Terrell Davis should not be a HOF

[ATL96Steeler]

Gets in due to playoffs, id imagine.

Warner is just as difficult of a sell. He threw 2 of the most costly Ints of all time and was surrounded with talent.

As much of an ass as he's been, I still can't blame TO for being pissed...I'm a big fan of TD, and Warner is a great story, but neither deserve to be in the HOF ahead of Owens...should they be in? imo yes when you look at the contributions in the playoffs.

 

[Shanemansj13]

For the too short of career crowd:

Player A: 68 games, 6263 rushing yards, 1307 receiving yards, 39 total touchdowns.

Player B: 86 games, 8747 rushing yards, 1411 receiving yards, 60 total touchdowns.

Player A: never won a championship, never MVP, in the hall of fame.

Player B: won 2 championships, one MVP and Super Bowl MVP, just voted in.

Spoiler

Player B is Terrell Davis
Player A is Gale Sayers

Yep putting Sayers in set the precedent but the thing is TD is a far better RB than Sayers.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Yep putting Sayers in set the precedent but the thing is TD is a far better RB than Sayers.

I'm not sure about that in bold.

TD had more playoff impact without question...far better...idk. Sayers was a helluva RB, time cut short.

 

[Shanemansj13]

I'm not sure about that in bold.

TD had more playoff impact without question...far better...idk. Sayers was a helluva RB, time cut short.

Well they put him in the HOF for a good reason, not saying he wasn't deserving bc Sayers still was IMO but when you are a bigtime playoff performer like TD was I think that holds higher value on his career in general. Could be the main reason they inducted him. Probably one of the best, if not the best, playoff RB of all-time. Both had short careers though unfortunately.

Sayers most likely made it in for his all-around play. He only had 2 season of over 1,000 yards and barely got those. He could also catch the ball and was one of the best returners of all-time.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Well they put him in the HOF for a good reason, not saying he wasn't deserving bc Sayers still was IMO but when you are a bigtime playoff performer like TD was I think that holds higher value on his career in general. Could be the main reason they inducted him. Probably one of the best, if not the best, playoff RB of all-time. Both had short careers though unfortunately.

Sayers most likely made it in for his all-around play. He only had 2 season of over 1,000 yards and barely got those. He could also catch the ball and was one of the best returners of all-time.

I was a kid in Sayers prime but I do remember him being OJ like, before OJ...a very smooth, but quick and fast RB. Like you said as a WR he was dynamic...kind of ahead of his time in that regard.

TD...yes. DEN had knocked at the door a couple of times only to be blown away when they got to the big dance. Davis changed the way they played the game. Not only in the playoffs, but in the reg season. Adding his dimension made them much harder to defend when they got to the playoffs. Teams couldn't just play bump n run coverage on the WRs and tee off on Elway...clearly he was the difference in those two rings.

I just think these writers/voters do the HOF an injustice when they put in guys like Davis and Warner who really didn't have "HOF lock" careers over a player like Terrell Owens, who does.

It makes for good conversation if you will, but imo it just looks petty.

 

[shopson67]

It's actually exactly as close as I said. Just because Sutter won a Cy Young that I don't think he deserved doesn't change that. Nolan Ryan never won a Cy Young, doesn't mean he isn't a hell of a lot more deserving than Sutter.

The fact that you value saves removes any credibility of YOUR argument. Familia had the most saves last year and you would be an idiot to think that he was better than Zach Britton. Not giving up 3 runs in the 9th inning is supposed to be valuable? It's an arbitrary stat that poorly measures the value of a reliever. Andrew Miller had just 12 saves last year, and he was the 2nd best reliever in baseball easily. 2014, Delin Betances and Wade Davis combined for just 4 saves, they were the top 2 relievers in baseball.

Saves are a valuable stat, not the ONLY stat. Everything is taken into account. Your OPINION is that those players were the best relievers in baseball, but they also weren't put into the high stress relieving situations as set-up men. Producing in pressure situations is as important as raw stats. Obviously Britton was unhittable, but there are reasons that the others weren't closing.

