Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

JWL wrote:
I think what Owens did with the Eagles during the 2005 season is why he is waiting. I don't think it is anything else.

The thing said in the room is Jason Garrett went to Jerry Jones and wanted to quit as OC if TO were shipped off...not sure if true, but that's one of the "knocks"

Rhickok, if Davis had played the three great years (plus 1995,) and there hadn't been the succession of 1000 yard runners, I would support Davis as a HOF player.
If Davis had put up another 3 1400 yard seasons, and a couple 1000 yard seasons after that before giving way to the succession of runners, I would support his candidacy. But combining the two together... no.

I didn't know about Andersen's kick against Cleveland, but that should be up there, especially considering it came in Cleveland.
His 60 yard kick against Chicago is another notable moment. And his 59 yarder against SF in 1995 was huge in the one point win that put them in the playoffs. At the time, Andersen had two of the seven successful 59+ yard field goals.

BD Sullivan wrote:

Reaser wrote:

conace21 wrote:Morten Andersen is as deserving as any kicker. I've seen complaints about his lacking a signature kick, outside of the 39 yarder to put Atlanta in the Super Bowl. They forget about his 49 yard game winner in 1988 to break the Saints' 17 year drought against Dallas.

The signature moments that came to my mind were the NFCCG and the 31-yard miss (and hilarious fall) that put the Jaguars in the playoffs in '96.

One impressive (though hardly signature) moment came in 1984, when he kicked a 54-yard FG in Cleveland as time expired to win the game. Few remember it because the win came against the Browns, who dropped to 1-8--though it was Marty Schottenheimer's first game as a HC.

Another memorable Andersen kick to win a game in Cleveland occurred in 2002.

Rupert Patrick wrote: I would have voted for Davis; I am happy to see him there.

Me too. Though I prefer great players going in the HOF. As opposed to never great players being in the HOF or never great players who compiled stats being in the HOF.

Davis had legendary, legendary vision. Also had speed, power, could run through, around or make people miss in short spaces. Wasn't just a guy. He was literally great. And he was great for a span of time (not one season wonder). Seems odd that he would have needed a handful of 1,000+ yard 3.7ypc type seasons to somehow confirm his greatness or that any add-on okay seasons would have somehow made him great? Something that his great seasons didn't already do? Defies logic. A bunch of non-great seasons tacked-on to great seasons doesn't confirm the latter or make the former also great.

During the above-average length of his playing career he accomplished more than other backs already in the HOF who played longer. Backwards thinking to want to punish him for accomplishing more in less chances while at the same time championing players who accomplished less with more chances (chances = seasons played).

As for the other Broncos backs that had statistical 'success'. None ever did what Davis did so I'm not sure how that's equatable.

Specifically with Portis, who was an excellent football player. Portis being good somehow equaling TD being a lesser player makes little to no sense. Would be like claiming that because Danny White was good that it makes Staubach a lesser player. Or using always definitive stats to make that case such as, "White threw 28 TD's in his first regular season as the starter, Staubach never did that in his entire career!" Great analysis.

Plus, if you're going to use stats you should probably note that TD had arguably the greatest statistical rushing season (including post-season) in pro football history.

All I know is that, even taking stats out of it, there's not too many RB's who accomplished what Davis did in his career, regardless of the length of his or theirs.

Teo wrote:

rebelx24 wrote:Glad to see both Easley and Davis making it in in the same class, with Stanfel of course getting in a year ago. Those three guys, if I'm not mistaken, are the entirety of the 7-years-and-under modern era career length contingent elected since Doak Walker in the mid-'80's. Gives me hope for players like Sterling Sharpe someday . Not to mention Tony Boselli and Patrick Willis, who only played 8 seasons, and Priest Holmes, arguably a quasi-short career guy due to all the injuries.

Gale Sayers also played 7 seasons, although he barely played his final two seasons.

Definitely didn't forget Sayers (he's the most famous of the bunch!); he just wasn't relevant to my point, which was that it took thirty years after Walker's election for his similarly short-tenured teammate to be enshrined, which was a hell of a wait (Sayers and Walker, of course, were selected only 9 years apart). Maybe now, with three short-career guys elected in the span of two years, the proverbial floodgates have opened.

rebelx24 wrote:Definitely didn't forget Sayers (he's the most famous of the bunch!); he just wasn't relevant to my point, which was that it took thirty years after Walker's election for his similarly short-tenured teammate to be enshrined, which was a hell of a wait (Sayers and Walker, of course, were selected only 9 years apart). Maybe now, with three short-career guys elected in the span of two years, the proverbial floodgates have opened.

Doak Walker had to wait longer because there was no NFL Films to document every play of his career as there were for the other guys.

Ken Crippen wrote:

rebelx24 wrote:Glad to see both Easley and Davis making it in in the same class, with Stanfel of course getting in a year ago. Those three guys, if I'm not mistaken, are the entirety of the 7-years-and-under modern era career length contingent elected since Doak Walker in the mid-'80's. Gives me hope for players like Sterling Sharpe someday . Not to mention Tony Boselli and Patrick Willis, who only played 8 seasons, and Priest Holmes, arguably a quasi-short career guy due to all the injuries.

Hopefully, Mac Speedie will now be considered since length of career is no longer a detriment.

Speedie: 86 Games Played
Davis: 78 Games Played
Easley: 89 Games Played
Stanfel: 73 Games Played

Yes, Speedie is another short-career player who absolutely possesses the requisite resume for enshrinement.

Reaser wrote:

Rupert Patrick wrote: I would have voted for Davis; I am happy to see him there.

