What running backs have a chance of going to the HOF.

[ralaw]

I'm conflicted on Martin, because on one hand he is your classic stat-compiler. He never was the best in the league at any time, never was the second best in the league at any time, and some wouldn't even have said he was the third best in the league at any time. However, he was durable and consistently produced, but never was really that "impact player" that made a good team a championship team. Yet, when you look at his stats you see a HOFer.

With Martin I guess it comes down to what makes a HOFer? Stats alone? or do we look at stats as well as the subjective argument of "impact"? I've always seen the HOF as being for the elite of the elite guys and I don't see Martin in that class, but his numbers say otherwise.

 

[jags224]

marshall will make the hall of fame.

 

[Argath]

i don't see portis making it at all unless he has 2 or 3 stellar seasons.

Faulk, Bettis, and Smith will make it.

I want Eddie George to make it

 

[NAHSTE]

Shaun Alexander was awesome before injury. He would've won a Heisman in college if it weren't for injury, and he would be a HoF'er if it weren't for injury.

LOL, like senser said, no way he beats Ron Dayne. Also, don't forget Peter Warrick who had the award won until the Delchamps story broke.

SA was awesome at Alabama, he killed LSU by himself once even, but he was nowhere close to winning a Heisman during his time.

Typical 'Bama delusions. You polishing those 12 "National Championship" trophies while you're at it?

 

[jeffx]

With Martin I guess it comes down to what makes a HOFer? Stats alone? or do we look at stats as well as the subjective argument of "impact"? I've always seen the HOF as being for the elite of the elite guys and I don't see Martin in that class, but his numbers say otherwise.

Interesting question. Curtis will get in, but to me, I put a bigger premium on domination - a cat who's head and shoulders above the rest, who the opposition wants no part of(like Earl Campbell).

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

I'm conflicted on Martin, because on one hand he is your classic stat-compiler. He never was the best in the league at any time, never was the second best in the league at any time, and some wouldn't even have said he was the third best in the league at any time. However, he was durable and consistently produced, but never was really that "impact player" that made a good team a championship team. Yet, when you look at his stats you see a HOFer.

With Martin I guess it comes down to what makes a HOFer? Stats alone? or do we look at stats as well as the subjective argument of "impact"? I've always seen the HOF as being for the elite of the elite guys and I don't see Martin in that class, but his numbers say otherwise.

At some point though...being a stat compiler makes you elite. Its like...after what point does being consistently good-great makes you good-great...is it 10 seasons of 1000+ yards on the ground? I'd say Martin eclipsed that. However, he didn't have too many single seasons worth of dominance...he gets overlooked because he came in and produced during Emmitt Smith and Barry's day...as well as Ricky Watters (who is a guy that is on that "last guys out" list) and then toward the backend of his career was when Priest Holmes and LaDainian Tomlinson came in.

Bettis is in a very similar situation as Martin, but Bettis, I don't think was as good as Martin.

I don't think there was a back ever as good on the draw play.

 

[Senser81]

Bettis is in a very similar situation as Martin, but Bettis, I don't think was as good as Martin.

I'm sure I'm in the minority, and the stats don't really show it, but I think Bettis was better than Martin because he physically took over games. Defenses had to account for Bettis, otherwise he'd grind out first down after first down. I'm sure defenses had to account for Martin, but I don't think he was as big a threat as Bettis. Martin was like the guy who would play pretty good, then at the end of the game you'd look at the box score and say "Geez, how did end up with 145 yards?"

Hmm...maybe that argument was too Vickish?

 

[ralaw]

At some point though...being a stat compiler makes you elite. Its like...after what point does being consistently good-great makes you good-great...is it 10 seasons of 1000+ yards on the ground? I'd say Martin eclipsed that. However, he didn't have too many single seasons worth of dominance...he gets overlooked because he came in and produced during Emmitt Smith and Barry's day...as well as Ricky Watters (who is a guy that is on that "last guys out" list) and then toward the backend of his career was when Priest Holmes and LaDainian Tomlinson came in.

Bettis is in a very similar situation as Martin, but Bettis, I don't think was as good as Martin.

I don't think there was a back ever as good on the draw play.

Yeah, at the end of the day the numbers don't lie and 14,000+ combined yards is 14,000+ combined yards regardless of how "dominant" a player was. However, I just wish those yards came with a little more "umph"....you know what I mean? It seemed at times Martin really didn't have a presence like other HOF caliber backs tend to have.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

I'm sure I'm in the minority, and the stats don't really show it, but I think Bettis was better than Martin because he physically took over games. Defenses had to account for Bettis, otherwise he'd grind out first down after first down. I'm sure defenses had to account for Martin, but I don't think he was as big a threat as Bettis. Martin was like the guy who would play pretty good, then at the end of the game you'd look at the box score and say "Geez, how did end up with 145 yards?"

