FanDuel - WFBC

February 02, 2008

I'm particularly excited for Monk and Green. Both are obviously deserving. Each of them had amazing ability and terrific careers. As importantly, they carried themselves with class and grace on the football field and off. I consider myself lucky to have been able to cheer for them and I'm thrilled to see them on their way to Canton. Cris Carter, Richard Dent, Ray Guy, Derrick Thomas, Russ Grimm and Paul Tagliabue certainly deserve the honor as well. I hope in years to follow they join the six honored this year.

posted by 86 at 07:57 PM on February 02

How in the bloody hell is Cris Carter not a first-ballot Hall of Famer? And Ray Guy's not in yet either? Christ, and I thought the Baseball HOF was a sham.

posted by wfrazerjr at 09:14 PM on February 02

I made an argument for Carter over Monk in a previous thread, but I'm glad Art is in. Guy's exclusion remains a traveshamockery though.

posted by Mr Bismarck at 10:32 PM on February 02

I dont think i would put carter OVER monk, but i would put them in together. Monk should've been in years ago. Tagliabue, and thomas should also have gotten in.

posted by elijahin24 at 11:03 PM on February 02

No Ray Guy = no credibility. Period.

posted by chicobangs at 11:14 PM on February 02

"No Ray Guy = no credibility. Period." Well said, chicobangs.

posted by bo_fan at 10:06 AM on February 03

You can't have football without a foot, and Ray Guy had the best. What a joke!

posted by caffdman at 11:50 AM on February 03

Not only was Guy not inducted, I'm not sure if he was even mentioned in any of the sports news articles covering the class of '08. What a joke. But hells yeah for Darrell Green and Art Monk, two players who richly deserve to be recognized as the best of the best. And it's kinda cool that they'll go in together, as friends and teammates. I propose a year-long SpoFi push to get Ray Guy in the HoF. I don't know how we could accomplish this, but I am fully caffeinated and feelin' ambitious.

posted by BitterOldPunk at 01:36 PM on February 03

As SB XX MVP, Richard Dent deserves to be in the Hall. He was more feared than Dan Hampton who was inducted in 2002.

posted by Shotput at 04:18 PM on February 03

I don't know how we could accomplish this, but I am fully caffeinated and feelin' ambitious. Well Monk couldn't get a sniff until Peter King released his hounds. Maybe an e-mail barrage to the SI King would help? Apparently his opinion and personal pleas in the election meetings carry a lot of weight. I will help the campaign if you pledge your support for the, "If Gale Sanders and Art Monk are in, Terrell Davis should be next protest". Deal? If not, I'm happy anyway. Zimmerman got in which brings the Mighty Donkey HoF tally up to an impressive....2.

posted by r8rh8r27 at 09:56 AM on February 04

I will help the campaign if you pledge your support for the, "If Gale Sanders and Art Monk are in, Terrell Davis should be next protest". Deal? Who is Gale Sanders?

posted by tommytrump at 10:53 AM on February 04

may bad, sayers But you knew that, smartass.

posted by r8rh8r27 at 11:00 AM on February 04

I was pretty sure it was Gale Sayers, but not 100%. I thought it might have been some labratory experiment gone beautifully right, a combination of Barry Sanders and Gale Sayers. Now, that guy would be in the American Pro Football Hall of Fame.

posted by tommytrump at 11:46 AM on February 04

Charles Haley is a name I believe is long overdue. The only player to have won 5 Super Bowls. I would put him in ahead of most of the other guys mentioned, with the exception of Ray Guy. Certainly before Terrell Davis, Chris Carter, and maybe even Derrick Thomas. I don't have his stats in front of me so maybe I'm wrong but is Terrell Davis really deserving of the Hall of Fame? I know he won 2 rings with the Broncos and surpassed 2,000 rushing yards one season and those are tremendous accomplishments, but apparently most any back is good for 1,000 yards in that system and his career was cut short due to injury. Did he do enough in that period of time to justify enshrinement?

