PDA

View Full Version : TD is a HOF semifinalist this year



Ricky
11-28-2007, 07:12 PM
Last year TD was not even a semifinalist. This year though, he is. Other Broncos are Zimmerman and Gradishar.

http://www.profootballhof.com/enshrinement/story.jsp?story_id=2607

Poet
11-28-2007, 07:14 PM
That's really sad. Three great years............all he did was have a great year and two very good years.

gobroncsnv
11-28-2007, 07:15 PM
Did anyone catch him on NFL Network last night, they asked him about Kolby Smith of the Chiefs getting 150 yds on the Raiders...


"Ah, it's just the system, man"


Think he gets a little tired hearing that? Such a bummer to see his career so short. He deserves to be in the hall.

Ricky
11-28-2007, 07:16 PM
That's really sad. Three great years............all he did was have a great year and two very good years.

My orange colored glasses won't let me reply to this.

Tned
11-28-2007, 07:20 PM
That's really sad. Three great years............all he did was have a great year and two very good years.

Your not talking about TD. Right? He was way beyond one great and two very good. I don't have the specifics in front of me, but he was setting, or equaling the best backs to come before him in things like:

Most 100 yard games in firs 1, 2, 3 years
Most yards in first two, three years
Etc.

As I said, I don't have them in front of me, but there were a number of "To start a career" type records that he was either breaking, or on par with the best backs of all time.

gobroncsnv
11-28-2007, 07:21 PM
That's really sad. Three great years............all he did was have a great year and two very good years.

Yeah, they should toss Gale Sayers, since TD outgained him in a similar number of career games. What a bum. They'll let just about ANYBODY in the HOF, huh?

Stand Ablaze
11-28-2007, 07:26 PM
That's really sad. Three great years............all he did was have a great year and two very good years.

Wow, you're awful!

TXBRONC
11-29-2007, 12:17 AM
Your not talking about TD. Right? He was way beyond one great and two very good. I don't have the specifics in front of me, but he was setting, or equaling the best backs to come before him in things like:

Most 100 yard games in firs 1, 2, 3 years
Most yards in first two, three years
Etc.

As I said, I don't have them in front of me, but there were a number of "To start a career" type records that he was either breaking, or on par with the best backs of all time.

He lead the AFC in rushing from '96-'98 and he's the only runningback to have career average 100 yard rushing in the playoffs.

Tned
11-29-2007, 12:19 AM
He lead the AFC in rushing from '96-'98 and he's the only runningback to have career average 100 yard rushing in the playoffs.

I forgot about how he dominated in the playoffs. I think it is fair to say that there have been few, if any, RBs that produced as much as he did during those three pre-injury years. However, being great, but not having longevity, has typically been a HOF disqualifier.

Broncos Mtnman
11-29-2007, 12:36 AM
That's really sad. Three great years............all he did was have a great year and two very good years.

:2thumbsdown:

This kind of reminds me of an ancient proverb....

"Better to thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

:loco::crazy::loco:

fcspikeit
11-29-2007, 12:59 AM
:2thumbsdown:

This kind of reminds me of an ancient proverb....

"Better to thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

:loco::crazy::loco:

Did you mean, "Better to be thought a fool then to have opened your mouth and removed all doubt" ?

That is the way I always heard it.

Broncos Mtnman
11-29-2007, 01:08 AM
Did you mean, "Better to be thought a fool then to have opened your mouth and removed all doubt" ?

That is the way I always heard it.

Either way, you get the point....

;)

Medford Bronco
11-29-2007, 01:20 AM
That's really sad. Three great years............all he did was have a great year and two very good years.

Here are his stats, I know you like to argue but at least look at the facts before replying

| Rushing | Receiving |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 1995 den | 14 | 237 1117 4.7 7 | 49 367 7.5 1 |
| 1996 den | 16 | 345 1538 4.5 13 | 36 310 8.6 2 |
| 1997 den | 15 | 369 1750 4.7 15 | 42 287 6.8 0 |
| 1998 den | 16 | 392 2008 5.1 21 | 25 217 8.7 2 |
| 1999 den | 4 | 67 211 3.1 2 | 3 26 8.7 0 |
| 2000 den | 5 | 78 282 3.6 2 | 2 4 2.0 0 |
| 2001 den | 11 | 167 701 4.2 0 | 12 69 5.8 0 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| TOTAL | 81 | 1655 7607 4.6 60 | 169 1280 7.6 5

I see 2 off the chart years and one excellent year regular season

Year Opp Result | RSH YD TD | REC YD TD
---------------------+-----------------+-----------------
1996 jax L,27-30 | 14 91 1 | 7 24 0
1997 jax W,42-17 | 31 184 2 | 4 11 0
1997 kan W,14-10 | 25 101 2 | 1 17 0
1997 pit W,24-21 | 26 139 1 | 1 2 0
*1997 gnb W,31-24 | 30 157 3 | 2 8 0
1998 mia W,38-3 | 21 199 2 | 1 7 0
1998 nyj W,23-10 | 32 167 1 | 1 12 0
*1998 atl W,34-19 | 25 102 0 | 2 50 0
---------------------+-----------------+-----------------
TOTAL | 204 1140 12 | 19 131 0

and in the playoffs never below 91 yards and 7 straight 100 yard games.

I may be biased but he is HOF worthy and someone less dominating over a long period like Jerome Bettis will get in and TD will struggle. Kinda sad

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/DaviTe00.htm

TXBRONC
11-29-2007, 08:20 AM
Here are his stats, I know you like to argue but at least look at the facts before replying

| Rushing | Receiving |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 1995 den | 14 | 237 1117 4.7 7 | 49 367 7.5 1 |
| 1996 den | 16 | 345 1538 4.5 13 | 36 310 8.6 2 |
| 1997 den | 15 | 369 1750 4.7 15 | 42 287 6.8 0 |
| 1998 den | 16 | 392 2008 5.1 21 | 25 217 8.7 2 |
| 1999 den | 4 | 67 211 3.1 2 | 3 26 8.7 0 |
| 2000 den | 5 | 78 282 3.6 2 | 2 4 2.0 0 |
| 2001 den | 11 | 167 701 4.2 0 | 12 69 5.8 0 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| TOTAL | 81 | 1655 7607 4.6 60 | 169 1280 7.6 5

I see 2 off the chart years and one excellent year regular season

Year Opp Result | RSH YD TD | REC YD TD
---------------------+-----------------+-----------------
1996 jax L,27-30 | 14 91 1 | 7 24 0
1997 jax W,42-17 | 31 184 2 | 4 11 0
1997 kan W,14-10 | 25 101 2 | 1 17 0
1997 pit W,24-21 | 26 139 1 | 1 2 0
*1997 gnb W,31-24 | 30 157 3 | 2 8 0
1998 mia W,38-3 | 21 199 2 | 1 7 0
1998 nyj W,23-10 | 32 167 1 | 1 12 0
*1998 atl W,34-19 | 25 102 0 | 2 50 0
---------------------+-----------------+-----------------
TOTAL | 204 1140 12 | 19 131 0

and in the playoffs never below 91 yards and 7 straight 100 yard games.

I may be biased but he is HOF worthy and someone less dominating over a long period like Jerome Bettis will get in and TD will struggle. Kinda sad

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/DaviTe00.htm

I think Bettis will deserve to go in, but without doubt so does TD.

Fan in Exile
11-29-2007, 09:11 AM
Did anyone else notice that they upped the number of guys who can get in from 6 to 7? I have high hopes that this will help deal with the backlog of players who should be in already. That would mean several more Broncos in the future. Can't wait to see if it works out that way.

Ricky
11-29-2007, 11:46 AM
OK, me and my orange colored glasses have decided how I will respond to King87 comments. How can the person who holds the record for the most post season yards and the record for highest average playoff yards per game not be worthy of the HOF?

Lonestar
11-29-2007, 11:51 AM
The only chance he has is his affiliation with the NFL channel.. With the preponderance of east coast voters and "the system" unless the voters are constantly seeing him, they will probably stop him from getting what he deserves.

The guy came from nowhere dominated the NFL and then was injured and even in his last year before calling it quits had 700 yards on a poor team in a 11 games..

Poet
11-29-2007, 07:39 PM
Your not talking about TD. Right? He was way beyond one great and two very good. I don't have the specifics in front of me, but he was setting, or equaling the best backs to come before him in things like:

Most 100 yard games in firs 1, 2, 3 years
Most yards in first two, three years
Etc.

As I said, I don't have them in front of me, but there were a number of "To start a career" type records that he was either breaking, or on par with the best backs of all time.

I don't care what he could have done, I care what he did DO. And he had three productive seasons, that is it. Three seasons that are noteworthy do not equal a HOF career. He got this far by being a workhorse back on a great great team that got tons of attention. He isn't one of the best backs ever Tned.

Poet
11-29-2007, 07:40 PM
OK, me and my orange colored glasses have decided how I will respond to King87 comments. How can the person who holds the record for the most post season yards and the record for highest average playoff yards per game not be worthy of the HOF?

Because he had three good years. THREE, that is ONE more then TWO my friend. Look at most of the people in the hall of fame man. How many great years did they have? You can point to Gale Sayers, and that is pretty much it....

lex
11-29-2007, 10:52 PM
At no point in Curtis Martins career was he ever better than Terrell Davis yet people talk about Martin being an automatic hall of famer for being very good in comparison to Terrell who was great. Some might say its a no brainer that Curtis Martin should be in for being very good for a very long time but thats Art Monks story...and Art Monk has super bowl rings. There is precedent for letting someone whose career was shortened in and that person is Gayle Sayers. When you look at Terrells incredible production while he was healthy, there is no doubt he deserves to be in.

TXBRONC
11-29-2007, 11:19 PM
I don't care what he could have done, I care what he did DO. And he had three productive seasons, that is it. Three seasons that are noteworthy do not equal a HOF career. He got this far by being a workhorse back on a great great team that got tons of attention. He isn't one of the best backs ever Tned.


Yes he is one the best running backs to ever play the game. You have your opinion which your entitled too but at the end of the day that all it is your opinion.

Ricky
11-30-2007, 12:24 AM
Because he had three good years. THREE, that is ONE more then TWO my friend. Look at most of the people in the hall of fame man. How many great years did they have? You can point to Gale Sayers, and that is pretty much it....


Why not respond to my points? Post season is where winners are made. He has the most points by a non kicker in a single post season, he was the first to score three touchdowns in a single Super Bowl, he holds the record for the most post season yards and the record for highest average playoff yards per game. He is the Broncos' all-time leading rusher, he became just the eighth player in NFL history to win both the NFL MVP and Super Bowl MVP awards during their careers. Davis reached 7000 yards second fastest in NFL history. Through his first four seasons, Davis rushed for 6,413 yards (4.8 yards per carry) and 56 touchdowns. Among the 24 modern-era Hall of Fame halfbacks and fullbacks, only Earl Campbell (6,457, 4.6 yards per carry) and Eric Dickerson (6,968, 4.8 yards per carry) had more rushing yards during their first four seasons; no member of the Hall of Fame matched Davis’ first-four-season 56 rushing touchdowns. Also, Davis is the only AFC rushing leader in the 36-year history of the Super Bowl to be on the winning side in a Super Bowl game, doing so in both Super Bowls XXXII and XXXIII.

Poet
11-30-2007, 12:45 AM
Yeah, they should toss Gale Sayers, since TD outgained him in a similar number of career games. What a bum. They'll let just about ANYBODY in the HOF, huh?