Hmm...maybe that argument was too Vickish?

The two critical 3rd and 7 plays he took for a draw for 30 yards.

I get it with Martin, but outside of the recent group of backs like Smith, Tomlinson, and Faulk...I don't see any truly dominant backs for what would be a career...many in short spans, a select few that were consistently good and occasionally great, but none on the aforementioned three's level.

Martin and Bettis and even Edgerrin James fall into that next tier of players after those three players...consistently good-great...never really dominant or elite...but did the good-great thing long enough to be better then the flash in the pans.

This was the era of the one-back system as well, so I'm not shocked that these backs, ones that had so many carries over their career, are so few. The one back system (aka, teams trying too hard to get Emmitt and Barry's on their team) was one of the main reasons why you saw so many runners peak quickly and fall back down to earth. So many injuries to top backs and they couldn't retain greatness.

 

[DoubleDeuce]

LOL, like senser said, no way he beats Ron Dayne. Also, don't forget Peter Warrick who had the award won until the Delchamps story broke.

SA was awesome at Alabama, he killed LSU by himself once even, but he was nowhere close to winning a Heisman during his time.

Typical 'Bama delusions. You polishing those 12 "National Championship" trophies while you're at it?

He was close to winning a Heisman. Finished 7th in voting his senior season despite missing three games.

And why national championships in quotations? The NCAA recognizes Alabama for 17 National Titles, including splits. Alabama only claims 12.

 

[Sven Draconian]

Yeah, at the end of the day the numbers don't lie and 14,000+ combined yards is 14,000+ combined yards regardless of how "dominant" a player was. However, I just wish those yards came with a little more "umph"....you know what I mean? It seemed at times Martin really didn't have a presence like other HOF caliber backs tend to have.

Theres lies, damned lies and statistics.

He was close to winning a Heisman. Finished 7th in voting his senior season despite missing three games.

And why national championships in quotations? The NCAA recognizes Alabama for 17 National Titles, including splits. Alabama only claims 12.

You just blew up my bullshit detector. The NCAA doesn't even award national championships, so it is pretty tough for them to recognize 17.

As for the Curtis Martin debate, I gotta say no. You are not an elite back if you are never an "elite" back It doesn't really matter how long you're good, you're never great by just being good.

The fact he can be overshadowed by Barry and Emmit, LT and Holmes and Ricky Watters means that he is not a Hall of Famer (to me of course). If you are never a top 2 or 3 back, then you can't be elite.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Theres lies, damned lies and statistics.



You just blew up my bullshit detector. The NCAA doesn't even award national championships, so it is pretty tough for them to recognize 17.

As for the Curtis Martin debate, I gotta say no. You are not an elite back if you are never an "elite" back It doesn't really matter how long you're good, you're never great by just being good.

The fact he can be overshadowed by Barry and Emmit, LT and Holmes and Ricky Watters means that he is not a Hall of Famer (to me of course). If you are never a top 2 or 3 back, then you can't be elite.

I think Art Monk openned the flood gates to "stat compilers" when these compilers aren't exactly elite.

However, I don't think Martin is simply a stat compiler similar to Monk.

Martin came in an era of NFL Football that was flooded with the "one back system"...ie: teams trying to emmulate the Emmitt and Barry type systems that allowed for teams to have one feature back and lots of carries over the course of the season.

During this era LOTS of backs came and went and were generally flash in the pan types that peaked quickly and early, but there stay at the top was rarely held for much longer then a few years. Injuries were often the case for these backs to rise and fall quickly.

Only a few backs during this era stayed healthy enough to amass career numbers that rivaled old greats and Hall of Famers and none of which were guys that on a year to year basis were considered elite (for the most part). Sans Marshall Faulk and to a greater extent Edgerrin James, the number of these backs eligible for the Hall of Fame based on "elite" status from year to year is few.

Curtis Martin
Jerome Bettis
Marshall Faulk
Edgerrin James
LaDainian Tomlinson
Fred Taylor
Corey Dillon
Ricky Watters
Tiki Barber
Eddie George
Shaun Alexander
Clinton Portis
Ahman Green

Outside of Faulk, James, Tomlinson, and Alexander, none of these guys on a year to year basis would be considered elite in the rankings, but some of these guys are going to get into the Hall based on greatness defined by consistent greatness moreover consistent eliteness.