 

[soxfan1468927]

Saves are a valuable stat, not the ONLY stat. Everything is taken into account. Your OPINION is that those players were the best relievers in baseball, but they also weren't put into the high stress relieving situations as set-up men. Producing in pressure situations is as important as raw stats. Obviously Britton was unhittable, but there are reasons that the others weren't closing.

Just because it isn't the 9th inning, doesn't mean it isn't a high pressure situation. You think Andrew Miller wasn't in high leverage situations this year? What?! There are plenty of examples of these guys coming in to high leverage situations. Just because they aren't the "closer" doesn't mean they don't.

And the reason they aren't closing is because there managers are smarter. Bring your best guy in to the toughest situation, no matter if they are getting a "save" or not.

 

[soxfan1468927]

Saves are a valuable stat, not the ONLY stat. Everything is taken into account. Your OPINION is that those players were the best relievers in baseball, but they also weren't put into the high stress relieving situations as set-up men. Producing in pressure situations is as important as raw stats. Obviously Britton was unhittable, but there are reasons that the others weren't closing.

And no, saves are not a valuable stat for all the reasons I've said. And I haven't even mentioned that not all saves are created equal. If you come in to the ballgame, up 3 runs, facing the 789 hitters, give up 2 runs, but finish the game, you get a save. If you come in to the ballgame, up 1, bases loaded, 0 outs, strikeout 3 straight batters, you get a save.

And you proved in an earlier post how overrated it is. You said that Sutter had a longer stretch of "strong play" because he had 10 or more saves in more seasons. So the evidence you used was simply the amount of saves he compiled. There were seasons in that stretch ('78, '83, '85, and '88) where he flat out sucked. He blew 1/3 of the save opportunities he had. But according to you, that was "strong play".

 

[shopson67]

And no, saves are not a valuable stat for all the reasons I've said. And I haven't even mentioned that not all saves are created equal. If you come in to the ballgame, up 3 runs, facing the 789 hitters, give up 2 runs, but finish the game, you get a save. If you come in to the ballgame, up 1, bases loaded, 0 outs, strikeout 3 straight batters, you get a save.

And you proved in an earlier post how overrated it is. You said that Sutter had a longer stretch of "strong play" because he had 10 or more saves in more seasons. So the evidence you used was simply the amount of saves he compiled. There were seasons in that stretch ('78, '83, '85, and '88) where he flat out sucked. He blew 1/3 of the save opportunities he had. But according to you, that was "strong play".

You have a logic failure in assuming that your opinion is fact. We differ in opinion, easy as that. All saves are not created equal, but you can say that about virtually any stat in the game.

 

[soxfan1468927]

You have a logic failure in assuming that your opinion is fact. We differ in opinion, easy as that. All saves are not created equal, but you can say that about virtually any stat in the game.

I don't assume my opinions are facts. I use facts to back up my opinion. In my opinion, saves are not a valuable stat, I provided facts to back that up. In my opinion, saves are the most overrated stat in baseball. You helped prove that by stating that Sutter had a longer stretch of "strong play" by pointing out one stat, saves. You ignored every other stat that points to Sutter having a stretch of very poor play in there, and went right to saves. That's why it's overrated. People look at that one stat and assume someone had a strong season.

You absolutely can, but stats that are based on arbitrary measuring points are less valuable to the overall view of a player. Saves and holds are the worst of these because the arbitrary point is severely flawed because it can be achieved without doing anything worthwhile.

 

[soxfan1468927]

You have a logic failure in assuming that your opinion is fact. We differ in opinion, easy as that. All saves are not created equal, but you can say that about virtually any stat in the game.

And of course we differ in opinion. But you were the one who said my credibility was removed because I didn't value saves. So according to you, because I don't agree with your opinion, I lose credibility. And you want to try to tell me that I have a logic failure because I assume my opinion is fact? Look in the mirror pal.

 

[soxfan1468927]

Saves are a valuable stat, not the ONLY stat. Everything is taken into account. Your OPINION is that those players were the best relievers in baseball, but they also weren't put into the high stress relieving situations as set-up men. Producing in pressure situations is as important as raw stats. Obviously Britton was unhittable, but there are reasons that the others weren't closing.

