was never an average back. He was a rock and widely respected by his peers and coaches around the league. Kraft still fumes about losing him to this day. I guess when you defend TD you have to spit in the face of longevity and act like it doesn't matter. I have lost respect for you Slim.
You are smelly.
That is the crux of the argument. Longevity means more to you than it does to me. I know that TD was twice the player that Martin was. That is not even really debatable. Yet here we are debating it. Why? Because TD got injured? You are smarter than that King.
Also, I am kind of smelly, I admit it.
That is the crux of the argument. Longevity means more to you than it does to me. I know that TD was twice the player that Martin was. That is not even really debatable. Yet here we are debating it. Why? Because TD got injured? You are smarter than that King.
Also, I am kind of smelly, I admit it.
In this case, longevity means nothing to you and something to me. It matters, it matters a lot, I have never once said I think you need a career as long as Bettis' to make the Hall.
Also, I don't get the assumption that no back would have done as well on that team as TD and that he would have done that well on other teams.
Find me a year where Martin's line was even close to the one TD. Or when he had a QB like Elway. Bledsoe was pretty damn good at times, but Elway? No. Where's a stable of WR's in his career? Tight end like Sharpe?
I'll actually answer for you since I don't believe in you anymore. Martin's best line...not even close. QB? Elway rapes his. threats at receiving? Maybe something comparable during his time with Bledsoe.
I know Walter Payton is a top five back of all-time because he put up huge numbers with repetition. I know Emmitt Smith belongs in the Hall of Fame because he has more carries than god himself and stayed healthy. Are his numbers inflated? Sure, but can you extrapolate that he would have had similar numbers in Denver to what he had in Dallas? I think it's reasonable. He did it forever.
Faulk routinely had staggering all-around numbers and people said he should have gotten the ball more at times in STL.
You see three huge amazingly special years and it scream HoF to you. I see a really good back for threes years on an all-time team.
My view has less bias. Your view has more passion. The difference between you and I is that I am open to him being in the hall. All I realistically did was offer context to his career (ya'll ain't like that ;) ) and state the truth. If he does not end up in the Hall, it's not a crime. You can give me all the rah-rah slanted TD posts you want, it doesn't change reality. In this thread you will find good posters losing objectivit towards their boy.
That's fine, when Kenny Anderson's name comes up, I lose my ******* mind. But I've read the arguments, I know it's not really a crime to anyone else but Bengal fans.
Similar situation here as well.
If he gets in, I will be happy because he's class and it will make you ******s happy.
MOtorboat
12-11-2012, 05:45 PM
King, were you even aware Denver had a football team before this thread?
Baby you know one of my favorite NFL teams is the Denver Avalanches!
I know Emmitt Smith belongs in the Hall of Fame because he has more carries than god himself and stayed healthy. Are his numbers inflated? Sure, but can you extrapolate that he would have had similar numbers in Denver to what he had in Dallas? I think it's reasonable. He did it forever.
This right here shows how full of crap you are. You won't take Davis seriously because he played on great teams, yet you don't hold that against Smith? Seriously? Weak sauce.
I won't argue the Martin thing with you because it's stupid and he isn't in TD's class.
The Anderson thing doesn't really work. He played a long time, so it's easy to see how he should be judged. TD wasn't fortunate enough to do that. That is what makes Broncos fans so crazy. Unless you watched him play every week, you really don't know how great he was.
MOtorboat
12-11-2012, 05:50 PM
I rest my case.
This right here shows how full of crap you are. You won't take Davis seriously because he played on great teams, yet you don't hold that against Smith? Seriously? Weak sauce.
I won't argue the Martin thing with you because it's stupid and he isn't in TD's class.
The Anderson thing doesn't really work. He played a long time, so it's easy to see how he should be judged. TD wasn't fortunate enough to do that. That is what makes Broncos fans so crazy. Unless you watched him play every week, you really don't know how great he was.
You need to let that anger go. I've said the difference between Davis and the backs on other all-time teams is that their body of work lets you know how good they were. Davis' is so short it's harder to see it, especially if you're not a full-fledged like you.
You opted to ignore the Martin argument. That's fine, but I have valid points there. If you want to act like a child and just ignore them, that's on you.
The Anderson comparison was just to show that I'm not trying to call you guys blind homers. When I feel like one of my boys is shafted, I get mad as well. FWIW, Anderson isn't judged to be a HoF QB for a variety of reasons. Several of them related to things that aren't on the field. But I won't get into it.
Slim, I still love you. I own you, but I still love you.
You need to let that anger go. I've said the difference between Davis and the backs on other all-time teams is that their body of work lets you know how good they were. Davis' is so short it's harder to see it, especially if you're not a full-fledged like you.
You opted to ignore the Martin argument. That's fine, but I have valid points there. If you want to act like a child and just ignore them, that's on you.
The Anderson comparison was just to show that I'm not trying to call you guys blind homers. When I feel like one of my boys is shafted, I get mad as well. FWIW, Anderson isn't judged to be a HoF QB for a variety of reasons. Several of them related to things that aren't on the field. But I won't get into it.
Slim, I still love you. I own you, but I still love you.
1. I am not angry.
2. You don't own shit, you skinny SOB.
1. I am not angry.
2. You don't own shit, you skinny SOB.
You can't sit on the throne with your sparsely weighted body.
You can't sit on the throne with your sparsely weighted body.
I don't want to sit. I want to dance!
I don't want to sit. I want to dance!
Well at least we can agree that Von Miller is on a hall of fame pace.
bcbronc
12-11-2012, 06:11 PM
What about Bo Jackson? Should he be in the HOF? I dunno, its tough for me to even pretend to be neutral on TD, but I do get both sides of the argument.
Longevitity should be a factor, but so should total dominance. Probably needed two more years at least to be a shoe in, but his accolades speak loudly. Bo was every bit as dominating a football player as TD was, and I wouldn't say Bo should be in the hall.
I want TD in, but don't exect it. Maybe when his eligibility comes close to expiring.
MOtorboat
12-11-2012, 06:14 PM
What about Bo Jackson? Should he be in the HOF? I dunno, its tough for me to even pretend to be neutral on TD, but I do get both sides of the argument.