Yes, they should. He got in out of pity, his career was not one of the all time greats. He got in on what he COULD have done, if you look at his numbers its obvious that he is not one of the very best. But even then he had the arguement that his numbers where better then many players back then. Umm TD not so much, one insane year, and then two other very good ones.

Cleveland Rocks
11-30-2007, 01:01 AM
Woo!

No Modell.

That's some good news.

That's always some good news.

lex
11-30-2007, 01:05 AM
Yes, they should. He got in out of pity, his career was not one of the all time greats. He got in on what he COULD have done, if you look at his numbers its obvious that he is not one of the very best. But even then he had the arguement that his numbers where better then many players back then. Umm TD not so much, one insane year, and then two other very good ones.

If he would have played out the string averaging 1200 yards a year, would that have satisfied the longevity requirement? Think about how dumb that is. Having a greatness requirement along with a playing out the string requirement is like asking someone to do run a sub 4 minute mile for 4 years and then asking them to run a sub 8 minute mile for the 5 years after that. Its silly.

topscribe
11-30-2007, 01:57 AM
Your not talking about TD. Right? He was way beyond one great and two very good. I don't have the specifics in front of me, but he was setting, or equaling the best backs to come before him in things like:

Most 100 yard games in firs 1, 2, 3 years
Most yards in first two, three years
Etc.

As I said, I don't have them in front of me, but there were a number of "To start a career" type records that he was either breaking, or on par with the best backs of all time.

Well actually, there were FOUR years in consideration: 1995 (very good),
1996 (great), 1997 (great), 1998 (absolutely sick).

Well, let's detail them:

1995 1,117 yards rushing, 49 receptions for 367 yards, 8 TDs
1996 1,538, 36, 310, 15
1997 1,750, 42, 287, 15
1998 2,008, 25, 217, 23

Yep, he's deserving of HOF, IMO.

Ah, but what about the "others"? Are they afterthoughts? Gradishar and
Zimmerman, two of the greatest of all-time at their respective positions.
I would not be disappointed to see Gradishar get there first. After all, he
is the eldest of the bunch and has waited the longest. It's bad enough that
Little never got a sniff . . . I want Randy in there.

-----

Poet
11-30-2007, 02:09 AM
Well actually, there were FOUR years in consideration: 1995 (very good),
1996 (great), 1997 (great), 1998 (absolutely sick).

Well, let's detail them:

1995 1,117 yards rushing, 49 receptions for 367 yards, 8 TDs
1996 1,538, 36, 310, 15
1997 1,750, 42, 287, 15
1998 2,008, 25, 217, 23

Yep, he's deserving of HOF, IMO.

Ah, but what about the "others"? Are they afterthoughts? Gradishar and
Zimmerman, two of the greatest of all-time at their respective positions.
I would not be disappointed to see Gradishar get there first. After all, he
is the eldest of the bunch and has waited the longest. It's bad enough that
Little never got a sniff . . . I want Randy in there.

-----

Take a look at the members of the hall of fame Top. You will see that most of them have huge years far longer then four years. And that 1995 year isn't exactly stellar either....... I say this with all due respect, but if you are a Broncos fan and you really think that old boy is a HOF back (read, one of the very best of all time) then you are a homer.

How good he was at his very best is irrelevant, it takes a career to be one of the very best. When you add up his total numbers he falls considerably short of the rest of the pack. He has gotten this far because of nostalgia and from being a very beloved player. He isn't even one of the best backs in his own era. But I will leave you all to look that one up for yourself. I will give you a hint, there is a guy in Arizone right now who blows TD out of the water, so if he isn't even better then that guy how is he one of the best of all time?

topscribe
11-30-2007, 02:24 AM
Take a look at the members of the hall of fame Top. You will see that most of them have huge years far longer then four years. And that 1995 year isn't exactly stellar either....... I say this with all due respect, but if you are a Broncos fan and you really think that old boy is a HOF back (read, one of the very best of all time) then you are a homer.

How good he was at his very best is irrelevant, it takes a career to be one of the very best. When you add up his total numbers he falls considerably short of the rest of the pack. He has gotten this far because of nostalgia and from being a very beloved player. He isn't even one of the best backs in his own era. But I will leave you all to look that one up for yourself. I will give you a hint, there is a guy in Arizone right now who blows TD out of the water, so if he isn't even better then that guy how is he one of the best of all time?

Take a look at 1995 again. Those are rookie numbers. Yes, stellar.

And those who made him a semifinalist are not all Broncos fans. So I don't
know what you would call them, to you?

BTW, do you have any idea what HOFer Gayle Sayers' numbers were? He
was in the league a total of seven years, as opposed to TD's six. Sayers
had five productive years vs. TD's four. Let's take a look at Sayers' five
productive years:

1965 867 yards rushing, 29 receptions for 507 yards, 20 TDs
1966 1,231, 34, 447, 10
1967 880, 16, 126, 8
1968 886, 15, 117, 2
1969 1,032, 17, 116, 8

If Sayers deserved the HOF, and TD blew Sayers away in numbers, then I
would think TD deserves to be there. That's not homerism. I don't push for
a player to be in the HOF simply because he's a Bronco. I do it because he
happens to be one of the best who ever was.

People all over the league, who don't root for the Broncos, consider it a
shame the Broncos do not have more in the HOF. Again, what would you
call them?

-----

Cleveland Rocks
11-30-2007, 02:26 AM
Take a look at 1995 again. Those are rookie numbers. Yes, stellar.

And those who made him a semifinalist are not all Broncos fans. So I don't
know what you would call them, to you?

BTW, do you have any idea what HOFer Gayle Sayers' numbers were? He
was in the league a total of seven years, as opposed to TD's six. Sayers
had five productive years vs. TD's four. Let's take a look at Sayers' five
productive years:

1965 867 yards rushing, 29 receptions for 507 yards, 20 TDs
1966 1,231, 34, 447, 10
1967 880, 16, 126, 8
1968 886, 15, 117, 2
1969 1,032, 17, 116, 8

If Sayers deserved the HOF, and TD blew Sayers away in numbers, then I
would think TD deserves to be there. That's not homerism. I don't push for
a player to be in the HOF simply because he's a Bronco. I do it because he
happens to be one of the best who ever was.

People all over the league, who don't root for the Broncos, consider it a
shame the Broncos do not have more in the HOF. Again, what would you
call them?

-----\

Do not forget, top.

Sayers was an amazing special teams player as well. When he retired, if memory is right at the time he retired he held the record for KR (or PR) not sure of which it was.

Poet
11-30-2007, 02:36 AM
Take a look at 1995 again. Those are rookie numbers. Yes, stellar.

And those who made him a semifinalist are not all Broncos fans. So I don't
know what you would call them, to you?

BTW, do you have any idea what HOFer Gayle Sayers' numbers were? He
was in the league a total of seven years, as opposed to TD's six. Sayers
had five productive years vs. TD's four. Let's take a look at Sayers' five
productive years:

1965 867 yards rushing, 29 receptions for 507 yards, 20 TDs
1966 1,231, 34, 447, 10
1967 880, 16, 126, 8
1968 886, 15, 117, 2
1969 1,032, 17, 116, 8

If Sayers deserved the HOF, and TD blew Sayers away in numbers, then I
would think TD deserves to be there. That's not homerism. I don't push for
a player to be in the HOF simply because he's a Bronco. I do it because he
happens to be one of the best who ever was.

People all over the league, who don't root for the Broncos, consider it a
shame the Broncos do not have more in the HOF. Again, what would you
call them?

-----
Sayers does not deserve into the hall of fame Top. He is in there because of what he could have done, and out of pity for the man because of his injuries.

Edge
Cory Dillon
Marshall Faulk
Jerome Bettis
Curtis Martin
Fred Taylor
Eddie George
Ahman Green
Tiki Barber
Shaun Alexander
LaDainian Tomlinson
Warrick Dunn

That is a list of guys who where all better then TD. That is off of stats Top. Now, are all of those guys hall of famers? By your argument then yes they are. If TD is a HOF RB then the standards are low. I want someone who can dominate a league for five years. I want someone who has a long career, someone with longevity. It is easy to be a flash in the pan for a few year with big stats then it is to be a consistent RB who puts up good numbers for years and years and years.

topscribe
11-30-2007, 02:39 AM
\

Do not forget, top.

Sayers was an amazing special teams player as well. When he retired, if memory is right at the time he retired he held the record for KR (or PR) not sure of which it was.

Gayle Sayers was probably the greatest returner of all-time, at least until this
Hester guy. Oh yes, I knew Gayle Sayers (as a fan, not personally). In fact,
I was a Brian Piccolo fan when he was playing . . . long before the movie ever
came out.

But enough of that.

All I am saying is that TD earned his way into HOF consideration in his own
right. If he never makes it to Canton, it will be because of his abbreviated
career, for sure. But that abbreviated career wasn't great; it was startling.

-----

topscribe
11-30-2007, 02:47 AM
Sayers does not deserve into the hall of fame Top. He is in there because of what he could have done, and out of pity for the man because of his injuries.

Edge
Cory Dillon
Marshall Faulk
Jerome Bettis
Curtis Martin
Fred Taylor
Eddie George
Ahman Green
Tiki Barber
Shaun Alexander
LaDainian Tomlinson
Warrick Dunn

That is a list of guys who where all better then TD. That is off of stats Top. Now, are all of those guys hall of famers? By your argument then yes they are. If TD is a HOF RB then the standards are low. I want someone who can dominate a league for five years. I want someone who has a long career, someone with longevity. It is easy to be a flash in the pan for a few year with big stats then it is to be a consistent RB who puts up good numbers for years and years and years.

You were pretty young when TD played. I wasn't. I remember vividly the
controversy that raged as to whether he or Barry Sanders was the better
running back. Those two were considered by themselves ahead of the pack
as running backs. None of these guys (some who were TD's contemporaries)
were considered anywhere in the league to be in TD's class, save Tomlinson.
That isn't just me; that is popular opinion.

CR pointed out probably why Sayers is deserving of the HOF. He was, and
possibly still is, the G.O.A.T. of punt/kick returners. However, none of these
guys were in his class as RBs, either. And I saw them all.

In fact, if the truth is known, I consider Sayers second only to Jim Brown as
the G.O.A.T. of running backs. Like Floyd Little, Sayers ran behind one of
the most pathetic offensive lines in history. (Ah, now you see a reason why
TD blew away Sayers in stats. :D )

P.S. You might tell me how many of those guys have two Super Bowl rings.

-----

Poet
11-30-2007, 02:54 AM
You were pretty young when TD played. I wasn't. I remember vividly the
controversy that raged as to whether he or Barry Sanders was the better
running back. Those two were considered by themselves ahead of the pack
as running backs. None of these guys (some who were TD's contemporaries)
were considered anywhere in the league to be in TD's class, save Tomlinson.
That isn't just me; that is popular opinion.

CR pointed out probably why Sayers is deserving of the HOF. He was, and
possibly still is, the G.O.A.T. of punt/kick returners. However, none of these
guys were in his class as RBs, either. And I saw them all.

In fact, if the truth is known, I consider Sayers second only to Jim Brown as
the G.O.A.T. of running backs. Like Floyd Little, Sayers ran behind one of
the most pathetic offensive lines in history. (Ah, now you see a reason why
TD blew away Sayers in stats. :D )

P.S. You might tell me how many of those guys have two Super Bowl rings.

