NFL Off Topic

[TheShizNo1]

Re: NFL Off Topic

If we let Jerome Bettis into the Hall of Fame

Disagreed with that one too.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: NFL Off Topic

I know this is the minority opinion, but I am not a fan of variations on the "eye test."



I think I have good reason though; it disqualifies too many people from being able to offer input. To be able to judge someone on the "it factor" I think you had to have seen them play during their career. I don't mean remembering watching a game as an 8 year old either. You had to have been old and mature enough to understand the nuances of the game at that time. Going back to watch film from 20 years ago doesn't work either because you would be biased by your own preconceptions (you would be looking for validation of your opinion) and you may be biased because of what you have seen in today's game (for example if you go back and watch games of the early 90's Bills their no huddle offense may be underwhelming because of offenses of today).



I don't expect too many people to agree with me. Maybe I am overthinking it, but I study philosophy so I can't help it



** Certainly there would be exceptions, but those are very rare and when they do occur, there will be numbers that illustrate the "it" factor.

What do you take into consideration then if you don't like using the "eye test"?

[steelerfan]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Bettis had over 13,600 yards to Lynch's 9,112 and 91 TDs to 74. I'm not sure they should be lumped in together statistically. Lynch does not have the numbers to compare to Bettis so saying, "if Bettis is in, Lynch should be too" does not hold any water.

[redsox4evur]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Bettis had over 13,600 yards to Lynch's 9,112 and 91 TDs to 74. I'm not sure they should be lumped in together statistically. Lynch does not have the numbers to compare to Bettis so saying, "if Bettis is in, Lynch should be too" does not hold any water.

Jerome Bettis also played 5 more seasons with Lynch.

[AUChase]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Is there a Hall of Fame thread ?

[Hooe]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Bettis had over 13,600 yards to Lynch's 9,112 and 91 TDs to 74. I'm not sure they should be lumped in together statistically. Lynch does not have the numbers to compare to Bettis so saying, "if Bettis is in, Lynch should be too" does not hold any water.

If numbers make the player, then every Cowboys fan is right when they argue Emmitt Smith was definitively better than Walter Payton and Barry Sanders.

[redsox4evur]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Is there a Hall of Fame thread ?

Not directly but there is a thread that is very applicable to this topic.

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...all-famer.html

[SPTO]

Re: NFL Off Topic

1. I'll say this once and i'll say it again, the eye test may not work so great with baseball mainly because the game is more or less the same as it was 50-60 years ago. The strategy of the game has changed a lot though so the eye test does come into play a tiny bit but football is THE one sport where because of how much the game has changed through the years that you HAVE to rely on what you see to compliment the numbers that are racked up. The game was played completely different in the '50s compared to the '70s. The game became more pass oriented in the '80s compared to the decade before and the game is a lot more complex today than it was in the '90s. Right now i'm about to start watching games from the '95 season. This also includes collegiate ball and the old axioms that were put in place about 10-15 years prior were still being employed. Hell, collegiate teams were still using a ploy that Sam Wyche introduced into the NFL in the early '80s with starting off a possession with the huddle on the sidelines!

Let us not forget that over the years players have become bigger, stronger and faster than they were just 20 years ago. However, now we're starting to see a shift with some MLBs who are still bigger than the MLBs of 20 years ago becoming smaller and faster but again, due to nutrition and sports science a lot of these guys would make an '80s or '90s all-pro team look inferior save for a few guys who are the elite of the elite.


2. ggsimmonds i'm 36 (so about 5 years older than you) and i've seen plenty of Earl Campbell thanks to the game trading hobby. Not everything i've seen comes from his absolute peak (1978-1980) as i've also seen games from his days with the Saints so i've seen him at his peak and literally up to his last game. In a lot of ways Earl Campbell was abused to a large degree. Someone earlier mentioned the amount of carries he had as a collegian and that was quite a lot as well but just check out the amount of carries he had from the time he entered the league to 1981