Longevitity should be a factor, but so should total dominance. Probably needed two more years at least to be a shoe in, but his accolades speak loudly. Bo was every bit as dominating a football player as TD was, and I wouldn't say Bo should be in the hall.
I want TD in, but don't exect it. Maybe when his eligibility comes close to expiring.
Jackson is not a good comp. He's more legend than reality.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JackBo00.htm
What about Bo Jackson? Should he be in the HOF? I dunno, its tough for me to even pretend to be neutral on TD, but I do get both sides of the argument.
Longevitity should be a factor, but so should total dominance. Probably needed two more years at least to be a shoe in, but his accolades speak loudly. Bo was every bit as dominating a football player as TD was, and I wouldn't say Bo should be in the hall.
I want TD in, but don't exect it. Maybe when his eligibility comes close to expiring.
Bo Jackson only played 4 years and they weren't even full years, like 8 games a year or something.
He was dominate in his short time, no question. But I don't see how he can be in this discussion.
bcbronc
12-11-2012, 06:20 PM
Jackson is not a good comp. He's more legend than reality.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JackBo00.htm
I don't think you can just look at his final stat line. He only played part seasons and his teams weren't great. I don't know where 5.4ypc ranks with all the greats, but Bo was more than just legend.
Jackson is not a good comp. He's more legend than reality.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JackBo00.htm
Interesting stats. Never played more than 11 games in a season or ran for more than 1,000 yards, but he averaged 5.4 ypc for his career.
He averaged 6.8 ypc his rookie year :lol:
That is sick.
MOtorboat
12-11-2012, 06:23 PM
I don't think you can just look at his final stat line. He only played part seasons and his teams weren't great. I don't know where 5.4ypc ranks with all the greats, but Bo was more than just legend.
He had eight 100 yard rushing games in his entire career. He had one in his first two years. He's just was not that dominant. He was more legend than anything.
Davis had 10 100 yard games in one season.
A lot of sports writers think that missing time from football, both out of college and then when he came back and producing on that team was pretty damn amazing.
A lot of sports writers think that missing time from football, both out of college and then when he came back and producing on that team was pretty damn amazing.
Well, yeah, he was a rare athlete. If he had dedicated himself to one sport, he would have been a special player. I guess being great wasn't that important to him.
BigDaddyBronco
12-11-2012, 06:39 PM
TD should be a HOFer. Gayle Sayers is in, he sets precedent. TD was one of the top 2 or 3 players in football for a 3 year period. He was the NFL MVP, SB MVP, and had 3 incredibly good seasons.
Last post, people get pissed when bad precedent is consistently followed. There's more than a slew of reasons why Sayers being in the Hall of Fame is a joke.
Chef Zambini
12-12-2012, 11:55 AM
was TD better thasn floyd litle?
I say yes, and I love floydd, he was my hero !
he kept the broncos viable as a franchise and in denver !
but TD was a better RB.
and if you look at the busts of RBs in canton its easy to find TEN and say, TD was a better running back and accomplished more during his short time on the field.
BroncoJoe
12-12-2012, 02:18 PM
RTza50UcbGo
NightTerror218
12-12-2012, 02:41 PM
it baffles me....he is one of 6 to ever hit the 2,000 yard mark and yet he can not get in due to short career. WTF. 2k rusher and SB MVP....he has the credentials.
BroncoJoe
12-12-2012, 02:44 PM
For two years, Davis was pulled from many games with a full quarter or more left in the game. His numbers were truly remarkable for that run of his, at a time where every team we faced did everything in their power to stop him.
The fact that he gained over 100 yards in every playoff game but one is a statement in and of itself. Going against the top teams in the league, no one could stop him.
As said before, I doubt he'll get in, but he absolutely should.
Ravage!!!
12-12-2012, 03:01 PM
RTza50UcbGo
Yeah, but this just shows that TD was nothing more than a "systems back."
I love it when people have to take what I said out of context to try to disprove me. It's a compliment, really.
I am a faggot
There's medicine for that, it's called a shotgun blast to the face.
Dapper Dan
12-13-2012, 03:48 AM
I love it when people...disprove me.
Orly?
Thnikkaman
12-13-2012, 11:00 AM
The quote of the article
The bottom line is Terrell Davis deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, Roger Craig and Jerome Bettis do not. At least not this year.
Slick
12-13-2012, 11:15 AM
Ask anyone who played against TD if he belongs in the Hall of Fame. I think we all know the answer to that, except King.
I used to like you King.
Slick
12-13-2012, 11:38 AM
http://www.nfl.com/halloffame/story/0ap1000000110211/article/projecting-the-finalists-for-the-hall-of-fames-class-of-2013
Terrell Davis (RB, 1995-2001): This is Davis' seventh year of eligibility. That should tell you something. All those Mike Shanahan-coached running backs who've gained 1,000 yards -- like Alfred Morris -- aren't helping Davis' cause. It's unfortunate.
Wow! Like Alfred Morris. Really?
Steve Atwater (S, 1989-1999): Atwater would knock your lights out. Sometimes, he'd inadvertently destroy his fellow DBs in the process. The former Denver Broncos great was impactful from his first training camp on, something that can't be said about everyone on the list of semifinalists. Projection: Atwater's votes are cannibalized by another heavy hitter, John Lynch.
Karl Mecklenburg (LB, 1983-1994): Versatile and consistent, Mecklenburg was the kind of player who could play with his hand in the dirt, stand up at outside linebacker, or play inside -- like a Sean Lee. Call him an athlete who defensive coordinators in 2012 could wrap their arms around. Nonetheless, I never felt I was watching the queen on the chessboard, the best player on the field. The Hall of Fame is for the elite of the elite.
Ask anyone who played against TD if he belongs in the Hall of Fame. I think we all know the answer to that, except King.
I used to like you King.
Welcome to America, go fukk yourself!
Thnikkaman
12-13-2012, 01:14 PM
Welcome to America, go fukk yourself!
Will you hurry up and eat yourself to death?
Will you hurry up and eat yourself to death?
My doctors say that my heart is stubborn and keeps giving me chances to correct my eating habits.
I may be able to make it to 60.