-----
And TD has an amazing offensive line Top.

Special teams? I show you a damning argument and the response I get is special teams? Ok wow, he is a worse version of Devin Hester as far as special teams goes and ran for under 5k yards but hes one of the best? Look, you guys are putting an emphasis on a short career, he didn't play long enough. And Cory Dillon was far better then Terrel Davis. The difference is that his line was total garbage and he STILL managed to stay healthy and put up monster numbers. Most of those guys have tons of yards on TD, so if TD belongs because he is better then Sayers statistically then you are going to be putting in a lot of Running Backs Top. Where do you draw the line my friend?

PS, not everyone is blessed to play on a great TEAM. This is a TEAM sport, and the hall of fame is an individual accomplishment. It is about what YOU did. If you look at just rings then Terry Bradshaw is tied for the best QB of all time with Montana, when you look at everything it is apparant that he was an above average QB in his day that happened to play on what is considered by many to be the best team of all time.

topscribe
11-30-2007, 03:04 AM
And TD has an amazing offensive line Top.

Special teams? I show you a damning argument and the response I get is special teams? Ok wow, he is a worse version of Devin Hester as far as special teams goes and ran for under 5k yards but hes one of the best? Look, you guys are putting an emphasis on a short career, he didn't play long enough. And Cory Dillon was far better then Terrel Davis. The difference is that his line was total garbage and he STILL managed to stay healthy and put up monster numbers. Most of those guys have tons of yards on TD, so if TD belongs because he is better then Sayers statistically then you are going to be putting in a lot of Running Backs Top. Where do you draw the line my friend?

If you consider Dillon better than TD, you are in a very scan minority, and I'm
talking league wide. I'm guessing you saw very little of TD, and what you
did see was as a 9-, 10-, and 11-year-old, who probably wore a Bengals
jersey, and was barely aware of the Broncos, except for when they played
each other. I saw a lot of both of them, and Dillon is waaaay down the list
among RBs. He was good, but not elite. TD belongs in the same breath as
Sayers, Sanders, Payton, (Emmit) Smith, et al. Dillon will never be in that
category. Ever.

And Sayes is a "worse version" of Hester? :pound: Tell me, how often did
you see Sayers play . . . live? Many of those who did regard him as the
G.O.A.T. of returners. Granted, Hester may take that honor, but not to the
degree that Sayers is a "worse version" to anybody. And that is not "homer."
After all, Sayers was a Chicago Bear. I hated the Bears.

P.S. Yes, TD had a good (not amazing) O-line. But the O-line had nothing
to do with what TD did to would-be tacklers, once he cleared that line.
That is what defined him as a great running back, again, in the eyes of
many around the league, not just mine.

-----

Poet
11-30-2007, 03:15 AM
If you consider Dillon better than TD, you are in a very scan minority, and I'm
talking league wide. I'm guessing you saw very little of TD, and what you
did see was as a 9-, 10-, and 11-year-old, who probably wore a Bengals
jersey, and was barely aware of the Broncos, except for when they played
each other. I saw a lot of both of them, and Dillon is waaaay down the list
among RBs. He was good, but not elite. TD belongs in the same breath as
Sayers, Sanders, Payton, (Emmit) Smith, et al. Dillon will never be in that
category. Ever.

And Sayes is a "worse version" of Hester? :pound: Tell me, how often did
you see Sayers play . . . live? Many of those who did regard him as the
G.O.A.T. of returners. Granted, Hester may take that honor, but not to the
degree that Sayers is a "worse version" to anybody. And that is not "homer."
After all, Sayers was a Chicago Bear. I hated the Bears.

P.S. Yes, TD had a good (not amazing) O-line. But the O-line had nothing
to do with what TD did to would-be tacklers, once he cleared that line.
That is what defined him as a great running back.

-----

Did you not see Dillon run? The guy had no one else on his team save Willie "The Shovel" Anderson. He went into a game and knew that if he didn't play amazing we would lose the game. TD is considered better because he had a great team around him and got the chance to put up guady numbers. But let me ask you this, at age 32 who went to a team with a decent line and put up 1500 yards? Dillon, and because he had MANY years with good numbers taking TD over him is illogical because TD had THREE good years. John Elway had more talent and ability in his pinky then the rest of the Bengals offensive unit save Anderson.

All those guys save Sayers had many more good seasons the TD. Give Dillon the line of Smith, you would see the same if not better numbers. Give Dillon a QB who wasn't known by his own fans for running backwards (Akili Smith). Cory Dillon is one of the very best running backs ever to play in the NFL, and he had no supporting cast whatsoever. Hell, Barry Sanders had more pro bowl offensive lineman in his career then Dillon did with his tenure as a Bengal.

If I ask you what TD did in his career you can show me three relevant seasons. No matter how you slice it the number is three, three Topscribe three. I just showed you a ton of guys with better numbers then TD, and you said yourself that TD should get in because he owned the stats of Sayers. Well, those guys own the stats of Sayers and then some, and then own the stats of TD. Following your own argument they would have to be in the HOF themselves then.

I think we look at this different. It is fair to say that TD could have flat out owned some nice records had he been able to keep playing. However, you cannot prove it, and in my eyes I care about what you did do. I can see your point of view, and you do have some valid points. However, I do as well. And when I get the ability to get a vote for the HOF that is how I will vote.

And Sayers is a worse version of Hester when it comes to special teams, deal with it.;):elefant:

topscribe
11-30-2007, 03:28 AM
Did you not see Dillon run? The guy had no one else on his team save Willie "The Shovel" Anderson. He went into a game and knew that if he didn't play amazing we would lose the game. TD is considered better because he had a great team around him and got the chance to put up guady numbers. But let me ask you this, at age 32 who went to a team with a decent line and put up 1500 yards? Dillon, and because he had MANY years with good numbers taking TD over him is illogical because TD had THREE good years. John Elway had more talent and ability in his pinky then the rest of the Bengals offensive unit save Anderson.

All those guys save Sayers had many more good seasons the TD. Give Dillon the line of Smith, you would see the same if not better numbers. Give Dillon a QB who wasn't known by his own fans for running backwards (Akili Smith). Cory Dillon is one of the very best running backs ever to play in the NFL, and he had no supporting cast whatsoever. Hell, Barry Sanders had more pro bowl offensive lineman in his career then Dillon did with his tenure as a Bengal.

If I ask you what TD did in his career you can show me three relevant seasons. No matter how you slice it the number is three, three Topscribe three. I just showed you a ton of guys with better numbers then TD, and you said yourself that TD should get in because he owned the stats of Sayers. Well, those guys own the stats of Sayers and then some, and then own the stats of TD. Following your own argument they would have to be in the HOF themselves then.

I think we look at this different. It is fair to say that TD could have flat out owned some nice records had he been able to keep playing. However, you cannot prove it, and in my eyes I care about what you did do. I can see your point of view, and you do have some valid points. However, I do as well. And when I get the ability to get a vote for the HOF that is how I will vote.

And Sayers is a worse version of Hester when it comes to special teams, deal with it.;):elefant:

Did I not tell you a couple posts back I saw Dillon run? I saw his entire
career. Very good, yes, Great, in the sense that Jim Brown, Walter Payton,
Emmit Smith, Gayle Sayers, et al. were great, no. Not even.

I also already showed four relevant years for TD. Four. Four. Four. Four. Go
few posts back to see it. I saw him nearly every game all four of those
years. Did you, 10-year-old (back then) Bengals fan? You're not arguing with
me. You're arguing with many people around the entire league, people who
have forgotten more about football than you and I, and most of the rest of
this board, put together.

And, once again, you tell me when you ever saw Gayle Sayers play football.
Before you again put your foot in your mouth with your silly "worse version"
remark, you tell me this. Otherwise, you know nothing of which you speak.
You show yourself as just another youth who is telling someone who has
seen it all how it was. (How many times have I encountered that here? :tsk: )

This is the point where the discussion is over because it makes no sense. If
someone else wants to join in, fine. But I'm done. :coffee:

-----

Lonestar
11-30-2007, 03:33 AM
In his rookie year if I remember correctly he had over 1000 yards yet did not start until the 4-5 game of the year.

How many games was he sat down in the late 3 and 4th quarters as not to embarrass the other team. When the game was well in hand. Who knows how many more yards he could have had.

I suspect had TD not been injured and went out the way he did hanging on an extra couple of years he would have been inducted first year. Trying to salvage his career with the microfacture surgery I think soiled his rep. Voters seeing as hanging on opposed to doing something he loved to do.

topscribe
11-30-2007, 03:38 AM
In his rookie year if I remember correctly he had over 1000 yards yet did not start until the 4-5 game of the year.

How many games was he sat down in the late 3 and 4th quarters as not to embarrass the other team. When the game was well in hand. Who knows how many more yards he could have had.

I suspect had TD not been injured and went out the way he did hanging on an extra couple of years he would have been inducted first year. Trying to salvage his career with the microfacture surgery I think soiled his rep. Voters seeing as hanging on opposed to doing something he loved to do.

TD achieved 1,117 yards in 14 games in his rookie year. A 16-game equivalent,
then, woud be 1,277 yards . . . as a rookie. This is the year these people
are ignoring when they say he had only three productive years. Can you
imagine? :laugh:

And yes, TD did sit a lot in his career when the Broncos were ahead, which
they were often. So you are correct in your speculation that he would have
had far more yards, had they left him in. Even at that, his numbers were sick.

-----

topscribe
11-30-2007, 03:54 AM
Just to show how much they did sit TD, here are his backups' numbers:

In 1995, Aaron Craver played in 16 games, running for 367 yards.
In 1996, Aaron Craver (15 games) and Vaughn Hebron (16) combined for 494 yards.
In 1997, Vaughn Hebron and Derek Loville (16 games each) combined for 346 yards.
In 1998, Derek Loville ran for 161 yards in 16 games. (Hebron added 31 in 15 games.)

Of course, these guys were not as productive in YPC as TD, so his totals would have exceeded even that.

-----

Poet
11-30-2007, 03:56 AM
Did I not tell you a couple posts back I saw Dillon run? I saw his entire
career. Very good, yes, Great, in the sense that Jim Brown, Walter Payton,
Emmit Smith, Gayle Sayers, et al. were great, no. Not even.

I also already showed four relevant years for TD. Four. Four. Four. Four. Go
few posts back to see it. I saw him nearly every game all four of those
years. Did you, 10-year-old (back then) Bengals fan? You're not arguing with
me. You're arguing with many people around the entire league, people who
have forgotten more about football than you and I, and most of the rest of
this board, put together.

And, once again, you tell me when you ever saw Gayle Sayers play football.
Before you again put your foot in your mouth with your silly "worse version"
remark, you tell me this. Otherwise, you know nothing of which you speak.
You show yourself as just another youth who is telling someone who has
seen it all how it was. (How many times have I encountered that here? :tsk: )

This is the point where the discussion is over because it makes no sense. If
someone else wants to join in, fine. But I'm done. :coffee:

-----

I was being perfectly civil and then pretty much insulted me Top. I don't appreciate that at all.

So now four years makes a hall of fame career? All you have to do is look at those guys and their numbers and you will see a trend Top. They where productive for a long time. TD was not. Sure, go ahead and hang your hate on Gale Sayers, there are not very many ppl who got in the hall the way he did. And by the way he did I mean out of pity because of his injury.