302
368
373
361

Those were NOT your every day garden variety carries either. The man had to shed tacklers virtually every play as the only way to bring him down was to gang tackle him. You'd see 3 or 4 guys swarming to him on every play. One thing Campbell had was power and speed, he was the first RB since Jim Brown to possess those two traits in abundance. The famous "Love ya Blue!" game on MNF in '78 against the Dolphins was a great display of those traits as Campbell could get out into the open field and run pretty quick for his size. The reason Campbell's peak and production was so short was the amount of carries, the way he was tackled and just general wear and tear. By the time he was in New Orleans his legs were shot but every now and again he displayed that same power that made him a legend in Houston. If you can't acknowledge just how great Campbell was then that's ok but don't belittle what he did for the game because he was the model for guys like Bam Morris, Barry Foster, Christian Okoye and ultimately Jerome Bettis.


3. As for Bettis, I've said before that I don't mind him being a HOFer. I think he did a lot in his career that justifies it. I do think however, that the way he was used in the latter part of his career is what makes some of us question his worthiness as he wasn't quite the workhorse he used to be and was mostly put into situations where they could maximize his ability especially in goal line situations. Let's at least acknowledge that Cowher knew how to take an aging star and put him in a position so that he and the team can succeed.

[steelerfan]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Jerome Bettis also played 5 more seasons with Lynch.

If numbers make the player, then every Cowboys fan is right when they argue Emmitt Smith was definitively better than Walter Payton and Barry Sanders.

The point is that comparing Lynch to Bettis is apples and oranges. The numbers are not close.

Comparing Lynch to Campbell is worthwhile, from a statistical standpoint.

[The15thunter]

Re: NFL Off Topic

marshawn lynch is a very good running back, but he does not have a hall of fame resume. not by the eye test, not from having that many memorable moments (aside from the run against the saints and him celebrating a touchdown by diving into the end zone and grabbing his nuts, i can't think of any other signature lynch moments), not statistically.

so, for those who are pro-lynch, what are you judging his candidacy by?

[slickdtc]

Re: NFL Off Topic

I actually think Lynch does pass the eye test. He's memorable, and that's part of being a HOF'er. At least to me. There's just something that stands out when you think HOF as it relates to current or relatively recent players. Do you guys get the instant feeling of yes/no when someone brings up a player for consideration? Oftentimes it's just a gut call. It's just a feeling. When I think Lynch, I immediately go to no. After looking through the raw numbers, I wasn't surprised by his totals and it backed up my initial reaction. Really good, was a top back for 2-3 years, but just not a HOF.

His peak had to be a bit more prolific for me to push him over the edge. 9 years for a RB is about right so I can't say his career was too short. That, or he would've had to play a bit longer to bring up his career numbers. I think short burst of great numbers or career compiler have a spot in the HOF. Lynch was a bit shy of both.

[SPTO]

Re: NFL Off Topic

I actually think Lynch does pass the eye test. He's memorable, and that's part of being a HOF'er..

I'll agree with that though when he played in Buffalo I didn't quite get that sense. It's when he went to Seattle that he upped his game and became something bigger and better. Your summation is pretty spot on, he falls short in terms of peak and longevity. He's certainly a Hall of Very Good type of player.

I wonder though, if it's going to become a situation where other positions are getting into the HOF regularly and the RB position is being left in the dust. That might be one way he gets in.

[redsox4evur]

Re: NFL Off Topic

I wonder though, if it's going to become a situation where other positions are getting into the HOF regularly and the RB position is being left in the dust. That might be one way he gets in.

If that does happen, I will not be too happy because we went decades without a punter or kicker being the HOF.

Also another thing I want to bring up, doesn't really relate to Lynch but someone brought up earlier that AP was the only active RB that will make the HOF. I hope the voting committee also takes guy like Le'veon Bell who is a very good runner but also the top pass catcher in the league. And in a passing league, if you have a guy that was hall of very good back but also was able to catch the ball and be a dual threat that should be taken into account.

[Bellsprout]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Can we all agree that whether or not he deserves it we should put him in anyway just for the speech?

I'm just here to get my gold jacket.

[redsox4evur]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Can we all agree that whether or not he deserves it we should put him in anyway just for the speech?

I'm just here to get my gold jacket.

Semi OT question, better speech Lynch or OchoCinco?