Thnikkaman
12-13-2012, 01:31 PM
My doctors say that my heart is stubborn and keeps giving me chances to correct my eating habits.
I may be able to make it to 60.
In dog years?
In dog years?
What does the age of your mother have to do with this?
Thnikkaman
12-13-2012, 01:34 PM
What does the age of your mother have to do with this?
You speak poorly of my mother like I care if she even exists anymore. Go eat a McRib that uses Krispey Kreme's for the bun.
Go eat a McRib that uses Krispey Kreme's for the bun.
I knew we were still friends!
Chef Zambini
12-13-2012, 02:34 PM
you guys are adorable.
MOtorboat
12-15-2012, 10:29 PM
Did you know that Terrell Davis has more 1,000 yard seasons than Marcus Allen?
That's because Marcus Allen is overrated. Much like Terrell Davis.
MOtorboat
12-15-2012, 10:50 PM
That's because Marcus Allen is overrated. Much like Terrell Davis.
Of course. Wouldn't want to give Davis any credit for anything, now, would we?
Of course. Wouldn't want to give Davis any credit for anything, now, would we?
Strawmen don't work on me. You give a very incredibly slanted view of TD. Of course, anything else in comparison makes it look like I'm not giving him any credit. The way you tell it, his QB was Brady Quinn, the line the worst in the league and he literally carried the worst defense and skill players to the SB's.
Ironically, I offer a more historically accurate painting than you guys do. It's kinda funny.
MOtorboat
12-15-2012, 11:06 PM
Strawmen don't work on me. You give a very incredibly slanted view of TD. Of course, anything else in comparison makes it look like I'm not giving him any credit. The way you tell it, his QB was Brady Quinn, the line the worst in the league and he literally carried the worst defense and skill players to the SB's.
Ironically, I offer a more historically accurate painting than you guys do. It's kinda funny.
Not a single 70s Steeler, 80s/90s 49er or 90s Cowboy belongs in the Hall of Fame with this logic.
You're not as objective as you claim.
Not a single 70s Steeler, 80s/90s 49er or 90s Cowboy belongs in the Hall of Fame with this logic.
You're not as objective as you claim.
Not true sir. You're putting words in my mouth. My argument is that a lot of those players had a longer career so it's easier to tell how great they were. I think putting a guy in the hall off of three great years when he is on an-all time great team is pretty ******* iffy. You claim that he's a slam dunk and easily belongs. You're a fan of his former team.
Posters here keep acting like what I'm saying is asinine. It's not, it's clearly not but you have an investment that I don't.
Here's another example, a lot of fans think that Brady is a better overall all-time QB than Manning. I'll argue that until I'm blue in the face. However, they have arguments that deserve respect and I understand that. The posters in this thread seem to think that if you don't think TD belongs in the hall you're crazy or idiotic. To come to that conclusion you'd have to be either a blind homer or crazy or idiotic.
He's a borderline Hall of Famer. If he gets in great, he's one of the borderline guys who made it. If not, I can understand being upset with it, but it's not a robbery. You can keep saying that it is and that's fine. I'm unreasonable about some of my players as well.
I still love you all.
MOtorboat
12-15-2012, 11:47 PM
Not true sir. You're putting words in my mouth. My argument is that a lot of those players had a longer career so it's easier to tell how great they were. I think putting a guy in the hall off of three great years when he is on an-all time great team is pretty ******* iffy. You claim that he's a slam dunk and easily belongs. You're a fan of his former team.
Posters here keep acting like what I'm saying is asinine. It's not, it's clearly not but you have an investment that I don't.
Here's another example, a lot of fans think that Brady is a better overall all-time QB than Manning. I'll argue that until I'm blue in the face. However, they have arguments that deserve respect and I understand that. The posters in this thread seem to think that if you don't think TD belongs in the hall you're crazy or idiotic. To come to that conclusion you'd have to be either a blind homer or crazy or idiotic.
He's a borderline Hall of Famer. If he gets in great, he's one of the borderline guys who made it. If not, I can understand being upset with it, but it's not a robbery. You can keep saying that it is and that's fine. I'm unreasonable about some of my players as well.
I still love you all.
I've never said he's a slam dunk. Only that I believe he belongs.
His candidacy obviously is up for debate, otherwise we wouldn't be debating it, he'd be in five years ago.
That said. He was great when he played. It's not the Hall of Longevity, it's the Hall of Fame. And no one, in that four year run (it was four years, not three) was as good as he was. And no one has ever been as dominant in the post season as he was.
I've never said he's a slam dunk. Only that I believe he belongs.
Come on baby, the tone of your posts have said otherwise, and I'm not just talking this thread.
MOtorboat
12-15-2012, 11:52 PM
Come on baby, the tone of your posts have said otherwise, and I'm not just talking this thread.
Because I believe he belongs. So of course I'm going to argue that he belongs.
If he was a slam dunk they would have inducted him five years ago.
Because I believe he belongs. So of course I'm going to argue that he belongs.
If he was a slam dunk they would have inducted him five years ago.
You missed the point.
MOtorboat
12-15-2012, 11:57 PM
You missed the point.
What point?
What point?
There is no hope.
MOtorboat
12-16-2012, 12:01 AM
There is no hope.
Here's where you lose me. You say I shouldn't argue that it's a "slam dunk" when we're five years into his candidacy. So, it's obviously not a slam dunk, because if it was, he'd be inducted five years ago.
I believe he should be inducted, so I convey my message through statistics, feats and personal witness that he should be in the Hall of Fame, and yet you tell me I shouldn't argue that.
You're right. I don't get it. What is your point?
Here's where you lose me. You say I shouldn't argue that it's a "slam dunk" when we're five years into his candidacy. So, it's obviously not a slam dunk, because if it was, he'd be inducted five years ago.
I believe he should be inducted, so I convey my message through statistics, feats and personal witness that he should be in the Hall of Fame, and yet you tell me I shouldn't argue that.
You're right. I don't get it. What is your point?
I'm not telling you that you shouldn't argue your point. What I'm saying that is your point of view is fine, but when you argue it, whether you know it or not, you do come across as thinking that it's a slam dunk.
That's my point.
If he gets in the Hall of Fame, how happy will you be?