Me too. Though I prefer great players going in the HOF. As opposed to never great players being in the HOF or never great players who compiled stats being in the HOF.

Davis had legendary, legendary vision. Also had speed, power, could run through, around or make people miss in short spaces. Wasn't just a guy. He was literally great. And he was great for a span of time (not one season wonder). Seems odd that he would have needed a handful of 1,000+ yard 3.7ypc type seasons to somehow confirm his greatness or that any add-on okay seasons would have somehow made him great? Something that his great seasons didn't already do? Defies logic. A bunch of non-great seasons tacked-on to great seasons doesn't confirm the latter or make the former also great.

During the above-average length of his playing career he accomplished more than other backs already in the HOF who played longer. Backwards thinking to want to punish him for accomplishing more in less chances while at the same time championing players who accomplished less with more chances (chances = seasons played).

As for the other Broncos backs that had statistical 'success'. None ever did what Davis did so I'm not sure how that's equatable.

Specifically with Portis, who was an excellent football player. Portis being good somehow equaling TD being a lesser player makes little to no sense. Would be like claiming that because Danny White was good that it makes Staubach a lesser player. Or using always definitive stats to make that case such as, "White threw 28 TD's in his first regular season as the starter, Staubach never did that in his entire career!" Great analysis.

Plus, if you're going to use stats you should probably note that TD had arguably the greatest statistical rushing season (including post-season) in pro football history.

All I know is that, even taking stats out of it, there's not too many RB's who accomplished what Davis did in his career, regardless of the length of his or theirs.

I'll sum it up: Davis had talent and was a good fit for the Denver offense. As I said, his numbers were better than his successors; nobody else put up 2000 yards. But none of the others played with Elway. I think that Gary, Anderson, Bell, could have and would have rushed for 1400-1500 yards on that Broncos team. Davis did slightly better for two year and much better for one. For three years. Davis was a very good player in a system that maximized his talents. Not great. I still may have supported his candidacy in certain years, depending on who his competitors were. This year, I was pulling for Alan Faneca. Davis was an All Pro three times. Faneca was an All Pro seven times, and had two or three other strong years.

conace21 wrote: I'll sum it up: Davis had talent and was a good fit for the Denver offense. As I said, his numbers were better than his successors; nobody else put up 2000 yards. But none of the others played with Elway. I think that Gary, Anderson, Bell, could have and would have rushed for 1400-1500 yards on that Broncos team. Davis did slightly better for two year and much better for one. For three years. Davis was a very good player in a system that maximized his talents. Not great. I still may have supported his candidacy in certain years, depending on who his competitors were. This year, I was pulling for Alan Faneca. Davis was an All Pro three times. Faneca was an All Pro seven times, and had two or three other strong years.

Odd to say he was "not great" (a not-great MVP, a not-great 2xOPOY, a not-great leading player on 2 championship teams?) but that you may have supported his candidacy in certain years, but okay. System that maximized his talents arguments are always obvious, like Joe Montana was in the perfect system for him. We can only go on what did happen. Davis earned the Broncos job and he was great, if he wasn't he wouldn't have accomplished what he did.

The system. Davis was the start of that in Denver so that's a bit different from jumping on a train that's already rolling. He's the one that got it rolling and it rolled better with him than his successors. So a hypothetical saying that another back would have had a good season in place of him but not as good as what Davis' did still comes out in Davis' favor. It's basically saying that the "system" would get the average RB x amount of yards but Davis surpassed that, which again comes out in Davis' favor.

As for playing with Elway - and obviously not a prime Elway - Elway didn't 'create' a bunch of great RB's pre-Davis so I'm not sure how much of a factor that is. I would say the quarter of the season that Brister (Bubby Brister!) was in that Davis still was the same back, without Elway. Plus, even when he wasn't what he was during his final season and with Anderson and Gary as teammates I'd still say he was the best back on the team that year, too. With Griese and Gus at QB.

Rupert Patrick wrote:

Ness wrote:

JWL wrote:

On page 1 of this thread (you can look it up), I advocated Owens for induction.

He got kicked off a team for crying out loud.

Look, there is no way he will not eventually get in, so it is sort of cool he gets to stew for a while.

As for Andersen, yes, different era. You kind of have to compare his stats to players in his era. If you don't do that, then guys like Jan Stenerud, Bobby Layne, Joe Namath, Doak Walker, and Charlie Sanders could be made to look like pieces of crap depending upon what stats you look at.

The explicit guidelines advocated by the Vice President of the HOF, Joe Horrigan, says that players should be recognized for their own the field achievements only. The voters are making it about themselves and who they think is a "nice guy". Which is why Warner is in. And why Hines Ward will be in. This is why Owens is out. There really is not logical argument than the voters taking it personal.

I disagree Warner got in because he was a nice guy. I made his HOF resume argument earlier in the thread, but I think Hines Ward will eventually get in because:

-He was a key player and a team leader on a number of successful teams in Pittsburgh.
-While he wasn't the deep threat receiver type like Moss/TO/Chad 85, he was a dependable clutch receiver more of a Marvin Harrison.
-Six seasons over 80 receptions, four seasons over 90 catches, and caught 112 receptions in 2002.
-Six seasons over 1,000 yards receiving, twice finished with 975 yards receiving.
-14th in career receptions (1000), 23rd career receiving yards (12,083), 15th career receiving TD's (86)
-Four All-Pro's

He'll get in eventually, probably in the later years of his candidacy.

Ward was never the best wide receiver in the NFL at any point in his career though. I don't think he belongs in Canton. With the way things seem to go with the politics of it all he'll probably get in. Before Owens I wouldn't be shocked.