And yes, I'm of the crazy opinion that Betances (3 straight All-Star Games, Cy Young votes), Miller (top 10 in Cy Young voting two years in a row, All Star), and Davis (top 8 in Cy Young voting two years in a row, two straight All Star games) were all top relievers despite not being primary closers.

 

[cdumler7]

I was a kid in Sayers prime but I do remember him being OJ like, before OJ...a very smooth, but quick and fast RB. Like you said as a WR he was dynamic...kind of ahead of his time in that regard.

TD...yes. DEN had knocked at the door a couple of times only to be blown away when they got to the big dance. Davis changed the way they played the game. Not only in the playoffs, but in the reg season. Adding his dimension made them much harder to defend when they got to the playoffs. Teams couldn't just play bump n run coverage on the WRs and tee off on Elway...clearly he was the difference in those two rings.

I just think these writers/voters do the HOF an injustice when they put in guys like Davis and Warner who really didn't have "HOF lock" careers over a player like Terrell Owens, who does.

It makes for good conversation if you will, but imo it just looks petty.

I will agree with TO deserving to be in but I don't think it is some kind of injustice to put Davis and Warner in at this point. TD has been waiting for years. Sometimes I do think that factors in of voters thinking that a certain player will eventually get in anyway so get this other deserving player in first.

And at least for me I would rather see a player with a shortened career but actually be recognized as the best in the game at their position than some player that had 15 years of above average production. I mean at least for me I would take Sayers and TD over Bettis every day of the week. Bettis was barely ever recognized as a top-5 back during his days playing. Longevity is really his biggest strength of his resume and to me that is not HOF worthy.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

I will agree with TO deserving to be in but I don't think it is some kind of injustice to put Davis and Warner in at this point. TD has been waiting for years. Sometimes I do think that factors in of voters thinking that a certain player will eventually get in anyway so get this other deserving player in first.

And at least for me I would rather see a player with a shortened career but actually be recognized as the best in the game at their position than some player that had 15 years of above average production. I mean at least for me I would take Sayers and TD over Bettis every day of the week. Bettis was barely ever recognized as a top-5 back during his days playing. Longevity is really his biggest strength of his resume and to me that is not HOF worthy.

Two issues.

I'm okay with TD and Warner going in. Injustice might not be the right word, but when you leave out a guy that clearly was one of the best to ever suit up in TO...it makes the HOF voters look petty.

On your point of Bettis...I think RB is a position where production, durability, and longevity should count a lot more than any other position. I've grown to be more appreciative of Emmitt Smith largely for that reason. Being a UGA guy I'm a TD fan, but if DEN only wins 1 SB vs 2...he's probably not in...getting that 2nd ring was huge in that regard because his career was so short.

 

[cdumler7]

Two issues.

I'm okay with TD and Warner going in. Injustice might not be the right word, but when you leave out a guy that clearly was one of the best to ever suit up in TO...it makes the HOF voters look petty.

On your point of Bettis...I think RB is a position where production, durability, and longevity should count a lot more than any other position. I've grown to be more appreciative of Emmitt Smith largely for that reason. Being a UGA guy I'm a TD fan, but if DEN only wins 1 SB vs 2...he's probably not in...getting that 2nd ring was huge in that regard because his career was so short.

Production I will agree with being something that should count a lot. Durability and Longevity are 2 things that are just too hard to factor in for me. At least with production we can compare a player to those around them. For TD he was recognized easily as the best RB in the NFL when he was at his best. And that includes guys like Barry Sanders in his prime, Emmitt Smith, Curtis Martin, Jerome Bettis, Priest Holmes, and Marshall Faulk. So he was the best among quite a few RB's that are even now in the HOF.

To me at least I don't think you should be in the HOF unless at one point in your career you were at least recognized as one of the top-3 at your position and the other 2 better be HOF or very close to HOF level.

Now yes TD's career was short which is why he was borderline HOF worthy. Still when you have a 4-year run that matches up with the top-3 RB's of all time it should be easy to see just the kind of player he was during his career. If we are talking RB's at their prime and having a draft Davis in his prime is easily a top-10 RB in NFL history.

