What does Curtis have to do for the HOF?

[Mentos]

I do think a runner needs to be in the top 5 in the league for most of his career to get in the HOF. He wasn't even the best back on the team (debatably) in 04, when he won the rushing title.

That first sentence is open for debate.

The second one is laughable.

[baamf]

Typo... sorry

Also he never "lost" a fumble to the other team EVER. It was alwasy recovered by him or his team.

You're losing me. I already mentioned that he has fumbled 29 times in his career and has lost 16. Of the 29 fumbles, 27 were on rushing plays, 2 were on pass plays. I repeat, of those 29 fumbles, he has "lost" the ball to the other team 16 times....

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/stats?playerId=775

[16G-MONEY]

CuMar's only blemish is that stint he had in New England.

[MSGold12]

Raw talent does not get you into the HOF. Patience, perseverence and toughness does.

I hate comparing backs from different eras because of everything it entails , but come on.

Would Jim Brown be good enoug today?

And you also need talent...dont kid yourself. The differcne between a really good NFL player and a HOFer is all of what you mention...but if you dont have talent, the other things mean nohting. Martin did not have the talent that manmy of the other HOF backs had but his durability and toughness enabled him to put up craeer rushing yards that will put him in the HOF.

As to Jim Brown today...he'd be a 1500 yard rusher no question.

[MSGold12]

He is an all-time great back.

I might agree with this. Scouts thought so, too. McNeil went 3rd overall in the 1981 draft. Martin went 74th overall in 1995.

That said, talent doesn't mean everything. Martin had a stronger will and body than McNeil and was ultimately the better player.

If Boozer didn't suffer a big injury early in his career, he may have had a Hall of Fame career.

Hard to compare Riggins to Martin because Riggins had his best years playing in a one-back set. He was a big, bruising back, which Martin was not.

Martin was better than Snell.

I liked Hector. He was one of my all-time favorites. That said, if he got 300+ carries a year he may have lost his effectiveness. Just look at the Colts and Super Bowl 41. Dominic Rhodes is actually a more effective player when he comes off the bench and shares duties with other backs. That's the way it is sometimes. Some guys are simply better as backups.

Hes an all time great in terms of career rushing yards...but hes not in the top 10 or even 15 all time. His YPC is amongst the lowest of the HOF backs, he was not a break waya threat, and his TD totals are average at best. His career rushing yardage (a product of a TON of carries) is why he'll get in.

I agree about Boozer. Befroe his knee injury in 67 that guy ran like Sayers!

[Gainzo]

CuMar's only blemish is that stint he had in New England.

I hate to disappoint but he performed excellent for the Pats.

I see a lot of posters bitching about his performance in the playoffs but he was the reason the Pats made the Super Bowl in 1996.

Curtis had 5 TD's in the playoffs that year and scored a great TD in the Super Bowl.

[MasonJet]

We all loved the guy...but objectively speaking, he had a lot of yards on a lot of carries and not a ton of TDs. His career yards get him in...but hes not an all time great.

You could not be more wrong. You can bash the guy all you want for not being flashy enough, he's about as consistent as you can get and not to mention shares a record with Barry Sanders. And him not winning the Super Bowl is just a damn shame, but it's irrelevant to whether he makes the HOF or not.

Curtis Martin is a Hall of Famer and a legend. Easily among the best ever to wear the green and white.

[MSGold12]

You could not be more wrong. You can bash the guy all you want for not being flashy enough, he's about as consistent as you can get and not to mention shares a record with Barry Sanders. And him not winning the Super Bowl is just a damn shame, but it's irrelevant to whether he makes the HOF or not.

Curtis Martin is a Hall of Famer and a legend. Easily among the best ever to wear the green and white.

Thats a ridiculous statemnt. I "could not be more wrong"? Based on what? Flashy has nting to do wiht it. The man averaged bearly 4 yards a carry for his career. He was not an impressive TD maker. He didnt have a lot of long runs. What he had was a ton of carries whihc lead to a ton of yards. That is a credit to his durability (which I always give him credit for) but does not make him an all time great RB.

