Hall of Fame 2012 class

[Hurricanes25]

Priest Holmes was great for those 3 or so years but other than that, he did nothing. He is not a HOF player.

Same goes for Terrell Davis. 4 great years and nothing else.

[Splat]

Coming from a huge Chiefs and Priest Holmes fan he is not in any way a HOF.

[Jimmy]

I can't remember where I heard this, but this is the way I now judge if a player if Hall of Fame worthy or not.

Can you tell the unabridged story of the NFL without mentioning that player's name? If so, he does not belong in the hall of fame.

[Philliez01]

Originally Posted by Jimmy

I can't remember where I heard this, but this is the way I now judge if a player if Hall of Fame worthy or not.

Can you tell the unabridged story of the NFL without mentioning that player's name? If so, he does not belong in the hall of fame.

I like that idea but it still has its flaws. Some people are canonized in history for a simple moment, a game, a season or a career. Roger Maris was the single-season HR leader for how many years? I know it's a different sport but does it make him a Hall of Famer?

But I see that point. Could you tell your children about this player and how great he was? Or is a certain player just a very important member of a team's history? The latter are guys like Bettis, Reed, etc. who aren't first-balloters and might be debated for a while. Some guys I feel just belong in a Ring of Honor (not necessarily those two) as opposed to a Hall of Fame.

Hall of Fame voting is one of my favorite things though. I love rehashing old arguments, debating past players, etc. It's the geek in me I guess.

[BigBanger]

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

I still don't think you'd find many people that would say Priest Holmes is an elite runningback.

But Curtis Martin is?

Holmes had 94 career TDs to Martin's 100. Holmes accomplished those numbers in 8 seasons (only 3 seasons with 14+ starts) compared to Martin's 11 seasons in the league (where he started at least 12 every year). Martin never had 2,000 yards from scrimmage. Holmes was well on pace to do it 4 straight years before an injury. Martin scored 15+ TDs twice in his career. Holmes did it in 3 straight years. You could literally, and I mean literally, pick and chose Curtis Martins best four years of his career and compare them to Holmes' first four years in KC, and Holmes numbers are pretty staggering compared to a future Hall of Fame RB, especially when Holmes played in 10 less games.

Curtis Martin's Best 4 Years of Career

2004: 16 Games - 371 Carriers, 1,697 rushing yards, 4.6 Avg., 12 TDs, 41 receptions, 245 yards, 2 TDs. Total yards: 1942 yards, 14 TDs.

1995 - 16 games - 368 Carriers, 1,487 rushing yards, 4.0 Avg., 14 TDs, 30 Receptions, 261 yards, 1 TD. Total yards: 1,748. Total TDs: 15 TDs.

2001 - 16 games - 333 Carriers, 1,513 rushing yards, 4.5 Avg., 10 TDs, 53 Receptions, 320 yards. Total yards: 1,833. Total TDs: 10 TDs.

1996 - 16 games - 316 Carriers, 1,152 rushing yards, 3.6 Avg., 14 TDs, 46 Receptions, 333 yards, 3 TDs. Total yards: 1,485. Total TDs: 17 TDs.


4 Year Totals: 64 games - 1,388 Carriers, 5,849 rushing yards, 4.2 Avg., 50 TDs, 170 Receptions, 1,159 yards, 6 TDs. Total yards: 7,008. Total TDs: 56 TDs. Total Yards Per Game: 109.5.



Priest Holmes from 2001 to 2004


2001 - 16 Games - 327 carries, 1,555 rushing yards, 4.8 Avg., 8 TDs, 62 receptions, 614 yards, 2 TDs. Total's: 2,169 yards, 10 TDs.

2002 - 14 games - 313 carries, 1,615 rushing yards, 5.2 Avg., 21 TDs, 70 receptions, 672 yards, 3 TDs. Total's: 2,287 yards, 24 TDs.

2003 - 16 games - 320 carries, 1,420 rushing yards, 4.4 Avg., 27 TDs, 74 receptions, 690 yards. Total's: 2,110 yards, 27 TDs.

2004 - 8 games - 196 carries, 892 rushing yards, 4.6 Avg., 14 TDs, 19 receptions, 187 yards, 1 TDs. Total's: 1,079 yards, 15 TDs.


4 Year Totals: 54 games - 1,156 Carriers, 5,482 rushing yards, 4.7 Avg., 70 TDs, 225 Receptions, 2,163 yards, 6 TDs. Total yards: 7,645. Total TDs: 76 TDs. Total Yards Per Game: 141.5.

Does longevity make you elite, even though you rarely played at an elite level?

Because that's my major gripe. If you play long enough, and if you're good enough to start, you can compile some historically impressive statistics. Does that alone make you a Hall of Fame player?

