Klis: Broncos deserve to have more representatives in Pro Football Hall of Fame

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Had the NFL made a big deal of the Pro Football Hall of Fame's 40th anniversary, the Broncos would have been shut out.

Can't attend a party if you're not invited. And don't start with Willie "Raider" Brown and Tony "Cowboy" Dorsett.

But it's the golden anniversary that the Hall of Fame is celebrating this weekend in Canton, Ohio, and thanks to a nice run at immortality in the past decade, the Broncos were well represented by John Elway, Gary Zimmerman, Floyd Little and Shannon Sharpe.

rest - http://www.denverpost.com/klis/ci_23791781/hall-call-broncos-deserve-have-more-representatives-canton

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Vic Lombardi ‏@VicLombardi

My friend @Jeff_Legwold is on the HOF committee. He's pushing for Louie Wright. He was a bigger version of Champ.

AcidLord ‏@AcidlordDQ

@VicLombardi Greatest memory of Louis Wright, i was at the game with my grandfather: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCp4ltF_SBY …
Retweeted by Vic Lombardi

[MOtorboat]

Randy Gradishar, Steve Atwater, Terrell Davis and Karl Mecklenburg.

IMHO.

[TXBRONC]

As much as I think Louis Wright is deserving of being in the Hall of Fame I think Randy Gradishar deserves it more.

[Northman]

Vic Lombardi ‏@VicLombardi

My friend @Jeff_Legwold is on the HOF committee. He's pushing for Louie Wright. He was a bigger version of Champ.

AcidLord ‏@AcidlordDQ

@VicLombardi Greatest memory of Louis Wright, i was at the game with my grandfather: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCp4ltF_SBY …
Retweeted by Vic Lombardi


Yea, i remember that game well. I actually have that burned on DVD. Such a great ending.

[Northman]

As much as I think Louis Wright is deserving of being in the Hall of Fame I think Randy Gradishar deserves it more.

Yea, i would push for the guys MO listed over Louis first.

[G_Money]

Randy Gradishar, Steve Atwater, Terrell Davis and Karl Mecklenburg.

IMHO.

Davis unfortunately had too short a career, unless somebody makes a schmaltzy movie about him or he can raise his profile through more NFL.COM work in the near and far future. Maybe as a veterans pick. He was amazing, but if we put in everyone who was amazing for 4 years... Anyway, at RB you need more longevity than he had. You just do. He's basically 2 full years short, and would be the RB with the fewest games played (And even fewer played effectively) in over half a century not named Sayers. Not likely.

The fact that Carl Banks is in but Meck is out kinda infuriates me, but I don't expect Meck to get in for another decade or two (another veteran's pick) if at all. Not a lot to do there - Meck was great, and if he'd played on an East Coast team (or America's Team, or whatever) he'd probably be in already, but it's borderline, and borderliners need somebody in their corner or a major voting bloc of writers, which Meck hasn't had. Maybe he'll get one.

Steve Atwater for me is the grossest oversight of the Super Bowl teams. 8 Pro Bowls, 2 rings and the All-Decade team? Somebody needs to make that happen... except there are almost no safeties in the hall, and the ones who were there are interception machines (which is why Reed will get in) and/or converted All-Pro corners (Lott, Woodson, etc). Since no one will ever again play safety the way Atwater played it, as a massive intimidator who crushed receivers and RBs alike, it'll probably be harder in the future. He and Dawkins have a long road to trying to make the Hall, IMO, even though it's an injustice - it's not just because Atwater was a Bronco.

Which leaves Gradishar. I have no idea what the justification is for keeping him out. None. He's got to get in... Doesn't he?

~G

[MOtorboat]

Agree with almost everything, G, which is why I listed them in that order.

Gradishar's absence is borderline criminal. Atwater should get in at some point. Meck should be a veteran's committee pick down the road.

I think the restriction on the number of players who get in each year, bogs them down at positions where it's easy to quantify who should be in, like WR.

I reluctantly agree about Davis and his career span. But I think his short dominance should be recognized. Best player in the game for a four year period. That means for 9 percent of the existence of the NFL, he was the best player in the game. How many guys have a claim like that?

[GEM]

Gradishar and Ekuban were interviewed on the field before the scrimmage. Everyone seated around me said the same thing. The dude has records that still haven't been touched, how he's not in the HOF is damn near as blatant East Coast, big market team biased as you'll ever see. Part of the reason I don't waste a weekend watching any of the HOF bullshit, cause that's about what it is....bullshit.

[G_Money]

Agreed. It's hard with TD. I mean, by "most dominant in the league" for a short span, you'd get Revis going into the Hall already, wouldn't you? Or if we're just talking RBs, then Adrian Peterson would be in if he retired tomorrow. Heck, probably if he retired last year. But wouldn't Shaun Alexander be as well? I mean, he cleared the 6000-yards-in-4-years hurdle, with an extra year of 1300+ that Terell didn't have.

Especially at the RB position, where a lot of guys have a couple of years of greatness in them before the end of very short careers, it's hard to take a RB with only 4 years of production and put him in the hall, even if he was the best back in the league (and he was).

TD's dominance can't be taken from him. We have the rings, and the banners, and he's a Ring of Famer. If he doesn't get in the Hall, well, neither has Gradishar or Atwater or Meck. He's in really good company. ;)

~G

[rationalfan]

a few things:

- i roll my eyes every time i hear/read about the east coast media bias as the reason the broncos don't have more members in the hall of fame. it's a parroted statement that's almost never analyzed. think about it like this: if this was true then the new york jets, in the biggest city on the east coast that's also considered the "home of media," would have more than six players in the hall (and three of them didn't earn their busts from their time in new york). it's not about geographic bias, it's about hall of fame bias. the people who do the voting have their own criteria - right or wrong. it's not a conspiracy theory.

- more on the hall of fame bias: also, it's not a coincidence that denver's sudden burst of hall of famers coincides with the broncos teams that won super bowls. it's also not a coincidence that the sudden burst of broncos hall of famers coincides with growth of the internet and the NFL being all over cable TV. awareness breeds nomination, not just talent. sad, but true.

- i don't get as gung-ho about potential broncos in the hall as some fans do. but if jerome bettis is elected before TD i will be annoyed. bettis seems like one of those guys who had sustained "goodness" but was never great. TD was truly great, for a short time. and, i think people went gaga over bettis' size and personality just as much as they did his talent. please, prove me wrong, but i never saw a player that scared me.

[rationalfan]

I reluctantly agree about Davis and his career span. But I think his short dominance should be recognized. Best player in the game for a four year period. That means for 9 percent of the existence of the NFL, he was the best player in the game. How many guys have a claim like that?

i'm not sure davis was the best player in the game those fours years (randy moss? brett favre?). but you have the best argument for TD's HOF credentials that i've ever read. someone needs to send this to woody paige and jeff legwold - one of them represents denver in the HOF voting, i'm not sure which.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

I had never even heard of Robinson before this weekend. I wonder how his career numbers as a linebacker stack up against Randy Gradishar.

:mad:

[MOtorboat]

i'm not sure davis was the best player in the game those fours years (randy moss? brett favre?). but you have the best argument for TD's HOF credentials that i've ever read. someone needs to send this to woody paige and jeff legwold - one of them represents denver in the HOF voting, i'm not sure which.

I think both might be in the room. One as Denver's rep and another as an at-large, but I don't remember off the top of my head.

