there is no such thing as a "stat compiler" running back. staying effective and durable is a sign of a great running back besides that's why Curtis Martin is, rightfully, in the hall of fame
Yeah it brings up that debate that is durability at a lower than elite level, over a long period of time, Hall of Fame worthy? It's usually a bigger question with baseball (Bert Blyleven, Craig Biggio, etc.) because football disallows you to hang around the game. I think that's a preference thing and it's going to be interesting to see if Gore gets in the HOF. I would imagine he does if not for a long while .
The HOF is a popularity contest and in essence the hall of very good. Greatness is often in the eye of the beholder. Attrition is a real part of the NFL so longevity and durability should be appreciated. Based on the amount of players actually in the Hall of Fame I think there's a place for both Gale Sayers and maybe even Bo Jackson a flash of brilliance and a durable running back like Curtis Martin who was all pro 1 time while being very good and durable for a very long time. Gore will get into the HOF and while he has no all pro's his durability coupled with 4.3 per carry including 4.5 over a 10 year period with SF makes him a mortal lock. I never viewed Martin as great in the sense of any one play. I viewed him as having a great HOF worthy carrier. Gore clearly belongs for the same reason.
Sure there are, that's why almost everyone recognizes that Emmitt Smith was not better than Walter Payton, or Barry Sanders, or Jim Brown. His career stats are better. That's a great thing, but it's not even close to everything.
so is Curtis Martin just a stat compiler? Walter Payton has 16,000 rushing yards and he's not a stat compiler, but Emmitt Smith is? such a confusing, fake criticism
Payton was an all pro 5 times, Smith 4 times and Martin 1 time. Personally I think Payton was far better than both of them based on the eye test.
Lets talk about defensive players and sacks. Can you be a stat compiler on defense? Is Julius Peppers and his 159.5 sacks (4th all time) just stat compiling or is he one of the greatest defensive players ever? surely he's going to the Hall of Fame right?
He was all pro 3 times. He's not going in for just his sacks. He had 11 INT's, 52 forced fumbles and 82 pass defended. He was not a one trick pony who compiled sack stats.
He was also the cornerstone player on a Super Bowl team. John Abraham might be a better argument for this, although he was a 2-time All-Pro. Leslie O'Neal as well although I admittedly don't know much about him but he was never an All-Pro.
For someone that doesn't believe in a "stat compiling" type of player, you sure are addicted to those stats when making your argument. Stats are just a part of the story with an all time great player. An indicator. It doesn't paint the whole picture.
You laugh, but until last year when Bilal Powell passed him, Shonn Green was 10th all time in the Jets career rushing leaders list. My god what a sorry fucking team we root for.
To answer your question, yes. In fact, it was a quite common opinion during Bruce Smith's last five or six years (last few years in Buffalo particularly all his time in Washington) that he should have retired, and was only playing to chase Reggie White's sack total. Reggie retired in 1998 with 192.5 sacks, with Bruce trailing at 164. Each of them had their last ProBowl Selection in 1998, as well. The Bills moved on from Bruce after 1999, and still have an issue of "The Sporting News" from that season declaring, "Smith hasn't lost a step, he's lost a staircase" Reggie unretired in 2000 and picked up 5.5 more with the Panthers, before retiring again. At the end of 2000, White stood at 198 and Smith stood at 181. Smith played three more years, until he was a 40-year-old Defensive End, so he could finish with 2 more sacks than White. He played 4 more years than White. *Note: I am one of the very few who will argue that Bruce Smith was better than Reggie White when they were both at their best. However, at least the last 4 years of Smith's career, maybe more, he was just chasing stats--he was compiling. I think he would be better remembered by fans everywhere if he had retired after 1998 or 1999 when he was just past his peak. His place in the record book was gained at some cost to his legacy.
I don't class Curtis as a compiler because he was extremely consistent. If he had come back after '05 and tried to extend his career on that knee, and hung around for 3 or 4 years picking up scrap yards, he would have been a compiler. The guy had his best year in his last healthy season. If Gore had retired after 2016 or 2017, when his production was still close to his peak numbers, he wouldn't be in that category, but he didn't. Emmitt was still putting up very good numbers for a running back at 35, but he was about 4-5 years from putting up numbers comparable to his peak.
Disagree. I put Brown in the same category as Bill Russell. Great in their time but played against a bunch of slow white guys. I'll take Barry Sanders as the most talented back and Earl as the most powerful.
Sanders could never have been taking seriously in the Dirty Dozen. FYI Baylor and West along with Wilt in his prime would as good as anyone in the NBA today. There are a lot of "slow white guys" who are killing it in the NBA today. West with a 3 point line would have been sick.