I think of the group of Curtis Martin, Jerome Bettis and Edgerrin James make it as well as Faulk and Tomlinson.

The outside looking in group is Ricky Watters...poor relationship with the media and his "FOR WHAT...FOR WHO?!" quote after gator arming that ball will ring in the ears of every voter. Fred Taylor doesn't have enough Pro Bowls or touchdowns and while his talent was always heralded as elite and some of his games certainly do, his game-to-game and season-to-season numbers fall short of elite at any given time.

The rest all fall short. Portis has a chance, considering his age and his stint at the top briefly with the Broncos at the beginning of his career...but his play after the age of 30 is going to be key.

 

[Sven Draconian]

I think Art Monk openned the flood gates to "stat compilers" when these compilers aren't exactly elite.

However, I don't think Martin is simply a stat compiler similar to Monk.

Martin came in an era of NFL Football that was flooded with the "one back system"...ie: teams trying to emmulate the Emmitt and Barry type systems that allowed for teams to have one feature back and lots of carries over the course of the season.

During this era LOTS of backs came and went and were generally flash in the pan types that peaked quickly and early, but there stay at the top was rarely held for much longer then a few years. Injuries were often the case for these backs to rise and fall quickly.

I'm not sure if you're making an arguement or just stating fact. I will say this, and of course, it's just my opinion.

I'm a small-hall guy. I don't see ability to avoid injury as a hall-of-fame worthy achievement. Is that ability important, yes. It does not make him an all-time great.

I suppose an arguement I like to use is this. If Curtis Martin was a defensive tackle, who's countable stats aren't as sexy, would he really be a consideration. I doubt it.

Only a few backs during this era stayed healthy enough to amass career numbers that rivaled old greats and Hall of Famers and none of which were guys that on a year to year basis were considered elite (for the most part). Sans Marshall Faulk and to a greater extent Edgerrin James, the number of these backs eligible for the Hall of Fame based on "elite" status from year to year is few.

Curtis Martin
Jerome Bettis
Marshall Faulk
Edgerrin James
LaDainian Tomlinson
Fred Taylor
Corey Dillon
Ricky Watters
Tiki Barber
Eddie George
Shaun Alexander
Clinton Portis
Ahman Green

Outside of Faulk, James, Tomlinson, and Alexander, none of these guys on a year to year basis would be considered elite in the rankings, but some of these guys are going to get into the Hall based on greatness defined by consistent greatness moreover consistent eliteness.

I think of the group of Curtis Martin, Jerome Bettis and Edgerrin James make it as well as Faulk and Tomlinson.

The outside looking in group is Ricky Watters...poor relationship with the media and his "FOR WHAT...FOR WHO?!" quote after gator arming that ball will ring in the ears of every voter. Fred Taylor doesn't have enough Pro Bowls or touchdowns and while his talent was always heralded as elite and some of his games certainly do, his game-to-game and season-to-season numbers fall short of elite at any given time.

The rest all fall short. Portis has a chance, considering his age and his stint at the top briefly with the Broncos at the beginning of his career...but his play after the age of 30 is going to be key.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

But the point is, Martin's numbers ARE sexy. However, the argument can be made his numbers were made by attrition...to which I think might be to his benefit for this era of football.

14000 yards, 90 touchdowns. No one has more consecutive 1000 yard seasons. 5 time Pro Bowler.

Like I said, at some point being consistently good-great is just as good as being elite.

After how many 1000 yards seasons did Curtis Martin need to finally become an elite running back?

He is clearly not a first ballot guy...I don't think any of the backs are Emmitt, Barry, Payton, types that are first ballot types...but there is a tier to these groups of backs...and I think Martin gets in at some point. Should he? I think so, too.

 

[Senser81]

After how many 1000 yards seasons did Curtis Martin need to finally become an elite running back?

I would not begrudge Martin getting into the HOF. After guys like Doak Walker, Paul Hornung, and Marcus Allen made it to Canton, Martin definitely would not be a poor selection. But...

I don't think you can say "how many" and "elite" in the same sentence. Elite is more of a 'now' thing. For instance, I don't know how many 1000-yard seasons Leroy Kelly had with the Browns, and I think Martin probably doubles Kelly's career yardage totals...but watch the film, read the 1st-hand accounts, and you'll know that Kelly was an elite RB. Martin wasn't ever an elite RB, regardless of 1000-yard seasons.

 

[Sven Draconian]

But the point is, Martin's numbers ARE sexy. However, the argument can be made his numbers were made by attrition...to which I think might be to his benefit for this era of football.