[G_Money]

a few things:

- i roll my eyes every time i hear/read about the east coast media bias as the reason the broncos don't have more members in the hall of fame. it's a parroted statement that's almost never analyzed. think about it like this: if this was true then the new york jets, in the biggest city on the east coast that's also considered the "home of media," would have more than six players in the hall (and three of them didn't earn their busts from their time in new york). it's not about geographic bias, it's about hall of fame bias. the people who do the voting have their own criteria - right or wrong. it's not a conspiracy theory.

- more on the hall of fame bias: also, it's not a coincidence that denver's sudden burst of hall of famers coincides with the broncos teams that won super bowls. it's also not a coincidence that the sudden burst of broncos hall of famers coincides with growth of the internet and the NFL being all over cable TV. awareness breeds nomination, not just talent. sad, but true.

HOF voting for the NFL is done by media members. Here:


The Selection Committee consists of one media representative from each geographical area with a current NFL franchise. If a geographical area has more than one franchise (such as New York City) there shall be a selector for each franchise. A 33rd member is a representative of the Pro Football Writers of America and there are 13 at-large delegates.

So the problem is, back when the Broncos were getting started, NOBODY SAW THEM PLAY. The East Coast bias was there because there was no ESPN, there was no national coverage of flyover markets, nobody covered the Broncos, and only the glamor teams (like the Raiders, also in a huge west cost media market) had any lasting appeal. The Vikings got coverage with the Packers and the Bears (and went to a bunch of Super Bowls lets not forget), but mostly how they got a dozen or so HOFers to our current 4 (one of whom we share with the Vikes) is that they swapped votes. "I'll vote for your Packer or Bear if you vote for my Viking." That's basically how it works.

If you don't have a vote worth trading, nothing happens for you. The Broncos rep hasn't apparently been a good deal-maker, but to be fair there haven't been a lot of Broncos finalists either. Atwater hasn't even been a finalist, right? Just the semis? Hard to trade votes when your guy isn't even up for the final vote.

The NFL HOF voting IS biased. I don't think that's the only reason the Broncos haven't gotten many in (like you said, winning some Super Bowls helps) but Denver has been to SIX of em. Weird that the Chargers have more HOFers than us (and will continue to have, since LT and Seau will be in at some point). I guess it's amazing what we did with very little talent - which when you look back at those 80s teams, especially on offense, kinda is true.

~G

[G_Money]

Gradishar and Ekuban were interviewed on the field before the scrimmage. Everyone seated around me said the same thing. The dude has records that still haven't been touched, how he's not in the HOF is damn near as blatant East Coast, big market team biased as you'll ever see. Part of the reason I don't waste a weekend watching any of the HOF bullshit, cause that's about what it is....bullshit.

The problem with Gradishar's stats like "tackles" is that they were not kept officially (and so the Broncos may have been recording all assisted tackles as just tackles, and thus inflating Randy's stats). Neither were sacks or anything else. So it's really based on how dominant he was in the memories of those who played with him and watched him. Apparently nobody with a useful vote watched him which is why I keep waiting for his peers to vote him in.

They haven't yet.

~G

[TXBRONC]

Gradishar and Ekuban were interviewed on the field before the scrimmage. Everyone seated around me said the same thing. The dude has records that still haven't been touched, how he's not in the HOF is damn near as blatant East Coast, big market team biased as you'll ever see. Part of the reason I don't waste a weekend watching any of the HOF bullshit, cause that's about what it is....bullshit.

They use Randy's accomplishment as reason not saying that his numbers are inflated because he played in a 3-4 defense and tackles were not an official stat. At the same Jack Lambert who was contemporary of Randy's got into the Hall of Fame with no sweat. Personally I think most the voters are hypocrites that will use whatever excuse is convient at the time.

[TXBRONC]

The problem with Gradishar's stats like "tackles" is that they were not kept officially (and so the Broncos may have been recording all assisted tackles as just tackles, and thus inflating Randy's stats). Neither were sacks or anything else. So it's really based on how dominant he was in the memories of those who played with him and watched him. Apparently nobody with a useful vote watched him which is why I keep waiting for his peers to vote him in.

They haven't yet.

~G

That's the excuse they use yet that didn't keep Lambert out. Jack was taken in the second round of the same draft Randy was taken I (1974).

[GEM]

If you didn't see the bias of the early days media, you're either ignoring it or blind.

[G_Money]

That's excuse they use yet that didn't keep Lambert out. Jack was taken in the second round of the same draft Randy was taken I (1974).

Lambert has 4 rings and played in a time zone that all the writers lived in.

[ShaneFalco]

i wasnt even a broncos fan back then, but everyone knew about TD, he should be in hall.

[MOtorboat]

Voters:

Arizona Kent Somers, Arizona Republic
Atlanta Len Pasquarelli, CBS-Atlanta
Baltimore Scott Garceau, WMAR-TV
Buffalo Mark Gaughan, Buffalo News
Carolina Darin Gantt, ProFootballTalk
Chicago Dan Pompei, Chicago Tribune*
Cincinnati Joe Reedy, Cincinnati Enquirer
Cleveland Tony Grossi, ESPNCleveland.com/WKNR Radio
Dallas Rick Gosselin, Dallas Morning News*
Denver Jeff Legwold, Denver Post
Detroit Anwar Richardson, MLive!
Green Bay Cliff Christl, Green Bay Press-Gazette
Houston John McClain, Houston Chronicle*
Indianapolis Mike Chappell, Indianapolis Star
Jacksonville Sam Kouvaris, WJXT-TV
Kansas City Randy Covitz, Kansas City Star
Miami Edwin Pope, Miami Herald
Minnesota Mark Craig, The Minneapolis Star-Tribune
New England Ron Borges, Boston Herald*
New Orleans Pete Finney, Times-Picayune
New York (Giants) Bob Glauber, Newsday
New York (Jets) Gary Myers, New York Daily News
Oakland Frank Cooney, The Sports Xchange
Philadelphia Paul Domowitch, Philadelphia Daily News
Pittsburgh Ed Bouchette, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
St. Louis Bernie Miklasz, St. Louis Post-Dispatch*
San Diego Nick Canepa, San Diego Union Tribune
San Francisco Nancy Gay, Comcast Sportsnet
Seattle Mike Sando, ESPN.com
Tampa Bay Ira Kaufman, Tampa Tribune
Tennessee David Climer, The Tennessean
Washington David Elfin, 106.7 The Fan
PFWA Darryl Ledbetter, Atlanta Journal-Constitution
At Large Howard Balzer, The Sports Xchange
At Large Jarrett Bell, USA Today
At Large John Clayton, ESPN/ESPN Magazine
At Large Jason Cole, Yahoo! Sports
At Large John Czarnecki, FOXSports.com*
At Large Dave Goldberg, AOL Sports/Fanhouse*
At Large Clark Judge, CBSSports.com
At Large Peter King, Sports Illustrated
At Large Ira Miller, The Sports Xchange*
At Large Sal Paolantonio, ESPN
At Large Vito Stellino, Florida Times Union
At Large Jim Trotter, Sports Illustrated
At Large Charean Williams, Ft. Worth Star Telegram

See more at: http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/selectionprocess.aspx#sthash.a65oSKPW.dpuf

[Denver Native (Carol)]

i'm not sure davis was the best player in the game those fours years (randy moss? brett favre?). but you have the best argument for TD's HOF credentials that i've ever read. someone needs to send this to woody paige and jeff legwold - one of them represents denver in the HOF voting, i'm not sure which.

It's Legwold who gives the pitch on Bronco players.

Vic Lombardi ‏@VicLombardi 6h

My friend @Jeff_Legwold is on the HOF committee. He's pushing for Louie Wright. He was a bigger version of Champ.

[TXBRONC]

It's Legwold who gives the pitch on Bronco players.

