Davis versus Bettis for HOF

[26554]

The idea that Terrell Davis is more deserving of the HoF than Bettis gives me a headache.

For one, how come so few bring up the fact that Bettis spent his prime with the likes of (past his prime) Jim Everett, TJ Rubley, Mike Tomczak, Jim Miller and Kordell Stewart? None of them were close to even late career John Elway.

Someone's HOF case being "he played a long time and played with worse QB's than another finalist did" seems a little light?

Outside of games played (which if that's a HOF stat then Trey Junkin needs to go in before any of these guys) what did Bettis accomplish that Davis didn't? Or what was Bettis better at than Davis? In other words, what makes Bettis more "deserving"?

Keeping in mind that Bettis had 6 more seasons and over twice as many games to accomplish something, which is all "longevity" really is, more chances to accomplish something. With all those extra seasons and games he should at least be equal on accomplishments, yes? Same or more times; MVP, OPOY, best back in the sport, 1st-team All-Pro's, top of the list for greatest rushing seasons, 2,000 yards, multiple seasons over 2,000 yards from scrimmage, multiple seasons over 1,800 yards from scrimmage, when watching them play who was the better player, seasons averaging over 5.0 yards a carry, seasons averaging over 4.0 yards a carry, 200 yard games, 170 yard games, etc ...

Where in there is Bettis better than Davis or what did he do that makes him more deserving? I honestly don't get it? Essentially played twice as long and didn't accomplish half of what Davis did.

As for QB's, that is part of every players career, who they played with, what system, etc ... Regardless, I've always felt the year Bettis' was the best player he could be was actually his rookie season, and having Everett and Rubley at QB didn't derail that. Similar to how during Davis' best season Bubby Brister was the QB for a quarter of it, so not sure how valid that argument is?

I didn't say it was the beginning and end of his, just something I think should be noted more. It wasn't just Elway. Davis had a virtual all-star team around him on O during his prime. While I don't want to take away much from the yards he put up during those seasons and things like fighting through a migraine to be MVP of SB XXXII, I see Davis as being more a highly productive but not indispensible part of the Shannahan/Kubiak/Gibbs O. There's certainly evidence to back that up. I don't think the four games with Bubby are enough of a sample size to give a real indication of how well he would've done without Elway nor, to be fair, are the just over three games he played with Brian Griese (in which he averaged 3.1 ypa) the following season.

Putting that aside, it seems like Davis getting in opens a can of worms. If he goes in, what's the real argument against Priest Holmes or maybe even a Jamal Lewis? Or how about 'Seniors pool' rbs like Larry Brown, Chuck Foreman or William Andrews? I think a couple of those actually have a little bit better arguments than Davis. I understand that a player that has a "shooting star" type career like Davis did can be very intriguing. There's cases where I'd vote for "shooting stars", namely Sterling Sharpe and Ken Easley. However, I also think that sometimes a player like Bettis who wasn't cut down by injury during his prime gets shortchanged.

[Reaser]

it seems like Davis getting in opens a can of worms.

That's fair, being worried about the 'slippery slope' is always valid.

Though I don't agree with the RB examples because none of those players have the total accomplishments Davis has, either - in my opinion.

I look at "shooting star" a little different too, one season wonders or guys with two great years and disappear, maybe that's a shooting star. I think - and I've posted this in the past - that 3 years at that level (best or 2nd best) "proves" it. At least it does for me. Which is my personal minimum just to be in the conversation. So I'll take Davis over a contemporary who was never the best back in football. Plus of course this is just a Davis v. Bettis discussion, not Davis v. Seau or anything which of course I'd take the more accomplished player (Seau) in that scenario, also. Or for RB, Barry Sanders over TD, but for Davis v. Bettis I think Davis is the clear choice.

[26554]

Davis probably did have the best year ever in 1998. That said, in his three best seasons he finished 2nd, 2nd, and 1st in rushing. In Bettis' three best seasons, he finished 3rd, 3rd, and 2nd in rushing.

RIght, not a night and day difference. I can't agree that Davis's '98 was the best year ever by a rb, though. I don't even think it's the most impressive season by a rb from that time period (Sanders in '97).

[26554]

it seems like Davis getting in opens a can of worms.

That's fair, being worried about the 'slippery slope' is always valid.

Though I don't agree with the RB examples because none of those players have the total accomplishments Davis has, either - in my opinion.

I look at "shooting star" a little different too, one season wonders or guys with two great years and disappear, maybe that's a shooting star. I think - and I've posted this in the past - that 3 years at that level (best or 2nd best) "proves" it. At least it does for me. Which is my personal minimum just to be in the conversation. So I'll take Davis over a contemporary who was never the best back in football. Plus of course this is just a Davis v. Bettis discussion, not Davis v. Seau or anything which of course I'd take the more accomplished player (Seau) in that scenario, also. Or for RB, Barry Sanders over TD, but for Davis v. Bettis I think Davis is the clear choice.