 

[Montalban]

Terrell Davis becomes fifth Bronco elected into Pro Football Hall of Fame

RUSHING
Year Team G Att Att/G Yds Avg Yds/G TD Lng 1st 1st% 20+ 40+ FUM
2002 Denver Broncos 0 -- 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2001 Denver Broncos 8 167 20.9 701 4.2 87.6 0 57 39 23.4 4 1 2
2000 Denver Broncos 5 78 15.6 282 3.6 56.4 2 24 14 17.9 1 0 1
1999 Denver Broncos 4 67 16.8 211 3.1 52.8 2 26 11 16.4 1 0 1
1998 Denver Broncos 16 392 24.5 2,008 5.1 125.5 21 70 100 25.5 15 6 1
1997 Denver Broncos 15 369 24.6 1,750 4.7 116.7 15 50T 99 26.8 5 1 4
1996 Denver Broncos 16 345 21.6 1,538 4.5 96.1 13 71T 92 26.7 6 2 5
1995 Denver Broncos 14 237 16.9 1,117 4.7 79.8 7 60T 58 24.5 7 1 4
TOTAL 78 1,655 21.2 7,607 4.6 97.5 60 71 413 25.0 39 11 18

Davis isnt even in the top 30 in yards, the mark of consistency is essential to not water down the RB HOF selection. Davis benefited from blocking and a fucking amazing QB. Crazy the guy played i think 4 complete seasons. Every now and then one slips by.

Not good enough.

Agreed. It doesn't take much no to be called a "superstar". I heard that label put on Victor Cruz and I laughed out loud.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Production I will agree with being something that should count a lot. Durability and Longevity are 2 things that are just too hard to factor in for me. At least with production we can compare a player to those around them. For TD he was recognized easily as the best RB in the NFL when he was at his best. And that includes guys like Barry Sanders in his prime, Emmitt Smith, Curtis Martin, Jerome Bettis, Priest Holmes, and Marshall Faulk. So he was the best among quite a few RB's that are even now in the HOF.

To me at least I don't think you should be in the HOF unless at one point in your career you were at least recognized as one of the top-3 at your position and the other 2 better be HOF or very close to HOF level.

Now yes TD's career was short which is why he was borderline HOF worthy. Still when you have a 4-year run that matches up with the top-3 RB's of all time it should be easy to see just the kind of player he was during his career. If we are talking RB's at their prime and having a draft Davis in his prime is easily a top-10 RB in NFL history.

Good post...like I said, I'm all in on TD, he belongs... my only issue there is TO belongs even more so.

Durability, longevity...I factor that a lot more in a position where the average shelf life is maybe 4-6 yrs for a good RB...guys like Emmitt and Bettis toiling for as long as they did, and not just being a piece, they were the main piece for most of their time in the league is worthy.

 

[Sharkonabicycle]

Terrell Davis is in, Shaun Alexander should be auto in. Oh wait, that's completely stupid, because neither RB lasted long because injuries. Sure Davis won a SBOWL... SBOWL means jack shit, it's a team effort.

Davis is one of the biggest fraud HOF inductees of all time.

The fact that douche nozzle and fagboy Jones got in over Terrell Owens is why the HOF is now a joke.

 

[Xponentialchaos]

Terrell Davis absolutely deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.


...


...




Right along with Olandis Gary and Mike Anderson.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Terrell Davis is in, Shaun Alexander should be auto in. Oh wait, that's completely stupid, because neither RB lasted long because injuries. Sure Davis won a SBOWL... SBOWL means jack shit, it's a team effort.

Davis is one of the biggest fraud HOF inductees of all time.

The fact that douche nozzle and fagboy Jones got in over Terrell Owens is why the HOF is now a joke.

Agree 100% with this in bold.

Disagree mostly on your Davis comments...SBowl means jackshit? You gotta take about half a dz guys out then, starting with Namath.

Where I do agree...his career was too short to be in the HOF...but when there is precedent (Sayers) it just opens the door for more borderline players to get in.

Jerry Jones in, Terrell Owens not...is just silly...I wouldn't spend a dime to walk in there.