Jump to content

I was Triggered this morning. Was I wrong?


Recommended Posts

Listening to local DC sport radio, the "Sports Junkies".

They were discussing the NFL HOF and Andrew Luck and why he should (or shouldn't) be in the Hall.

Only one was really super for it, but in his arguments he said something that got under my skin, which I'll try to relate here:

Paraphrasing here:  "Andrew Luck was a top 2 QB every year he played, he shouldn't be out just because his career was short.  I would reward the great, not the compilers or the very good, guys like Curtis Martin, that were never really that great, or impactful, but just played a long time".

I know Martin gets the compiler label here (RIP @Savage69), but this comment, esp. about Luck (who was never a top 2 QB in his career, being lesser than Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Rothlisberger and maybe more) and who quit on his team because he was frankly a soft injury-prone player galls me.  

It especially galls me coming from a DC_based radio guy/Redskins fan, who was all in on Art Monk getting into the Hall, and hero worships a guy like John Riggins, both of whom I'd argue were not as as good as Curtis Martin.  But especially Monk, who after his career was held out of the hall for much the same reasons, that his career was diminished as time went on and the NFL changed (in Monks case WR's started putting up crazy numbers as the pass took over, in Martin's case that the RB position has been so devalued and handled by committee, some folks forget how important a true #1 bellcow guy was back then).

So yeah, triggered.

What say you?  Am I wrong, was Curtis "just ok" and was Luck "A clear HOF'er" just held back by his short career?

Looking forward to seeing the takes on this one (a good offseason topic IMO, lol).

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Listening to local DC sport radio, the "Sports Junkies".

They were discussing the NFL HOF and Andrew Luck and why he should (or shouldn't) be in the Hall.

Only one was really super for it, but in his arguments he said something that got under my skin, which I'll try to relate here:

Paraphrasing here:  "Andrew Luck was a top 2 QB every year he played, he shouldn't be out just because his career was short.  I would reward the great, not the compilers or the very good, guys like Curtis Martin, that were never really that great, or impactful, but just played a long time".

I know Martin gets the compiler label here (RIP @Savage69), but this comment, esp. about Luck (who was never a top 2 QB in his career, being lesser than Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Rothlisberger and maybe more) and who quit on his team because he was frankly a soft injury-prone player galls me.  

It especially galls me coming from a DC_based radio guy/Redskins fan, who was all in on Art Monk getting into the Hall, and hero worships a guy like John Riggins, both of whom I'd argue were not as as good as Curtis Martin.  But especially Monk, who after his career was held out of the hall for much the same reasons, that his career was diminished as time went on and the NFL changed (in Monks case WR's started putting up crazy numbers as the pass took over, in Martin's case that the RB position has been so devalued and handled by committee, some folks forget how important a true #1 bellcow guy was back then).

So yeah, triggered.

What say you?  Am I wrong, was Curtis "just ok" and was Luck "A clear HOF'er" just held back by his short career?

Looking forward to seeing the takes on this one (a good offseason topic IMO, lol).

HOF for what ??? Being known as a generational prospect pre-draft ???

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Listening to local DC sport radio, the "Sports Junkies".

They were discussing the NFL HOF and Andrew Luck and why he should (or shouldn't) be in the Hall.

Only one was really super for it, but in his arguments he said something that got under my skin, which I'll try to relate here:

Paraphrasing here:  "Andrew Luck was a top 2 QB every year he played, he shouldn't be out just because his career was short.  I would reward the great, not the compilers or the very good, guys like Curtis Martin, that were never really that great, or impactful, but just played a long time".

I know Martin gets the compiler label here (RIP @Savage69), but this comment, esp. about Luck (who was never a top 2 QB in his career, being lesser than Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Rothlisberger and maybe more) and who quit on his team because he was frankly a soft injury-prone player galls me.  

It especially galls me coming from a DC_based radio guy/Redskins fan, who was all in on Art Monk getting into the Hall, and hero worships a guy like John Riggins, both of whom I'd argue were not as as good as Curtis Martin.  But especially Monk, who after his career was held out of the hall for much the same reasons, that his career was diminished as time went on and the NFL changed (in Monks case WR's started putting up crazy numbers as the pass took over, in Martin's case that the RB position has been so devalued and handled by committee, some folks forget how important a true #1 bellcow guy was back then).

So yeah, triggered.

What say you?  Am I wrong, was Curtis "just ok" and was Luck "A clear HOF'er" just held back by his short career?