MOtorboat
12-16-2012, 12:09 AM
I'm not telling you that you shouldn't argue your point. What I'm saying that is your point of view is fine, but when you argue it, whether you know it or not, you do come across as thinking that it's a slam dunk.
That's my point.
If he gets in the Hall of Fame, how happy will you be?
And you come across as if you think he doesn't deserve, at all, any recognition for what he did. Whether you think you do, or not.
It's kind of a how debate works.
If he doesn't get in, how happy will you be?
I'm actually already resigned to the fact that he won't.
And you come across as if you think he doesn't deserve, at all, any recognition for what he did. Whether you think you do, or not.
It's kind of a how debate works.
If he doesn't get in, how happy will you be?
I'm actually already resigned to the fact that he won't.
I argue how much was him and how much we know. I am aware of how a debate works. I'm just saying to say, Mo.
If he doesn't get in, I'll be sad for you all. I know you don't believe me, but I will.
I almost want him to get in for you all.
MOtorboat
12-16-2012, 12:16 AM
I argue how much was him and how much we know. I am aware of how a debate works. I'm just saying to say, Mo.
If he doesn't get in, I'll be sad for you all. I know you don't believe me, but I will.
I almost want him to get in for you all.
You come across as though you think he doesn't deserve it.
Like I said. I believe he deserves it. It's obviously not a slam dunk because if it was he'd be in by now.
I'm resigned to the fact that he won't. And I will stand by the fact that I think the process is a sham and the voters are idiots.
You come across as though you think he doesn't deserve it.
Like I said. I believe he deserves it. It's obviously not a slam dunk because if it was he'd be in by now.
I'm resigned to the fact that he won't. And I will stand by the fact that I think the process is a sham and the voters are idiots.
Yup.
spikerman
12-16-2012, 09:29 AM
My problem with the "longevity" argument is that, in theory, a running back who averages 3 yards per carry and 20 carries per game with the good fortune to stay healthy enough to play for 13 years would run for a career total of 12,480 yards. That would probably put him in the HoF. Let me reiterate - he would be Hall worthy with a 3 ypc average for his career.
Thnikkaman
12-16-2012, 09:37 AM
Come on baby, the tone of your posts have said otherwise, and I'm not just talking this thread.
Fatass, the question that should be asked if a player deserves to be in the HoF is, "Can you talk about the history of the game without mentioning them?"
Yes, I'm biased, but when it comes to TD, you have to mention him.
King, as your mom so eloquently said "are you trolling?"
Chef Zambini
12-16-2012, 11:54 AM
does he DESERVE to be in, without question ! a short career but it is stuffed full of accomplishments that JUSTIFY his enshrinement!
bcbronc
12-16-2012, 01:22 PM
My problem with the "longevity" argument is that, in theory, a running back who averages 3 yards per carry and 20 carries per game with the good fortune to stay healthy enough to play for 13 years would run for a career total of 12,480 yards. That would probably put him in the HoF. Let me reiterate - he would be Hall worthy with a 3 ypc average for his career.
Except that would never happen. How does a RB keep his job averaging 3 ypc for 13 years?
Fatass, the question that should be asked if a player deserves to be in the HoF is, "Can you talk about the history of the game without mentioning them?"
Yes, I'm biased, but when it comes to TD, you have to mention him.
Uhh, from my experience, people think and talk about Elway on those wins more than Davis. I actually think in the conversations he's come up, I've brought him up.
spikerman
12-16-2012, 05:53 PM
Except that would never happen. How does a RB keep his job averaging 3 ypc for 13 years?
That's why I said "in theory". I was merely pointing out that longevity doesn't reflect greatness. It's not like TD was a "one year wonder".
He was a three year wonder. His play was dominant for three seasons.
spikerman
12-16-2012, 05:57 PM
Uhh, from my experience, people think and talk about Elway on those wins more than Davis. I actually think in the conversations he's come up, I've brought him up.
Super Bowl XXXII was almost all Davis. Elway barely threw for 100 yards in that game. True, he had the inspirational run, but as far as moving the offense, TD was dominant despite sitting out the entire 2nd quarter. In 1998, TD was so dominant that Dan Reeves' gameplan in SB XXXIII was to make John Elway beat them. I'll bet nobody had even considered that strategy since early in Elway's rookie year. For a stretch, the entire NFL was terrified of Terrell Davis. Teams knew going into the game that the Broncos were going to run TD right at them and they still couldn't stop him. I mentioned it before, but even after his knee injury he actually came back and had another 1000 yard season.
I do want to say that you're making some good discussion points on this and it's been fun watching this thread. :beer:
Davis, Davis, Davis.
Never any mention of the offensive line and scheme that could not be stopped. ;)
Hope he gets in there for you.
spikerman
12-16-2012, 06:01 PM
Davis, Davis, Davis.
Never any mention of the offensive line and scheme that could not be stopped. ;)
Hope he gets in there for you.
I agree. Let's put in the entire OL too!
I agree. Let's put in the entire OL too!
I love you.
MOtorboat
12-16-2012, 06:03 PM
Davis, Davis, Davis.
Never any mention of the offensive line and scheme that could not be stopped. ;)
Hope he gets in there for you.
Every player in the Hall of Fame played in a scheme.
:lameargument:
spikerman
12-16-2012, 06:04 PM
I love you.
smooch
Every player in the Hall of Fame played in a scheme.
:lameargument:
Few players play in a scheme as dominant and innovative as that. It was to the point that people cried that it was unfair and illegal. The rules needed to be changed because it was unfair. Sorry Mo, you can argue till your blue in the face, but on this point, you're 100% wrong.
MOtorboat
12-16-2012, 06:11 PM
Few players play in a scheme as dominant and innovative as that. It was to the point that people cried that it was unfair and illegal. The rules needed to be changed because it was unfair. Sorry Mo, you can argue till your blue in the face, but on this point, you're 100% wrong.
I wonder if the Steelers' vertical game was a unique scheme when it was introduced?
Wait, what was that? It was?
Oh, OK, well then let's take out all of those players, because they played in a scheme that made them dominant.