14000 yards, 90 touchdowns. No one has more consecutive 1000 yard seasons. 5 time Pro Bowler.

Like I said, at some point being consistently good-great is just as good as being elite.

After how many 1000 yards seasons did Curtis Martin need to finally become an elite running back?

He is clearly not a first ballot guy...I don't think any of the backs are Emmitt, Barry, Payton, types that are first ballot types...but there is a tier to these groups of backs...and I think Martin gets in at some point. Should he? I think so, too.

That's an interesting point you make, and I'll compare it too baseball.

With the onset of the one back system, and the overall change in football during the 90s/00s, are his stats REALLY that impressive?

I'll compare it to the 500 HR club in baseball. Used to be a major accomplishment, but with the move to smaller parks, dropping the mound and better athletes (Besides roids, the weights in general have gone from shunned too embraced) we're seeing a LOT of guys capable of getting to that "magic" number.

From an NFL perspective, the pure counting stats for a RB are being shattered. The FB isn't a ball carrier and fewer backs are being used in general. The Martin/Bettis/Davis time line was perfect for this, the NFL hadn't yet fully embraced the throwing mindset that exists today and was more power oriented, yet, one running back usually carried the load.

And of course, the 16 game season which pads all-time stats compared to the older players.

We're going to see a similar argument with QBs and WRs in about 15 years. Incredible passing figures are being put up. We're likely to see a lot of modern players going way up the all time leader boards. Are we going to call Hines Ward a HoF WR?

From my point of view, Martin had two great (not elite) seasons. 2001 and 2004, those years he averaged over 4.5 a carry and hit 1500 yards. The other seasons he racked up yards by getting a constant stream of carries, consistantly in the 320 range a season Good, durable back...but not an elite.

 

[Fox1994]

The retired guys are mostly obvious... Though I don't think Eddie George should get in.

The only guy in the league right now who's a lock is LT. Jamal Lewis had a big drop-off from 2007 to 2008 as far as carry-for-carry production. Unless he gets back on track, his numbers aren't good enough to get him in, sans the 2000 yard season, which could decide the vote if his name ever comes up.

Edge might if he gets signed this year and starts producing very well.

Clinton Portis could get in if he continues at this high pace. He's been in the top three or four backs, I'd say every year he's been in the league, almost. Definitely seems like it.

Alexander will almost definitely not get in. Can't really see Tiki getting in, either.

Can't think of anyone else.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

I would not begrudge Martin getting into the HOF. After guys like Doak Walker, Paul Hornung, and Marcus Allen made it to Canton, Martin definitely would not be a poor selection. But...

I don't think you can say "how many" and "elite" in the same sentence. Elite is more of a 'now' thing. For instance, I don't know how many 1000-yard seasons Leroy Kelly had with the Browns, and I think Martin probably doubles Kelly's career yardage totals...but watch the film, read the 1st-hand accounts, and you'll know that Kelly was an elite RB. Martin wasn't ever an elite RB, regardless of 1000-yard seasons.

I agree that Martin was never elite, especially on a year-to-year basis...he had a few years where by seasons end, his numbers were elite...however, I am unsure you could ever call Curtis Martin an elite back, not like Barry or Emmitt over the long haul and not Terrell Davis or Shaun Alexander in the short term...however, over his career, he amassed an elite career that very few backs in the game can claim to have.

This era of backs truly has so few long haul standouts (because of the shift to primary one-back systems) and in turn, so few backs that would even be in the discussion, that guys are going to get in even if they aren't considered elite at any given time because the era had so many flash in the pans that fluctuated in and out of the NFL's "Top 5" running backs that the ones that were consistent in that Top 5 are the guys who will get in.

Marshall Faulk
Edgerrin James
LaDainian Tomlinson
Emmitt Smith
Barry Sanders
Jerome Bettis
Curtis Martin
Thurman Thomas

Those are the only guys from the past 20 years of football that I see getting into the Hall.

Considering the entire modern era of football has only 25 (of which 2 are mentioned here) running backs selected into the HoF...6 more, I am unsure, if it considered a lot, not so many, or just the right number.

90's-00's era backs -- 8
70's-80's era backs -- 8
50's-60's era backs -- 15

Considering the circumstances...not many backs having long careers due to an increased work load, the number of 8 over the past 20 years doesn't seem too unlikely and I think its a number that is just right for this era.

 

[Fox1994]

In my eyes, rushing for over 10,000 yards is elite. So is doing it without having a huge dropoff in your career. That's why I don't think Shaun Alexander will make the Hall of Fame.