Vic Lombardi ‏@VicLombardi 6h

My friend @Jeff_Legwold is on the HOF committee. He's pushing for Louie Wright. He was a bigger version of Champ.

Legwold has been doing it for about five or six years. He started back when the RMN was stil around.

I also thought Kevin Acee represented the Chargers.

[TXBRONC]

Lambert has 4 rings and played in a time zone that all the writers lived in.

True but there are a lot of players who are in tha neve played on Super Bowl winner. Ron Mix and Dan Fouts are two guys that come to mind.

[MOtorboat]

That's my bad. The list is updated from the HOF's actual site.

[G_Money]

True but there are a lot of players who are in tha neve played on Super Bowl winner. Ron Mix and Dan Fouts are two guys that come to mind.

Right, but Gradishar has the double whammy of media market + no Super Bowls. Mix and Fouts were both LA/SD Chargers. If you wanna be techical, Gradishar's third strike is being a defensive player.

~G

[Northman]

I reluctantly agree about Davis and his career span. But I think his short dominance should be recognized. Best player in the game for a four year period. That means for 9 percent of the existence of the NFL, he was the best player in the game. How many guys have a claim like that?

Exactly.

[TXBRONC]

Right, but Gradishar has the double whammy of media market + no Super Bowls. Mix and Fouts were both LA/SD Chargers. If you wanna be techical, Gradishar's third strike is being a defensive player.

~G

I forgot to mention this earlier, there is only one Bronco I would consider put in ahead of Gradishar and that would be Atwater.

Leroy Selmon a defensive end for the Bucaneers got in his first go around.

[rationalfan]

HOF voting for the NFL is done by media members. Here:



So the problem is, back when the Broncos were getting started, NOBODY SAW THEM PLAY. The East Coast bias was there because there was no ESPN, there was no national coverage of flyover markets, nobody covered the Broncos, and only the glamor teams (like the Raiders, also in a huge west cost media market) had any lasting appeal. The Vikings got coverage with the Packers and the Bears (and went to a bunch of Super Bowls lets not forget), but mostly how they got a dozen or so HOFers to our current 4 (one of whom we share with the Vikes) is that they swapped votes. "I'll vote for your Packer or Bear if you vote for my Viking." That's basically how it works.

If you don't have a vote worth trading, nothing happens for you. The Broncos rep hasn't apparently been a good deal-maker, but to be fair there haven't been a lot of Broncos finalists either. Atwater hasn't even been a finalist, right? Just the semis? Hard to trade votes when your guy isn't even up for the final vote.

The NFL HOF voting IS biased. I don't think that's the only reason the Broncos haven't gotten many in (like you said, winning some Super Bowls helps) but Denver has been to SIX of em. Weird that the Chargers have more HOFers than us (and will continue to have, since LT and Seau will be in at some point). I guess it's amazing what we did with very little talent - which when you look back at those 80s teams, especially on offense, kinda is true.

~G

nice post. but i don't think it helps any argument about an "east coast bias." the raiders and chargers references sink that point.

as for "no one covered" the flyover markets? really? you mean the papers in those cities didn't cover the teams in their backyards? and those writers for those papers weren't part of the HOF voting process until cable TV magically informed the entire nation that there were more teams than just those in the eastern time zone? hmmm.

now to your other point, was/is there voting bias? probably. i really have no idea. i just know that the consistent cries of "east coast bias" are easily cited, but very hard to prove with facts. it's the excuse for fans who can't realize that people who aren't fans don't value players the same way they do. that's the price of passion.

[Poet]

Eh, I'd put Terrell Davis in. I understand the longevity thing, but at the end of the day, he was as good as Barry Sanders and Emmitt Smith. Honestly he was probably better than both of them when they were at their pinnacle. The longevity issue is a rule, but all rules are meant to be broken.

Terrell Davis had the most dominant stretch of running ever. Or at the very least, one of them. At his height as a player he stood with Walter Peyton, Campbell, Smith, Sanders, all of them. He needed about two or three more years to get in comfortably. I haven't heard anyone argue that he wouldn't have been able to bang out a few more 1200-1400 yard seasons. Sometimes we get caught up on looking at sports like a science, and it leads to absurd results.

Sports remain one of the furthest things from science. Look at the variance in the draft, the variance in injuries, coaching, refereeing, game conditions, all of that crap. We make exceptions and odd choices in the Hall of Fame all of the time. The Hall of Fame loves guys with a ton of picks, yet there's a guy who played for the Bengals who retired with the third most picks ever and he's not in there. The Hall loves accurate passers that put defenses on their heels, where's Kenny Anderson?

That's the point, they ignore criteria at a whim. The voters barter with one another about votes, which frustrates me. They ignore guys who are clearly deserving to enter the Hall of Fame and just pour every last guy on a dynasty in there. We're talking about the group of men who couldn't figure out that Cris Carter was a first ballot Hall of Fame WR, or that Art Monk belonged. They are the same guys that apparently think being in the top ten for rushing yards is for losers - Jerome Bettis, where are you? Didn't Tim Brown put up one of the best receiving careers with a lot of average guys at QB? Where's he at?

That's my point, there's nothing scientific about their process. It's not refined, it's not really structured, it's not consistent. They break their own 'rules' which are based on arbitrary guidelines at best. On one hand they say "you don't meet our qualifications, go **** yourself." Then on the other hand they say "you meet up with our qualifications, go **** yourself."

So since the precedent has been set for selecting players in this manner, why not put him in. If he's that close and we suspend our disbelief so much at it is, why not?

[slim]

King is smart.

[Northman]

Eh, I'd put Terrell Davis in. I understand the longevity thing, but at the end of the day, he was as good as Barry Sanders and Emmitt Smith. Honestly he was probably better than both of them when they were at their pinnacle. The longevity issue is a rule, but all rules are meant to be broken.

Terrell Davis had the most dominant stretch of running ever. Or at the very least, one of them. At his height as a player he stood with Walter Peyton, Campbell, Smith, Sanders, all of them. He needed about two or three more years to get in comfortably. I haven't heard anyone argue that he wouldn't have been able to bang out a few more 1200-1400 yard seasons. Sometimes we get caught up on looking at sports like a science, and it leads to absurd results.

Sports remain one of the furthest things from science. Look at the variance in the draft, the variance in injuries, coaching, refereeing, game conditions, all of that crap. We make exceptions and odd choices in the Hall of Fame all of the time. The Hall of Fame loves guys with a ton of picks, yet there's a guy who played for the Bengals who retired with the third most picks ever and he's not in there. The Hall loves accurate passers that put defenses on their heels, where's Kenny Anderson?

That's the point, they ignore criteria at a whim. The voters barter with one another about votes, which frustrates me. They ignore guys who are clearly deserving to enter the Hall of Fame and just pour every last guy on a dynasty in there. We're talking about the group of men who couldn't figure out that Cris Carter was a first ballot Hall of Fame WR, or that Art Monk belonged. They are the same guys that apparently think being in the top ten for rushing yards is for losers - Jerome Bettis, where are you? Didn't Tim Brown put up one of the best receiving careers with a lot of average guys at QB? Where's he at?

That's my point, there's nothing scientific about their process. It's not refined, it's not really structured, it's not consistent. They break their own 'rules' which are based on arbitrary guidelines at best. On one hand they say "you don't meet our qualifications, go **** yourself." Then on the other hand they say "you meet up with our qualifications, go **** yourself."

So since the precedent has been set for selecting players in this manner, why not put him in. If he's that close and we suspend our disbelief so much at it is, why not?