MOtorboat
12-16-2012, 06:13 PM
Joe Montana played in a unique and dominant scheme called the West Coast offense. Let's take him out too. His accomplishments don't count either. It was the scheme.
A. He is in the hall primarily for winning and being "clutch." B. The standard for QB's is predicated on winning and he did a lot of winning. C. A lot of his success was literally based on playing with such talent. He was not a spectacular QB. He did not do anything special for the most part. I think he's overrated as an all-time player, but the fascination with winning and giving it all to the QB is what it is. D. His career was very long and he was a good passer for a very long time. While I don't think he was ever as good as Marino and a lot of the other QB's in his era, he was a good QB.
In other words, it's easy for Bronco fans to say "We know that most of this was TD. He really was that good! One of the best offensive lines of all-time? Ignore that!"
You pay no heed to the fact that same scheme made guys who could barely stay in the league look good. You don't factor in him playing with Elway, or Sharpe. The problem with these arguments is that you present it in the context that it was all him. The reality that you refuse to face and address is that it is reasonable for people to gunshy in giving TD all of that credit. If he had a couple years of more playing time and those seasons were just 1200 or 1300, I'd put him in because I'd be more inclined to think that he was that good.
It's not a robbery. I still love you, though.
MOtorboat
12-16-2012, 06:31 PM
A. He is in the hall primarily for winning and being "clutch." B. The standard for QB's is predicated on winning and he did a lot of winning. C. A lot of his success was literally based on playing with such talent. He was not a spectacular QB. He did not do anything special for the most part. I think he's overrated as an all-time player, but the fascination with winning and giving it all to the QB is what it is. D. His career was very long and he was a good passer for a very long time. While I don't think he was ever as good as Marino and a lot of the other QB's in his era, he was a good QB.
In other words, it's easy for Bronco fans to say "We know that most of this was TD. He really was that good! One of the best offensive lines of all-time? Ignore that!"
You pay no heed to the fact that same scheme made guys who could barely stay in the league look good. You don't factor in him playing with Elway, or Sharpe. The problem with these arguments is that you present it in the context that it was all him. The reality that you refuse to face and address is that it is reasonable for people to gunshy in giving TD all of that credit. If he had a couple years of more playing time and those seasons were just 1200 or 1300, I'd put him in because I'd be more inclined to think that he was that good.
It's not a robbery. I still love you, though.
I love you too King.
But no other back has done what he did in that scheme...just saying...
The closest thing to TD was Portis. And Portis had a very fine career, albeit he's a turd.
That proves to me that TD was very good. Portis hit 1500ish three times in a row. Davis hit 1800 and 2k. The scheme was the same, but IIRC the boys playing on the original line were considered to be a better unit than the later ones.
Thnikkaman
12-16-2012, 07:20 PM
Schlareth should be in the HoF.
bcbronc
12-16-2012, 07:22 PM
Marcus Allen AND Joe Montana are overrated?
Shut the **** up. :lol:
Marcus Allen AND Joe Montana are overrated?
Shut the **** up. :lol:
Marcus Allen is spoken about like he's a top five back. Joe Montana career's context is lost. I actually know about the context and read up on it. It's what separates fans like you from me. I'm glad I'm not a fan like you. No offense, you know what you're told.
Dapper Dan
12-16-2012, 09:57 PM
Marcus Allen is spoken about like he's a top five back. Joe Montana career's context is lost. I actually know about the context and read up on it. It's what separates fans like you from me. I'm glad I'm not a fan like you. No offense, you know what you're told.
Word.
bcbronc
12-16-2012, 11:55 PM
Marcus Allen is spoken about like he's a top five back. Joe Montana career's context is lost. I actually know about the context and read up on it. It's what separates fans like you from me. I'm glad I'm not a fan like you. No offense, you know what you're told.
Wait, you "read up on it" but I'm the fan that knows what I'm told? too funny!! Remember, I'm the guy that says S has more impact than CB--the usual response of which is "all 32 coaches say so" or "I heard it on the radio"--but I'm the guy that knows what I'm told! what the **** ever bub. :lol:
I don't know how many people I've heard refer to Marcus Allen as a top 5 all time back. One of the all time greats for sure though. First RB in history to put up 10k rushing, 5k receiving, had the career TD record, league MVP, Superbowl MVP and one of the most dominant postseasons in the annals of the league. All despite spending what should have been his most productive years in exile because of a crazy owner. If anything, Marcus Allen is underrated.
What career context did you read about? That Montana was the most important piece of a dynasty and a system that changed the game? Sometimes people make it sound like Jerry Rice and Ronnie Lott are the only players that actually contributed to the 49ers dynasty. Absolutely 1 of the 3 best QBs of the modern era. The thing that sets Joe Montana apart from everyone else is he was perfect in Superbowls, and judging QBs isn't about WHAT they do, but WHEN.
4-0 in Superbowls, 3 Superbowl MVPs, 11 TDs vs 0 Ints and a passer rating of 127.8. Let me guess, it was all Jerry Rice and the system.
You are a fan who struggles with context and argument presentation. You did a very good job pulling up his SB numbers. I'm proud of you. You then spit rhetoric out and proved my point. "A QB is judged by when they do something." They are judged that way, by fans like you. Other fans, who don't have your struggles, know that clutch play is important. However, if we apply your train of thought and Bradshaw has four rings and is thought of as a big game QB, he's the second best QB ever.
It hurts, I know.
This is the difference between Montana and the other great QB's of his time: Montana was a good passer who was surrounded by everything great. Great back, one of the best schemes ever, one of the best coaches ever, great defense, etc etc etc. Elway, not so much. Good offensive players were on his team, scheme...not so great...his coaches in his younger days...not so great....
Marino? Great line, his Wr's were considered to be top-notch. Defense....Not so much. There is no reason to think, not one, that Elway or Marino couldn't have lit it up as much as Montana if they were the QB on those teams. Marino had a stronger arm and was more accurate. He was as good on the shorter throws and was a better deep ball passer. Elway, pretty much the same. His completion percentage before Shanahan was not so hot.
But here comes the context thing, read this closely, I'm going to teach you something. The context behind Elway's percentage being lower was due to the scheme. Super conservative and then when it was third and long and Elway had to force the ball into tight spots....lot of incomplete passes and INT's from that.