In my book, Priest Holmes, although short lived, was one of the best RBs I have seen since the last 90s/early 00s. He'd make my Top 5 and I'd put him ahead of Curtis Martin. I go by the eye ball test. And what I saw from Holmes, I saw only from the greatest RBs that ever played. I'd even consider him the second best RB of the 2000s.

[bearsfan_51]

Originally Posted by BigBanger

But Curtis Martin is?

No, but whereas nobody said that Martin was elite, you did say that Holmes was.

[hockey619]

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

No, but whereas nobody said that Martin was elite, you did say that Holmes was.

I think its pretty much a given that if a guy is getting hall of fame talk, its because those doing the talking think hes elite (or they are insinuating as much).

And if Martin isnt elite, then why would he go to the hall?

[bearsfan_51]

Originally Posted by hockey619

I think its pretty much a given that if a guy is getting hall of fame talk, its because those doing the talking think hes elite (or they are insinuating as much).

I guess that depends on how you define elite, but there are already 276 players in the HOF.

He's getting in because he ran for more yards than all but 3 people that ever played in the NFL. He's getting in and there's absolutely no doubt about it. It's ridiculous that this is even being argued about.

You can argue whether he should get in, fine. But if you honestly don't understand why he's getting in, I'd recommend following a more simple sport like paint chip eating or banging your face into a wall.

[Splat]

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

No, but whereas nobody said that Martin was elite, you did say that Holmes was.

I think Holmes was elite but only for a short time and that doesn't put you in the HOF.

[jth1331]

I think people overvalue total yards.
Football is too young of a sport to really put an emphasis on total yards on all time ranks.
Like Art Monk for instance, who is not a HOFer in my eyes. In the span of what, 16 years since he retired, 10 guys surpasses his receptions mark already. Then you have guys who very well may surpass it still active in Mason, Wayne, Johnson, etc.
Why is Monk a HOFer, but not Andre Reed?
Martin was a solid back, elite I wouldn't say so. He didn't score as much as an elite back should.

Now, Terrell Davis absolutely trumps Martin. Terrell Davis wasn't just good for 4 years, he was flat out dominant. In 4 years he had over 6,500 total yards, 61 touchdowns, won 2 Super Bowls, Super Bowl MVP, NFL MVP, 3 Pro Bowls, 3 1st team All- Pro's, and not just regular season domination, but post season.
8 career postseason games, 1,140 yards on a 5.59 ypc and 12 touchdowns.
At some point, you really need to take out longevity stats for certain individuals.

[Raiderz4Life]

**** it lets put Bo Jackson in

[FUNBUNCHER]

Originally Posted by jth1331

I think people overvalue total yards.
Football is too young of a sport to really put an emphasis on total yards on all time ranks.
Like Art Monk for instance, who is not a HOFer in my eyes. In the span of what, 16 years since he retired, 10 guys surpasses his receptions mark already. Then you have guys who very well may surpass it still active in Mason, Wayne, Johnson, etc.
Why is Monk a HOFer, but not Andre Reed?
Martin was a solid back, elite I wouldn't say so. He didn't score as much as an elite back should.

Now, Terrell Davis absolutely trumps Martin. Terrell Davis wasn't just good for 4 years, he was flat out dominant. In 4 years he had over 6,500 total yards, 61 touchdowns, won 2 Super Bowls, Super Bowl MVP, NFL MVP, 3 Pro Bowls, 3 1st team All- Pro's, and not just regular season domination, but post season.
8 career postseason games, 1,140 yards on a 5.59 ypc and 12 touchdowns.
At some point, you really need to take out longevity stats for certain individuals.

Too young a sport?? The NFL started in 1920. The NBA started in 1949.

Durability and consistency are two of the most underrated traits considered by fans when evaluating which players are HOFs and which ones aren't.

Secondly, people have a hard time grasping that a player can have a 'quiet' HOF career.

IMO there's some truth to the argument that if Lawrence Taylor played for the Patriots and Andre Tippett played for the Giants, it would be Tippett and not Taylor who was regarded as the better OLB.

And sorry, but stats do matter for RBs. Some numbers are automatic, and rushing for 13,000 yards is one of those markers.


For those who think total yards are overrated, consider the odds are that NONE of the RBs currently playing will top 13000 for their career, other than Tomlinson.

And you can't say on one hand TDs are important but yardage for a RB isn't.

Was Terrell Davis a special RB?? Or was he the beneficiary of playing in a 'runningback friendly' scheme(ZBS) under Shahanan??

How successful would Martin have been playing in Denver?? What kind of numbers would he have put up in Mile High??

