Originally Posted by robswinga
To those who use the "top 3-5" at their position argument, how exactly would that be determined? Do they have to be tops at their position for a certain amount of years? If thats the case, then Terrell Davis deserves mention. I guess its some special combination of being among the best at your position, along with a certain amount of longevity in your carerer.
I do agree with those who say that the HOF is becoming watered down.
I may sound like a Broncos homer here, but IMO, TD deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. He was an absolute beast at RB for 4 years, winning a MVP, Super Bowl MVP and All Pro honors.
I think a bigger question mark may be Priest Holmes, because when he was healthy, he was a fricken beast that dominated.
Originally Posted by BlindSite
He was the leading Rusher in 04 and had solid seasons year in and year out.
IMO he's not a Steve Smith type game changer, but not every player is supposed to be.
Any running back who is able to go year in and year out and give an offense 1000+ yards is what you'd call very good.
But to do so for 11 years is pretty damn good, especially when he averaged 8+ TDs per year.
I think he deserves to be in the HOF for the reason that he's a blue collar player who while didn't change the game contributed more to his signature franchise than other guys in the hall.
1,000 yards now a days is overrated. I mean, look at some of the guys who have accumulated 10,000 career rushing yards. Warrick Dunn, Eddie George, Fred Taylor, all decent guys, but come on, they aren't anything special.
Martin had great durability and longevity, but I just don't think he was "greatness".