That right there is the difference between you and I.
You're welcome.
bcbronc
12-17-2012, 04:02 AM
You are a fan who struggles with context and argument presentation. You did a very good job pulling up his SB numbers. I'm proud of you. You then spit rhetoric out and proved my point. "A QB is judged by when they do something." They are judged that way, by fans like you. Other fans, who don't have your struggles, know that clutch play is important. However, if we apply your train of thought and Bradshaw has four rings and is thought of as a big game QB, he's the second best QB ever.
yes, it's a struggle to keep up with your vastly superior intellect. Thank you for typing slow and using small letters.
Clutch play isn't just important, it's the most important. Obviously when we're talking about the all time greats there's no need to get into how a QB has to be able to make all the throws yadda yadda yadda. They know how to play the position and have all the tools or else they're not in a conversation about all time greats. So what separates them? Clutch play.
I'm not really sure where you're going with the Bradshaw thing. Are you saying Bradshaw also doesn't belong in the HOF because he played on good teams? Are you saying Bradshaw wasn't a clutch player? Never heard anyone put Bradshaw in the conversation for GOAT so applying "my train of thought" doesn't get you anywhere near Bradshaw as the #2 QB of all time.
But I am interested, how does a fan without my struggles judge a QB when talking GOATs? Yards? Wins? Completion %? Best TV commercials? I'm just a lowly Canuck trying to figure out why Peyton Manning never gets called for icing...what criteria should I use when differentiating between the all time great QBs?
It hurts, I know.
It is a bit painful, yes.
This is the difference between Montana and the other great QB's of his time: Montana was a good passer who was surrounded by everything great. Great back, one of the best schemes ever, one of the best coaches ever, great defense, etc etc etc. Elway, not so much. Good offensive players were on his team, scheme...not so great...his coaches in his younger days...not so great....
Everything great but Montana was just good? Lol, okay. If I had a nickle for every time I've heard "Roger Craig was a product of the team" I could afford a new Terrel Davis throwback. Now he's the reason Montana "looked" good. Like I said, the entire dynasty just rode the coattails of Rice and Lott apparently.
As for Elway being better, hell yeah! I'm a Broncos fan in my late 30s that doesn't live in Colorado...why do you think that happened?
Marino? Great line, his Wr's were considered to be top-notch. Defense....Not so much. There is no reason to think, not one, that Elway or Marino couldn't have lit it up as much as Montana if they were the QB on those teams. Marino had a stronger arm and was more accurate. He was as good on the shorter throws and was a better deep ball passer. Elway, pretty much the same. His completion percentage before Shanahan was not so hot.
Sure there are reasons. Ever heard of the "Elway cross"? For the first decade or so of Elway's career, the biggest criticism of his game was that he didn't always have the best touch. And you think he would have stepped in and ran the West Coast Offense just as well as Montana? EVERY player has a system they're best suited to, and I don't think a young Elway would have been an ideal fit for what SF was doing. Just as there's no way Montana gets those 3 Bronco teams of the 80s to the Superbowl, I don't think Elway wins 4 if he was a 49er.
As for Marino, why do you assume he would do as well as Montana? Marino threw 2 INTs in his 1 Superbowl appearance, Montana 0 in 4. And that's all because of the talent around Montana? Let me guess, you think Marino is better than Montana AND Elway, don't you? Becuz he threw more passes and scored lotza yardages! Marino #1 Favre #2!!
But here comes the context thing, read this closely, I'm going to teach you something. The context behind Elway's percentage being lower was due to the scheme. Super conservative and then when it was third and long and Elway had to force the ball into tight spots....lot of incomplete passes and INT's from that.
:lol: So let's see if I'm following your argument...Montana is overrated because Elway had a lower completion percentage as a result of the differences in the schemes they played in? Wow, that's quite insightful. No wonder I've struggled so much, I've never looked at it that way before....
That right there is the difference between you and I.
You're welcome.
if you're going to be an arrogant *****, at least be smart. This post was chock full of stupid.
"If you played on a great team or in an innovative system, you're overrated!"
It's twats like you that bring it out it in me. Keep jerking off espn and Peter King you sperm monster.
bcbronc
12-17-2012, 03:00 PM
It's twats like you that bring it out it in me. Keep jerking off espn and Peter King you sperm monster.
Good one!
Or to translate: Like always I'm talking out my ass and someone called me on it and I can't actually debate the topic so name call name call name call.
And just for the record, I've probably watched less than an hour of ESPN in my ENTIRE life, never visit their internet location and haven't read a Sports Illustrated since I was a teenager.
name call name call name call!!!
:hug:
Thnikkaman
12-17-2012, 03:26 PM
King is dumb again.
What? When did he stop being dumb?
What? When did he stop being dumb?
Last week he posted something that wasn't completely dumb. I can't remember where.
I really thought he had turned a corner.
Thnikkaman
12-17-2012, 04:20 PM
Last week he posted something that wasn't completely dumb. I can't remember where.
I really thought he had turned a corner.
McRibs have infested his brain.
Good one!
Or to translate: Like always I'm talking out my ass and someone called me on it and I can't actually debate the topic so name call name call name call.
And just for the record, I've probably watched less than an hour of ESPN in my ENTIRE life, never visit their internet location and haven't read a Sports Illustrated since I was a teenager.
name call name call name call!!!
:hug:
There's nothing to debate. I just told you that the entire Niners team was good, I'm not sure what you're actually arguing. Marino made the SB in his second year as a QB. That year he shattered almost every meaningful single season record. He showed up in the SB and he and his team got embarrassed. He did not have a complete team, he had a very good team that had several flaws. You're arguing that the guy with one of the best teams ever was better because his team performed better. I'm arguing that guys who were superior QB's could have done the same thing. Look what Marino did with Clayton, who was far from a slouch. You think the QB who was a superior passer by leaps and bounds wouldn't have matched what Montana did?
Really? Do you think Montana is throwing 48 TD's on Marino's team?
Really?
As far as Elway being better, I'm glad to know that you think he was better because you are a fan of his team. I'm stunned. Why didn't I think of that!?!?!?