Man, you touched on some things i was going to ask G money to give some input on but you nailed it and then some. The only thing i would add is the since TD or even just 2000 the game has changed for RB's in terms of workload. If the same thing happened to Peterson that did TD i would be hard pressed to keep him out as well. I just wonder if because of the way the game has changed over the course of they years if the HOF is even re-evaluating some of that. You really cant use the same standards you once did years ago because a lot has changed and rb's in general break down far more now and the longevity is probably going to suffer more as time goes on. Between the work load and the time split with other backs im just not sure you can view it the same way anymore.

[Poet]

Man, you touched on some things i was going to ask G money to give some input on but you nailed it and then some. The only thing i would add is the since TD or even just 2000 the game has changed for RB's in terms of workload. If the same thing happened to Peterson that did TD i would be hard pressed to keep him out as well. I just wonder if because of the way the game has changed over the course of they years if the HOF is even re-evaluating some of that. You really cant use the same standards you once did years ago because a lot has changed and rb's in general break down far more now and the longevity is probably going to suffer more as time goes on. Between the work load and the time split with other backs im just not sure you can view it the same way anymore.

I think the Hall of Fame needs to measure players in their generations only. I think they often get caught up in the "well, was he going to be able to do that in such and such era?"

[G_Money]

nice post. but i don't think it helps any argument about an "east coast bias." the raiders and chargers references sink that point.

as for "no one covered" the flyover markets? really? you mean the papers in those cities didn't cover the teams in their backyards? and those writers for those papers weren't part of the HOF voting process until cable TV magically informed the entire nation that there were more teams than just those in the eastern time zone? hmmm.

now to your other point, was/is there voting bias? probably. i really have no idea. i just know that the consistent cries of "east coast bias" are easily cited, but very hard to prove with facts. it's the excuse for fans who can't realize that people who aren't fans don't value players the same way they do. that's the price of passion.

The number of teams in Denver's time zone before 1976: one.
# of major media markets: LA, SF/bay area = 2.
# of teams that were west of the Mississippi and not in Texas: 5 (the Cards were still in St. Louis, Hawks were a '76 expansion team, KC is in St. Louis, plus or minus a few miles).

So it was us, San Diego (which floated off the LA market originally), the 49ers, Oakland and LA.

LA is the 2nd largest media market in the nation, SF/Oakland is at least 6th (though it wasn't quite that big in the 70s).

Even now we're just average, maybe a bit below (14th-to-18th depending on how you designate it).

So yeah, there's an east coast bias because 3/4 of the teams play in Texas or east(ish) of the Mississippi, and TV coverage for early Broncos games wasn't exactly nationwide. The only teams that have broken that have been big media market teams on the West coast, so if you want to call it a big market/east coast bias, feel free. We're neither, so we're screwed especially on that early days stuff.

It's better now, but not exactly perfect.

~G

[G_Money]

Eh, I'd put Terrell Davis in. I understand the longevity thing, but at the end of the day, he was as good as Barry Sanders and Emmitt Smith. Honestly he was probably better than both of them when they were at their pinnacle. The longevity issue is a rule, but all rules are meant to be broken.

Terrell Davis had the most dominant stretch of running ever. Or at the very least, one of them. At his height as a player he stood with Walter Peyton, Campbell, Smith, Sanders, all of them. He needed about two or three more years to get in comfortably. I haven't heard anyone argue that he wouldn't have been able to bang out a few more 1200-1400 yard seasons. Sometimes we get caught up on looking at sports like a science, and it leads to absurd results.

Right, but he didn't get the 2-3 more productive years.

Look, best 4 years of a RB's career (regular season only):


Davis: 6413 rushing (out of 7607 total), 1181 receiving, 61 TDs
Edge: 6316 rushing (out of 12,246 total), 2000 receiving, 58 TDs
Alexander: 6329 rushing (out of 9,453 total), 886 receiving, 80 TDs
Ahman Green: 5684 rushing (out of 9,205 total), 1913 receiving, 53 TDs
Priest Holmes: 5598 rushing (out of 8172 total), 2236 receiving, 68 TDs
"All Day" AP: 6581 rushing (out of 8,849 and counting), 1,046 receiving, 54 TDs

That's just a random collection of backs who have 4 impressive years to their names and came to mind to look up. There are more. I included Holmes and Green because they racked up the same kinds of total yards that Davis did even if they didn't do it all by taking handoffs. Yes, Davis had a very impressive FIRST four years, AND he did extra work in the playoffs to win two Super Bowls and have one of the most impressive running totals in playoff history... but no, I don't think it's enough.

A lot of guys can stand with the greats for a few years. The reason they were greats is that they did it over a long period of time. If Adrian Peterson had never come back from that knee injury, is he a HOFer? Or let's give him the 2000 yard season. If he blows it out again in week one and is done forever, is he in the Hall? If he gets in, maybe Davis has a shot, otherwise I don't see it. Makes me sad as a Broncos fan, but it's not like you can point out 4 guys in the Hall and go, "see, he's just like TD, why isn't Davis in?"

There's one guy. He was a sentimental choice, they made a movie about his dying friend, and it's not gonna happen again. IMO anyway.

~G

[G_Money]

To put it another way:

There were those saying Asomugha was a better corner than Champ for a couple of years, or that Revis was, or somebody else. But over his career NOBODY was a better cornerback than Champ freakin' Bailey, not for length of greatness as a top-3 corner. If we're putting Revis in the Hall for 4 good years, or Asomugha, that's gonna start chapping my hide. Doing it year after year and not just a couple of times does mean something when it comes to the Hall, and IMO it probably should.

~G

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Mike Klis posted this January 7, 2012. He makes some great points


I understand the argument why former Broncos running back Terrell Davis should not be a Hall of Famer.

But it’s a joke that he hasn’t yet made it to the room where the official Hall of Fame arguments are made.

Davis has made it to the semifinal round of 25 modern-era candidates five consecutive years. For some reason, he has failed to make it to the finalist round of 15 for five consecutive years.

rest - http://blogs.denverpost.com/broncos/2012/01/07/t-d-got-robbed/11659/

[Poet]

To put it another way:

There were those saying Asomugha was a better corner than Champ for a couple of years, or that Revis was, or somebody else. But over his career NOBODY was a better cornerback than Champ freakin' Bailey, not for length of greatness as a top-3 corner. If we're putting Revis in the Hall for 4 good years, or Asomugha, that's gonna start chapping my hide. Doing it year after year and not just a couple of times does mean something when it comes to the Hall, and IMO it probably should.

~G

Not sure if I agree with this. Rod Woodson and Deion Sanders come to mind. But that's a different debate for a different day.

The difference between TD and those two is that they weren't driving the same in terms of impact. Terrell Davis won games on his back. He played one one of the greatest lines ever, with a good WR corp, a great QB and a great TE, but he won games.

Corners don't win games with the same consistency in that running backs did at that time.

[Poet]

Right, but he didn't get the 2-3 more productive years.

Look, best 4 years of a RB's career (regular season only):



That's just a random collection of backs who have 4 impressive years to their names and came to mind to look up. There are more. I included Holmes and Green because they racked up the same kinds of total yards that Davis did even if they didn't do it all by taking handoffs. Yes, Davis had a very impressive FIRST four years, AND he did extra work in the playoffs to win two Super Bowls and have one of the most impressive running totals in playoff history... but no, I don't think it's enough.

A lot of guys can stand with the greats for a few years. The reason they were greats is that they did it over a long period of time. If Adrian Peterson had never come back from that knee injury, is he a HOFer? Or let's give him the 2000 yard season. If he blows it out again in week one and is done forever, is he in the Hall? If he gets in, maybe Davis has a shot, otherwise I don't see it. Makes me sad as a Broncos fan, but it's not like you can point out 4 guys in the Hall and go, "see, he's just like TD, why isn't Davis in?"