I wouldn't be surprised to see TD one day make the HOF, voted in by the veteran's committee, but otherwise injuries robbed him of what could have been statistically a HOF career.

Stop acting like you're repping TD, when in fact you're denigrating Curtis Martin's accomplishments. What NFL RB had nearly the success Terrell Davis had over a 4 year span???

Doesn't mean TD was better, just that he was on the verge of career greatness.

[bearsfan_51]

Bo Jackson certainly gets in my "players I wanted to be growing up" Hall of Fame. Also included are Randall Cunningham and Steve Young (until I found out what Mormonism was...sorry Mormons).

[BigBanger]

Originally Posted by FUNBUNCHER

Durability and consistency are two of the most underrated traits considered by fans when evaluating which players are HOFs and which ones aren't.

Durability has a lot to do with luck just as much as anything else. Guys like Terrell Davis, Priest Holmes, Kenny Easley and Sterling Sharpe were flat out unlucky. The consistency was there... oh, my God was it there... but these guys simply suffered career ending injuries.

Longevity is also overcompensated for good, decent players. As jth1331 said, Art Monk did nothing spectacular in his career. Nothing. He had a couple seasons, a couple, throughout a 16 year career where he was viewed as the best player at his position. 3 out of 16. That should not get ANYONE into the HOF.

Here's why Monk is not a HOF player:

He ranked in the top 10 in receptions in just 4 of his 16 years. 3 times in the top 5. That's not all that impressive. He gets a lot of credit for catching 100 passes when people didn't do that. Well, he did it once in his career. And while he was playing, people actually were doing that. People were even breaking his record. Sterling Sharpe broke his record. And then broke it again. This is a guy who caught more than 80 passes just 3 times in his career. 80 passes. So this perception that he was catching 100 balls every year... he wasn't doing it. He did it once. He sniffed 100 catches only one other time in his career.


Monk ranked in the top 10 in TDs ONCE in his entire career. He had 9 TDs in 1991 and ranked in a tie for 9th place. Never caught 10 TD passes in his career. He actually averaged 4.5 TD catches per season throughout his career. Yeah, I don't know how that gets you into the HOF. But thankfully for him, a bunch of people just looked at his career stats and cried foul, so HOF voters said, "Let's put him in. People are bitching about it." And that's what they're doing with Andre Reed. And eventually, Andre Reed (who was actually a better player than Monk) will make it in too, but for the only reason that he played for a long time and put up, mostly, decent stats on a year by year basis. Neither were anything close to playing like a dominating player, but they played a long time, and playing for a long time gets you into the Hall of Fame.

Art Monk was a good player for a long time. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. That's all he was. Andre Reed? Little more than that. Monk had some nice career stats, but they're pretty much meaningless when you were considered the best player at your position for about two or three years during a 16 year career. Gary Clark, his own teammate, was producing as much and sometimes even more than Monk during his prime.

Secondly, people have a hard time grasping that a player can have a 'quiet' HOF career.

Curtis Martin definitely had that.

And you can't say on one hand TDs are important but yardage for a RB isn't.

TDs are the only thing that gives Cris Carter a leg to stand on as far as the Hall of Fame is concerned. If Carter had 68 career TD catches, he would be Rod Smith (who I respect more than just about any other WR to ever play, but he's no HOFer).

Was Terrell Davis a special RB?? Or was he the beneficiary of playing in a 'runningback friendly' scheme(ZBS) under Shahanan??

This question has been answered. See history. No other Bronco RB accomplished anything remotely close to what Terrell Davis did.

How successful would Martin have been playing in Denver?? What kind of numbers would he have put up in Mile High??

What if I stepped on Curtis Martin's head when he was a child? Would he get a concussion and die while playing High School Football, thus making this debate nonexistent?

I wouldn't be surprised to see TD one day make the HOF, voted in by the veteran's committee, but otherwise injuries robbed him of what could have been statistically a HOF career.

Hid did have a HOF career. If you watched what he did, and I believe you did, then there should be no question.

What NFL RB had nearly the success Terrell Davis had over a 4 year span???

Quite a few. And they're all called Hall of Fame RBs.

Doesn't mean TD was better, just that he was on the verge of career greatness.

Yeah, it does mean that he was better. TD was a better player than Curtis Martin. You can slice it and dice it anyway you want, but he was simply a better player. He's got 2 rings to prove it. He's got a 2,000 yard season. He dominated the postseason. What did Curtis Martin do in the postseason? It was kinda like his career. Some good, some mediocre, but not much to write home about.

Here is what Curtis Martin has going for him: 2 things... (1) consecutive seasons over 1,000 yards rushing and (2) career rushing yards.

That's all he has to hang his hat on. Its good enough to get him into the HOF. It's also so unspectacular that people are going to think, "Curtis Martin? He did that? Wow." And then move on.