You then go on to demonstrate your lack of...anything actually..with your interpretation of what I was saying. Elway is better because what he did in the context of his play was remarkable. His stats were worse, but still impressive, with what he had. Again, what's actually more impressive? A guy who puts up good stats on a team that is loaded, or a guy who carries a team to the SB with good teams but aren't nearly as good?
You seem to take these arguments and interpret it as I'm saying Montana was a bad QB. No. That's not what I'm saying. You just don't get it.
In his waning years, Elway finally had an elite team and he won two SB's with it. In those waning years, he was still one of the best passers in the NFL, an elite QB and he still made great plays with his legs. Elway at his golden years was a match for Montana in his prime.
The stats in context, (your bane), in his early years, help me make that point. To truly view someone's career, you need a summation of the context of their career. What did they have around them, what era did they play in? What changes occured in the game while they were playing. How tough was their competition, their coaches, their schemes, it's everything.
Elway had Reeves, a good coach who was super conservative. Montana had Walsh, the best offensive minded head coach the game's seen. He has the best WR in football. One of the best defenders of all time in Lott. Charles Haley was a stud. You keep talking about how fans think it was all Lott and Rice. Most fans think it was all Montana. The fact that I'm arguing his team was stupid great and you counter that by saying "it was more than Rice and Lott," helps me.
BECAUSE THE NINERS DYNASTY WAS ******* LOADED, YOU TWIT!
King is dumb again.
Shut your fat mouth.
McRibs have infested his brain.
Shut your former fat mouth.
dogfish
01-09-2015, 01:38 AM
seems like a good moment to dust this bad boy off. . .
:salute:
MOtorboat
01-09-2015, 03:30 AM
TD will get ****** again.
Northman
01-09-2015, 05:19 AM
Hopefully not.
spikerman
01-09-2015, 07:13 AM
TD will get ****** again.
I agree. I'll be very pleasantly surprised if he gets in.
NightTrainLayne
01-09-2015, 03:38 PM
If TD gets in, I'm throwing a party for that induction. Booze, food, everything.
I want him to get in just to soothe your minds.
underrated29
01-09-2015, 03:52 PM
I want him to get in just to soothe your minds.
do u think he deserves it?
Ravage!!!
01-09-2015, 03:57 PM
He had a very brief career on one of the best teams of all-time. He played on a team that had a ground-breaking system. Is it stupid that he's not in the Hall of Fame? No. Should he be? Maybe. At this point, I wouldn't mind seeing him in, but this is not a robbery.
But you are taking away from the fact that HE was a HUGE part in MAKING it one of best teams of all time. It's not like he was some scrub that just happned to be on the team.
But you are taking away from the fact that HE was a HUGE part in MAKING it one of best teams of all time. It's not like he was some scrub that just happned to be on the team.
Well he was a practice squad and ended up on the squad because of a preseason game tackle...
Hey, man, I'm just saying what I saw on a documentary on the guy.
He obviously wasn't a scrub. He obviously was better than any of the backs that Denver had who also played on the scheme. But it is not some unfair character assassination -although the board seems to feel otherwise- of questioning how great he was. Because that scheme made bad players produce really good to great numbers. So if he was great, and I think he, Davis, was, then why is it so brutal or wrong to question how great he was and if the line made him look greater than what he was? You guys have balked at the likes of Curtis Martin because he played for a long time; Jerome Bettis' YPC was too low even though he was the ultimate grind it out power back and his offensive line made him; Tomlinson was a hack in the playoffs, had a great offensive line and was at a proximity of greatness in terms of other offensive players; and the list kept going.
You can be a great back and have worse numbers than Davis. In fact that's often what the argument is. But you can be a great back and have great talent around you and have that boost you. You guys have argued that as well.
I want him to get in. He is a borderline candidate, but that does not disqualify him from getting in. It just means that it's close. It's the notion that he should just be a shoe-in that is so boggling, because he played with an all-time great QB, the best TE ever, good WR's, and the best offensive line in football -the creation of this line and scheme made Shanahan a revolutionary HoF worthy coach- and had a short career.
Northman
01-09-2015, 05:00 PM
Uh oh, more of King's haterade on TD.
Northman
01-09-2015, 05:01 PM
If TD gets in, I'm throwing a party for that induction. Booze, food, everything.
Sweet, will you pay for my flight out to where you are? Awesome. You da man!
Uh oh, more of King's haterade on TD.
I really do hate the guy: "I hope he gets in," just screams of my purest contempt. Hey man, when people argue about who the best teams are, I often find myself bringing up that team. It's like people in the football world forget that your boys went back-to-back.
Oh, NTL, I'll show up for the food, but I'll stay for the booze.
NightTrainLayne
01-09-2015, 05:49 PM
I really do hate the guy: "I hope he gets in," just screams of my purest contempt. Hey man, when people argue about who the best teams are, I often find myself bringing up that team. It's like people in the football world forget that your boys went back-to-back.
Oh, NTL, I'll show up for the food, but I'll stay for the booze.
Not only did we go back to back, but we knocked off that Packers team in their prime. Had that Packers team won Super Bowl 32, I have no doubt at all that THEY would be listed as one of the greatest teams of all time.
OrangeHoof
01-09-2015, 09:15 PM
This is compelling. Too bad much of the vote is done by Steeler- and Cowboy-worshipping idiots
There. Fixed it for ya.
Denver Native (Carol)
01-09-2015, 09:39 PM
Of all of the athletes I've covered over the years, Terrell Davis ranks as one of my all-time favorites. So I'll admit I was thrilled to learn that T.D. is, finally, a finalist for the Pro Football Hall of Fame.
T.D. was accessible and friendly, confident without being boastful and a true professional. Even toward the end of his career, when his knees were aching and his career was in jeopardy, he never dodged the media.
I covered Super Bowl XXXII in San Diego when he rushed for 157 yards and was named MVP, despite missing the second quarter with an excruciating migraine headache. The spotlight that night belonged to John Elway, and rightly so, as Elway finally got to hoist the Lombardi Trophy.
