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

[Warner2BruceTD]

When I watched guys like Shaun Alexander, Corey Dillon, and Eddie George play, I never felt like I was watching all time great players. When I think of those guys, I don't even think of them as All Pro's. Very good players, Pro Bowl level guys who had some good to great years. Nothing wrong with that.

On the other hand, watching Priest Holmes & Terrell Davis, I knew I was watching greatness. It wasnt sustained, but those two guys were elite best-of-the-best when they played, dominant players.

Football is the one sport (the RB position in particular) where I can excuse a short but brilliant career, and put a guy at the HOF level. Holmes and Davis fall into the G. Sayers category of guys who dominated the game, and to me, are all time greats.

No way Alexander, George, Dillon and most of these other borderline guys were better than Holmes.

 

[Senser81]

Near-locks
Jerome Bettis
Curtis Martin

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

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.

I think you are overrating Martin's pass-catching. A lot of RBs catch dump-offs. Guys like Thurman Thomas, Marshall Faulk, Brian Westbrook...they were actually a major part of their team's passing game. Guys like Curtis Martin were good players who caught dump-offs. Its more of a reflection of the team's offensive style than a reflection of greatness. Clearing 40 receptions isn't that big of a deal, IMO.

Near-locks
Jerome Bettis
Curtis Martin

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...

Eddie Murray was probably the best 1B in the late-70's thru early 80's, then became a step below the best when Don Mattingly was in his prime. 500 homers and 3000 hits in itself are HOF achievements, and Murray accomplished both! Lock for Baseball HOF, which is more stringent than Football HOF.

Martin was never the best RB. He was never the 2nd or 3rd best RB. He was always 5th or 6th best. He doesn't have any statistical HOF-lock achievements. He is nowhere near Eddie Murray's class. I'd compare Martin to Steve Garvey. Durable, good all-around player, probably more valuable than you think, but not an elite player.

Interesting borderline cases
Shaun Alexander


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.

When Campbell came into the NFL in 1978, he was immediately the best player in the entire league as a rookie, regardless of position. Campbell turned an average team in to the 2nd best team in the NFL. He was way better than Alexander. Campbell was the best RB in the NFL. Alexander was never the best RB in the NFL. Alexander had a lot of TDs and played longer, but Campbell still had more 100 yard games in nearly half the time that Alexander played. In a 5 game stretch in 1980, Campbell had more 200-yard games (3) than Alexander had in his entire career (2).

Alexander might have better stats, but I don't think anyone would say he had a better career or was a better "all-around" player.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Alexander might have better stats, but I don't think anyone would say he had a better career or was a better "all-around" player.

Alexander was a guy who even at his peak, always looked pedestrian to me compared to other great backs. He ran behind a great line, and his career nose dived when Hutchinson left.

I can't confirm this, but Alexander probably has the most disproportionate number of "short" (5 yards or less) TD runs than anyone, ever. When he was scoring all of those TD's, it seemed like they were all from 1 or 2 yards out. I looked it up once during one of his peak years, and posted it on MM. It was true. He had a higher percentage of "short" TD runs than anyone else in the league one season.

I don't really know what that means, but it always bothered me about him.

 

[Hasselbeck]

Alexander was a guy who even at his peak, always looked pedestrian to me compared to other great backs. He ran behind a great line, and his career nose dived when Hutchinson left.

I can't confirm this, but Alexander probably has the most disproportionate number of "short" (5 yards or less) TD runs than anyone, ever. When he was scoring all of those TD's, it seemed like they were all from 1 or 2 yards out. I looked it up once during one of his peak years, and posted it on MM. It was true. He had a higher percentage of "short" TD runs than anyone else in the league one season.

I don't really know what that means, but it always bothered me about him.

I know Alexander's persona always rubbed people the wrong way. Why I don't know.. but it just did. His smiling all the time and kind of care free attitude made it come off that he wasn't trying as hard and that he was the benefactor of playing behind, at his peak, the best OL in the league.

Alexander is an interesting player. When he was on, there was no stopping him.. he could easily show up with a 20 carry, 200 yard 3 TD game or disappear completely. But I think playing behind Walter Jones and Steve Hutchinson with a quarterback that was becoming better and better each week and the best offensive playcaller in football definitely helped pump up his numbers.

I loved Shaun as a Seahawk and will always be a fan of his.. it sucks seeing a guy fall off THAT bad, that quickly.

 

[jeffx]

On the other hand, watching Priest Holmes & Terrell Davis, I knew I was watching greatness. It wasnt sustained, but those two guys were elite best-of-the-best when they played, dominant players.

Football is the one sport (the RB position in particular) where I can excuse a short but brilliant career, and put a guy at the HOF level. Holmes and Davis fall into the G. Sayers category of guys who dominated the game, and to me, are all time greats.