If you thik Curtis Martin was a dominant player or was better than many of the RBs he has more yards then...soryy, you could not be more wrong.

And that "record" he shares with Sanders? Please. Its once again a testament to durability and touches...not great talent. 1000 yards is bearly 60 a game. Go check Sanders numbers compared to martins and tell me how close they were. Martin isnt in Sanders league.

Martin was a very good RB who was incredibly durable and had coaches who fed him the ball whihc lead to a LOT of yards. But that YPC average is the teling stat.

[lancemehl]

I love local radio host,Jeff Deforrest(Defo)'s take on the HOF.

After a guy retires,if you don't know in 5 years whether or not he's good enough,than you shouldn't be voting!

What exactly do these guys do that get them in on the 4th or 5th try?By the time some of them get it ,we forgot what the he!! he did on the field.

Retire,wait five years,then you're either a HOF'er or you're NOT!!!!

I couldn't agree more.

BTW,

For the south florida transplants,Defo's great on 790am in the morning. lol

[lancemehl]

Hes an all time great in terms of career rushing yards...but hes not in the top 10 or even 15 all time.

I don't think i'm reading that right,because you know Martin is 4th ALL-TIME,right?

[mangenious420]

MSGOLD is mad because Curtis Martin wouldn't sign his jersey.

[Sperm Edwards]

I don't think i'm reading that right,because you know Martin is 4th ALL-TIME,right?

I thnk his point is that he's only 4th all-time in rushing yards because he's 3rd all-time in carries.

[MSGold12]

I don't think i'm reading that right,because you know Martin is 4th ALL-TIME,right?

Oh I see...so by your logic Vinny Testaverde is the 5th best QB of all time???

Look I liked Martin but lets be honest. He wasnt very big, he wasnt very fast, he wasnt a breakway threat, he wasnt abig TD guy and he had some very bad games at sme crucial times. What he was was amazingly durable and was given a lot of touches every year whihc lead to a lot of yards...wit a very pedestrain YPC average. He'll go to the HOF but he is not in the same class as guys like Brown, OJ, Sanders, Smith Payton Campbell, Dickerson, Dorsett or Sayers. Not even close

[MSGold12]

I thnk his point is that he's only 4th all-time in rushing yards because he's 3rd all-time in carries.

Exactly.

[EM31]

And Morton Anderson is the greatest offensive force in the history of the game. Or maybe he he was a decent kicker with freakish durability who did what was expected once his heam had got into the postion to make the kicks.

First of all I think the world concedes that Curtis Martin maybe the most durable and consistent running back ever to play the game. I think he is. If durability gets you in the hall then he gets in. Is the hall of fame for durable runners as well as the Jim Browns and Gayle Sayers of the world? Maybe so.

For those in the camp of "He is a first ballot lock to make the hall of fame", I would ask you to look at the list of running backs in the hall of fame and honestly ask yourself which of them you think Curtis is a better runner than. Please list them here. Not which of them Curtis can go punch for punch with (at four whole yards per carry) for a decade, but which if them was the better runner in one game on playoff season or one regular season. If that is the acid test for the hall of fame then I think it is borderline at best if Curtis gets in.

List of modern day hall of fame running backs with a lower yards per carry average that Curtis = ONE, John Riggins. Riggins was a dominant runner who carried the Redskins on his back to a couple of superbowls. Is anyone here claiming Curtis was better then Riggo?

[drago]

Oh I see...so by your logic Vinny Testaverde is the 5th best QB of all time???

Look I liked Martin but lets be honest. He wasnt very big, he wasnt very fast, he wasnt a breakway threat, he wasnt abig TD guy and he had some very bad games at sme crucial times. What he was was amazingly durable and was given a lot of touches every year whihc lead to a lot of yards...wit a very pedestrain YPC average. He'll go to the HOF but he is not in the same class as guys like Brown, OJ, Sanders, Smith Payton Campbell, Dickerson, Dorsett or Sayers. Not even close

i fully intended to stay out of the argument until you brought Smith into it. Unless you meant robert smith.