I think you could make a case for Holmes being the best offensive player in the league overall for the period from 2001 to when he got injured in 2004. I mean, the guy still ended up fourth in TDs that season even though he missed half the games. Andrews was a monster during his prime (1980-83).

I think Bettis had three seasons where he was top three. That's not very far off from what you're talking about. He was heading in that direction again in 2001, but unfortunately tore his groin in week 11 while he was leading the league in rushing.

[Reaser]

I think you could make a case for Holmes

I like Holmes better than Bettis, too. Not that I think my line of thinking is the best or only way, it's just how I think - placing more emphasis on seasons as "the best" (which even that means something different to everyone) ...

Regardless, I think most here have had Davis over Bettis, at least if forced to choose one of them at all.

[Hail Casares]

I'll never understand the deal with Bettis not being viewed as a HOFer by some people. Was a productive /elite RB early in his career. Made some All pro teams in a very difficult era of doing so. Had some gaudy yardage totals. Late in his career turned into a reliable and highly effective change of pace/power back and scored 22 TD's in his final two seasons and 38 over his final 4. He he trended towards a "compiler" more than being a guy like Barry Sanders but he had some peak production seasons that were highly impressive and wasn't simply compiling mediocre numbers for 15 years. He made more PB's and more AP teams than Curtis Martin.

[Jeremy Crowhurst]

Don't have a problem with Bettis being in, that kind of longevity is remarkable enough to warrant induction. But you can look at where he finished in the individual rankings all you want, the guy was never an elite back. Every year he played, there were multiple backs who were clearly better than he was, and there was nothing separating him from five or six other guys in the league each year.

Why Sharpe and Davis aren't in is a mystery to me.

[Hail Casares]

Don't have a problem with Bettis being in, that kind of longevity is remarkable enough to warrant induction. But you can look at where he finished in the individual rankings all you want, the guy was never an elite back. Every year he played, there were multiple backs who were clearly better than he was, and there was nothing separating him from five or six other guys in the league each year.

Why Sharpe and Davis aren't in is a mystery to me.

IMO at least three times in his career he was an elite back. 1993, 1996, 1997, and 2001.

I'd put both Sterling Sharpe and Davis in the HOF FWIW. Sharpe more willingly than Davis.

[Reaser]

the guy was never an elite back.

Yup. Though "elite" is up to ones own interpretation, I guess. I just think "best of the best" and Bettis was obviously never the best back in football and outside of maybe his rookie year really wasn't ever even close to the top spot (or even 2nd best) ...

The argument doesn't really matter now since he's in and he isn't getting taken out.

Though an interesting exercise is to take all the HOF players at the position that played at least one season during a players career to see if they 'fit' as a HOF'er. Can rank them or group them, whatever.

For Bettis the list becomes:

Marcus Allen
Eric Dickerson
Marshall Faulk
Curtis Martin
Barry Sanders
Emmitt Smith
Thurman Thomas
Jerome Bettis

Wonder how people would rank them? Or if they put in groups of elite and never elite? Or one group of great and one group of good? From there you can add non-HOF players from the same 'era' and if one player going in has a number of players better than him then you're probably lowering the bar (e.g. When you put Floyd Little in then in theory every player ever better than him should also be a HOF'er.)

[Jeremy Crowhurst]

Don't have a problem with Bettis being in, that kind of longevity is remarkable enough to warrant induction. But you can look at where he finished in the individual rankings all you want, the guy was never an elite back. Every year he played, there were multiple backs who were clearly better than he was, and there was nothing separating him from five or six other guys in the league each year.

Why Sharpe and Davis aren't in is a mystery to me.

IMO at least three times in his career he was an elite back. 1993, 1996, 1997, and 2001.

I'd put both Sterling Sharpe and Davis in the HOF FWIW. Sharpe more willingly than Davis.

We may have a different view of what "elite" means. For 1993, I rank Bettis clearly behind Emmitt and Barry, and equal (that year) to Thurman Thomas, Ricky Watters, Barry Foster, and Gary Brown. 1997, Bettis's best season, I have him behind Barry and Terrell Davis and probably Dorsey Levens, and equal to Napoleon Kaufman, Robert Smith, and Corey Dillon. 2001, I don't think I'd have him in the top five -- Holmes, Martin, Green, Faulk, and Alexander had really good years, better overall than what Bettis was on pace for. For me, Bettis's inability to catch the football really holds him back compared to his peers.