There's one guy. He was a sentimental choice, they made a movie about his dying friend, and it's not gonna happen again. IMO anyway.

~G

But again, we know he's going to get those yards, that's the point. If I asked you in a yes or no fashion "Do you think TD would have gotten those yards that had he been able to play," you would respond with "Yes." After that, I'm satisfied. I'm glad that you put up those names, though. Do they compare to TD? The only one close is AP, who is going to get into the Hall of Fame, and would get into the HoF if he retired right now - quasi conjecture -.

TD has two rings and is the best postseason back in football history. That is the x-factor. Those stats have been posted on this site numerous times, but IIRC he has the highest YPG out of any back ever, the most TD's, the most yards in a game, etc etc etc. That's the difference, that's what separates him the pack. Out of the entire team, even more than John Elway, he was your most important player during those SB years.

Sayers also got in because as a talent he was one of the most gifted athletes ever. People cried when his career ended. It was this great shame, it brought on anger, sadness, bitterness and despondency. He also happened to play in Chicago, and that speaks for itself.

I don't think anyone is going to take any of those guys over TD, either.

[Canmore]

TD has two rings and is the best postseason back in football history. That is the x-factor. Those stats have been posted on this site numerous times, but IIRC he has the highest YPG out of any back ever, the most TD's, the most yards in a game, etc etc etc. That's the difference, that's what separates him the pack. Out of the entire team, even more than John Elway, he was your most important player during those SB years.



This is why I feel TD belongs in the HOF. On the biggest stages Davis dwarfs the competition. In the post-season, Davis took his game to a level unmatched by any other back. Yes, his career was short, but his numbers speak for themselves.

[Dzone]

Roger Wehrli made it into the hof in 2007, which makes the exclusion of Louis Wright an absolute joke.

[G_Money]

But again, we know he's going to get those yards, that's the point. If I asked you in a yes or no fashion "Do you think TD would have gotten those yards that had he been able to play," you would respond with "Yes." After that, I'm satisfied. I'm glad that you put up those names, though. Do they compare to TD? The only one close is AP, who is going to get into the Hall of Fame, and would get into the HoF if he retired right now - quasi conjecture -.

You wouldn't take Edge's exact same rushing totals, plus 900 more yards receiving in those 4 years, PLUS the other 5000 yards in his career over TD? Edge was pretty incredible when healthy - as was Davis. TD just didn't get as many healthy years. The idea that, "Well yeah, if he didn't get hurt..." takes away from the fact that he DID get hurt. Is Sterling Sharpe in the HOF? He led the league in receptions in 3 years, was top-5 in years 4 years, was All-Pro for three years (just like TD, actually).

He ain't in the hall, because he only got 7 years in before retirement. Didn't even reach age 30 in the league - just like Terrell. Maybe he will be in someday, though I doubt it. "If he didn't get hurt" he was on pace for a HOF career. But on pace isn't the finish line. You gotta actually reach the finish line, and that line was set with a few more years of contributions than either Sterling or Terrell were able to give. Yes, I think TD was gonna run himself into a HOF career, absolutely. If his own teammate doesn't blow his knee out on a dumb interception play (thanks Lepsis, you SOB) who knows what he could have accomplished?

But he didn't actually accomplish it, so he can't really get credit for it. I just don't think what he was given time to do is enough for enshrinement, even with the playoff numbers. Not when that sort of thing paves the way for even MORE RBs to say "well hey, I had better career numbers than..." and push more Gradishars and Atwaters out of the hall.

TD gave us two Super Bowl rings (well, not YOU King, but you know what I mean) and I couldn't be prouder to call myself a Terrell Davis fan. He is my favorite RB of all time, even above Sweetness and Barry. I loved his smooth acceleration, his tremendous vision, the fact that nobody brought him down with an arm-tackle in his whole career. I just can't give him my (theoretical) HOF vote. I'll be the happiest person around if voters give him the Gayle Sayers Exception and vote him in, because the titles he brought us washed that 80s inferiority complex that hung around this team completely away. We became a football title town at long last, and there's no way it happens without him.

But if the Sayers thing was a one-time-only deal, then I don't see how TD gets in - and the gatekeepers have to draw a line somewhere or they won't have room for all the busts. He played 30+ fewer games than EVERY HOF RB who wasn't a two way player from the 50s or Gallopin' Gale. Maybe games aren't the criteria to measure by, but TD is way on this side of the established cut line. Was he great enough, over every other excluded player who also missed the cutline, to justify it? Did he mean that much to us?

In baseball, the example would be Kirby Puckett, who brought titles to the Twins while playing 12 years (short for a baseball HOF). He's Mr. Twin. Is TD Mr. Bronco? No, that'd be Elway. *shrugs* TD was the only piece that could have made those title teams cross that finish line. We had to have him, and he was utterly amazing for his short time in the orange and blue.

I just don't know that that fits him for a gold jacket.

~G

[Poet]

You wouldn't take Edge's exact same rushing totals, plus 900 more yards receiving in those 4 years, PLUS the other 5000 yards in his career over TD? Edge was pretty incredible when healthy - as was Davis. TD just didn't get as many healthy years. The idea that, "Well yeah, if he didn't get hurt..." takes away from the fact that he DID get hurt. Is Sterling Sharpe in the HOF? He led the league in receptions in 3 years, was top-5 in years 4 years, was All-Pro for three years (just like TD, actually).
No, I won't. Edge was an incredible back before his ACL tear, and if he had the postseason success that TD had, I'd advocate for him as well. I'm just tired of writers using rings to justify bad, average or above average players getting into the Hall of Fame. TD had far more to do with his team winning SB's than Terry Bradshaw did. TD was far better at being a RB than Bradshaw was at being a QB. So if the writers as going to sit back and use rings as a way to justify their opinions, they might as well use them to do something productive as well. Same thing for Sterling, was he the main reason his team was in the SB and winning? Did he dominate the postseason to the point where he is the golden standard for playoff play at his position?

No, Sharpe and Edge did not. That's the problem with your analogy. Your analogy dies to mine because your analogy is missing the critical piece to it.



He ain't in the hall, because he only got 7 years in before retirement. Didn't even reach age 30 in the league - just like Terrell. Maybe he will be in someday, though I doubt it. "If he didn't get hurt" he was on pace for a HOF career. But on pace isn't the finish line. You gotta actually reach the finish line, and that line was set with a few more years of contributions than either Sterling or Terrell were able to give. Yes, I think TD was gonna run himself into a HOF career, absolutely. If his own teammate doesn't blow his knee out on a dumb interception play (thanks Lepsis, you SOB) who knows what he could have accomplished?

So again, do you think TD would have been unable to get those yards had he stayed healthy? So yes, you do. So if I'm sitting here and I'm in that fantasy -not the game type mind you - of drafting RB's for my all-time team, I wouldn't highly consider the man who was better than Sanders and Emmitt Smith in their heyday? Missing those seasons didn't diminish what he did.



But he didn't actually accomplish it, so he can't really get credit for it. I just don't think what he was given time to do is enough for enshrinement, even with the playoff numbers. Not when that sort of thing paves the way for even MORE RBs to say "well hey, I had better career numbers than..." and push more Gradishars and Atwaters out of the hall.

Again, your scenario is lacking. Maybe the new standard should be "If you were able to produce numbers that were equal to or greater than two of the top five players EVER in your respective position in your prime years, and be the best postseason performer of all-time, then you're a hall of famer. So I'm not sure how that's going to push anyone out of the hall, especially since the reason why Grad, Atwater, Meck, Anderson, Riley, and others aren't getting in.


