SITE NEWS: We are moving all of our site and company news into a single blog for Sports-Reference.com. We'll tag all PFR content, so you can quickly and easily find the content you want.
Also, our existing PFR blog rss feed will be redirected to the new site's feed.
Pro-Football-Reference.com ยป Sports Reference
For more from Chase and Jason, check out their work at Football Perspective and The Big Lead.
ShareThisHOF 2010: Roger Craig
Previous HOF 2010 Bios: John Randle
Roger Craig had the sort of career most running backs could only dream of enjoying. When Craig was drafted by the 49ers, they already had Joe Montana and head coach Bill Walsh, and would soon add Jerry Rice to the mix. Craig played most of his career in one of the most innovative offenses of all-time, one that emphasized the pass catching running back, and teamed with two of the greatest offensive stars in NFL history. He also played behind some of the best offensive lines in the NFL. After seven seasons in the NFL, Craig had:
- Seven seasons of 1,000 yards from scrimmage
- Four Pro Bowl appearances
- Three Super Bowl rings
- Two historically great individual seasons; 1985, he led the league in receptions and became the first player in NFL history to rush for 1,000 yards and catch 1,000 yards in the same season. Three years later, he led the league in yards from scrimmage, and was named Offensive Player of the Year by the Associated Press and the Newspaper Enterprise Association named him the most valuable player in football.
- One historically great team season to remember, as his '84 49ers became the first team to win 18 games in a season.
Craig was a versatile player who alternated between fullback and running back and could do it all on the field; he was the original ultraback. Craig also had a knack for playing at his best when the games mattered the most. In the '80s, he played in 14 playoff games and rushed for 771 yards while averaging 4.2 yards per carry, caught 57 passes for 536 yards, and scored 9 touchdowns. In three Super Bowl victories he totaled 410 yards and scored four touchdowns.
Craig was a very good player, and arguably a top-four running back for the decade of the 1980s. On the other hand, Craig wasn't the difference maker for any of his teams. Even Craig would acknowledge that he was, at best, the third best player on San Francisco's offense. During his prime (1983 to 1990), he handled 50% of the running back carries for San Francisco, but gained only 49% of the rushing yards gained by 49ers backs. Wendell Tyler looked just as good in San Francisco during his peak as Craig did for an admittedly longer stretch; those 49ers teams were strong at every position, including the head coach.
Craig ranked in the top five in rushing yards just once, when he finished third in 1988; he only was among the top ten rushing leaders in two other seasons. He finished in the top six in yards from scrimmage in four seasons, but only ranked in the top five in total touchdowns once (finishing second in 1985). He never rushed for 10 TDs in a season, and his second best rushing total was 1054 in 1989. In my RB-ranking formula, Craig finished as the 3rd best regular season running back in '85 and '88, the 11th best in '86 and '87, and the 12th best back in '89. None of his other seasons stood out. With a lack of dominant seasons, Craig would have needed a bunch of solid seasons to have a good HOF campaign; unfortunately Craig had only eight seasons of 500+ rushing yards and only three 1,000+ yard seasons. I've got him as my 36th most deserving HOF RB; ahead of Floyd Little, but far behind Emmitt Smith and Terrell Davis.
Chances he'll make the HOF in 2010? Poor.
Chances he'll ever make the HOF? Below average.
Should he be a HOFer? Craig falls a few years and a a lot of yards short of having a good HOF case.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 1st, 2009 at 8:02 am and is filed under HOF, Player articles. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Football is not a game of numbers the same way that baseball is. It's more about the intangibles and also passing the eye exam. I know a HOF'r when I see one, and Craig was one (just like T. Davis..dont' care if he only played 6 yrs, he was DOMINANT).
Craigs case isn't built on numbers; but what he brought to the table for the 49ers. The 49ers leading rusher in '81 was Ricky Patton (who?). Then in '82, granted a strike year, Montana got his brains beat in by a lack of running game. So Walsh did what he always did and made a change. Drafted Craig and traded for Tyler. Suddenly a running game and the 49er offense became diverse and it remained that way until 1990. Of course we all know what happened in 1990: 49ers trying to 3peat but Craig gets hurt in Wk 5 @ Houston and he's never the same. The 49er offense is 1 dimensional and Giants play nickel in the NFC Champ game and hold them to 13 points. I've always felt that if Craig were Craig then they would have won their 3rd straight. He was more important than we all realize. While Walsh was going out of his mind deciding on Montana or Young in 1988, Roger Craig was running the 49ers into the playoffs. Finally Walsh makes the right decision about Montana and the rest is history.