posted by ampto11 at 12:47 PM on February 04

"is Terrell Davis really deserving of the Hall of Fame" I'm a 30 year Bronco fan, so my gut instinct is to say "hell yeah." However... Davis has better overall numbers than a lot of RB/FB in the HoF, but most of those players are from the 20s-40s. Earl Campbell probably provides the best basis for comparison. Campbell played in 115 regular season games over 8 seasons. Davis played in 81 regular season games over 7 seasons (1 game more than 5 full seasons worth). Campbell had 9,407 career yards, or about 1,176 per year, or 81.8 per game. Davis had 7,607 career regular season yards, or about 1,087 per yar, or 93.9 per game. Davis had 4.6 yards per carry to 4.3 for Campbell. Davis had 60 TDs; Campbell had 74. Both were league MVP once. Davis was league offensive player of the year twice; Campbell won the award three times. Campbell went to the Pro Bowl 5 times (and was a 4x all pro -- not sure of the distinction); Davis was a 3x Pro Bowl selection. While their regular season numbers are pretty comparable, Davis is better in several "per game" and "per carry" categories. The glaring difference, of course, is that Davis has the 2 rings, a Superbowl MVP, and some exceptional post-season stats (5.5 ypc; 1,140 yds in 8 games; 1.5 TD/game). I couldn't find all of Campbell's post-season stats (6 games in 78, 79 and 80), but it appears that he was largely ineffective in the 78/79 and 79/80 AFC Championship games against the Steelers. Therefore, I think that Davis is a least as qualified as Campbell, but the question is whether 8 seasons and 115 games is enough to warrant inclusion, but 7 seasons and 81 games isn't. To me, if there's going to be a bright line imposed, then it should be done by the HoF making a rule (e.g., "In order to be considered, a player must have played in at least enough games to constitute five full seasons."). So, I'm back to "hell yeah!"

posted by zddoodah at 01:48 PM on February 04

but the question is whether 8 seasons and 115 games is enough to warrant inclusion I know this isn't scientific or accepted talk in HoF election meetings, but the length of one's career isn't really important to me. Some guys, like Monk and Carter, play for so long that eventually the sheer mass of numbers facilitates their election. But I only need one question answered appropriately: Was he great? Not really good. Not "a champion". Was he great in comparison to his contemporaries? And Terrell Davis was great. He was the best player in the NFL during a two year stretch. He was (and made the Broncos) unstoppable. The high-water mark for our franchise begins and ends with his career. Was Monk ever the best at his position in football? Was he ever the best player on his own team? Did he often propel his team to victory despite themselves? Terrell Davis did, of that there is no question.

posted by r8rh8r27 at 02:19 PM on February 04

but apparently most any back is good for 1,000 yards in that system p.s. Before Davis "the system" was Elway chunkin' it 45 times a game and running for his life. The offensive line that Davis ran behind only carried Tom Nalen into the tenures in Gary, Anderson, Droughns, and Bell. So the success of those backs can't be tied to Davis'. Without Davis proving the viability of the 'zone blocking' scheme, it too could have gone the way of the dinosaurs.

posted by r8rh8r27 at 02:35 PM on February 04

Was Monk ever the best at his position in football? Was he ever the best player on his own team? Did he often propel his team to victory despite themselves? Terrell Davis did, of that there is no question. That is really the difficulty in picking HOF players for a team sport. Terrell Davis was a superstar on his team and in the league. Without him, I don't see them winning a Super Bowl. His career was short. The HOF part of his career was over in 1999 -- that's only four years. On the other hand, we have Monk, who was a very important part of the team for 13 years, but never a superstar. Monk was a possession receiver. It's hard to be a superstar without being a deep threat. His role was not to score touchdowns, but to move the chains. How do you compare HOF worthiness of those two guys?

