U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Pro Football
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-10-2019, 12:40 PM
 
Location: NC, USA
20 posts, read 3,913 times
Reputation: 46

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bachslunch View Post
I’m also not willing to consider “would have gotten” in a HoF argument, sorry.
Tell that to the voters. That's exactly why Terrell Davis is in and why Sterling Sharpe will probably be in. Terrell Davis alone got in with his ridiculous postseason stats and high peaks. You have a very weird argument about who should be in the HOF, not only have you contradicted yourself (Sharpe for example - a what if player), going on stats & facts and postseason play should all be a deciding factor.

Anderson had an extended peak. Maybe a dozen backs can say they have 6+ 1,000 yard seasons in that length of time and all are in the HOF. I said who I think should be in and you disagreeing by providing an opinion isn't fact based.

Oh, and I was thinking of Marvin Harrison not Bruce about the whole murder/shootout.

Last edited by LaughingSnowman; 02-10-2019 at 12:52 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-10-2019, 02:24 PM
 
1,182 posts, read 480,147 times
Reputation: 1932
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaughingSnowman View Post
Tell that to the voters. That's exactly why Terrell Davis is in and why Sterling Sharpe will probably be in. Terrell Davis alone got in with his ridiculous postseason stats and high peaks. You have a very weird argument about who should be in the HOF, not only have you contradicted yourself (Sharpe for example - a what if player), going on stats & facts and postseason play should all be a deciding factor.

Anderson had an extended peak. Maybe a dozen backs can say they have 6+ 1,000 yard seasons in that length of time and all are in the HOF. I said who I think should be in and you disagreeing by providing an opinion isn't fact based.
First let me preface this by saying that Iím very ambivalent at best about Terrell Davis getting into the HoF. Itís not like I think heís an utter must or something.

That being said, Andersonís peak, while it contains 1000 yards seasons, just isnít as good as the usual short career HoF back. Top five rushing yard finishes for him and three short career RBs in the HoF:

Gale Sayers: 1st, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th. Also a world class kick returner.
Earl Campbell: 1st, 1st, 1st, 5th, 7th.
Terrell Davis: 1st, 1st, 2nd, 9th.
Anderson: 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 8th, 9th.

And this is also reflected in the number of times each player was named a 1st team all pro:

Sayers: 5 times.
Campbell, Davis: 3 times.
Anderson: 1 time.

Thatís simply not the same level of peak from Anderson that the rest had, sorry. And given that Anderson didnít have much more of a productive career beyond his peak, he doesnít add a whole lot extra to this. Consider further that any short career skill player is going to be marginal and not a no-brainer and it doesnít take much to drop you out of the running.

Most importantly, itís the level of peak the voters are rewarding, not some hypothetical ďwhat if.Ē And if memory serves, thatís what any HoF argument would hinge on for short career WRs like Sterling Sharpe and Del Shofner (3 first team all pro selections for the former, 5 for the latter, as it turns out).

And once again, postseason HoF boosts for any borderline player whoís not a QB is not standard practice. Why they applied it to Davis or Lynn Swann is a good question, and Iím frankly pretty ambivalent about it.

So as you can see, I havenít contradicted myself or indulged in ďweird arguments.Ē In fact, Iíve relied on stats and facts to support my thoughts. Youíre ascribing things to my approach that just arenít there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2019, 06:46 PM
 
Location: NC, USA
20 posts, read 3,913 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by bachslunch View Post
First let me preface this by saying that I’m very ambivalent at best about Terrell Davis getting into the HoF. It’s not like I think he’s an utter must or something.

That being said, Anderson’s peak, while it contains 1000 yards seasons, just isn’t as good as the usual short career HoF back. Top five rushing yard finishes for him and three short career RBs in the HoF:

Gale Sayers: 1st, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th. Also a world class kick returner.
Earl Campbell: 1st, 1st, 1st, 5th, 7th.
Terrell Davis: 1st, 1st, 2nd, 9th.
Anderson: 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 8th, 9th.

And this is also reflected in the number of times each player was named a 1st team all pro:

Sayers: 5 times.
Campbell, Davis: 3 times.
Anderson: 1 time.

That’s simply not the same level of peak from Anderson that the rest had, sorry.
His peak is even more impressive because he sustained it longer.

1,000+ yard seasons
Sayers - 2x
Campbell - 5x
Davis - 4x
Anderson - 6x

I feel you would argue with a fence post.

