Should Roger Craig be in the Hall of Fame?

[Aso]

McNabb was the first QB in NFL history to throw more than 30 TD's and less than 10 INT's in a season

:shifty:

Seriously though fuck outta here with that McNabb shit

 

[shag773]

What i'm saying, is playing on three Super Bowl winners shouldn't be a big resume enhancer unless you were the star player on those teams, which he wasn't.
.

He might not of been "the" star player on those teams, but he was certainly one of them. IMO, they have a hard time winning in 84 and 88 without him. Does the 84 team win with a starting backfield of Wendell Tyler and Bill Ring? There was no Rice that year.

In 88 if you recall they really struggled. They were 6-5 at one point. Montana had one of his worst years as a starter, and Jerry Rice did not have a typical "Jerry Rice" year. Craig rushed for over 1500 yards that year and caught 76 balls. They don't even make the playoffs that year without him much less win a SB.

Taking all of this into account, I think it's appropriate to bring up the championship teams he was on when making a HOF argument. It would be unfair not to.

 

[shag773]

As a big Donovan McNabb fan, this thread drives me nuts (ok, more nuts). Like the OP, I think McNabb is an instant HOFer, but I am a fan. As someone being statisically honest, I gotta add #5 to Roger Craig.

There isn't a bigger Eagles fan in this place than me, but McNabb is not a HOFer. No stats to back it up. And no SB wins to compensate for it. Not even close.

 

[dave]

Totally disagree with this. Faulk was a 1,500 yard rusher and receiving threat. Craig was never, ever at Faulk's level. I might agree Craig was before his time, but he was never the rushing threat Faulk was.

How could anyone groan at this quote? Craig was great, but was not Faulk in a 1,000,000 years.

 

[Senser81]

He might not of been "the" star player on those teams, but he was certainly one of them. IMO, they have a hard time winning in 84 and 88 without him. Does the 84 team win with a starting backfield of Wendell Tyler and Bill Ring? There was no Rice that year.

Yes, the 1984 team wins with a starting backfield of Wendell Tyler and Bill Ring. Two things...one, the 1984 team was incredibly talented, especially on defense. Two, Wendell Tyler was a great RB and football player. Prior to being on the Niners, he had a couple big years for the Rams (1979 & 1981), and was the best offensive player on the Rams 1979 SB team. Tyler basically doubled Craig's rushing output in 1984 (1262 v. 649), and was also SF's leading rusher in 1983.

 

[shag773]

Yes, the 1984 team wins with a starting backfield of Wendell Tyler and Bill Ring. Two things...one, the 1984 team was incredibly talented, especially on defense. Two, Wendell Tyler was a great RB and football player. Prior to being on the Niners, he had a couple big years for the Rams (1979 & 1981), and was the best offensive player on the Rams 1979 SB team. Tyler basically doubled Craig's rushing output in 1984 (1262 v. 649), and was also SF's leading rusher in 1983.

Roger Craig was a FB that year, so I guess I'm talking about a backfield with both of them vs arguing Tyler vs Craig.

But since you brought it up...

Tyler doubled his rushing output, but Craig had only 150 yards from scrimmage less than Tyler, had 1 more TD, and caught 71 balls that year. Not arguing the merits of Tyler, but Craig was a better fit in that offense and was a better player IMO. They were a better team when they featured Craig in the backfield.

 

[Senser81]

Roger Craig was a FB that year, so I guess I'm talking about a backfield with both of them vs arguing Tyler vs Craig.

But since you brought it up...

Tyler doubled his rushing output, but Craig had only 150 yards from scrimmage less than Tyler, had 1 more TD, and caught 71 balls that year. Not arguing the merits of Tyler, but Craig was a better fit in that offense and was a better player IMO. They were a better team when they featured Craig in the backfield.

Tyler was the Rams leading receiver in 1982, and 2nd leading receiver in 1979 & 1981 (injured in 1980). He was a great receiving threat out of the backfield, especially deep. Walsh's offense featured a lot of FB passes, thats why Earl Cooper put up even better receiving numbers than Craig in the early 80's, and Tom Rathman also caught a ton of passes after Craig was switched to HB. So I don't really see how Craig was a "better fit", when Tyler was more productive and could have been asked to do even more, IMO.

 

[Senser81]

How could anyone groan at this quote? Craig was great, but was not Faulk in a 1,000,000 years.

Guys, you don't understand...A-ha was a really good band...