You would be surprised what you can see about and on Gale Sayers in Bears country Top. Or am I too young to do even that now?

Yes, he is a worse version of a special teams player when compared to Devin Hester. The numbers prove me right, and you have no real argument against that and you know it Top. But wait a second my friend, earlier you said that Hester may end up being a better returner then Sayers. Well, with the logic that you are using why not just crown him the better one now? He has the potential, he showed strong signs of the ability, just like.... Terrel Davis? Oh wait a minute, wow I just sorta made a valid point there....

And let me address the you seeing it all comment. So what? So blood what? I didn't see WW2, so I can't be an expert on it? And no, I am not saying that I am an expert on WW2, but I would appreciate if you answer that one actually and not sidestep it. And when you answer correctly that you can be an expert on something you didn't see it will click in your head that maybe that King87 guy isn't this stupid kid that I seem to think he is. And then it will click that maybe he does know what he is talking about. Or maybe not, you saw it all so your the expert.

Poet
11-30-2007, 03:57 AM
Just to show how much they did sit TD, here are his backup's numbers:

In 1995, Aaron Craver played in 16 games, running for 367 yards.
In 1996, Aaron Craver (15 games) and Vaughn Hebron (16) combined for 494 yards.
In 1997, Vaughn Hebron and Derek Loville (16 games each) combined for 346 yards.
In 1998, Derek Loville ran for 161 yards in 16 games. (Hebron added 31 in 15 games.)

Of course, these guys were not as productive in YPC as TD, so his totals would have exceeded even that.

-----

Prove it.


Show me physical evidence that TD would have done better. The problem is that you cannot, you cannot show me at all that he would have, you can SPECULATE that he would have. There is a trend here guys, you keep SPECULATING that TD would have done it.

topscribe
11-30-2007, 04:02 AM
I was being perfectly civil and then pretty much insulted me Top. I don't appreciate that at all.


You think I insulted you?

This demonstrates why you have had trouble on this board. I did not insult
you. I stated facts. You get into a debate with me, and the fur is going to fly.
I guarantee you that. In that, I mean I debate hard. Else, why debate? But
I did not insult you directly, even though you might have perceived such.

Regarding the rest of your post, I said the debate was over. I was applying
the "mercy rule," since I had shut you out over several innings. ;)

-----

Poet
11-30-2007, 04:06 AM
You think I insulted you?

This demonstrates why you have had trouble on this board. I did not insult
you. I stated facts. You get into a debate with me, and the fur is going to fly.
I guarantee you that. In that, I mean I debate hard. Else, why debate? But
I did not insult you directly, even though you might have perceived such.

Regarding the rest of your post, I said the debate was over. I was applying
the "mercy rule," since I had shut you out over several innings. ;)

-----

I know perfectly well when I am getting talked down to.


And a shut out? My god Top, you got murdered. Every point you had I crushed. After that beating I am pretty sure you could be calling me sir.;)

SR
11-30-2007, 04:17 AM
Edge
Cory Dillon
Marshall Faulk
Jerome Bettis
Curtis Martin
Fred Taylor
Eddie George
Ahman Green
Tiki Barber
Shaun Alexander
LaDainian Tomlinson
Warrick Dunn

That is a list of guys who where all better then TD.


Better career numbers, yes. Better talent? No. Edgerrin James is close. Corey Dillion, not even close. Fault was great, I'll give you that one. Bettis, not so much. Curtis Martin, great numbers, not a great talent. Fred Taylor has missed two full seasons due to injury and is not better than TD was. Eddie George? LOL! Ahman Green?! LMMFAO. Tiki Barber? He didn't do squat until the last couple seasons of his career. He was mediocre before that. Shaun Alexander had one great season, so no. LT is one of the greatest to ever play the position. Warrick Dunn?! LMMFAO again.

Poet
11-30-2007, 04:29 AM
Better career numbers, yes. Better talent? No. Edgerrin James is close. Corey Dillion, not even close. Fault was great, I'll give you that one. Bettis, not so much. Curtis Martin, great numbers, not a great talent. Fred Taylor has missed two full seasons due to injury and is not better than TD was. Eddie George? LOL! Ahman Green?! LMMFAO. Tiki Barber? He didn't do squat until the last couple seasons of his career. He was mediocre before that. Shaun Alexander had one great season, so no. LT is one of the greatest to ever play the position. Warrick Dunn?! LMMFAO again.

Shaun Alexander had one great season? Going by the standards that make TD a HOFer then Alexander is a god.

Cory Dillon smokes TD. Long career of consistency, finally gets a decent team at age 32 and rushes for close to 1600 yards. Think that is a coincidence ?

Fred Taylor still has better numbers then he did, but you are missing my point. Top said TD gets in ebcause he had better numbers then Sayers. Well they have better numbers then Sayers and better numbers then TD. Tiki Barber was an utter monster and retired early. So what if he was mediocre and then become one of the best backs in the game? Your career is your career, and Tiki has a very nice one.

Laugh at Warrick Dunn, but he has the numbers. Why would I take TD over him anyway? TD was relevant for four years, Warrick Dunn has been a fine back for his career.

Eddie George? Just another back that was dominant and a true workhorse back. Hmm, wait what else did he do, oh yeah stay healthy and get more yards.

Do you guys not see a pattern here, for years (and I am being generous Top). If Sayers got in based on what he could have done (which he did) and how great he was on the field the comparison between Sayers and TD was never made. So if TD doesn't have the numbers (and he doesn't) and he isn't good enough to get on the pure talent (which is bogus and silly anyway) then why is he worthy of the HOF?

Something I forgot to add. Who cares about the talent SR? You did what you did. Curtis Martin is a top ten back of all time as far as yardage, to dismiss him is foolish my friend. How many years did he have in a row with consectuvie 1000 yard seasons? Ten. Ten years of being a great tool to his team. Ten years of being a workhorse back. Ten years of staying healthy. That in itself completely shreds anything that TD has done. And if you point out that he rushed for 2k yards then I will point out that Jamal Lewis did the exact same himself.

SR
11-30-2007, 04:40 AM
Who cares about the talent SR?

If you're not putting the most talented players in to the Hall of Fame then why do we even have it? The HOF isn't there to award mediocrity. Half of the names you listed were consistently mediocre. Almost none of them (with the exception of LT and Faulk) were ever considered the best in the league. TD was right along side of Barry Sanders for best in the league when he was playing. He set NFL records. He raised the bar. He was the best player on the field (minus Elway) when he was playing. Teams had to game plan JUST for him.

omac
11-30-2007, 05:18 AM
I don't put too much credence to the Hall of Fame because of the biases, as well as the lack of very clearly outlined criteria; for a lot of players, it's debatable whether they should or shouldn't be in there.

TD's got 2 superbowls; if they had to choose, I wonder if guys like Marino would rather have a superbowl than enter the Hall of Fame?

SR
11-30-2007, 05:46 AM
I wonder if guys like Marino would rather have a superbowl than enter the Hall of Fame?

Without a doubt.

Tned
11-30-2007, 09:15 AM
Take a look at the members of the hall of fame Top. You will see that most of them have huge years far longer then four years. And that 1995 year isn't exactly stellar either....... I say this with all due respect, but if you are a Broncos fan and you really think that old boy is a HOF back (read, one of the very best of all time) then you are a homer.

How good he was at his very best is irrelevant, it takes a career to be one of the very best. When you add up his total numbers he falls considerably short of the rest of the pack. He has gotten this far because of nostalgia and from being a very beloved player. He isn't even one of the best backs in his own era. But I will leave you all to look that one up for yourself. I will give you a hint, there is a guy in Arizone right now who blows TD out of the water, so if he isn't even better then that guy how is he one of the best of all time?

If you look at totals, due to an injury shortened carreer, then they aren't impressive. That really is what it comes down to. Does having one of the greatest starts of a career ever, over a four year period, enough, without the longevity.

Take Emmit Smith, he only had two 1700 yard seasons, (1713 and 1773); Barry Sanders two (1883, 2053); Marcus Allen 1 1700 yard season, a couple 1000 yard seasons and a bunch of junk seasons; Thurman Thomas had five 1200-1500 yard seasons in a row, and 8 1,000 yard seasons in a row.

Basically, what TD did in his first four years was nearly unprecedented. Again, I don't have the stats handy, or the time to compile them, but I recall them talking in his 3rd and 4th year how he was setting records for yards and 100 yard games to start a career.

So, what has to ultimately be determined is whether or not a back that starts his career as one of the best ever, and does it for four years and gets hurt deserves to be in the HOF.

Take the Marcus Allen comparison.

TD Career: 7607 AVG 4.6
Allen Career: 12, 243 AVG 4.1

First 4 years
TD: 6413
Allen: 4638

To put that in perspective, TD outrushed Allen in their first two years by 1775 yards, which is more than Allen ran for in his BEST season. Allen never had a 1,000 yard season after his fourth year.

Some might say, well Allen would have done better if Davis let them play him, or he scored a bunch of TDs.

TD had 60 Rushing TDs in 81 (1 TD every 1.3 games)
Allen had 123 Rushing TDs in 222 games (1 TD every 1.8 games)

TD had 5 more receiving, and Allen 21.

In 8 post season appearances, he rushed for 1140 yards and 12 TDs, averaging 5.6 YPC in the post season.

So, he doesn't have 12 extra junk seasons lik Allen (TD only had three junk seasons), but his first four years eclipses Allens first four years, or the best four years of his career.

Other starts to a career:

First 4 years
TD: 6413
=============
Dickerson 6968
Sanders 5674
Thomas 4829
Payton 6247 (years 2-5, since first year was low).

So, as I said, does having a nearly unprecedented start to a career and incredible post season stats over a 4 year period, but an injury shortened career make a person HOF eligible? That's up to the voters.

Tned
11-30-2007, 09:32 AM
Prove it.


Show me physical evidence that TD would have done better. The problem is that you cannot, you cannot show me at all that he would have, you can SPECULATE that he would have. There is a trend here guys, you keep SPECULATING that TD would have done it.

There doesn't need to be any speculation. He had one of the best starts to a career and one of the best ever in the postseason, regardless of longevity.

To add to what I already posted.

Career post season rushing leaders:
1,586 Emmitt Smith, Dallas, 17 games
1,556 Franco Harris, Pittsburgh, 19 games
1,442 Thurman Thomas, Buffalo, 21 games
...
1, 140 Davis, 8 games

Most Games, 100 or More Yards Rushing, Career
7 Terrell Davis, Denver, 8 games
7 Emmitt Smith, Dallas, 17 games
6 John Riggins, Washington, 9 games
6Thurman Thomas, Buffalo, 21 games
5 Franco Harris, Pittsburgh, 19 games
5Marcus Allen, L.A. Raiders-Kansas City, 16 games

Most Consecutive Games, 100 or More Yards Rushing
7 Terrell Davis, Denver, 1997-98
6 John Riggins, Washington, 1982-83
4 Thurman Thomas, Buffalo, 1990-91

Most Touchdowns, Career
19 Emmitt Smith, Dallas, 17 games
16 Franco Harris, Pittsburgh, 19 games
16 Thurman Thomas, Buffalo, 21 games
12 John Riggins, Washington, 9 games
12 Terrell Davis, Denver, 8 games

Most Consecutive Games Rushing for Touchdowns
8 Emmitt Smith, Dallas, 1993-96
8 Thurman Thomas, Buffalo, 1992-98
7 John Riggins, Washington, 1982-84
7 Terrell Davis, Denver, 1996-98
5 Franco Harris, Pittsburgh, 1974-75
5 Franco Harris, Pittsburgh, 1977-79
5 Curtis Martin, New England-N.Y. Jets, 1996-98
5 Jerome Bettis, Pittsburgh, 2004-05

SR
11-30-2007, 09:38 AM
Lots of big names on those lists tned. But, alas, TD doesn't deserve it.