Last edited by LaughingSnowman; 02-10-2019 at 07:28 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2019, 05:25 AM
 
1,182 posts, read 480,147 times
Reputation: 1932
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaughingSnowman View Post
His peak is even more impressive because he sustained it longer.

1,000+ yard seasons
Sayers - 2x
Campbell - 5x
Davis - 4x
Anderson - 6x

I feel you would argue with a fence post.

...says the guy who won't stop arguing.

The problem with this observation is that you're not looking at 1000 yard seasons in any kind of context. Not all 1000 yard seasons are equally meaningful, depending on the time period and how far across that line they crossed. For starters, seasons were shorter back in Sayers's day, thus it was more difficult to reach that milestone back then.

If you use this argument without adjusting for era, you must think Eddie George is a no-brainer. After all, he crossed that threshold seven times, one more than Anderson. The number of times George was named First-team All-Pro, as well as the number of times he ended up in the top 10 rushing yards (and where he ranked) is as follows, compared to Anderson:

George: 3rd, 5th, 5th, 6th, 7th. First team All-Pro once. Two seasons of 1000+ yards not in top 10.
Anderson: 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 8th, 9th. First team All-Pro once. One season of 1000+ yards not in top 10.

They look pretty similar to me. And nobody I know of thinks Eddie George belongs in the HoF without a ticket.

For context, I'll repost for the other three players below.

Gale Sayers: 1st, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th. Also a world class kick returner. First team All-Pro five times.
Earl Campbell: 1st, 1st, 1st, 5th, 7th. First team All-Pro three times.
Terrell Davis: 1st, 1st, 2nd, 9th. First team All-Pro three times.

Look, I think one can make the argument that Anderson is one of the better RBs not in, along with guys like Chuck Foreman, Larry Brown, Ken Willard, and Roger Craig. But as I said before, somebody has to be the best at their position not in Canton.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2019, 12:25 PM
 
Location: NC, USA
20 posts, read 3,913 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by bachslunch View Post
...says the guy who won't stop arguing.
I'm not the one who tried to critique almost everyone someone else picked. I'll stick with the ones I chose as they all have a great body of work. Throwing out trivial All-pro awards is a flawed logic as it's not counting Super Bowls, postseason play, sustained peaks, or anything else. I'll leave you to it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2019, 09:07 AM
 
1,182 posts, read 480,147 times
Reputation: 1932
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaughingSnowman View Post
I'm not the one who tried to critique almost everyone someone else picked. I'll stick with the ones I chose as they all have a great body of work. Throwing out trivial All-pro awards is a flawed logic as it's not counting Super Bowls, postseason play, sustained peaks, or anything else. I'll leave you to it.
I only critiqued the players that weren't good options, and clearly stated why. Is there something sacred about posting such a thing, making it above comment or criticism?

And All-pro awards are not trivial at all in such a discussion. The HoF is supposed to be inducting the best players who played, taking into account position and era, is it not? If so, that's easily in fact the best quantifiable way to do so. All-pro awards tell you who contemporary observers thought were the best at each position by year. Add up enough of these for a player and you've got something useful and easy to quantify. Of course other things can and should also be taken into account, such as quality film study, stats used intelligently, all decade teams made, pro bowls to some extent. It's a blend of thinking used well.

Your idea of "sustained peak" for RBs doesn't take into account anything that involves adjustment for era. As far as you're concerned, 1000 yard seasons are all the same every year. They aren't, and I showed you why. If you don't accept this because it doesn't match your preconceived notions, that's not my problem.

I've already pointed out how voters use postseason play as a determining factor, which is rarely applied and consistently used only for QBs who are borderline. You didn't accept that, either.

Sorry, but you're the one with the flawed logic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2019, 03:04 PM
 
4,985 posts, read 11,057,646 times
Reputation: 11848
Quote:
Originally Posted by bachslunch View Post
I only critiqued the players that weren't good options, and clearly stated why. Is there something sacred about posting such a thing, making it above comment or criticism?

And All-pro awards are not trivial at all in such a discussion. The HoF is supposed to be inducting the best players who played, taking into account position and era, is it not? If so, that's easily in fact the best quantifiable way to do so. All-pro awards tell you who contemporary observers thought were the best at each position by year. Add up enough of these for a player and you've got something useful and easy to quantify. Of course other things can and should also be taken into account, such as quality film study, stats used intelligently, all decade teams made, pro bowls to some extent. It's a blend of thinking used well.

