Is Terrell Davis Hall of Fame material? After Peter King of SI said he wouldn't vote for Terrell Davis when he became eligible, my friends and I discussed the topic. King's argument that for someone whose career was so short, he didn't change the position the way Gale Sayers, another RB with a short career, did. We both disagreed - first off, he was the perfect running back for the West Coast Offense, the most prominent style of the time. He could run inside and out, block and catch passes. Now, one could argue that he was helped by playing on a good team - and the success of Olandis Gary and Mike Anderson may suggest that - but you couldn't possibly discount the fact that he was the missing piece in Denver's quest for the Super Bowl. You could reverse the argument and say that John Elway couldn't win without Davis. I'd say he's not a first ballot entry, because he doesn't have the big numbers, and durability is one of the requirements for a good RB, but when he did play, he consistently put up numbers and he has the stats that matter the most - two Super Bowl rings.
Terrell was one of the best power running backs of all time in the short span he played in the game. i was luck enough to see him win his seocnd super bowl in miami and he tore apart the falcons. he was great to watch but he simply did not stick around long enough. if terrell makes it that O.J. anderson from the giants should have made it a long time ago. both won super bowl mvps but OJ has a lot more rushing yards under his belt. Davis mihgt have played 7 years, but really it was more like 4 with 3 injury years. though he did help elway win a championship with an already good team...he did not change the position like barry sanders or gale sanders did
He was a really good back when he was injury free. He tore up my Packers in that monumental upset in 98. But I just don't think that he did enough and not long enough of a career. So my answer is no.
I'm usually a Hall of Fame hardliner, but I don't have a real problem with Davis getting in. He was a bitch. What I do have a problem with are these things: #1: Playing the Gale Sayers card. Take Gale Sayers out of the equation. Is the guy a Hall of Famer then? Becomes a bit harder, doesn't it? Sayers was a very special case. It wasn't so much what he did as the way he did it. He was unbelievable to watch run. You could make the case based on what he did do that Sayers, had he remained healthy, would have just crushed every record there is. #2: Giving a guy credit for things he didn't do. It's been trendy the last couple of days to give Davis credit for what "you know he would have done" (Dan Patrick for one said you "have to" give him credit for that----when you don't, not really). Well, you don't know what he would have done, and if you're going to do that, Greg Cook gets in, too. One of the morons on one of our three virtually intolerable sports radio stations here in Chicago today likened Terrell Davis' career to that of Roger Maris in baseball. Let's stop right there---Roger Maris was a fine baseball player. He was a two-time AL MVP, and was a very good piece of a very good Cardinals team that won the World Series after that. But let's say he hits 40 home runs in 1961 instead of 61. Do you put him in then? So the extra 21 HR's in one expansion season is what puts him in? Roger Maris is not a Hall of Famer in my book, which includes only the best players of all-time. And Maris doesn't measure up (not that he wasn't a fine ballplayer---he was. But it's not the Hall of Fine Ballplayers). And Terrell Davis was tons better as a football player than Roger Maris was as a baseball player, at his peak (ignoring for a moment that it's apples and oranges with football vs. baseball). So it's not a particularly strong analogy. But, then, that's sports radio. One thing that I think also lessens the strength of comparisons between Davis and Sayers (if you're going to make them) is that Sayers was a one-in-a-million (or, at least one-in-a-hundred-thousand) player. No one was doing what he did when he was doing it. The guy turned football on its ear. I think we'll be amazed in 20 years how many guys come along and gain 2,000 yards in a season. What Davis did, as impressive as it was on the face of it, may not have that same "wow" factor that Sayers' running did in its time and place. Since we don't have a way to make distinctions between Hall of Famers other than how quickly after retirement they get inducted (once you're in, you're in, and the guy with the least-impressive career is equal to the guy with the most-impressive career), I think TD has to at least wait a while.
I was going to start this very thread when I got home. This is the talk of Denver and then some. Here's my take: Pros: - During that 4 year stretch, TD was the dominant RB in the NFL. - He turned it up a notch in the playoffs with all those 100 yard games. He got better the bigger the stage. - A league MVP and Super Bowl MVP always helps one's case. - 2000 yard season. Only 4 have done it, albeit 3 in the 16 game era (OJ did it in 14) Cons: - Really only played 4 full seasons. Not long at all, though it wasn't his fault. - Another unheraleded rookie, Mike Anderson, came in and run for just about as many (1500+) yards as TD did his first injured season. This leads people to believe TD got too much credit. This is a tough one. I'm still undecided.