Tned
11-30-2007, 10:53 AM
Lots of big names on those lists tned. But, alas, TD doesn't deserve it.

I consider him borderline, myself. I think his playoff stats and that four year span to start his career are among the best of all time. However, he only had four productive years, two injury plagued years, and then one so/so year trying to make a comeback.

So, the question the HOF voters will have will have to decide is whether a back that dominated in the post season (and is among the GOATs in that catagory), and had one of the best four year runs ever, especially to start a career, but had his career cut short due to an injury, deserves to get in.

As I say, borderline.

Tned
11-30-2007, 11:00 AM
Not only does he have 2 Superbowls.. He's damn near responsible for them.

The downhill pitch, no one could stop it. Even when everyone knew it was coming. The passing game was good during those years. The running game was GREAT. And lets face it, the defense wasn't all that back then.

If a player is so dominant controlling the tempo of games (this is the part where actually watching the game helps)... that 2 World Championships were won.. they deserve to go to the HOF.

No TD No Superbowls.

And, didn't he have a league and Super Bowl MVP?

Mike
11-30-2007, 11:00 AM
I understand the arguments for and against and agree that it is borderline. I think he gets in.

Either way, TD is a Hall of Famer in my book...regardless of how the vote turns out. :salute:

Medford Bronco
11-30-2007, 11:00 AM
You were pretty young when TD played. I wasn't. I remember vividly the
controversy that raged as to whether he or Barry Sanders was the better
running back. Those two were considered by themselves ahead of the pack
as running backs. None of these guys (some who were TD's contemporaries)
were considered anywhere in the league to be in TD's class, save Tomlinson.
That isn't just me; that is popular opinion.

CR pointed out probably why Sayers is deserving of the HOF. He was, and
possibly still is, the G.O.A.T. of punt/kick returners. However, none of these
guys were in his class as RBs, either. And I saw them all.

In fact, if the truth is known, I consider Sayers second only to Jim Brown as
the G.O.A.T. of running backs. Like Floyd Little, Sayers ran behind one of
the most pathetic offensive lines in history. (Ah, now you see a reason why
TD blew away Sayers in stats. :D )

P.S. You might tell me how many of those guys have two Super Bowl rings.

-----


Top I have seen the highlighs of this on NFL films

In regular season, he scored four touchdowns, including a 96-yard game breaking kickoff return, against the Minnesota Vikings. And, in the next-to-last game, playing on a muddy field that would have stalled most runners, Gale scored a record-tying six touchdowns against the San Francisco 49ers. Included in his sensational spree were an 80-yard pass-run play, a 50-yard rush and a 65-yard punt return. For the entire season, Gale scored 22 touchdowns and 132 points, both then-rookie records.

http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.jsp?player_id=188

he is deserving IMO as well :salute:

Cleveland Rocks
11-30-2007, 11:01 AM
OK, me and my orange colored glasses have decided how I will respond to King87 comments. How can the person who holds the record for the most post season yards and the record for highest average playoff yards per game not be worthy of the HOF?

Stats from the playoffs are not even figured into players career stats.

Why pick and choose?

If it's ok to have Terrell Davis' playoff numbers as a means for him into the HOF what about all those other 2000 yard backs (yes, there would be more, because playoffs).

SR
11-30-2007, 11:21 AM
If it's ok to have Terrell Davis' playoff numbers as a means for him into the HOF what about all those other 2000 yard backs (yes, there would be more, because playoffs).

That doesn't even make sense. Playoff stats and regular season stats are SEPARATE. TD did it in a single, 16-game regular season, playoffs excluded. I'm sure if you wanted to include his post season stats from that same season, he would've had more rushing yards in a single season (regular and post season combined) than almost anyone ever.

Tned
11-30-2007, 11:23 AM
Stats from the playoffs are not even figured into players career stats.

Why pick and choose?

If it's ok to have Terrell Davis' playoff numbers as a means for him into the HOF what about all those other 2000 yard backs (yes, there would be more, because playoffs).

Nobody is saying the playoff yards should be added to season totals to give him more 2,000 yard seasons. The playoff stats were mentioned, because that is something the HOF voters will consider. They take into account SB wons and all career stats. The HOF isn't just a 'regular season' honor.

topscribe
11-30-2007, 11:59 AM
I consider him borderline, myself. I think his playoff stats and that four year span to start his career are among the best of all time. However, he only had four productive years, two injury plagued years, and then one so/so year trying to make a comeback.

So, the question the HOF voters will have will have to decide is whether a back that dominated in the post season (and is among the GOATs in that catagory), and had one of the best four year runs ever, especially to start a career, but had his career cut short due to an injury, deserves to get in.

As I say, borderline.

If the truth is known, I will have to admit to the same opinion, due to that
truncated career. Had TD two or three more years at the same rate as his
first four, then it would have been a no-brainer.

I guess I'm just kind of outraged at the dearth of Broncos in the HOF, after
the likes of Lionel Taylor (partially understandable since he was AFL), Floyd
Little, Randy Gradishar, Rich Jackson (albeit also a shortened career), Steve
Atwater, Zimmerman, and now TD. Makes me wonder if even Shannon
Sharpe will get in, simply because he was a Bronco. :tsk:

But Sharpe was with Baltimore for a year, so maybe that will help him get
in. (sarcasm)

Anyway, back to topic, yes, TD is probably borderline HOF, tragically. I
would love to see him get it, but I will be more understanding if he does not,
than I will be if Gradishar or Zimmer does not, quite frankly.

-----

omac
11-30-2007, 12:01 PM
Not only does he have 2 Superbowls.. He's damn near responsible for them.

The downhill pitch, no one could stop it. Even when everyone knew it was coming. The passing game was good during those years. The running game was GREAT. And lets face it, the defense wasn't all that back then.

If a player is so dominant controlling the tempo of games (this is the part where actually watching the game helps)... that 2 World Championships were won.. they deserve to go to the HOF.

No TD No Superbowls.

Yeah, I agree with that; no TD, no superbowl. The superbowl is the big one; hall of fame is the cherry on top. Also, because TD was so dominant, he deflected some of the weaker aspects of the team. Let's not forget, though Denver's defense was good, they weren't great; in the superbowl with GB, neither team could do much to stop the others' offense. With TD, they could really control the clock.

SR
11-30-2007, 12:08 PM
With TD, they could really control the clock.

When he was playing...


He sat out a lot of the first half with a migraine because he forgot to take his meds before the game.

topscribe
11-30-2007, 12:09 PM
Yeah, I agree with that; no TD, no superbowl. The superbowl is the big one; hall of fame is the cherry on top. Also, because TD was so dominant, he deflected some of the weaker aspects of the team. Let's not forget, though Denver's defense was good, they weren't great; in the superbowl with GB, neither team could do much to stop the others' offense. With TD, they could really control the clock.

Exactly what I was talking about when I said you have to have seen him play,
live. In no way can one simply look at the stats and see what he meant to his
team. He meant the difference between Super Bowl wins and simply a
perenniel playoff contender, such as the Broncos have been these last few
years.

-----

Medford Bronco
11-30-2007, 12:09 PM
Yeah, I agree with that; no TD, no superbowl. The superbowl is the big one; hall of fame is the cherry on top. Also, because TD was so dominant, he deflected some of the weaker aspects of the team. Let's not forget, though Denver's defense was good, they weren't great; in the superbowl with GB, neither team could do much to stop the others' offense. With TD, they could really control the clock.

you mean no two super bowls :salute:
he was so dominant in 98 and if Shanny let him
play more in some of the blowouts he shreds Di$kersons record
easily IMO.

omac
11-30-2007, 12:22 PM
you mean no two super bowls :salute:
he was so dominant in 98 and if Shanny let him
play more in some of the blowouts he shreds Di$kersons record
easily IMO.

No arguments here. :cheers: The only thing that makes the hall of fame what it is, is the people enshrined in it. A lot of athletes would be honored to be in the hall of fame; I just think the hall of fame should be honored to have TD, and if they're not, than they're not worthy of having him.

Medford Bronco
11-30-2007, 12:33 PM
How career numbers are gathered and the criteria for getting into the HOF is not the same.

Getting into the HOF is about picking the best players and that means looking at the whole picture.

could not agree more.

Its what your eyes tell you sometimes

His clutch postseason should only enhace is career.

he is borderline but deserving IMO

Skinny
11-30-2007, 12:42 PM
TD is what the HOF is about IMO. Facts and memories about guys who make the NFL what it is. The 196th pick to beat the odds he did and then to go on and produce like the #1 draft pick in the era he did ... was truly something special at the time.

NFL MVP, SB MVP and a 2,000 yard rusher ... how many HOFers can say that ...

Lonestar
11-30-2007, 02:22 PM
just a quick list of the last and only year I could real stats on TD NFL.Com only goes back to 2001

He appeared to be injured after a good opening week did not play again until game 8 and 9 and then was out again 10-12. Still had a decent season at 701 yards in 9 games in some cases pulled before the game was over as noted below. When games were either out of reach one way or another.

Game 1 NYG 101 yards pulled from game with 6:20 left in game MA took over.
Game 8 OAK 70 yards pulled 7:06 to go in game.
Game 9 SAN 83 yards played all game
Game 13 MIA 97 yards last carry 8:42 in a passing game.
Game 14 SEA 109 played all game behind ferrotte from 3rd quarter on.
Game 15 KC 70 yards played all game
Week 16 OAK 89 yards played all game
Week 17 IND 82 yards last carry 4:52 3 quarter..

MA had a few really good games that year in relief as high as 155 in one game.

Now I think he is a HOF caliber RB. No doubt in anyone that really watched his games that teams had to game plan against him.

In his first season when he had over 1100 yards it was abbreviated in the number of starts he had I think 12 that year if I remember correctly. Even then he was not run all that hard. They really did not believe he could do it until the next year when he became a MAJOR clog in the system.

Had his career not been cut short with the knee injury he got while tackling someone that had intercepted greasy. There is no doubt in my mind that he would have had 3-4 more years of extraordinary seasons.

But alas even with his knee healed up he was never what he was per injury.

I remember Mikey saying in his rookie year, that he made the team on his ST play. Then in game 3-4 he took off as a RB Mikey saying that he was special. He never looked back.

He played 2 years or so with migraine headaches until they fitted him with braces and found medication to fix that.

One only has to wonder how many more yards and games he would have had had he not been handicapped with headaches as well as in so many games being pulled when the games were out of reach for the other team.

Now will he get in? I doubt it since 80% of the HOF voters are east of the Mississippi types that rarely saw him in late games unless they played against their home teams. IMO his only chance is his face and knowledge, being on NFL network and his legacy and smile continues.

One can only hope they remember him and put him where he belongs..

Medford Bronco
11-30-2007, 02:24 PM
just a quick list of the last and only year I could real stats on TD NFL.Com only goes back to 2001

He appeared to be injured after a good opening week did not play again until game 8 and 9 and then was out again 10-12. Still had a decent season at 701 yards in 9 games in some cases pulled before the game was over as noted below. When games were either out of reach one way or another.