TD gave us two Super Bowl rings (well, not YOU King, but you know what I mean) and I couldn't be prouder to call myself a Terrell Davis fan. He is my favorite RB of all time, even above Sweetness and Barry. I loved his smooth acceleration, his tremendous vision, the fact that nobody brought him down with an arm-tackle in his whole career. I just can't give him my (theoretical) HOF vote. I'll be the happiest person around if voters give him the Gayle Sayers Exception and vote him in, because the titles he brought us washed that 80s inferiority complex that hung around this team completely away. We became a football title town at long last, and there's no way it happens without him.
There is no other player in the history of football that has this scenario. He's a hall of fame RB. Not by much, I was booed off of this message board a few months ago when I said that TD was a borderline guy, but he belongs in the hall.



But if the Sayers thing was a one-time-only deal, then I don't see how TD gets in - and the gatekeepers have to draw a line somewhere or they won't have room for all the busts. He played 30+ fewer games than EVERY HOF RB who wasn't a two way player from the 50s or Gallopin' Gale. Maybe games aren't the criteria to measure by, but TD is way on this side of the established cut line. Was he great enough, over every other excluded player who also missed the cutline, to justify it? Did he mean that much to us?

In baseball, the example would be Kirby Puckett, who brought titles to the Twins while playing 12 years (short for a baseball HOF). He's Mr. Twin. Is TD Mr. Bronco? No, that'd be Elway. *shrugs* TD was the only piece that could have made those title teams cross that finish line. We had to have him, and he was utterly amazing for his short time in the orange and blue.

I just don't know that that fits him for a gold jacket.

~G

It fits him just fine. Think of it this way, you look at Barry Sanders and TD. Barry Sanders says "Son, you were as good as I was in the regular season." TD looks at him and goes "were you as good as I was in the playoffs?" No.

Then Jim Brown runs in the room, slaps them both in face, screams "I am still your ******* daddy," and the credits roll.

He's a hall of famer. Not by much, but he is.

[TXBRONC]

This is why I feel TD belongs in the HOF. On the biggest stages Davis dwarfs the competition. In the post-season, Davis took his game to a level unmatched by any other back. Yes, his career was short, but his numbers speak for themselves.

For such a short career he has a lot of awards. How many backs who have played longer can say they were a Super Bowl MVP, a League MVP, two Super Bowl rings, a 2000 rushing in a season, and who has career playoff average of over 100 yards rushing per game. The Jacksonville game is only one that Davis didn't get 100 rushing. He had 91 on 14 carries according to Pro-Football-Reference.com.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

article written July 29, 2012


The voting for this year's NFL Hall of Fame class has come and gone, and former Denver Broncos running back Terrell Davis failed to advance past the list of semifinalists for enshrinement.

However, Davis deserves strong consideration for a spot due to his contributions to the game, albeit in a shortened career.

In seven seasons, Davis amassed 7,607 yards rushing, which is more than 12 modern-era running backs already in the Hall of Fame.

rest - http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1276879-denver-broncos-is-terrell-davis-worthy-of-the-nfl-hall-of-fame

[Denver Native (Carol)]

from same article:


Davis was the MVP of Super Bowl XXXII, where he ran for 157 yards and three touchdowns, which is still a Super Bowl record.

Davis would go on to win the NFL MVP award the following season after rushing for 2,008 yards, one of only six men to ever break that barrier, and 21 touchdowns, which is tied for the sixth most in a season in NFL history. He also had 25 receptions that year for another two scores in one of the best individual seasons the NFL has ever seen.

He also ran for 12 touchdowns in the postseason in just eight playoff games. The only running backs who have more touchdowns in the postseason are Emmitt Smith, Thurman Thomas and Franco Harris, and they all played in more than twice the games Davis did.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1276879-denver-broncos-is-terrell-davis-worthy-of-the-nfl-hall-of-fame

[Northman]

from same article:


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1276879-denver-broncos-is-terrell-davis-worthy-of-the-nfl-hall-of-fame


Great posts Carol. These are some of the very reasons i think TD deserves it despite the shortened career.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Great posts Carol. These are some of the very reasons i think TD deserves it despite the shortened career.

I totally agree. From article I posted, the following definitely caught my eye:

In seven seasons, Davis amassed 7,607 yards rushing, which is more than 12 modern-era running backs already in the Hall of Fame.

[G_Money]

They're using "Modern Era" VERY loosely, Carol. Nobody on that yardage list played after I was BORN in 1975. They might have been ELECTED after 1970, but almost none of em played then. They're all 50s and 60s players. When Floyd Little retired he had the 2nd most yards as a running back in league history to Jim Brown. If we're using that benchmark then anybody who runs for 5 years in the ACTUAL modern NFL is gonna be close.

I don't like playoff benchmarks because that's exactly how guys like Bradshaw get in: they had a lot of playoff games and racked up nice playoff numbers. Football is a team sport, and Barry Sanders not having a good enough team to get him to the playoffs doesn't mean he wouldn't have set a ton of records on those 90s Broncos teams if he and Davis had switched places.

The field everyone plays on is the 16 game schedule. Davis gets a thumb on the scale from me for tearing up that many playoff-caliber teams on the ground, which is not easy. As has been said, he's one of the greatest playoff performers at his position ever.

I just don't think 4 years is a HOF career. If he'd played from 92-95 before his injury, when we weren't winning anything because the rest of the personnel weren't here and so he didn't get those playoff games, would it be enough? The idea that somebody isn't a HOFer because he didn't play with enough other great guys to get a lot of playoff chances is weird to me. John was way better with Shanahan's system, the new influx of talent, a running game, receivers who could catch... but John was gonna be in the Hall even if Shanny didn't come back to Denver.

Playoff performance legitimizes borderline players, which I guess is what you're saying King. Davis's regular season performances were outstanding, there just weren't enough of them to push him over the top, but that his playoff games and rings should.

I guess you should make that argument to the guys who keep slamming the door in his face in the semi-finals. Find whoever voted for Lynn freakin' Swann to be a HOFer. It took him a dozen years as a finalist to finally make the Hall with joke numbers because of his Super Bowl success. Davis does not have joke numbers, he just has barely any years. Swann was pulled along by better players, TD was a brief comet streaking across the sky who carried great players, HOF players, WITH him to glory and rings and immortality.

There should be an argument in there somewhere.

~G

[Denver Native (Carol)]

TD played for 7 years - 1995 - 2001

http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/790/terrell-davis

[rationalfan]

The number of teams in Denver's time zone before 1976: one.
# of major media markets: LA, SF/bay area = 2.
# of teams that were west of the Mississippi and not in Texas: 5 (the Cards were still in St. Louis, Hawks were a '76 expansion team, KC is in St. Louis, plus or minus a few miles).

So it was us, San Diego (which floated off the LA market originally), the 49ers, Oakland and LA.

LA is the 2nd largest media market in the nation, SF/Oakland is at least 6th (though it wasn't quite that big in the 70s).

Even now we're just average, maybe a bit below (14th-to-18th depending on how you designate it).

So yeah, there's an east coast bias because 3/4 of the teams play in Texas or east(ish) of the Mississippi, and TV coverage for early Broncos games wasn't exactly nationwide. The only teams that have broken that have been big media market teams on the West coast, so if you want to call it a big market/east coast bias, feel free. We're neither, so we're screwed especially on that early days stuff.

It's better now, but not exactly perfect.