But over the years, I've watched replays of the Broncos' 31-24 victory over the Packers, and I'm always reminded of just how magical T.D. was that night. He danced through holes, ran over the Packers and spun a 360-degree move that left would-be tacklers hugging air. He was spectacular.
rest - http://www.denverpost.com/lunchspecial/ci_27289377/5-reasons-why-classy-ex-bronco-terrell-davis-belongs-hall-fame
Softskull
01-10-2015, 01:43 AM
TD may be the most important player to ever wear a Broncos uniform. Don't get me wrong, we've had many greats, but he was the driver to the offense of the two Superbowl. I would even suggest that without him Elway would not have a SB ring.
It's a travesty he's not in already.
Ravage!!!
01-10-2015, 09:59 AM
TD may be the most important player to ever wear a Broncos uniform. Don't get me wrong, we've had many greats, but he was the driver to the offense of the two Superbowl. I would even suggest that without him Elway would not have a SB ring.
It's a travesty he's not in already.
Well, Elway is still, by FAR teh most important player to ever wear a Broncos uniform. But its true, without TD we most likely don't have a SB ring.
Northman
01-10-2015, 10:27 AM
Knew he was special when i first saw him in the starting lineup and watching him run in 95'. Just somehow knew he was different than any back we had prior to him taking the field. Didnt realize he would be only one of 7 backs to rush for 2,000 yds in a season but am incredibly proud and grateful to have witnessed how special of a player he really was. Because im a Bronco fan there will always be some kind of bias but even if you are looking at his work objectively it would be insult to injury to keep him out of the HOF.
Proof of this is comparing his stats with that of what many consider to be a shoe in for the HOF himself with Ladanian Tomlinson,
TD- 6 years
3 Pro Bowls
3 First Team All Pro
2x SB Champion
2x Offensive Player of the Year
NFL MVP
SB MVP
3x AFC rushing leader
2000 yd club
Rushing TD's 60
LT- 10 Years
NFL MVP
3x First Team All Pro
3x Second Team All Pro
5x Pro Bowls
2x Rushing Leader
28 Rushing TD's in a season
Rushing TD's 145
Im still so blown away by how good TD really was. I miss him and it saddens me that his career was cut short like it was but i think getting into the HOF would be the perfect endcap for a great guy and true talent.
TXBRONC
01-10-2015, 10:30 AM
Well he was a practice squad and ended up on the squad because of a preseason game tackle...
Hey, man, I'm just saying what I saw on a documentary on the guy.
He obviously wasn't a scrub. He obviously was better than any of the backs that Denver had who also played on the scheme. But it is not some unfair character assassination -although the board seems to feel otherwise- of questioning how great he was. Because that scheme made bad players produce really good to great numbers. So if he was great, and I think he, Davis, was, then why is it so brutal or wrong to question how great he was and if the line made him look greater than what he was? You guys have balked at the likes of Curtis Martin because he played for a long time; Jerome Bettis' YPC was too low even though he was the ultimate grind it out power back and his offensive line made him; Tomlinson was a hack in the playoffs, had a great offensive line and was at a proximity of greatness in terms of other offensive players; and the list kept going.
You can be a great back and have worse numbers than Davis. In fact that's often what the argument is. But you can be a great back and have great talent around you and have that boost you. You guys have argued that as well.
I want him to get in. He is a borderline candidate, but that does not disqualify him from getting in. It just means that it's close. It's the notion that he should just be a shoe-in that is so boggling, because he played with an all-time great QB, the best TE ever, good WR's, and the best offensive line in football -the creation of this line and scheme made Shanahan a revolutionary HoF worthy coach- and had a short career.
King your facts are off. One, Davis was never on the practice squad. When he was drafted he thought he might end up on the practice squad but according to Kubiak and Bobby Turner didn't see it that way. It's your opinion that the line made Davis better than he was and it's your opinion that he's a borderline but we don't agree. Sharpe was a great receiving tight end but no one was ever going to say he was a good blocker.
Northman
01-10-2015, 10:35 AM
King your facts are off. One, Davis was never on the practice squad. When he was drafted he thought he might end up on the practice squad but according to Kubiak and Bobby Turner didn't see it that way. It's your opinion that the line made Davis better than he was and it's your opinion that he's a borderline but we don't agree. Sharpe was a great receiving tight end but no one was ever going to say he was good blocker.
Denver's line was good but no back that followed (even Portis) was near as good as TD was. Like, not even close.
Ravage!!!
01-10-2015, 10:40 AM
Denver's line was good but no back that followed (even Portis) was near as good as TD was. Like, not even close.
Not even CLOSE. The whole "the OL made TD what he is".... has to come from someone that didn't really watch TD play.
Northman
01-10-2015, 10:51 AM
Not even CLOSE. The whole "the OL made TD what he is".... has to come from someone that didn't really watch TD play.
Well, i dont know if King did or didnt see TD play but its really hard to argue what TD did vs any other back did for Denver. But its the same kind of debate i would have with someone who tries to say Manning is a better QB than Elway was. Both are great but Elway to me was much much better as an overall QB than Manning. There were just so many other aspects to Elway's game that Manning just doesnt have.
Ravage!!!
01-10-2015, 11:14 AM
Well, i dont know if King did or didnt see TD play but its really hard to argue what TD did vs any other back did for Denver. But its the same kind of debate i would have with someone who tries to say Manning is a better QB than Elway was. Both are great but Elway to me was much much better as an overall QB than Manning. There were just so many other aspects to Elway's game that Manning just doesnt have.
I'm just like you in the perspective that you could just see something special in TD. Strong, fast, incredibly quick, and could spin away and make you look foolish. At the same time, the guy would lower his shoulder and just flat out lower the BOOM on someone, or turn it on and out run the entire defense down the sideline. The guy just had EVERYTHING. I just Soooo loved watching him play. He was special.
Elway. Elway was just... Elway. Manning is very much like Marino. Brady is very much like Montana. Elway just was different. He was just such a superior athlete from the QB position. He just had this.... magic. You NEVER felt like the game was out of reach. You NEVER thought... "shit, we can't come back from that"...because you had Elway.
Howie Long has always said it best. "He's the best player I have ever played against. During Bronco week, our entire defense would concentrate on stopping 1 guy... ONE guy... John Elway, and we just could never seem to do it."
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Release Candidate 2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.