[V.I.P]

Will John Lynch make the HOF?

[BigBanger]

Originally Posted by V-I-P

Will John Lynch make the HOF?

Without question.

[Ravens1991]

How bout Hines Ward???? I have been in a debate w/ my coach for weeks about it. I say no because he isnt a top 5 WR in his era. But my coach brings up good points about having the same amount of catches as Moss and his rings. I still dont think he deserves it though but it maybe my bias.

[bearsfan_51]

I wouldn't have put Monk in either, but I think Martin was a better player than Monk.

I also certainly wouldn't put Andre Reed in, I don't get that at all.

Not sure about John Lynch. Personally? I'd put him in. I think he's the best strong safety from 1997-2007, and that's certainly enough to put him in. Will he get in? I'm much less certain. Next to interior lineman, safety is the position that's hardest to get into the HOF (not counting kickers, who aren't really football players).

Sapp is a lock. Brooks is a lock. Does that defense get 3 HOF players? I'm not sure, but I think he deserves it.

[bearsfan_51]

Originally Posted by Ravens1991

How bout Hines Ward???? I have been in a debate w/ my coach for weeks about it. I say no because he isnt a top 5 WR in his era. But my coach brings up good points about having the same amount of catches as Moss and his rings. I still dont think he deserves it though but it maybe my bias.

No. For the reasons you mentioned. This is an era of dominant receivers, and Ward isn't one of them.

He's helped by the Superbowl MVP, but still no.

[bearsfan_51]

Originally Posted by BigBanger

Yeah it does mean that he was better. TD was a better player than Curtis Martin. You can slice it, dice it anyway you want, but he was simply a better player. He's got 2 rings to prove it.

Also why Jeff Hostetler is a better QB than Dan Marino. Even moreso the case because runningbacks are usually judged by the number of Superbowls they win.

[BigBanger]

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

Next to interior lineman, safety is the position that's hardest to get into the HOF (not counting kickers, who aren't really football players)

Forgot about that. He should be a lock. I thought Steve Atwater would be a lock and who is mentioning Steve Atwater as possible HOF player? No one. To me, Atwater was a first ballot kind of guy. So many great players need to get in at certain positions. Safety is one of them.

Rodney Harrison, Brian Dawkins, John Lynch... they should all get in. Darren Sharper?

[Philliez01]

Originally Posted by Ravens1991

How bout Hines Ward???? I have been in a debate w/ my coach for weeks about it. I say no because he isnt a top 5 WR in his era. But my coach brings up good points about having the same amount of catches as Moss and his rings. I still dont think he deserves it though but it maybe my bias.

Hines Ward is one of those immense fan favorites, intangible-laden guys who play hard but not special. He never dominated nor was he ever really "special". He might make the outskirts of the debate on who should go in or not but I can't see anything else.

I think a good question would be which coaches from the 90s onward make it?

[njx9]

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

He's getting in because he ran for more yards than all but 3 people that ever played in the NFL. He's getting in and there's absolutely no doubt about it. It's ridiculous that this is even being argued about.

You can argue whether he should get in, fine. But if you honestly don't understand why he's getting in, I'd recommend following a more simple sport like paint chip eating or banging your face into a wall.

ugh, this. i think curtis martin to the hall is a prime example of everything that's wrong with the hall of fame and it's induction system (well, he's not quite as good an example as michael irvin was). he wasn't a guy i thought was the best running back in the nfl for all but maybe a year of his career. that's not a hall of fame career. he's basically getting in for being good, and for never being unlucky when someone tackled him.

but i totally agree. voters will look at his yardage and vote him in. what i (or maybe even what they) think about him as a year-to-year player doesn't make any apparent difference.

[bearsfan_51]

Speaking of great defenses, it's interesting to note that the 2000 Ravens will have 4 likely HOF players, but only two of those were from the defense (R. Lewis and Rod Woodson, who obviously isn't getting in primarily from his years as a Raven).

The rest of the defense was mostly really good, but not elite players like Peter Boulware, Chris McAllister, and Sam Adams. Nobody other than Lewis really has a chance.

[boknows34]

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

Speaking of great defenses, it's interesting to note that the 2000 Ravens will have 4 likely HOF players, but only two of those were from the defense (R. Lewis and Charles Woodson, who obviously isn't getting in primarily from his years as a Raven).

The rest of the defense was mostly really good, but not elite players like Peter Boulware, Chris McAllister, and Sam Adams. Nobody other than Lewis really has a chance.

I think you mean Rod Woodson who is already enshrined in Canton. Shannon Sharpe (2011) and Jon Ogden (eligible 2013) being the other two to make it 4 Ravens.