Looking forward to seeing the takes on this one (a good offseason topic IMO, lol).

george-costanza-was-that-wrong.gif

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not wrong. As long as members are voted into the HOF by other humans rather than by AI based only on metrics, these are all valid discussions that I'm sure the voters also consider. I think it's very reasonable to assume that some portion of the voters will ding Luck for being "a quitter" and not vote him in on that basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Art Monk and Martin 1 all pro season each.  Longevity and consistently very good with at least one season where they are in the argument for best at their position.  In the NFL HOF which rewards longevity they belong.   Luck isn't in the conversation.  All pro zero times.  Amazingly good QB's during his era who were better and had more longevity.

 Luck's best season, 2014 when he lead the league in TD's you could make an argument that Brees, Rothlisberger, Rodgers, Manning, Brady and possibly Tono Romeo had as good or better seasons than Luck.   He didn't get to the big game or win the big game.  Great QB but not a HOF QB.  To many really good ones who had better seasons, won a SB and had longevity.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Listening to local DC sport radio, the "Sports Junkies".

They were discussing the NFL HOF and Andrew Luck and why he should (or shouldn't) be in the Hall.

Only one was really super for it, but in his arguments he said something that got under my skin, which I'll try to relate here:

Paraphrasing here:  "Andrew Luck was a top 2 QB every year he played, he shouldn't be out just because his career was short.  I would reward the great, not the compilers or the very good, guys like Curtis Martin, that were never really that great, or impactful, but just played a long time".

I know Martin gets the compiler label here (RIP @Savage69), but this comment, esp. about Luck (who was never a top 2 QB in his career, being lesser than Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Rothlisberger and maybe more) and who quit on his team because he was frankly a soft injury-prone player galls me.  

It especially galls me coming from a DC_based radio guy/Redskins fan, who was all in on Art Monk getting into the Hall, and hero worships a guy like John Riggins, both of whom I'd argue were not as as good as Curtis Martin.  But especially Monk, who after his career was held out of the hall for much the same reasons, that his career was diminished as time went on and the NFL changed (in Monks case WR's started putting up crazy numbers as the pass took over, in Martin's case that the RB position has been so devalued and handled by committee, some folks forget how important a true #1 bellcow guy was back then).

So yeah, triggered.

What say you?  Am I wrong, was Curtis "just ok" and was Luck "A clear HOF'er" just held back by his short career?

Looking forward to seeing the takes on this one (a good offseason topic IMO, lol).

You make good points but Riggins was 10X the player Martin or Frank Gore ever were. They were blessed with good health and longevity. Neither was a game changer and Martin stunk in big games. Riggins was a beast.

  • Upvote 2
  • WTF? 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, chirorob said:

Several Thoughts.

Monk should have been in the HOF.  When he retired, he was #1 all time in receptions.   To me, that gets you in.

Luck was never a HOF QB.  He led the league in touchdown passes once, was all pro twice, was 4-4 in the playoffs, with more ints thrown than touchdown passes.

Part of being in the HOF is having a longer term, productive career.  Curtis was a "compiler", but think for a second how hard it is to have 10 straight seasons with 1000 yards rushing.   How many people have done that?  He also had almost 500 career receptions, and 90 touchdowns.  Was he Barry Sanders?  No, but he was a HOF player.

To get in the HOF with a short career, it has to be AMAZING.   I barely put Terrell Davis in (but I'm glad he is in).   Earl Campbell played a bit longer, but was really only ELITE for 3 amazing year.   Luck never had any legendary type seasons like those 2 did.   He never won an MVP, never carried his team to a Super Bowl like Elway did (yes, he lost, but those teams were not SB caliber teams).

My 2 cents

I don't believe Luck was all pro ever.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Kleckineau said:

You make good points but Riggins was 10X the player Martin or Frank Gore ever were. They were blessed with good health and longevity. Neither was a game changer and Martin stunk in big games. Riggins was a beast.

Riggins has 14 more TD's than Martin on 602 less carries in his career.  Riggins was a great finisher.  He was an absolute beast in the playoffs.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Listening to local DC sport radio, the "Sports Junkies".

They were discussing the NFL HOF and Andrew Luck and why he should (or shouldn't) be in the Hall.

Only one was really super for it, but in his arguments he said something that got under my skin, which I'll try to relate here:

Paraphrasing here:  "Andrew Luck was a top 2 QB every year he played, he shouldn't be out just because his career was short.  I would reward the great, not the compilers or the very good, guys like Curtis Martin, that were never really that great, or impactful, but just played a long time".