For me Terrell Davis was the second best power back to have ever played, second only to Jim Brown. Just because Davis only played 7 seasons and of those, only 4 complete seasons, does not take away from how dominant a running back he was. Ask yourself, if the game was on the line who would you want in your backfield? Davis and Brown for me, over Payton, Sayers, Simpson and the others. Davis's career stats http://www.nfl.com/players/1097.htm Statistically speaking TD rushed and gained more yards and scored more touchdowns than Sayers. Sayers however, was a unique player. He created an arche-type player position that had previously not existed in pro football. Sayers was more like Marshall Faulk. In fact Sayers was the model for players like Faulk and others that were versatile and could run, catch and return kick-offs. Sayers next to OJ, was probably the most elusive running back of the era. For comparison sake having seen Sayers from when he was the Kansas Comet. He was probably quicker and certainly a lot faster than Faulk. Sayers never dominated a game they way Jim Brown could. He had that explosive burst and moves to make something out of nothing. So he could be stuffed for large stretches of games only to break away with a long run, catch or kick return. With regards to statistical comparisons, Sayers stats were not as good as TD's, but he brought innovation to the game. That's worth a lot. I will say that I felt at his peak, TD was the most dominant running back in the NFL.
Having thought about the subject more and reading some of the posts here, I'm leaning more towards "no". It's not that I don't think his accomplishments aren't Hall-worthy. At his peak, he was the best running back in the league, no question. But the question remains, how long do you have to maintain greatness? And if you have a short career, how great do you have to be to offset the lack of yards? I certainly want him to make the Hall. People talk about how Olandis Gary, and then Mike Anderson had 1,000 yard seasons after TD went down, but they forget that before he joined the Broncos, they were not Super Bowl contenders. I don't think TD was exceptional in any one area, the way Jim Brown or Barry Sanders were. But he was the total package and as I mentioned before, he was the perfect West Coast Offense running back. His biggest accomplishment, imho, was that he made an above average/good team into a Super Bowl contender.
Davis is not in the top 20 in rushing yards all time. He is 30 touchdowns shy of being in the top 20 for touchdowns scored in a career. He never led the league in rushing twice in a row. At 4.6 ypc, he is nowhere near the top rushers in that category. Quite simply, he's not even the Roger Maris of football; Awesome for a very short period of time. Amonth the best, even. However, that has nothing to do with getting into the Hall of Fame. He is absolutely nowhere remotely near worthy of getting in - especially if Art Monk still isn't in. And given that Randall and Carter will both be eligable the same year he is, it's doubtful that anyone any of the HOF voters will be as stupid as some of the folks that think he shoud get in. There's a reason they wait 5 years before someone can be eligable.
The one thing we have to be careful about is comparing longevity in other sports. The mortality rate in pro football is significantly higher than any other pro sport. Baseball is such a game. The norm are 10-20 years careers if you are good player. Most careers in football are cut short by injury or dimishing skills as a result of injury. Davis is a perfect example of this. Therefore, perhaps 4 great seasons may equate with a trip to Canton in July. To me Davis had 2 excellent seasons and two among the best all time seasons. Time will tell whether that is enough. Contrary, to Kenn, I don't think 2,000 yd rushing seasons will be the norm in football unless they increase the length of the regular season by another 2 to 4 more games.
I think TD should be in the Hall of Fame. His regular season accomplishments are close on their own but what puts him over the top for me is what he did in the postseason. When it mattered, he was the best. The best postseason running back ever? I say so. The numbers: Eight playoff games, he AVERAGED 142 yards per game (1,136 yards in eight playoff games, including two super bowls victories), averaged 5.6 yards per carry in the postseason and was a super bowl MVP. Both marks above are league records. Granted, it was eight games but I think it's enough to nudge him over the top when it's coupled with his regular season numbers. Other notes: His four-year rushing total was the second highest ever for the start of a career; he was the lowest drafted player ever to run for 1,000 yards as a rookie. He led the AFC in rushing for three straight seasons, he has the highest total of combined regular and postseason yards (2,476) in a single season. Despite being injured for the last several years he STILL owns the third highest per-game rushing averge in NFL history (behind Brown and Sanders). I think the man has to get in. He was too damn good, if even for a short period of time. I think once there is some distance from the end of his career and people can really look back at what he did, he'll get in. But probably not on the first ballot.