Curtis is better than Emmit.

[MSGold12]

And Morton Anderson is the greatest offensive force in the history of the game. Or maybe he he was a decent kicker with freakish durability who did what was expected once his heam had got into the postion to make the kicks.

First of all I think the world concedes that Curtis Martin maybe the most durable and consistent running back ever to play the game. I think he is. If durability gets you in the hall then he gets in. Is the hall of fame for durable runners as well as the Jim Browns and Gayle Sayers of the world? Maybe so.

For those in the camp of "He is a first ballot lock to make the hall of fame", I would ask you to look at the list of running backs in the hall of fame and honestly ask yourself which of them you think Curtis is a better runner than. Please list them here. Not which of them Curtis can go punch for punch with (at four whole yards per carry) for a decade, but which if them was the better runner in one game on playoff season or one regular season. If that is the acid test for the hall of fame then I think it is borderline at best if Curtis gets in.

List of modern day hall of fame running backs with a lower yards per carry average that Curtis = ONE, John Riggins. Riggins was a dominant runner who carried the Redskins on his back to a couple of superbowls. Is anyone here claiming Curtis was better then Riggo?

Very well put and exactly tthe point I was trying to make.

Let me also say I do not dislike Martin. I appeciate what he did here. But facts are facts. The guy was given a tremendous amount of carries during his time here and that lead to a lot of yards. That yardage total will most probably put him in tha HOF...but it does not make him one of the top 10 or even 15 backs of all time.

I will ALWAYS give Martin credit for having amazing durability. But if you gave Lamnt Jordan 325 carries a year I can guarantee you he'd have done as well or better the Martin. Now I conceed that Martin was ABLE to carry the ball that many times and Jordan may not have held up. But that is still a testament to durability...not talent or skill.

Martin was not overly fast, didnt break a lot of tackles, wasnt a home run threat nor did he have a high TD total. Wha martin was was a very good player who had amazing durability and was the beneficary of coaches who gave him a ton of touches whihc in turn lead to an impressive yardage total. But the point made above is right on...look at the HOF list and tell me whihc of those backs you'd take Martin over. I can name 15 backs who are NOT in the HOF I'd rather have for a big game over Martin.

But he will make the HOF, I grant that and deservedly so. But lets try and be objective about his place amongst the great backs. I'll put him in the top 20 based on the durability factor but no higher then that.

As to Riggo, lets also remmeber he was a FB who did not have the benefit of a lead blocker for most of his career in a 1 back set i washington and prior to that was on some terrible jet teams.

[MSGold12]

i fully intended to stay out of the argument until you brought Smith into it. Unless you meant robert smith.

Curtis is better than Emmit.

You're kidding right?

Look I wil grant you that Smith hung around too long (whihc inflated his yardage total), has a pedestrian YPC average like Martin and also benefitted from one of the best supporting casts ever for a RB. But Smith had 9 seasons of over 1200 yards, 8 seasosn wiht doubel digit TDs, and had he gotten a mere 50 more yards in his rookie year and 25 more in 2002, he smashes Martin's "consecutive 1000 yard season record".

I agree that Smith is not among the top 5 or maybe even 10 but his career YPC was significantly hurt by his last 3 season where he was clearly hanging on. But he was more explosive then martin, had a better nose for the EZ, had MANY more long runs and had amazing durablity like Martin.

Not sure how in your mind that makes him worse then martin.

[EM31]

Smith was a bit of a stat compiler too. Ask Jimmy Johnson about how PO'ed Emmit would get if they would try to take him out of a game that the Cowboys were already winning by three TD's. Emmit always had his eye on the record books even when what was best for the team (keeping you star reunning back fresh) was at odds with what was best for the player (compiling those career numbers). In other words Emmit was greedly and jealous of his carries. I think all RB's who have that amount of persistence and durability are intensley aware of their places in history. Curtis is no exception to this rule.