I know Martin gets the compiler label here (RIP @Savage69), but this comment, esp. about Luck (who was never a top 2 QB in his career, being lesser than Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Rothlisberger and maybe more) and who quit on his team because he was frankly a soft injury-prone player galls me.  

It especially galls me coming from a DC_based radio guy/Redskins fan, who was all in on Art Monk getting into the Hall, and hero worships a guy like John Riggins, both of whom I'd argue were not as as good as Curtis Martin.  But especially Monk, who after his career was held out of the hall for much the same reasons, that his career was diminished as time went on and the NFL changed (in Monks case WR's started putting up crazy numbers as the pass took over, in Martin's case that the RB position has been so devalued and handled by committee, some folks forget how important a true #1 bellcow guy was back then).

So yeah, triggered.

What say you?  Am I wrong, was Curtis "just ok" and was Luck "A clear HOF'er" just held back by his short career?

Looking forward to seeing the takes on this one (a good offseason topic IMO, lol).

I dont disagree that Luck was meh and Martin had a Hall of Fame career.

But hearing otherwise wouldnt trigger me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally don’t believe Luck belongs in the Hall of Fame, nor do I believe Curtis Martin should be. Now, in today’s Hall of Fame world yes, Martin did and should have gotten in. But if it were up to me, all Hall of Fame’s would be for complete immortals. Something Luck and Curtis weren’t. Luck was on his way but his short career fogs it for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Jet_Engine1 said:

Replace with "annoyed", "perplexed", or "amused" and it's a solid statement.

 

"Triggered" has ridiculous connotations. 

In fairness, I only used that specific word......wait for it......to trigger people, lol. :lol:

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Jethead said:

Andrew Luck should not even sniff the Hall of Fame. Curtis belongs as much as Emmit Smith does.

Pure click bait.

Curtis Martin was very good.  He wasn't close to as good as Emmit Smith.  Sorry Smith was simply great in several big playoff games and was an all pro 4 consecutive years.   Smith was a compiler.  He also was great for several years of a very long career and a huge big game player.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gore was a compiler.
 

Martin was great at everything, pass protection, receiving, beating the safeties, having a nose for the end zone, not taking huge hits. He was a great complete back.  Every time he stepped on the field as a Jet he was their best player.  
 

Every time the opponent was asked about the jets they mentioned Martin first. He had a lot of long runs but not the Barry sanders type runs but he also didn’t get stuffed like sanders did.  He had a perfect rating as a passer, 2/2 2 TDs. 
 

The compiler opinion goes against every player, coach, scout , pro bowl voter and HOF voter. You’re basically saying that you know better because you watch the game on TV.  Ouch lol. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, greenwichjetfan said:

While he was certainly on a HoF path while he was playing, his completed career is not HoF worthy.

CuMar was definitely a compiler more than an elite RB, but he is 100% HoF worthy. 

What makes one a "compiler" vs. being "elite"?

Martin in his career was:

1995:  2nd in carries, 3rd in rushing yards, 3rd in TD's.
1996:  7th in carries, 9th in rushing yards, 2nd in TD's
1997:  11th in carries, 8th in rushing yards, 28th in TD"s (bad TD year)
1998:  3rd in carries, 8th in rushing yards, 8th in TD's
1999:  2nd in carries, 2nd in rushing yards, 21st in TD's (again, bad TD year).
2000:  6th in carries, 12th in rushing yards, 10th in TD's
2001:  4th in carries, 2nd in rushing yards, 4th in TD's
2002:  16th in carries, 15th in rushing yards, 22nd in TD's (his worst season)
2003:  8th in carries, 12 in rushing yards, 51st in TD's (ugh on TD's)
2004:  1st in carries, 1st in rushing yards, 8th in TD's
2005:  21st in carries, 26th in rushing yards, 27th in TD"s (his final year)

This is a guy who was a top 10 or top 5 RB every year for a decade.

If that isn't elite, what does it take to be elite?  Top 1 every year?  Top 3 every single year?  Who actually has done that in the Martin or pre-Martin eras?  Is being a huge reliable unstoppable workhorse for your team not have value?  Is a guy who runs less, usually goes for 1-2 yards, but has 1 huge breakout run better than a guy you can feed 30 times a game, every game, and almost always get 4 yards for you?

IMO a RB who can steadfastly stay near the top 5 in carries every year, and top 5 or top 10 in rushing yards every year, was a rock in pass protection, and a weapon out of the backfield (~300 rec. yards a year every year), for that long, is 100% an elite player.  

Anyone can be a flash int he pan, two years a ton of yards and gone.  That doesn't make them great.  

How do you define elite for a RB?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...