posted by bperk at 04:00 PM on February 04

I'm a 30 year Bronco fan, so my gut instinct is to say "hell yeah." However... Nice stats zddoodah. I asked the question for this type of response. I can certainly see by your comparison to Campbell that a case can be made for Davis' enshrinement. But I guess I never really considered him to be great but for 2 seasons. He was spent after the 2,000 yard season in 98 and barely reached 1,000 combined rushing yards the next three. So we're talking about 2 great seasons, 1 above average, 1 average and three poor seasons marred by injuries. I guess when I think of HOF running backs I think of names such as Brown, Payton, Dickerson, Allen, Dorsett, Smith, Sanders, maybe Curtis Martin guys who played at the highest level for more than a few years in a row. To me, durability is huge at that position when considering the HOF. Save maybe the offensive and defensive linemen, no one takes more punishment over a career than a RB. He was a phenomenal player though when healthy and one of the reasons Elway was finally able to get his rings.

posted by ampto11 at 05:26 PM on February 04

I think it is very hard to compare players from different positions. Some positions have better longevity than others, some have greater impacts on their teams. Art Monk and Terrell Davis are very hard to compare because (obviously) they play different positions and the nature of their careers were very different. In these situations I feel it is best to compare these players to other players, hall of fame or not, like zddoodah did above. To me that is at least a measure of precedent that can give a good idea of a players hall of fame worthiness.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:32 PM on February 04

But I only need one question answered appropriately: Was he great? I think there has to a qualifier somewhere in that question. Was he great for a season? A game? Converting 3rd downs? Was does great mean? As far as Terrell Davis, yes he was great for a couple of years. Was Jamal Anderson great? I think he was for a year or two. Did he often propel his teams to victories despite themselves? Sure he did. Was he ever the best player on the team? I would say yes. Is he a HOF RB? Not even close. See there has to be something to define the greatness. I agree it's not all about championships or longevity necessarily, but to me it is about consistancy and I don't believe Terrell Davis was consistantly a great RB.

posted by ampto11 at 05:45 PM on February 04

Thoughts on Dean and Tippett? Solid, very good NFL players but not sure if HOF material. I could be wrong. (Yes, I've seen the numbers.) I just have a very high standard for HOFs. Please weigh in...

posted by Hartsy at 09:07 PM on February 04

"I guess when I think of HOF running backs I think of names such as Brown, Payton, Dickerson, Allen, Dorsett, Smith, Sanders, maybe Curtis Martin guys who played at the highest level for more than a few years in a row." But do you also think of Battles, Canadeo, Dudley, Guyon, Hinkle, and Leemans? They're in the HoF alongside all but one of the names you mentioned. The immortal Alponse Leemans? A whopping 3,132 yards in 8 seasons (12 game sesaons, I'm guessing). Now...I don't know much about any of those guys, but it seems to me that, when arguing something that has no parameters, and, while there's no question that Davis isn't in the same class as Brown, Dickerson, and Smith, there is something to the argument that, if X = HoF, and X=Y, then Y = HoF. Just don't get me started on Phil Rizzuto and the Baseball HoF! :-)

posted by zddoodah at 09:13 PM on February 04

"Thoughts on . . . Tippett?" I don't argue with dudes who are 6'3", 240#, and who are 5th/7th degree blackbelts in multiple martial arts. Aside from that, his election by players and coaches to the NFL all time 3-4 defensive team is a pretty high endorsement by those who know the true impact of a person who plays a position that isn't always measured by stats.

posted by zddoodah at 09:19 PM on February 04

I think there has to a qualifier somewhere in that question. Was he great for a season? A game? Converting 3rd downs? Was does great mean? As far as Terrell Davis, yes he was great for a couple of years I don't believe Terrell Davis was consistantly a great RB. Sometimes exceptions are made. Gail sayers is a prime example. If greatness is obvious lack of longevity can be overlooked. In the case of davis, he would have been the best running-back in the league for a few more years than the two that he was, if not for a contemporary who wore #20 in the pontiac silverdome, and another who wore #22 in texas stadium, both of whom are first-ballot HOFers. Im not saying davis isa HOFer, but i dont think its as easy to dismiss the possibility as i have heard it argued on this and other sites.

posted by elijahin24 at 07:08 AM on February 05

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.