~G

hey, man, i'm not trying to make this a crusade, but ignorance does not equal a bias. simply because most of the nfl market was east of the mississippi at one time doesn't mean there was a deliberate attempt to slight teams that weren't located on the atlantic seaboard (which is what an east coast bias would be).

again, by definition, an east coast bias would mean that teams on the east coast (new york, philly, new england, miami, washington, carolina, baltimore, jacksonville) would have more members in the hall of fame than other franchises. is that true? no.

granted, this feature from bleacher report (forgive me) about the top ten franchises in terms of hall of fame members is a few years old, but the addition of hall of famers doesn't grow exponentially.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/175717-in-order-nfl-teams-with-the-most-hall-of-famers-top-10

in this, seven of the top ten franchises are well east of the atlantic coastline (and that's with me giving credit to pittsburgh as an east coat team). numbers dictate the east coat bias with the hall of fame isn't real. the more logical correlation is that there is a championship team bias. that claim is hard to deny.

[G_Money]

TD played for 7 years - 1995 - 2001

http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/790/terrell-davis

TD only played well for 4 years. Crawling to the LOS for a couple of hundred yards his last 3 years isn't really what the Hall is looking for when it comes to induction.

[G_Money]

hey, man, i'm not trying to make this a crusade, but ignorance does not equal a bias. simply because most of the nfl market was east of the mississippi at one time doesn't mean there was a deliberate attempt to slight teams that weren't located on the atlantic seaboard (which is what an east coast bias would be).

again, by definition, an east coast bias would mean that teams on the east coast (new york, philly, new england, miami, washington, carolina, baltimore, jacksonville) would have more members in the hall of fame than other franchises. is that true? no.

granted, this feature from bleacher report (forgive me) about the top ten franchises in terms of hall of fame members is a few years old, but the addition of hall of famers doesn't grow exponentially.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/175717-in-order-nfl-teams-with-the-most-hall-of-famers-top-10

in this, seven of the top ten franchises are well east of the atlantic coastline (and that's with me giving credit to pittsburgh as an east coat team). numbers dictate the east coat bias with the hall of fame isn't real. the more logical correlation is that there is a championship team bias. that claim is hard to deny.

Um... East Coast Bias actually means that anything shifted more than one time zone goes out of the East Coast news cycle. So more reporters and TV watchers are asleep when events are happening west of the Central time zone and they do not get watched live by the major population centers that yes, are on the East coast. Skimpier reporting and less viewership means less information, which creates a bias in favor of those on whom there is more information.

I agree with you that there's a championship bias that exists as well, but East Coast bias when it comes to equal airtime for rivalries, or sports feats, or non-championship exposure is a real thing. Why talk about the thing nobody on the East coast (or even the Central timezone) watched live when you can talk about the thing everybody in those markets (as well as those in the West) did see live?

~G

[Denver Native (Carol)]

TD only played well for 4 years. Crawling to the LOS for a couple of hundred yards his last 3 years isn't really what the Hall is looking for when it comes to induction.

I can't believe that each player in the HOF had his career reviewed year by year, vs lumping his total career together. At the time Shannon retired, he led all TE's in total receptions. They did not break it down by year, and throw out his leaner years.

[G_Money]

Davis doesn't want voters remembering his bad seasons. Nobody's putting "had two years where he couldn't run for even 300 yards due to injury" on his HOF plaque. The yards count, but he didn't rack up a lot of em in those years. The argument is that he had one of the best starts anyone ever had to a career in his first 4 years, had 3 seasons over 1,500 yards and one of those over 2,000, that he was one of the most productive backs in NFL playoff history and won two Super Bowls, two AP OPOY awards, a league MVP, and a Super Bowl MVP.

Years 5-7 aren't included in any of those measures because they don't help his case. TDs extra years don't help him lead in anything. You only throw in the lean years when you're trying to get longevity bonuses "like total career receptions" and TD isn't going for those.

~G

[Poet]

They're using "Modern Era" VERY loosely, Carol. Nobody on that yardage list played after I was BORN in 1975. They might have been ELECTED after 1970, but almost none of em played then. They're all 50s and 60s players. When Floyd Little retired he had the 2nd most yards as a running back in league history to Jim Brown. If we're using that benchmark then anybody who runs for 5 years in the ACTUAL modern NFL is gonna be close.

I don't like playoff benchmarks because that's exactly how guys like Bradshaw get in: they had a lot of playoff games and racked up nice playoff numbers. Football is a team sport, and Barry Sanders not having a good enough team to get him to the playoffs doesn't mean he wouldn't have set a ton of records on those 90s Broncos teams if he and Davis had switched places.

The field everyone plays on is the 16 game schedule. Davis gets a thumb on the scale from me for tearing up that many playoff-caliber teams on the ground, which is not easy. As has been said, he's one of the greatest playoff performers at his position ever.

I just don't think 4 years is a HOF career. If he'd played from 92-95 before his injury, when we weren't winning anything because the rest of the personnel weren't here and so he didn't get those playoff games, would it be enough? The idea that somebody isn't a HOFer because he didn't play with enough other great guys to get a lot of playoff chances is weird to me. John was way better with Shanahan's system, the new influx of talent, a running game, receivers who could catch... but John was gonna be in the Hall even if Shanny didn't come back to Denver.

Playoff performance legitimizes borderline players, which I guess is what you're saying King. Davis's regular season performances were outstanding, there just weren't enough of them to push him over the top, but that his playoff games and rings should.

I guess you should make that argument to the guys who keep slamming the door in his face in the semi-finals. Find whoever voted for Lynn freakin' Swann to be a HOFer. It took him a dozen years as a finalist to finally make the Hall with joke numbers because of his Super Bowl success. Davis does not have joke numbers, he just has barely any years. Swann was pulled along by better players, TD was a brief comet streaking across the sky who carried great players, HOF players, WITH him to glory and rings and immortality.

There should be an argument in there somewhere.

~G

I have made that argument several times, although in passing. This is the first time I've been on this side of the debate, so excuse my lack of content. I'll try again.

As far as playoff games go, TD in the playoffs is far superior than TB in the playoffs. As of a matter of fact, this serves as the perfect analogy for my argument. We both know that playoff success can get you into the Hall. The voters love it. They absolutely love it. They view it as this sort of "great players win championships," and the great or good players on dynasties are the ones to be celebrated. Unless you're Barry Sanders and Dan Marino, with those monstrous resumes, they say screw you. That is what I like to call "lazy playoff success reward."

So we see Terry Bradshaw, who was putrid during his first six seasons, even by QB standards of that day. We see his rings, his handful of good moments. We see what was considered to be the best defense ever on his team. We see one of his era's best WR's, RB's, the best center to ever play the game, a very good but not great, and not HoF worthy WR Lynn Swann. So we see the best defense in the game, arguably the best back and best WR, maybe the best second WR, we see this. Then we see this hulking waste of talent at QB. Who ends up with four ******* rings. Put him in the hall they say. He has to be in the Hall of Fame because of his rings. Put Swann in the hall. He has to be because he was a big game performer, he has four rings, he was acrobatic as all get out, and it's only right that he gets in because he should. It's like it turned into a moral issue. How could we stop this incredible WR...who never saw double coverage because of his WR1 and RB from being in the hall? He was a dynasty steeler, DAMMIT!

If we're going to make the logical argument that an above average play and a bad player players have to make the hall because of their team carrying their carcasses - which is intellectually unjustifiable - then let's play it a different way.

So we love postseason success and we have the best postsesason back ever. He is the standard. Bradshaw was garbage in the regular season. TD was elite in the regular season. Swann was great in the postseason. Terrell Davis was greater in the postseason.