 

[shag773]

Earl Cooper did not put up better receiving numbers than Roger Craig. HHe had one year that was comparable. Wendell Tyler was not a better fit than Craig, which is why he actually played behind him for the rest of his career after Craig scored 3 TDs in that SB.

 

[Senser81]

Earl Cooper did not put up better receiving numbers than Roger Craig. HHe had one year that was comparable. Wendell Tyler was not a better fit than Craig, which is why he actually played behind him for the rest of his career after Craig scored 3 TDs in that SB.

As a FB in 1980, Earl Cooper led the Niners in rushing and receiving (83 receptions), which is something Craig never did from the FB position. Tyler was on the flipside of 30 in 1985, so, yeah, at some point Craig was going to overtake him in the lineup. Tyler still ran for 856 yards in 1985, too.

 

[shag773]

Earl Cooper outrushed Lenvil Elliot, Paul Hofer, and Don Woods to make him the niners leading rusher in 1980 as a fb ?..um, OK. Still doesn't back up the point you made about him putting up better receiving numbers then Craig.

Ok, so I was right. Craig was a better fit then Tyler on the niners. You keep bringing up what he did in 79, 81, and 83. It doesn't make him a better fit then Craig when comparing both theiir careers with the niners. His age has nothing to do with it.

 

[Senser81]

Earl Cooper outrushed Lenvil Elliot, Paul Hofer, and Don Woods to make him the niners leading rusher in 1980 as a fb ?..um, OK. Still doesn't back up the point you made about him putting up better receiving numbers then Craig.

Earl Cooper at FB = 83 receptions in 1980

Roger Craig at FB = 48 receptions in 1983, 71 receptions in 1984

Got it.

Ok, so I was right. Craig was a better fit then Tyler on the niners. You keep bringing up what he did in 79, 81, and 83. It doesn't make him a better fit then Craig when comparing both theiir careers with the niners. His age has nothing to do with it.

Never said Tyler was a better fit than Craig. So Craig was a better fit than Tyler on the Niners, yet Tyler doubled Craig's rushing total in 1984 and had more yards from scrimmage and TDs.

Got it.

 

[shag773]

Roger Craig was considered a FB until 87. In 85 he lead the league...as a FB.....with 92 receptions.

You don't get it.

In 84 Tyler had 162 more yards from scrimmage, and one less TD than Craig while touching the ball 102 more times. Oh, and he also had 13 fumbles that year.

You really don't get it.

 

[Senser81]

Roger Craig was considered a FB until 87

By whom?

You don't get it.

In 84 Tyler had 162 more yards from scrimmage, and one less TD than Craig while touching the ball 102 more times. Oh, and he also had 13 fumbles that year.

You really don't get it.

My point was that Craig's receptions with Tyler in the same backfield was more of a product of Walsh's offensive design and his WCO featuring a lot of FB routes as opposed to any superior ability possessed by Craig over Tyler. Thats why I pointed out Tyler leading his old Rams teams in receiving...Tyler had the ability to catch 48 passes in 1983 or 71 in 1984, he just wasn't asked to do it.

 

[shag773]

I knew he played FB for a while, but I confirmed it on profootballrefernce.com. In 85, when he had 92 receptions, Tyler started 12 games. Im guessing it wasnt at FB.

Roger Craig was a better fit as a featured back then Tyler. The stats don't lie. He flat out put up better numbers in that offense. If your argument centers around what he did with another team and what or wasn't "asked" to do in this offense, then I find it lacking any substance.

 

[shag773]

BTW, in 83 Craig had 111 more yards from scrimmage and 6 more TDs...Tyler only outrushed him by 131 yards...

 

[NAHSTE]

By whom?

FWIW, in this thread dave also called him a fullback.

Again, FWIW.

 

[Senser81]

Roger Craig was a better fit as a featured back then Tyler. The stats don't lie.

Thats why Tyler was the featured back over Craig in 1983 and 1984. Walsh didn't know what he was doing. Niners could have gone 19-0 in 1984 instead of 18-1 had used Craig as the featured back.

 

[Senser81]

BTW, in 83 Craig had 111 more yards from scrimmage and 6 more TDs...Tyler only outrushed him by 131 yards...

So, just to be clear, what you are saying is Tyler >>> Craig?

 

[shag773]

So, just to be clear, what you are saying is Tyler >>> Craig?

Honestly, I'm not sure what i am saying anymore. You win. Tyler is just as much of a fit in this offense as Craig. Not sure what i was thinking.