I'm with this. That's why I always put Earl Campbell right up there with Brown, OJ, Sweetness and Barry as the top RBs of all time. Yes, he had a short career, but the man dominated the opposition. You looked at him, and said, wow!

Terrell Davis is interesting. Could one of you stats experts(Dell, Senser) post his numbers?

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

LOL at Curtis Martin being a lock, but Tomlinson only being "Good Chance".

Tomlinson is easily the best RB of his generation. The only guy who was comparable to LT when he played was Priest Holmes, and that was only for a couple seasons.

Bettis was a power back with longevity. Give me a guy who can get 3-4 tough yards every carry than a guy who breaks one for 20 then gets stopped at the line the next 3 carries.

Im sooo going to use that against you one day =-).

Does Martin get into the HOF ? I dont know ..will Jimmy Smith ?

I think theres a collective realization that RB stats have been swollen the last decade or so. Teams arent pounding there guys between the tackles against 7-8 man fronts. Theyre delay,draw,tossing it to RBs in a spread offense against teams with often only 2 linebackers on the field and safeties who are glorified corners. Guys like Alexander are marquee examples of what good it does a RBs stats without him having to actually shoulder a game.
Curtis Martin having his best season at 30 (or near ,I forget) winning a rushing title while never breaking a run longer than 20 is a great example of how soft those first 10 yards are.

I give Martin nothing but credit for his career and being a damn good RB.
But longevity is nothing without greatness.

Bettis has 3 things on his side. He was a dominant runner early on in his career, his career resurrection in Pittsburgh including a story book SB win. And physically has a unique highlight reel of bulldozing runs but a stack of light on his feet moves to go with it. Him being a media darling is a huge plus. Id put him in before I put Martin even though it may not be fair.

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

I'm with this. That's why I always put Earl Campbell right up there with Brown, OJ, Sweetness and Barry as the top RBs of all time. Yes, he had a short career, but the man dominated the opposition. You looked at him, and said, wow!

Terrell Davis is interesting. Could one of you stats experts(Dell, Senser) post his numbers?

TD
1117
1538
1750
2008
211
282
701

Those numbers dont make a HOF career. His the opposite of Martin. Greatness but no longevity.

Earl had another dominant season after his injury still had more years and more yards/tds than Davis. He was also arguably the most dominant physical style runner ever , certainly of his era.

 

[dell71]

I think you are overrating Martin's pass-catching. A lot of RBs catch dump-offs. Guys like Thurman Thomas, Marshall Faulk, Brian Westbrook...they were actually a major part of their team's passing game. Guys like Curtis Martin were good players who caught dump-offs. Its more of a reflection of the team's offensive style than a reflection of greatness. Clearing 40 receptions isn't that big of a deal, IMO.

True, he wasn't the receiving threat the guys you mentioned were but it shows trust in his ability to even be on the field in passing situations. Yes, lots of teams used a feature back during his career but most teams also utilized the 3rd down back. So I give him credit.

Eddie Murray was probably the best 1B in the late-70's thru early 80's, then became a step below the best when Don Mattingly was in his prime. 500 homers and 3000 hits in itself are HOF achievements, and Murray accomplished both! Lock for Baseball HOF, which is more stringent than Football HOF.

Martin was never the best RB. He was never the 2nd or 3rd best RB. He was always 5th or 6th best. He doesn't have any statistical HOF-lock achievements. He is nowhere near Eddie Murray's class. I'd compare Martin to Steve Garvey. Durable, good all-around player, probably more valuable than you think, but not an elite player.

I can live with that assessment but I will say that 14,000+ rushing yards will carry a lot of weight.

When Campbell came into the NFL in 1978, he was immediately the best player in the entire league as a rookie, regardless of position. Campbell turned an average team in to the 2nd best team in the NFL. He was way better than Alexander. Campbell was the best RB in the NFL. Alexander was never the best RB in the NFL. Alexander had a lot of TDs and played longer, but Campbell still had more 100 yard games in nearly half the time that Alexander played. In a 5 game stretch in 1980, Campbell had more 200-yard games (3) than Alexander had in his entire career (2).

Alexander might have better stats, but I don't think anyone would say he had a better career or was a better "all-around" player.

I can live with that, too. Damn, I'm sucking wind here.

I'm with this. That's why I always put Earl Campbell right up there with Brown, OJ, Sweetness and Barry as the top RBs of all time. Yes, he had a short career, but the man dominated the opposition. You looked at him, and said, wow!

Terrell Davis is interesting. Could one of you stats experts(Dell, Senser) post his numbers?

True.

Im sooo going to use that against you one day =-).

Does Martin get into the HOF ? I dont know ..will Jimmy Smith ?