Emmit played most of his career in Dallas with a tremendous cast of characters around him. Especially the offensive line. So Emmit had an easier road to Hoe in that regard.

Emmit on the other hand was always a threat to take it to the house or at least to get long runs. Not so much as LT for example, but more than Curtis ever was.

Emmit was better.

[penguini 15]

he doesn't need to anything. he can just retire and he'll be in. he's top 5 in all time rushing yards.

[mangenious420]

Smith was a bit of a stat compiler too. Ask Jimmy Johnson about how PO'ed Emmit would get if they would try to take him out of a game that the Cowboys were already winning by three TD's. Emmit always had his eye on the record books even when what was best for the team (keeping you star reunning back fresh) was at odds with what was best for the player (compiling those career numbers). In other words Emmit was greedly and jealous of his carries. I think all RB's who have that amount of persistence and durability are intensley aware of their places in history. Curtis is no exception to this rule.

.

Also, if I recall Emmit played behind a pretty good line in Dallas right?

[TheSage]

Curtis Martin-1st ballot without question

was he one of the top 10 or 15 all time-no

was he a feature back for his entire career-yes

When he was put on the field one knew several things-he was going to show up , play whether injured or not, play well and get his 1000 yards a season with a respectable ypc and not give up the ball.

he may never have been the premier runner in the league but was always the premier advertisement (cover boy) for what the NFL wants to present as its image.

His consistency is unmatched in the history of the league, he did it without great physical skills but determination and attitude rarely seen in any sport.

[MSGold12]

Curtis Martin-1st ballot without question

was he one of the top 10 or 15 all time-no

was he a feature back for his entire career-yes

When he was put on the field one knew several things-he was going to show up , play whether injured or not, play well and get his 1000 yards a season with a respectable ypc and not give up the ball.

he may never have been the premier runner in the league but was always the premier advertisement (cover boy) for what the NFL wants to present as its image.

His consistency is unmatched in the history of the league, he did it without great physical skills but determination and attitude rarely seen in any sport.

Very well stated.

[drago]

You're kidding right?

Look I wil grant you that Smith hung around too long (whihc inflated his yardage total), has a pedestrian YPC average like Martin and also benefitted from one of the best supporting casts ever for a RB. But Smith had 9 seasons of over 1200 yards, 8 seasosn wiht doubel digit TDs, and had he gotten a mere 50 more yards in his rookie year and 25 more in 2002, he smashes Martin's "consecutive 1000 yard season record".

I agree that Smith is not among the top 5 or maybe even 10 but his career YPC was significantly hurt by his last 3 season where he was clearly hanging on. But he was more explosive then martin, had a better nose for the EZ, had MANY more long runs and had amazing durablity like Martin.

Not sure how in your mind that makes him worse then martin.

Trade Martin's career for Smith's. Martin puts up the same TD's cause those Dallas teams were an absolute force, Defenses were worried about Irvin, NOvicheck... Personally i think martin would have fit that squad a lot better, since he's faster, he'd have had more breakaways (not to the endzone, he's not that fast, as you know). They are very comparable, i would take Martin over Smith.

And i don't htink that is me being bias.

Compare him to Sanders, Sayers, Payton, or Brown? There is no way you take C-mart...as much as i like the man.

[mangenious420]

Very well stated.

Your read his first line? Martin first ballot HOF...

[MSGold12]

Also, if I recall Emmit played behind a pretty good line in Dallas right?

Emmitt and Curtis are very similar career wise. Not the greatest physical skills but great durability.

And while Emmitt did have the better supporting cast, he was also quicker and more expoosive then Martin and had a better nose for the EZ.

I agree Emitt was a it of a compiler (much like Martin was) but he was better then Martin.

BUT, I would also put Emmitt behind the lilkes of Brown, OJ, Sanders, Payton, Dickerson, Campbell and Sayers.

[baamf]

Also, if I recall Emmit played behind a pretty good line in Dallas right?

Oh how the mighty have fallen....

[drago]

Emmitt and Curtis are very similar career wise. Not the greatest physical skills but great durability.