Game 1 NYG 101 yards pulled from game with 6:20 left in game MA took over.
Game 8 OAK 70 yards pulled 7:06 to go in game.
Game 9 SAN 83 yards played all game
Game 13 MIA 97 yards last carry 8:42 in a passing game.
Game 14 SEA 109 played all game behind ferrotte from 3rd quarter on.
Game 15 KC 70 yards played all game
Week 16 OAK 89 yards played all game
Week 17 IND 82 yards last carry 4:52 3 quarter..

MA had a few really good games that year in relief as high as 155 in one game.

Now I think he is a HOF caliber RB. No doubt in anyone that really watched his games that teams had to game plan against him.

In his first season when he had over 1100 yards it was abbreviated in the number of starts he had I think 12 that year if I remember correctly. Even then he was not run all that hard. They really did not believe he could do it until the next year when he became a MAJOR clog in the system.

Had his career not been cut short with the knee injury he got while tackling someone that had intercepted greasy. There is no doubt in my mind that he would have had 3-4 more years of extraordinary seasons.

But alas even with his knee healed up he was never what he was per injury.

I remember Mikey saying in his rookie year, that he made the team on his ST play. Then in game 3-4 he took off as a RB Mikey saying that he was special. He never looked back.

He played 2 years or so with migraine headaches until they fitted him with braces and found medication to fix that.

One only has to wonder how many more yards and games he would have had had he not been handicapped with headaches as well as in so many games being pulled when the games were out of reach for the other team.

Now will he get in? I doubt it since 80% of the HOF voters are east of the Mississippi types that rarely saw him in late games unless they played against their home teams. IMO his only chance is his face and knowledge, being on NFL network and his legacy and smile continues.

One can only hope they remember him and put him where he belongs..

JR good points and if you need any more info
Meds favorite site for this kind of stuff

is

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/DaviTe00.htm

I am from East of the Mississippi and I think he should get in ;)

Lonestar
11-30-2007, 02:31 PM
JR good points and if you need any more info
Meds favorite site for this kind of stuff

is

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/DaviTe00.htm

I am from East of the Mississippi and I think he should get in ;)


Your weird, (see below)

But most of the voters did not see him except in games that were either national games MNF, playoff games or games against there home teams.

Whereas a reporter from NYC sees those players from their AFC/NFC division twice a year and then from say DEN once every I think 8 years or so depending on the rotation they are now doing.

His exposure to those voters are limited at best.

You as a fan tried real hard to see all of DEN games.

Watchthemiddle
11-30-2007, 02:33 PM
Sayers does not deserve into the hall of fame Top. He is in there because of what he could have done, and out of pity for the man because of his injuries.

Edge
Cory Dillon
Marshall Faulk
Jerome Bettis
Curtis Martin
Fred Taylor
Eddie George
Ahman Green
Tiki Barber
Shaun Alexander
LaDainian Tomlinson
Warrick Dunn

That is a list of guys who where all better then TD. That is off of stats Top. Now, are all of those guys hall of famers? By your argument then yes they are. If TD is a HOF RB then the standards are low. I want someone who can dominate a league for five years. I want someone who has a long career, someone with longevity. It is easy to be a flash in the pan for a few year with big stats then it is to be a consistent RB who puts up good numbers for years and years and years.

How many of those above listed won a super bowl,much less 2 and was MVP the game they won?

SR
11-30-2007, 02:35 PM
Had his career not been cut short with the knee injury he got while tackling someone that had intercepted greasy.

I thought he had lost a fumble? Either way, he was hurt by his own offensive lineman (I think it was Lepsis) rolling up on his leg chasing down the ball carrier. They were running down the sideline, and I believe it was against the Jets.

BroncoAV06
11-30-2007, 02:36 PM
Sometimes HOF and awards is not just all about 10+ years of greatness. In football you definitly have to take the injury aspect of the game into perspective with the amount that happen and many of them turn out to be career enders.

Warick Dunn better then TD? I think you fail to realize that TD was a big part of that team taking off and not just a back on a good team, it was a good team with a great back.

SR
11-30-2007, 02:37 PM
How many of those above listed won a super bowl,much less 2 and was MVP the game they won?

Hell...if we're going by King's list, we might as well add Jamal Anderson to that list too.

Lonestar
11-30-2007, 02:39 PM
I thought he had lost a fumble? Either way, he was hurt by his own offensive lineman (I think it was Lepsis) rolling up on his leg chasing down the ball carrier. They were running down the sideline, and I believe it was against the Jets.


They were both going after the interceptor with Lepsis hitting him from behind while TD was making the tackle..

How many big name RB's would be doing that? Few I think.. I think because for the first year he played on ST's is was ingrained in him to play team ball..

SR
11-30-2007, 02:45 PM
I can still see that play in my mind...running down the sideline...TD going for the tackle...Lepsis rolling up on his leg...TD down. Me crying because I got spaghetti sauce on my white authentic TD jersey. Sad day. The end of something special. :tsk:

Lonestar
11-30-2007, 02:46 PM
I can still see that play in my mind...running down the sideline...TD going for the tackle...Lepsis rolling up on his leg...TD down. Me crying because I got spaghetti sauce on my white authentic TD jersey. Sad day. The end of something special. :tsk:


Did you ever get the red sauce out?

When he walked off the field I thought whew, all for naught..

Medford Bronco
11-30-2007, 02:49 PM
Your weird, (see below)

But most of the voters did not see him except in games that were either national games MNF, playoff games or games against there home teams.

Whereas a reporter from NYC sees those players from their AFC/NFC division twice a year and then from say DEN once every I think 8 years or so depending on the rotation they are now doing.

His exposure to those voters are limited at best.

You as a fan tried real hard to see all of DEN games.

I use TV and NFL Sunday Ticket.:D

I had to give it up due to cost this year but still have seen

5 full Bronco games and parts of 2 others with at least
two more National games that I will see, vs Houston and at SD.

Lonestar
11-30-2007, 02:55 PM
I use TV and NFL Sunday Ticket.:D

I had to give it up due to cost this year but still have seen

5 full Bronco games and parts of 2 others with at least
two more National games that I will see, vs Houston and at SD.

I gave it up last year also in a running agruement with them about not showing the games from start to finnish.. Had to watch to many CLE-CIN early games that went into OT and they would not cut out due to the Hedi rule.. So missed some games as much as most of the first half.

I have the east and west coast feeds for abc,nbc, and CBS so I see almost every game start to finnish, however this week as far as I can see I will not be able to see it.

Unless the local station decides to show it at the last minute.. I would think so as there are a ton of raider fan in town most gang members that wear their colors..

SR
11-30-2007, 03:02 PM
I remember when ALL of the Broncos/Raiders games were aired nationwide. Times sure have changed.

Seems like Colorado's two best rivalries (Avs/Wings, Broncos/Raiders) have faded.

Poet
11-30-2007, 03:07 PM
If you're not putting the most talented players in to the Hall of Fame then why do we even have it? The HOF isn't there to award mediocrity. Half of the names you listed were consistently mediocre. Almost none of them (with the exception of LT and Faulk) were ever considered the best in the league. TD was right along side of Barry Sanders for best in the league when he was playing. He set NFL records. He raised the bar. He was the best player on the field (minus Elway) when he was playing. Teams had to game plan JUST for him.

Then put Bo Jackson into the hall of fame my friend. He was one of the most talented players in the entire league. Most of those guys put up 1200 yards a year for quite some time, consistently being one of the best backs in the league gets you into the hall of fame too.

TXBRONC
11-30-2007, 05:40 PM
Then put Bo Jackson into the hall of fame my friend. He was one of the most talented players in the entire league. Most of those guys put up 1200 yards a year for quite some time, consistently being one of the best backs in the league gets you into the hall of fame too.


This is weak, Bo Jackson was talented but that doesn't mean anything. What exactly did he accomplish? I give you the answer nothing. The most games he played in his "illustrious" four year career was 11 games.


If your going to insist on spewing garbage at the very least have something debating.

Poet
11-30-2007, 06:10 PM
This is weak, Bo Jackson was talented but that doesn't mean anything. What exactly did he accomplish? I give you the answer nothing. The most games he played in his "illustrious" four year career was 11 games.


If your going to insist on spewing garbage at the very least have something debating.

At that is my point. Talent doesnt matter, what you DID on the field does. Not what you COULD do, not what you WOULD have done, what was possible for you to maybe do, but what you DID. The point that SR has about the talent level is silly at best. Glad you got it, sorta.

TXBRONC
11-30-2007, 06:20 PM
At that is my point. Talent doesnt matter, what you DID on the field does. Not what you COULD do, not what you WOULD have done, what was possible for you to maybe do, but what you DID. The point that SR has about the talent level is silly at best. Glad you got it, sorta.

It seem to me that your point is that TD did produce which is laughable at best. Apparently you really didn't get the point of my post.

lex
11-30-2007, 09:51 PM
At that is my point. Talent doesnt matter, what you DID on the field does. Not what you COULD do, not what you WOULD have done, what was possible for you to maybe do, but what you DID. The point that SR has about the talent level is silly at best. Glad you got it, sorta.

No, you have no point. Bo Jackson was a great player but didnt have one solid statistical season to point to. A lot of HOF RBs had a couple of good seasons but the rest of their careers is often filled with 1000 to 1300 yards. Only a few guys who are HOFers have ever had a 3 year run like Davis, plus none of them have had as many yards in the playoffs. Terrell Davis' career is greatness without the filler. Terrell Davis HOF worthy.

Poet
11-30-2007, 11:53 PM
No, you have no point. Bo Jackson was a great player but didnt have one solid statistical season to point to. A lot of HOF RBs had a couple of good seasons but the rest of their careers is often filled with 1000 to 1300 yards. Only a few guys who are HOFers have ever had a 3 year run like Davis, plus none of them have had as many yards in the playoffs. Terrell Davis' career is greatness without the filler. Terrell Davis HOF worthy.

But what does it matter, I mean we are talking about talent aren't we? Oh wait, a second you guys keep making my point for me. Talent is irrelevant, what you did matters first and foremost. SR basically said that TD was better then those guys because he had more talent. Well, talent doesn't get you yards, and if you want to go on talent then Bo Jackson should go in. Most of you guys are homers, very few if any people think that TD is a HOF player, mainly for the reasons that I have pointed out time and time ago.

TXBRONC
12-01-2007, 12:49 AM
But what does it matter, I mean we are talking about talent aren't we? Oh wait, a second you guys keep making my point for me. Talent is irrelevant, what you did matters first and foremost. SR basically said that TD was better then those guys because he had more talent. Well, talent doesn't get you yards, and if you want to go on talent then Bo Jackson should go in. Most of you guys are homers, very few if any people think that TD is a HOF player, mainly for the reasons that I have pointed out time and time ago.


Obviously you're just trying argumentative. TD DID produce and played FULL seasons. Now take your smack elsewhere you're starting to be an annoyance.

Poet
12-01-2007, 01:07 AM
Obviously you're just trying argumentative. TD DID produce and played FULL seasons. Now take your smack elsewhere you're starting to be an annoyance.

I haven't talked any smack at all. I was refuting the point that SR made. Just because you disagree with me doesn't really bother me. What does bother me is the simple fact that I know my points are valid, I have had this discussion with many different fans varying in love of the game and age. Sorry TX, but just because a bunch of Bronco fans think that I am wrong or that my points are not valid doesn't mean they are right.