If you read my post, I was very careful not to do this. My only comparison to baseball was to Maris. Maris has a tremendous year. Likewise TD had a tremendous two years, and a great four years. You ask what is the norm for a football player in terms of Hall of Fame material career length? Easy. Whatever it takes to be in the top of at least one career statistical category. TD is nowhere near any of them. I honest to god can't even see any reason why the man should even be considered, let alone why he should get in. So far, not one person has given one legitimate example of why he should be in, with the exception of Gayle Sayers. and if you think precedence gets people into the Hall of Fame, then you obviously have no business arguing in this thread because you have no clue on the matter. People that use Sayers as the reason to get in are only doing so because ESPN told them to.
Have you even looked at his numbers?!? They are mediocre at best. Not a reason to get in the HOF. not a reason to get in the HOF. (perhaps if he led the league in rushing, he may have a case, but he didn't.) Not a reason to get in the HOF. See Roger Maris. This is a non issue because of his shortened career. See, this is exactly WHY we have a waiting period - so people like yourself have five years to get over their liking of a player and start to see clearly how rediculous the thought of TD tainting the HOF is.
AFL, what your problem is is that you're taking each individual accomplishment I listed and saying that it's not enough to get into the HOF. Well, duh. That's why you have to look at everything. You look at the big picture and he should be considered.
you're talking about the value of your arguements, right? fact is, he'll get good, honest consideration, but not on the first ballot.
Randall? Are you talking about Randall Cunningham? TD deserves much more consideration than the most-overhyped QB in the history of football. P.S. I agree with 100% on Art Monk. How the hell is he not in the Hall?
Davis is not a first ballot kind of player. The consideration he may get afterwards will probably be based on the backs of the time. He'll be compared with alot of above average yet not great players. His generation had a couple superstars and a ton of solid pros at the running back position. It's the group after Davis that will get 1st ballot consideration. Davis was very good, but when you put him next to guys like Curtis Martin and Marshall Faulk you'll see why Davis is a longshot for the hall. JMac
His career is too short. He does not have the numbers to back his case. He would have made it if he can produce a few more seasons. In 5 to 10 years, the voters would forget about him. BTW, Cunningham would not get in, but he gets better chance than TD.
I'll freely admit ahead of time that I have been an Eagles fan since the age of 4, and even I didn't think that Randall really should be in the HOF. And then I read this article: http://slate.msn.com/?id=2070146 And now I'm convinced he SHOULD be in....probably even before/at the expense of Terrell Davis. Some quoted stats from the article: "Cunningham won the [MVP] award in 1988, 1990, and 1998—only Jim Brown, Y.A. Tittle, Johnny Unitas, and Brett Favre have been honored in as many years, and they're all in Canton or headed there. Joe Montana won MVPs in only two seasons." (To be fair, Terrell Davis won an MVP once). "Cunningham's stats match or beat the Hall of Fame locks of his era. Dan Marino and John Elway played in offenses geared to their passing ability and had almost double Randall's passing attempts, so they racked up bigger numbers. ... The all-important yards-per-pass attempt stat is basically equal: Marino 7.3 per attempt, Elway 7.1, Cunningham 7.0. And Cunningham has a better TD-to-INT ratio than Elway, 1.54 to 1.33." "Randall compares more favorably to Troy Aikman, another Canton lock, who played exactly one less game in his career. Aikman, one of history's most accurate passers, beats out Randall in completion percentage (61.5 to 56.6) and has about 3,000 more yards in 500 more attempts. But Randall threw for 42 more TDs and seven fewer INTs, and the yards-per-attempt for both is 7.0. Toss in the rushing (4,928 yards and 35 TDs for Cunningham, 1,016 and nine for Aikman), and Cunningham moves past the Golden Boy." Then, the article goes on to point out that Randall did come back from injury/retirement (something that TD may/may not do) to play with the Vikings in 1998, and all he did was this: "The Vikes set the single-season points record, as Randall threw for more than 3,700 yards and 34 TDs with an astounding 106 QB rating. Cunningham was voted to his fourth Pro Bowl, and Minnesota dominated the league, going 16-1 before falling to Atlanta in the NFC Championship game." I'm a big TD fan, but to say that he is more deserving to be in the Hall of Fame than Randall Cunningham is simply a misinformed or biased statement.
I have no opinion on whether he gets in or not, but I just had to add that he, nor Marshall Faulk or anyone else for that matter, is fit to lick Barry Sander's boots.