 

[dell71]

My 2 cents:

Absolute Mortal Locks
Emmitt Smith
Marshall Faulk
LaDainian Tomlinson

The question with Faulk & Tomlinson isn't whether they should make the hall but whether or not they are among the 10 best backs in the history of the game (same for Emmitt, of course). Both men bring the rushing/receiving diversity of Thurman Thomas and both, imo are better than Thurman Thomas who recently went into the HOF. For those who doubt Tomlinson, he's nearing the end of his career (or at least his time as a dominant player) and his per game stats compare favorably to all but a handful of backs who've ever played.


Near-locks
Jerome Bettis
Curtis Martin

I think Martin has been getting a raw deal in this thread...

Both guys will probably go but Bettis is every bit the compiler Martin is. In fact, I think Martin was the better back & in fact was elite. Comparing him directly to Bettis, they played in the same era and Martin actually played 2 less seasons yet has 500 or so more rushing yards, nearly 300 more receptions and just 1 less td than Bettis.

For roughly a decade, he was a guy who finished top 10 in rushing yards & rushing tds & caught 40+ passes. That last number is key. Where Bettis was basically nonexistent in the passing game, breaking 20 receptions only 4 times & 30 only once, Martin was a true every down back clearing 40 receptions 9 times, with a high of 70.

Regardless if it were the "one back era" or anything else, his name consistently appeared pretty high on the leaderboards in every running back category. To use a baseball comparison, like some of you, I'd say he's the Eddie Murray of running backs. Murray is one of three players with 500+ homers and 3000+ hits. He is not one of the three best players ever but consistent excellence made him great. Same goes for Martin.

However Bettis is the more popular guy with the big personality...


Have a shot but still have work to do
Edgerrin James
Fred Taylor
Warrick Dunn
Jamal Lewis

Of this group, I think Edge has the best shot. Before tearing his ACL he really was one of the 3 or 4 best backs in the league, if only for a short while, and was still extremely productive for a long period after that.

Taylor has nice numbers but due to all the injuries, you always get the feeling he should have 15,000 yards & 100 TD. We'll see how playing in NE affects his status.

I don't think Dunn or Lewis really has a shot but Dunn is so well liked, it's possible & Lewis has the 2000 yard season. Shouldn't be enough on either part, but crazier things have happened.

Interesting borderline cases
Eddie George
Corey Dillon
Shaun Alexander
Tiki Barber

George has some ugly numbers but if you watched him play, he dominated games. If the Titans got anywhere near the 4th qtr with a lead, he drained the clock. This helped the Titans be a legit contender throughout his career. I think there's something to be said for being a great closer. I'd like to see him get in, but I'm not so sure it'll happen.

Dillon set a number of records while playing for a lousy Cincy team, got labeled as a malcontent, then played nice in NE. I don't think he quite did enough to get in.

Alexander might have the best shot of this group. Slam me for this if you must, but I think he was a better all-around player with a better career than Earl Campbell who is already in the HOF. Campbell's claim to fame is the first 4 years of his career when he looked like one of the best backs to ever take the field but it was essentially over after that. He would only rush for 1000 yards once more & roughly 3000 for the rest of his career. Alexander had a 5 year stretch where he finished top 3 in rushing TD, including '05 when he scored a then-NFL record 28 TD from scrimmage. The difference being he doesn't have the Paul Bunyan like feats that have been romanticized or the epic battles against the Steelers that Campbell has.

Barber is interesting because unlike most great backs, he evolved into an elite player late in his career. Over his last 5 years, he was among the best in the game.He's also well-liked. I don't think it's quite enough but again, crazier things have happened.

Umm....no
Ahman Green
Ricky Watters
Priest Holmes/Terrell Davis

I just don't see it for Green. No way, no how.

Watters is a key figure. A very nice career but I don't think he should make it in. Apparently however, he has some vocal supporters who may turn the trick. If so, everyone I've mentioned needs to get serious consideration, with the exception of Green. If not, then he & a number of others will be just on the outside, looking in.

Priest & TD will continue to get some of that injury sympathy because they put together two of the best stretches the league has ever seen. Just not enough in either case.

To early to tell
Everyone else

Clinton Portis is the man at the top of the list since, barring injury, he should go over 10,000 yards for his career this season. Personally, I think he's on track but he's not a lock, yet.

Adrian Peterson is the next guy on my list. He might take it 70 yards every time he touches it. Injury is the only thing that can keep him out of the HOF, in my opinion.

A few guys have had some nice starts to their careers but no one else has knocked my socks off.