So to me, that's the standard. If you're going to be short in career, you have to be incomparably awesome in some respect. Well, his four years are only comparable to other short but brilliant backs, and first ballot HoFers, but no one stands with him in the playoffs. He was the driving success for his team. More so than Elway, Sharpe, Atwater or anyone else.

P.S.

Kenny Anderson owns Bradshaw.

[TXBRONC]

I have made that argument several times, although in passing. This is the first time I've been on this side of the debate, so excuse my lack of content. I'll try again.

As far as playoff games go, TD in the playoffs is far superior than TB in the playoffs. As of a matter of fact, this serves as the perfect analogy for my argument. We both know that playoff success can get you into the Hall. The voters love it. They absolutely love it. They view it as this sort of "great players win championships," and the great or good players on dynasties are the ones to be celebrated. Unless you're Barry Sanders and Dan Marino, with those monstrous resumes, they say screw you. That is what I like to call "lazy playoff success reward."

So we see Terry Bradshaw, who was putrid during his first six seasons, even by QB standards of that day. We see his rings, his handful of good moments. We see what was considered to be the best defense ever on his team. We see one of his era's best WR's, RB's, the best center to ever play the game, a very good but not great, and not HoF worthy WR Lynn Swann. So we see the best defense in the game, arguably the best back and best WR, maybe the best second WR, we see this. Then we see this hulking waste of talent at QB. Who ends up with four ******* rings. Put him in the hall they say. He has to be in the Hall of Fame because of his rings. Put Swann in the hall. He has to be because he was a big game performer, he has four rings, he was acrobatic as all get out, and it's only right that he gets in because he should. It's like it turned into a moral issue. How could we stop this incredible WR...who never saw double coverage because of his WR1 and RB from being in the hall? He was a dynasty steeler, DAMMIT!

If we're going to make the logical argument that an above average play and a bad player players have to make the hall because of their team carrying their carcasses - which is intellectually unjustifiable - then let's play it a different way.

So we love postseason success and we have the best postsesason back ever. He is the standard. Bradshaw was garbage in the regular season. TD was elite in the regular season. Swann was great in the postseason. Terrell Davis was greater in the postseason.

So to me, that's the standard. If you're going to be short in career, you have to be incomparably awesome in some respect. Well, his four years are only comparable to other short but brilliant backs, and first ballot HoFers, but no one stands with him in the playoffs. He was the driving success for his team. More so than Elway, Sharpe, Atwater or anyone else.

P.S.

Kenny Anderson owns Bradshaw.

Bradshaw was probably more physically gifted but Anderson was the more technically sound quarterback. Put Anderson those Steelers teams and would have four championship and he would be in the Hall of Fame.

[Poet]

Bradshaw was probably more physically gifted but Anderson was the more technically sound quarterback. Put Anderson those Steelers teams and would have four championship and in the Hall of Fame.

Bradshaw definitely had more talent. He's one of the most talented quarterbacks in NFL history. His arm might be the strongest ever, he could run if he had to, strong, tall.

He just...went to the right team, I guess.

[Jsteve01]

The more I see these threads and the debate for both sides the more I just shake it down to the bones. Who is the Hall of Fame designed to honor? The answer of course is the best people to ever play the game. Curtis Martin is not one of the best to ever play the game. He was a good rb who enjoyed longevity at his position.

Terrell Davis was the best player on a team that boasted at least three future hall of famers. he was the best running back in the game over a four year period in league which also had guys by the name of Emmitt and Barry. It's not like he was Jamal Lewis running for 2000 on a team that had literally no other options. His post season numbers aren't even debatable.

I just don't get the longevity argument. He didn't play long enough....well who in the hell cares. If longevity is the standard by which players are evaluated then Steve Deberg should have been elected a long time ago. Was he great prior to the injury? yes!!! Did he do it when it mattered? Of course. Did he contribute to championship teams? Well actually he carried championship teams, and again he was hands down the best player on teams loaded with all pro talent.

he deserves to be voted in before any more of these very good but not great backs get the call. I've softened on martin. he did it very well for a long time, but in his prime is there any doubt who you would have taken if given the choice between he and Terrell?

[Poet]

Curtis Martin is a deserving HoF guy. I think the old goat was like 33 one year and lead the league in rushing with 1697 yards. There is something to be said for being really good for a long time.

The Longevity argument has merit. Presumable great production over four years is nice, but you have to do it longer to be an all-time great. TD is the exception to the rule.

[Dzone]

Hornung, Sayers and all those early guys went in to the hall when there were not very many teams and not a whole lot of members in the HOF. Now, TD has so many more players to be compared to than Marion Motley, Hornung ever had to, and a whole lot of other running backs who were nowhere near as good as TD. Hornung probably got in for getting the scoring record, he wasnt even the best back on his team. Its harder to get in the hall now. Theres way more competition. Either way, TD deserves it and is getting the shaft

[Northman]

Curtis Martin is a deserving HoF guy. I think the old goat was like 33 one year and lead the league in rushing with 1697 yards. There is something to be said for being really good for a long time.

The Longevity argument has merit. Presumable great production over four years is nice, but you have to do it longer to be an all-time great. TD is the exception to the rule.

Agreed.

I admire what guys like Emmitt Smith and Curtis Martin did and how long they played but there are exceptions and you laid it out nicely the things that TD did. As much praise as LT gets he was pretty lame come playoff time but you cant take away his other accomplishments. But for TD, he was a monster both in the regular season and the postseason. I just find that hard to ignore (bias aside).

[Poet]

Agreed.

I admire what guys like Emmitt Smith and Curtis Martin did and how long they played but there are exceptions and you laid it out nicely the things that TD did. As much praise as LT gets he was pretty lame come playoff time but you cant take away his other accomplishments. But for TD, he was a monster both in the regular season and the postseason. I just find that hard to ignore (bias aside).

Well the thing that makes Emmitt special is that he actually took the league by storm. He had a lot of 1300-1700 yard seasons in the first half of his career. He also had two straight years of 20 plus TD's. People like to discredit him by saying that it was just his line. I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that the Cowboys are pretty despised.

Martin also had his fair share of big yardage seasons. It's a little strange that a guy like Martin gets the derisive comments that he does.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MartCu00.htm

Dude was a stud.

[TXBRONC]

The more I see these threads and the debate for both sides the more I just shake it down to the bones. Who is the Hall of Fame designed to honor? The answer of course is the best people to ever play the game. Curtis Martin is not one of the best to ever play the game. He was a good rb who enjoyed longevity at his position.

Terrell Davis was the best player on a team that boasted at least three future hall of famers. he was the best running back in the game over a four year period in league which also had guys by the name of Emmitt and Barry. It's not like he was Jamal Lewis running for 2000 on a team that had literally no other options. His post season numbers aren't even debatable.

I just don't get the longevity argument. He didn't play long enough....well who in the hell cares. If longevity is the standard by which players are evaluated then Steve Deberg should have been elected a long time ago. Was he great prior to the injury? yes!!! Did he do it when it mattered? Of course. Did he contribute to championship teams? Well actually he carried championship teams, and again he was hands down the best player on teams loaded with all pro talent.

he deserves to be voted in before any more of these very good but not great backs get the call. I've softened on martin. he did it very well for a long time, but in his prime is there any doubt who you would have taken if given the choice between he and Terrell?

Every excuse in the book has been used to keep Gradishar out including longevity and Randy played 10 years.

Earl Campbell played about the same number of years as Davis and his total yardage is not really that much more than Davis' and he's in the Hall of Fame.

[BroncoJoe]

Great post, Jsteve. My sentiments exactly.