And while Emmitt did have the better supporting cast, he was also quicker and more expoosive then Martin and had a better nose for the EZ.

I agree Emitt was a it of a compiler (much like Martin was) but he was better then Martin.

BUT, I would also put Emmitt behind the lilkes of Brown, OJ, Sanders, Payton, Dickerson, Campbell and Sayers.

I'm honestly asking here. Do you really think Emitt was faster than C-Mart?

I don't think C-mart was that fast, but Emitt wasn't fast at all, he was 3 yards and a clowd of dust between the 40's. I think Emmitt broke more tackles, and that i will give him the edge in, but shear speed?

[EM31]

How do the people on this thread feel about Thurman Thomas? Personally I thought the guy always killed us and I thought he was a HOF'er although not in the "elite of the elite" group. In other words I could understand why people might not want to see him in the hall if they are already worried about talent dilution.

In an earlier discussion I stated that if Martin gets in then Thurman should also get in because in my mind they were very comparable in terms of their careers. Martin did it for longer but not by much. Thurman was the better all around running back IMO, but again, not by much.

As much as it galls me to say it, Tiki also needs to come into the discussion because his career totals are (barely) good enough but his 4.6-4.7 YPC average is downright gaudy and ranks him up there with the elite backs of all time. Ultimately not enough year and/or not enough years as the feature back but if he would have continue for one or two more years, the all around numbers would be compelling.

[lancemehl]

Oh I see...so by your logic Vinny Testaverde is the 5th best QB of all time???

I love when people look at a post and then make up what it said.My only "logic" was correcting this statement:

"Hes an all time great in terms of career rushing yards...but hes not in the top 10 or even 15 all time."

and reminding the speaking that he was,in fact, #4 all-time.Since then there have been some explnation of what you meant,a direct response to my preface,"i think i must be reading this wrong"

[Mentos]

And there were several backs who did not have his longevity but were MUCH more dominant the martin ever was like Bo jackson, Chuck Foreman, and Terrell Davis for example.

Jackson- all he did was run. Run well he did. But that's all he did. Did not catch passes. Did not block. Never played a full season.

Foreman- 3.8. You kill Martin for having a 4.0 average and then proceed to mention Foreman?

I understand Foreman averaged 106 yards from scrimmage per game for his first six seasons and I know he scored 22 touchdowns in 1975, but I don't know if I'd put him above Martin even if we were trying to determine who was the better player at their respective peaks.

You also knock Martin for his performances in big games.

Look at Foreman's playoff stats-

1973 vs WAS: 11 carries, 40 yards (3 catches for 23 yards)

1973 at DAL: 19-76 (4-28)

1973 vs MIA: 7-18 (5-27)

1974 vs STL: 23-114 (5-54)

1974 vs LA: 22-80 (0-0)

1974 vs PIT: 12-22 (5-50)

1975 vs DAL: 18-56 (4-42)

1976 vs WAS: 20-105 (0-0)

1976 vs LA: 15-118 (5-81)

1976 vs OAK: 17-44 (5-62)

1977 at LA: 31-101 (1-6)

1977 at DAL: 21-59 (5-36)

1978 at LA: 13-31 (3-38)

Basically, when Foreman did not have a good game in the postseason, the Vikings lost. When he had a good game, they won.

The question follows.

Was Foreman good because the team played well or did the team win because Foreman was good that day?

Other stuff-

Martin led the AFC in rushing touchdowns in 1995 and 1996.

He has 100 career touchdowns. He did score touchdowns.

Edgerrin James and Thurman Thomas were mentioned in this thread as being better than Martin. Those guys were not breakaway threats, either. You are overrating the value of that whole thing, anyway.

[Mentos]

Just did a skim of the early pages of this thread. I didn't see James listed. Maybe I confused this thread with a different one. Whatever.

Anyway, Martin performed better in the postseason than Foreman did.

[Arsis]

all he has to do is retire. He will make it. maybe not first ballot, but he will make it.