I think theres a collective realization that RB stats have been swollen the last decade or so. Teams arent pounding there guys between the tackles against 7-8 man fronts. Theyre delay,draw,tossing it to RBs in a spread offense against teams with often only 2 linebackers on the field and safeties who are glorified corners. Guys like Alexander are marquee examples of what good it does a RBs stats without him having to actually shoulder a game.
Curtis Martin having his best season at 30 (or near ,I forget) winning a rushing title while never breaking a run longer than 20 is a great example of how soft those first 10 yards are.

I give Martin nothing but credit for his career and being a damn good RB.
But longevity is nothing without greatness.

Bettis has 3 things on his side. He was a dominant runner early on in his career, his career resurrection in Pittsburgh including a story book SB win. And physically has a unique highlight reel of bulldozing runs but a stack of light on his feet moves to go with it. Him being a media darling is a huge plus. Id put him in before I put Martin even though it may not be fair.

I still think they both get in. Still, I never bought Bettis as being a dominant back, either.

TD
1117
1538
1750
2008
211
282
701

Those numbers dont make a HOF career. His the opposite of Martin. Greatness but no longevity.

Earl had another dominant season after his injury still had more years and more yards/tds than Davis. He was also arguably the most dominant physical style runner ever , certainly of his era.

Comparing him to Earl, TD has the fact that he was the best player on 2 SB winning teams on his side and he was quite possibly the best player in the NFL. His first 4 years are more than comparable to Campbell's, he just never had that one more good season like Campbell who had a series of injuries and tons of carries that eroded him over time. TD tore his ACL and was never the same.

 

[young2rice]

Emmitt Smith
Marshall Faulk
LaDainian Tomlinson


That's it. All others I never considered "The best in the league" at the time.

 

[Coked Up Elmo]

curtis martin was one of the most underrated rbs of his era

 

[FlawLeSs]

curtis martin was one of the most underrated rbs of his era

same could be said about fred taylor

 

[Anthony]

Curtis Martin, The Bus, LaDainian Tomlinson (The REAL LT is already in the Hall), Corey Dillon, Marshall Faulk... & maybe Tiki (Crossing fingers)

 

[Fox1994]

^FlawLess: Indeed. He's definitely developed a reputation as "underrated". Which makes you wonder how underrated he is. lol.

 

[jeffx]

... & maybe Tiki (Crossing fingers)

I love Tiki too, but he's not a HOFamer.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Fred Taylor will never make the Hall of Fame. Jimmy has a better chance as a Jaguar.

Fred didn't make the Pro Bowl at all legitimately (only made it as an alternate) and didn't score enough touchdowns.

Most of his career, he was a guy that split carries, which is one of the reasons the numbers aren't higher, but are also a reason that he played as long as he did. Fred couldn't stay on the field consistently for most of his career, especially during his breakout seasons.

Love Fred, he is my favorite player...but no Hall of Fame.

Jimmy Smith's numbers and place amongst the leagues best (in his generation, you could argue a legitimate third behind Moss and Harrison, but more likely in the Top 5) give him a legitimate claim, but I am unsure if he makes it. The lack of scores hurts him and players like Holt and Owens passing him up post early retirement hurts him.

The key player will be Isaac Bruce...if Bruce gets in, I think Smith should get in.

 

[dell71]

Fred Taylor will never make the Hall of Fame. Jimmy has a better chance as a Jaguar.

Fred didn't make the Pro Bowl at all legitimately (only made it as an alternate) and didn't score enough touchdowns.

Most of his career, he was a guy that split carries, which is one of the reasons the numbers aren't higher, but are also a reason that he played as long as he did. Fred couldn't stay on the field consistently for most of his career, especially during his breakout seasons.

Love Fred, he is my favorite player...but no Hall of Fame.

Jimmy Smith's numbers and place amongst the leagues best (in his generation, you could argue a legitimate third behind Moss and Harrison, but more likely in the Top 5) give him a legitimate claim, but I am unsure if he makes it. The lack of scores hurts him and players like Holt and Owens passing him up post early retirement hurts him.

The key player will be Isaac Bruce...if Bruce gets in, I think Smith should get in.

Doesn't help that they were always better, either.

 

[young2rice]

Isaac Bruce has a much better chance of getting in.

If he plays 2 more years, 50 per year catches avg (61 last year) he's already 3rd all-time only to Marvin Harrison and Jerry Rice in terms of receptions. He's 2nd all-time in reception yards only to Jerry Rice (will drop to 3rd as Owens will definitely pass him). I think he could easily get 9 td's in 2 years making him tie for 6th all-time touchdowns. He only needs 600 yards to be in the top 10 yards from scrimmage all-time list as well. With his rings, the pro bowls, he'll get in.