TXBRONC
12-01-2007, 01:28 AM
I haven't talked any smack at all. I was refuting the point that SR made. Just because you disagree with me doesn't really bother me. What does bother me is the simple fact that I know my points are valid, I have had this discussion with many different fans varying in love of the game and age. Sorry TX, but just because a bunch of Bronco fans think that I am wrong or that my points are not valid doesn't mean they are right.

It doesn't mean that they are wrong either does it?

Edit: And yes it is smack when you come in and call people homers.

SR
12-01-2007, 01:31 AM
At that is my point. Talent doesnt matter, what you DID on the field does. Not what you COULD do, not what you WOULD have done, what was possible for you to maybe do, but what you DID. The point that SR has about the talent level is silly at best. Glad you got it, sorta.

THEN PUT TD IN THE HALL! Giminy Christmas! You're contradicting yourself EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU POST!

SR
12-01-2007, 01:33 AM
But what does it matter, I mean we are talking about talent aren't we? Oh wait, a second you guys keep making my point for me. Talent is irrelevant, what you did matters first and foremost. SR basically said that TD was better then those guys because he had more talent. Well, talent doesn't get you yards, and if you want to go on talent then Bo Jackson should go in. Most of you guys are homers, very few if any people think that TD is a HOF player, mainly for the reasons that I have pointed out time and time ago.

Uhhh...hello....McFly....He did produce BECAUSE HE WAS TALENTED...

SR
12-01-2007, 01:37 AM
I haven't talked any smack at all. I was refuting the point that SR made. Just because you disagree with me doesn't really bother me. What does bother me is the simple fact that I know my points are valid, I have had this discussion with many different fans varying in love of the game and age. Sorry TX, but just because a bunch of Bronco fans think that I am wrong or that my points are not valid doesn't mean they are right.

TD is hall worth based on what he DID ON THE FIELD...not because of potential. No one here has said "he should be in because he could have done a lot more". We're saying "He should be in because he did produce record breaking numbers while he was on the field".

Oh, and just because you've 'talked with many different fans' doesn't mean that because they agree with you, you're right.

TXBRONC
12-01-2007, 01:45 AM
TD is hall worth based on what he DID ON THE FIELD...not because of potential. No one here has said "he should be in because he could have done a lot more". We're saying "He should be in because he did produce record breaking numbers while he was on the field".

Oh, and just because you've 'talked with many different fans' doesn't mean that because they agree with you, you're right.

King is ignoring Terrell's accomplishment.

topscribe
12-01-2007, 03:06 AM
But what does it matter, I mean we are talking about talent aren't we? Oh wait, a second you guys keep making my point for me. Talent is irrelevant, what you did matters first and foremost. SR basically said that TD was better then those guys because he had more talent. Well, talent doesn't get you yards, and if you want to go on talent then Bo Jackson should go in. Most of you guys are homers, very few if any people think that TD is a HOF player, mainly for the reasons that I have pointed out time and time ago.

King, TD is a semifinalist, chosen by people who are not necessarily Broncos
fans. So many outside the Broncos fan base do think TD is HOF worthy. Since
they could not be "homers," what would you call them?

That kind of is a knock in the head to your "homer" talk, isn't it? Guess,
then, you don't have a reason to use that term again in this discussion, do
you?

-----

SR
12-01-2007, 03:25 AM
King is ignoring Terrell's accomplishment.

He's also ignoring his own homerism, evident by his Corey Dillon talk and constant badgering of us for being homers. Hey, it's not our fault that TD was great.

Lonestar
12-01-2007, 12:17 PM
He's also ignoring his own homerism, evident by his Corey Dillon talk and constant badgering of us for being homers. Hey, it's not our fault that TD was great.


Yes it was TD was just trying to be the best for the greatest fans in the NFL..

Lonestar
12-01-2007, 12:21 PM
I haven't talked any smack at all. I was refuting the point that SR made. Just because you disagree with me doesn't really bother me. What does bother me is the simple fact that I know my points are valid, I have had this discussion with many different fans varying in love of the game and age. Sorry TX, but just because a bunch of Bronco fans think that I am wrong or that my points are not valid doesn't mean they are right.


Just a quick comment

What you know, is just your opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. Does not make you right and everyone else wrong..

Once you get your head wrapped around that, you can let it go. This is an argument you will never win on a Broncos forum..

Poet
12-01-2007, 03:10 PM
He's also ignoring his own homerism, evident by his Corey Dillon talk and constant badgering of us for being homers. Hey, it's not our fault that TD was great.

My Corey Dillon talk was very legitimate. I have read several sportswriters write about how Corey Dillon put up good numbers going against stacked boxes all day with a bad line.

Lonestar
12-01-2007, 03:12 PM
My Corey Dillon talk was very legitimate. I have read several sportswriters write about how Corey Dillon put up good numbers going against stacked boxes all day with a bad line.



And do you really think TD did not have the same thing happeing to him?

TXBRONC
12-01-2007, 03:18 PM
My Corey Dillon talk was very legitimate. I have read several sportswriters write about how Corey Dillon put up good numbers going against stacked boxes all day with a bad line.

So did Terrell Davis. :shot:

TXBRONC
12-01-2007, 03:52 PM
For your information King Corey Dillion's best season was 1635 yards(wasn't even with pewtred Bengals), which is 115 yards behind Terrell Davis's SECOND best season of 1750 yards. And Corey's best season is only 97 yards better than Terrell's THIRD best season 1538.

So while your saying Dillion was having monster seasons with 1200 to 1400 yards rushing Davis had just two ok seasons with two 1500-1700 plus yards rushing.

Also how many times did Dillion win at the very least AFC rushing crown? How about none. How many times was he the League MVP? Again how about none. How many Super Bowl MVP's did he win? Oh that's right the answer again is none.

Terrell Davis on other had led the AFC in rushing for sure in both in '97 and '98and while not absolutely sure I think he was also the AFC's rushing champion in '96. Led the League in rushing in '98, was the Super Bowl MVP in '97 and League MVP in '98.

That's just his regular season accomplishments save the Super Bowl MVP.

That being said you are either trying be intellectually dishonest, argumentative, or smack talk. My bet is that you're bucking for the trifecta.

Lonestar
12-01-2007, 04:07 PM
For your information King Corey Dillion's best season was 1635 yards(wasn't even with pewtred Bengals), which is 115 yards behind Terrell Davis's SECOND best season of 1750 yards. And Corey's best season is only 97 yards better than Terrell's THIRD best season 1538.

So while your saying Dillion was having monster seasons with 1200 to 1400 yards rushing Davis had just two ok seasons with two 1500-1700 plus yards rushing.

Also how many times did Dillion win at the very least AFC rushing crown? How about none. How many times was he the League MVP? Again how about none. How many Super Bowl MVP's did he win? Oh that's right the answer again is none.

Terrell Davis on other had led the AFC in rushing for sure in both in '97 and '98and while not absolutely sure I think he was also the AFC's rushing champion in '96. Led the League in rushing in '98, was the Super Bowl MVP in '97 and League MVP in '98.

That's just his regular season accomplishments save the Super Bowl MVP.

That being said you are either trying be intellectually dishonest, argumentative, or smack talk. My bet is that you're bucking for the trifecta.

ya really think?

King is misguided and has been warned numerous time he will not win this debate.. Perhaps at bungals R us but not here..

Poet
12-01-2007, 05:04 PM
For your information King Corey Dillion's best season was 1635 yards(wasn't even with pewtred Bengals), which is 115 yards behind Terrell Davis's SECOND best season of 1750 yards. And Corey's best season is only 97 yards better than Terrell's THIRD best season 1538.

So while your saying Dillion was having monster seasons with 1200 to 1400 yards rushing Davis had just two ok seasons with two 1500-1700 plus yards rushing.

Also how many times did Dillion win at the very least AFC rushing crown? How about none. How many times was he the League MVP? Again how about none. How many Super Bowl MVP's did he win? Oh that's right the answer again is none.

Terrell Davis on other had led the AFC in rushing for sure in both in '97 and '98and while not absolutely sure I think he was also the AFC's rushing champion in '96. Led the League in rushing in '98, was the Super Bowl MVP in '97 and League MVP in '98.

That's just his regular season accomplishments save the Super Bowl MVP.

That being said you are either trying be intellectually dishonest, argumentative, or smack talk. My bet is that you're bucking for the trifecta.

ya really think?

King is misguided and has been warned numerous time he will not win this debate.. Perhaps at bungals R us but not here..

And Cory Dillon played on teams that consistently got 2-4 wins a year. He was the only good player save a single offensive lineman on the entire offensive side of the ball. He had no support at all. And he still put up good yards. Meanwhile TD played on a team with perhaps the best QB ever, a real WR, a mighy fine offensive line and he didn't see stacked boxes as much as Dillon did. Dillon proved how great he was when at age 31 went to a team with a decent offensive line and up 1635 yards. If he can do that at age 31 then in his prime he would have been putting up numbers that match those of TD save a single 2k yard season. If you guys are going to assume that TD would have longevity or even do all the things you are speculating about then you have NO room to talk about the logical assumptions that I make about Dillon. The issue is that DILLON was the one that stayed healthy, not TD. Tough break, thats football.

Maybe Dillon would have had some postseason accomplishments if he had gotten there more then once in his career. And actually JR he has himself a nice shiney RB ring, and in fact you can give him credit for giving Tom Brady a real running game for once.

I am not talking smack talk at all, I just engaged in a healthy football discussion. But hey, if disagreeing with the majority of the MB on a football matter is smack talk then I'll roll with it.

I never say things I don't believe JR.;)

topscribe
12-01-2007, 05:12 PM
[quote=Jrwiz;54262]
I never say things I don't believe JR.;)

Just say it about the issues, and leave the posters alone, okay?

-----

TXBRONC
12-01-2007, 05:31 PM
[QUOTE=Jrwiz;54262]

And Cory Dillon played on teams that consistently got 2-4 wins a year. He was the only good player save a single offensive lineman on the entire offensive side of the ball. He had no support at all. And he still put up good yards. Meanwhile TD played on a team with perhaps the best QB ever, a real WR, a mighy fine offensive line and he didn't see stacked boxes as much as Dillon did. Dillon proved how great he was when at age 31 went to a team with a decent offensive line and up 1635 yards. If he can do that at age 31 then in his prime he would have been putting up numbers that match those of TD save a single 2k yard season. If you guys are going to assume that TD would have longevity or even do all the things you are speculating about then you have NO room to talk about the logical assumptions that I make about Dillon. The issue is that DILLON was the one that stayed healthy, not TD. Tough break, thats football.

Maybe Dillon would have had some postseason accomplishments if he had gotten there more then once in his career. And actually JR he has himself a nice shiney RB ring, and in fact you can give him credit for giving Tom Brady a real running game for once.

I am not talking smack talk at all, I just engaged in a healthy football discussion. But hey, if disagreeing with the majority of the MB on a football matter is smack talk then I'll roll with it.

I never say things I don't believe JR.;)

The only way the issue was about Dillon's health is if this a thread about Corey Dillon which it is not or if we change allow to skirt the real issue which I wont let you. This thread is about Terrell Davis and his accomplishments something you seem smack talking about.