Your idea of "sustained peak" for RBs doesn't take into account anything that involves adjustment for era. As far as you're concerned, 1000 yard seasons are all the same every year. They aren't, and I showed you why. If you don't accept this because it doesn't match your preconceived notions, that's not my problem.

I've already pointed out how voters use postseason play as a determining factor, which is rarely applied and consistently used only for QBs who are borderline. You didn't accept that, either.

Sorry, but you're the one with the flawed logic.
I agree All Pro should factor in to discussions certainly more than Pro Bowl selections which have always been flawed with fan favorites making it over more deserving candidates and fading stars making it on reputation alone.

Post season play does come into account for skill position players other than QB's. If it weren't for post season exploits unlikely that either Terrell Davis or Michael Irvin make the HOF.

There is also the idea that certain teams need to be represented for excellence whether the 85 Bears or 90's Bills which each have 4 players ( plus Levy, Polian and Wilson for Bills)

Will be interesting to see how the longest ever dynasty in the NFL fares for players in Hall after 2 decades of dominance.

Law is in...

Seymour made it to finalist...likely will make it within next 3 years

Brady will be first ballot

Gronk will likely be first ballot.

Kraft and Belichick are no brainers....

I think there has to be a couple more players. Vinatieri probably one with essentially 2 careers one in New England and one in Indy.

This is why although I initially thought the idea of Edelman making it was ridiculous now not so sure....I think a case can be made.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2019, 03:26 PM
 
4,292 posts, read 1,860,279 times
Reputation: 2353
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedevilz View Post

This is why although I initially thought the idea of Edelman making it was ridiculous now not so sure....I think a case can be made.
Absolutely. At worst he will finish his career second all time in post season receptions and yards. Three time super bowl champion and super bowl MVP. He has a decent chance of catching Rice for first all time in post season receptions. Just needs 36 more. But he would have to average 23 yards per reception on those 36 to catch Rice in receiving yards. Considering his typical YPR of about 11 yards he would need to add about 75 post season receptions.

Plus, decent chance he even adds another ring. He would be a lock.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2019, 06:54 PM
 
4,985 posts, read 11,057,646 times
Reputation: 11848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill the Butcher View Post
Absolutely. At worst he will finish his career second all time in post season receptions and yards. Three time super bowl champion and super bowl MVP. He has a decent chance of catching Rice for first all time in post season receptions. Just needs 36 more. But he would have to average 23 yards per reception on those 36 to catch Rice in receiving yards. Considering his typical YPR of about 11 yards he would need to add about 75 post season receptions.

Plus, decent chance he even adds another ring. He would be a lock.
The couple of arguments I heard that have made me come around were made by actual HOF voters who seriously feel Edelman has a chance..

1. Edelman is a slot receiver and really shouldn't be judged against wideouts...different positions, different requirements, more punishment etc....this voter feels that in coming years "slot receivers" will be viewed as a position unto themselves...

2. The other argument which I have heard before sounds nebulous but actually makes sense when discussing HOF players the standard should be " Can the story of the NFL be told without this player?" If yes they don't belong, if not then they belong....

After 3 standout SB performances where Edelman contributed signature plays in all 3 victories, game winning catch 49, miracle catch 51, SB MVP 53....this writer felt Edelman has reached the plateau where no, you can't tell the story of the NFL without Edelman....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2019, 09:00 PM
 
4,292 posts, read 1,860,279 times
Reputation: 2353
As far as #1 goes Wes Welker is the gold standard for slot receivers. Even if Edelman has three more good seasons by his standards it is unlikely he finishes his career with numbers anywhere close to Welker.

Edelman gets in purely on his postseason resume for me.

Welker himself should at least be in the conversation for the HOF. He revolutionized the position. His numbers are very good but just outside of what you would consider HOF material.

There’s always been rumblings of Steve Tasker potentially making it in as a special teams ace. Not sure how likely that is. But whether or not Tasker ever gets in I am sure Matthew Slater will also get some acknowledgement as a special teams ace. Tasker is a 5x first team all pro and Slater 4x first team all pro. Both have seven pro bowl appearances.

Chandler Jones, only played four seasons with the Patriots but was part of the 2014 super bowl team. Still early but his career is trending towards HOF consideration if he can continue his good play.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Pro Football
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top