Apparently you don't how to deal with Davis accomplishments with even the smallest amount of intellectual honesty. You deal with it by trying down play his accomplishments with bring up Corey Dillon who has nothing to do with this thread.

Lonestar
12-01-2007, 05:50 PM
And Cory Dillon played on teams that consistently got 2-4 wins a year. He was the only good player save a single offensive lineman on the entire offensive side of the ball. He had no support at all. And he still put up good yards. Meanwhile TD played on a team with perhaps the best QB ever, a real WR, a mighy fine offensive line and he didn't see stacked boxes as much as Dillon did. Dillon proved how great he was when at age 31 went to a team with a decent offensive line and up 1635 yards. If he can do that at age 31 then in his prime he would have been putting up numbers that match those of TD save a single 2k yard season. If you guys are going to assume that TD would have longevity or even do all the things you are speculating about then you have NO room to talk about the logical assumptions that I make about Dillon. The issue is that DILLON was the one that stayed healthy, not TD. Tough break, thats football.

Maybe Dillon would have had some postseason accomplishments if he had gotten there more then once in his career. And actually JR he has himself a nice shiney RB ring, and in fact you can give him credit for giving Tom Brady a real running game for once.

I am not talking smack talk at all, I just engaged in a healthy football discussion. But hey, if disagreeing with the majority of the MB on a football matter is smack talk then I'll roll with it.

I never say things I don't believe JR.;)

I know you believe this but it does not matter Dillon may someday be considered but now he is not.

If you really had watched those games TD got the ball 25-30 times a game. The defense was stacked with 8-9 in the box trying to stop him..

Just because John was on the field and he had Rod and Sharpe did not diminish his running skills. Did they help him? To a degree, but every defense he faced, was designed to stop him. Most of the time it did not it was true run first offense and in a lot of cases it allowed John some freedom. But also in alot of those game TD was benched in some cases early in the third quarter to not embarrass most of the teams we played.. His numbers would have been on the moon if they would have allowed him to run out the clock in every game. They had finishers to do that. Most of them marginal RB's that were so much better because the defenses were gassed from TD's running..

Poet
12-01-2007, 06:16 PM
[QUOTE=King87;54292]

The only way the issue was about Dillon's health is if this a thread about Corey Dillon which it is not or if we change allow to skirt the real issue which I wont let you. This thread is about Terrell Davis and his accomplishments something you seem smack talking about.

Apparently you don't how to deal with Davis accomplishments with even the smallest amount of intellectual honesty. You deal with it by trying down play his accomplishments with bring up Corey Dillon who has nothing to do with this thread.

Wrong. I made a list of guys who where better statitiscallt then Davis. This is relevant because SR said that since TD should get into the HOF because he has better stats then Sayers. My point was that a lot of RBs have better stats then Sayers.

topscribe
12-01-2007, 06:25 PM
[quote=TXBRONC;54306]

Wrong. I made a list of guys who where better statitiscallt then Davis. This is relevant because SR said that since TD should get into the HOF because he has better stats then Sayers. My point was that a lot of RBs have better stats then Sayers.

There were backs with apparently better stats than Sayers, true. But how
much more did Sayers mean to his team? That's what I'm talking about: You
have had to be there to know this, or at least to have seen it live.

You just provided an excellent example as to why one needs to have been
there, done that to have complete knowledge about a given situation. Stats
are concrete . . . valuable, but concrete. But many abstract factors can
enter into a circumstance that stats do not reveal.

------

TXBRONC
12-01-2007, 06:32 PM
[QUOTE=TXBRONC;54306]

Wrong. I made a list of guys who where better statitiscallt then Davis. This is relevant because SR said that since TD should get into the HOF because he has better stats then Sayers. My point was that a lot of RBs have better stats then Sayers.

The guys on your list have had longer careers but doesn't mean numbers are better on year to year comparison.

You haven't even come close to proving any kind of point other than you like be argumentative.

Simple Jaded
12-01-2007, 10:40 PM
Wait, wait, wait.....

Corey Dillon = Terrell Davis?

When was Dillon ever considered the best in the league?

Davis carried the title while Emmitt Smith, Barry Sanders and Marshall Faulk were playing at a very high level......

Poet
12-01-2007, 11:49 PM
Wait, wait, wait.....

Corey Dillon = Terrell Davis?

When was Dillon ever considered the best in the league?

Davis carried the title while Emmitt Smith, Barry Sanders and Marshall Faulk were playing at a very high level......

You can either scroll back up and read what I said or keep ignoring it. All of those men had substantial talent around them compared to Cory Dillon. At age 31 Dillon rushed for 1625 yards on a team that had a decent line. By your logic TD would have gone on to do amazing things, but you can only assume and not prove them. If you guys get to play the what if game then so do I. And if you don't want to play the what if game then you have to go by the stats of TD strictly in which case he isn't even close of the HOF. All I want in this argument is consistency, and I am not getting it at all.

TXBRONC
12-01-2007, 11:56 PM
You can either scroll back up and read what I said or keep ignoring it. All of those men had substantial talent around them compared to Cory Dillon. At age 31 Dillon rushed for 1625 yards on a team that had a decent line. By your logic TD would have gone on to do amazing things, but you can only assume and not prove them. If you guys get to play the what if game then so do I. And if you don't want to play the what if game then you have to go by the stats of TD strictly in which case he isn't even close of the HOF. All I want in this argument is consistency, and I am not getting it at all.

So what, Barry Sanders rushed for over 2000 yards at about the same as Dillion and he did it with an offensive line far worse than one Corey Dillion ran behind.

It's not us being inconsistant it's you bub.

Poet
12-01-2007, 11:57 PM
So what, Barry Sanders rushed for over 2000 yards at about the same as Dillion and he did it with an offensive line far worse than one Corey Dillion ran behind.

It's not us being inconsistant it's you bub.

Barry Sanders had a better line then Cory Dillon. In his time he had twice as many pro bowl lineman then Dillon did.

TXBRONC
12-02-2007, 12:07 AM
Barry Sanders had a better line then Cory Dillon. In his time he had twice as many pro bowl lineman then Dillon did.

Right. I guess that's why during his career he would on average have his first contact with defenders two yards behind the line of scrimage instead of at line or in positive territory. Yeah Sanders had an great offensive line. You obviously are grasping at straws.

What you said shows ignorance.

Poet
12-02-2007, 12:13 AM
Right. I guess that's why during his career he would on average have his first contact with defenders two yards behind the line of scrimage instead of at line or in positive territory. Yeah Sanders had an great offensive line. You obviously are grasping at straws.

What you said shows ignorance.

Did I ever saw he had a great offensive line? No, so don't put words in my mouth. I said he had a better offensive line, and honestly he did. I would appreciate greatly sir if you would read my post for what it is and not what you want it to be.

Lonestar
12-02-2007, 12:13 AM
Right. I guess that's why during his career he would on average have his first contact with defenders two yards behind the line of scrimage instead of at line or in positive territory. Yeah Sanders had an great offensive line. You obviously are grasping at straws.

What you said shows ignorance.

actually Barry has some sort of record of most tackles for a loss.

TXBRONC
12-02-2007, 12:27 AM
Did I ever saw he had a great offensive line? No, so don't put words in my mouth. I said he had a better offensive line, and honestly he did. I would appreciate greatly sir if you would read my post for what it is and not what you want it to be.

How quickly you forget here is exactly what you said:


Barry Sanders had a better line then Cory Dillon. In his time he had twice as many pro bowl lineman then Dillon did.

You have nothing better to do than to try and spilt hairs. You said Sanders had better talent. So I didn't put any words in your fmouth. You've tangled yourself up in your own words.

TXBRONC
12-02-2007, 12:34 AM
actually Barry has some sort of record of most tackles for a loss.


Yes he holds the League record for most rushing attempts for negative yards. Which was a combination of his ad lib style of running and the fact defenders were on his side of the line of scrimmage during many of his rushing attempts. I might be wrong but that doesn't sound like Barry had more help than Corey.

SR
12-02-2007, 01:35 AM
This is relevant because SR said that since TD should get into the HOF because he has better stats then Sayers.

Really? I said that? Show me.

Poet
12-02-2007, 02:30 AM
Really? I said that? Show me.

The comment that you made about Sayers being in the HOF and TD having better numbers then him. If that isn't what you meant then.......

SR
12-02-2007, 02:30 AM
The comment that you made about Sayers being in the HOF and TD having better numbers then him. If that isn't what you meant then.......

Quote it...

Lonestar
12-02-2007, 02:34 AM
Yes he holds the League record for most rushing attempts for negative yards. Which was a combination of his ad lib style of running and the fact defenders were on his side of the line of scrimmage during many of his rushing attempts. I might be wrong but that doesn't sound like Barry had more help than Corey.


Your correct barrys OLINE was not as good as it could have been that kid did it on talent alone.. It was a shame for him to retire before his time I loved watching him run..

SR
12-02-2007, 02:39 AM
Your correct barrys OLINE was not as good as it could have been that kid did it on talent alone.. It was a shame for him to retire before his time I loved watching him run..

I did too. The guy was a maniac. I remember when I went to the Super Bowl in 1995 (Cowboys and Steelers), my dad took me to the NFL Experience the night before. They had these moldings of different NFL players' legs. Barry Sanders' qaudriceps something like 33" around. I could literally stand in his leg molding.

Lonestar
12-02-2007, 02:44 AM
I did too. The guy was a maniac. I remember when I went to the Super Bowl in 1995 (Cowboys and Steelers), my dad took me to the NFL Experience the night before. They had these moldings of different NFL players' legs. Barry Sanders' qaudriceps something like 33" around. I could literally stand in his leg molding.

could start stop and reverse field on a dime. talk about tiger paws.. I can't remember how many jock straps that got let on the field after he played them..


I'm surprised he did not break his ankles with some of those moves..

SR
12-02-2007, 02:46 AM
could start stop and reverse field on a dime. talk about tiger paws.. I can't remember how many jock straps that got let on the field after he played them..


I'm surprised he did not break his ankles with some of those moves..

My dad and I used to joke about that all the time, him breaking his ankles. It really does make me sad to see such great players go out so horribly. Sanders had some years left in him, as did TD. It's a bummer.

Lonestar
12-02-2007, 02:49 AM
My dad and I used to joke about that all the time, him breaking his ankles. It really does make me sad to see such great players go out so horribly. Sanders had some years left in him, as did TD. It's a bummer.

TD was worn out and Barry just was not having fun anymore. Of course had he been in DEN one wonders how much longer he would have played behind a decent OLINE and a run first HC.


Night I'm whacked

SR
12-02-2007, 02:52 AM
Barry Sanders + Denver would not have been a good fit. G'night Jim.

Lonestar
12-02-2007, 03:36 AM
Barry Sanders + Denver would not have been a good fit. G'night Jim.

better than tater

Poet
12-02-2007, 04:12 AM
Quote it...

I really do not want to go through the entire thread for it. However, if you say that you did not say that then I will look anyway.

SR
12-02-2007, 04:15 AM
I really do not want to go through the entire thread for it. However, if you say that you did not say that then I will look anyway.

I'm pretty sure I didn't ever say that.

Poet
12-02-2007, 04:19 AM
I'm pretty sure I didn't ever say that.

And into the archives I go.


It appears I am incorrect.

TXBRONC
12-02-2007, 09:37 AM
Barry Sanders + Denver would not have been a good fit. G'night Jim.

I know Barry like ad lib when he ran but I think with his unique talents he could have been great fit.