A few things regarding numbers about Craig; he played 1/2 his career as a FB in a passing offense. Also let's not forget at one point he played in as many consecutive games as Jim Brown and he also caught more passes than Walter Payton (which was a record at the time). And we do have to ask this one question; would the 49ers have won those 3 Super Bowls without Roger Craig? We know they wouldn't have won in '88, and you know what happened in '90.
Bottom line the Cowboys have their tripletts in HOF; which to me is fine.
Jerry Rice goes in this yr, Roger Craig at some point should be the 3rd member of that great offense to go in.
I will admit Charles Haley deserves to go in prior to Craig.
Hall of Solid.
agreed. Hall of solid, joining such greats as Brad Hopkins, Vern Den Herder, and Jesse Armstead.
Hardly a case closer, but if Paul Hornung is the HOF, then Craig seserves in. I was a big Cowboy fan and saw his value as a respectful foe. I understand the #'s case, but as we know with the Packers 3 backfield men in the HOF, and the Cowboys triplets, just being the third best is not a case for not being in.
Pardon my misspellings!
Tim,
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=1640
That's my rant on why Hornung shouldn't be in the HOF. And yes, we still plan to do podcasts soon, I promise.
Additionally, I never buy the argument that just because some guy in the HOF is in that some other guy should be in. Paul Hornung should never be the baseline for induction.
You have to be wary of players whose achievements come at times of change, particularly where they aren't the players who are leading the charge. Craig was playing in an offense that had never been seen before, that teams didn't know how to defend. So to some extent, at least, his numbers are a part of Walsh's coaching rather than Craig's ability. Had he been taken by the Chargers or Eagles, both of whom took RB's, he would I'm sure have been a good player, but not Hall of Fame caliber.
The test for the Hall of Fame should be threefold: how great were you at your peak; how fast were you good; and how long did you stay good. Craig fails on all counts.
Unfortunately, the test for the Hall of Fame seems to be, did you play on a team that won a bunch of rings, and are too many of your teammates already in? (There's no other way to explain Hornung, Swann, Stallworth, Aikman, and Irvin, among others.) Given that, I'm a little surprised that the HOF lemmings haven't taken Craig over the cliff and into Canton.
If Craig makes it, then so should Chuck Foreman. Foreman was really the first ultra back of the modern era and players like Thurman Thomas and Roger Craig were later versions of #44. Without Foreman, the Vikes do not go to three of their Super Bowls. With Foreman they do. The difference, though, is Foreman was a scoring machine whereas the other two weren't. Also, Foreman was someone who you prepared for as a defense. Craig wasn't. Thomas was.
Roger Craig was good, but he didn't strike fear into you like Rice or Montana did. My opinion.
Jeremy: I think "How fast were you good" should be removed from your list.
Steve Young's first big year came at age 31. As long as one is dominant enough for long enough, I don't think that bit of trivia should matter too much.
Mattie,
Yeah, you're absolutely right. I was locked into thinking about running backs, and had overlooked that most positions require a couple of years to develop. It is a big plus, though, if it's there -- Randy Moss comes to mind, or the class of '83 guys who played right away.
And, we could also say "...and, of course, years spent in Tampa Bay don't count"
Per Chase's comments above--I agree objectively that the status of one player (Hornung) should influence the entry of another (Craig). I merely mentioned it as a subjective appraisal for perspective. I also agree that Thurman Thomas and Chuck Foreman (Patrick's comments) make a lot of sense. as far as benefitting from a system (per post # 7), not so sure how much that matters--how do measure that variable or even subjectively assess that? Was Bart Starr and Jim Taylor beneficiaries of the Lombardi system?
Back when they made the cut down to 100, I believe it was, NFLN had a show with two of the HOF voters discussing what constitutes a Hall of Fame career. One of them stated that a key for her is whether you can tell the story of the NFL without mentioning the players name. In Craig's case, I wonder if you could tell the story of the NFL without including him. He may not have the numbers of an Eric Dickerson or Marshall Faulk, but he did have significant impacts in big games. He was the first player ever to score 3 TDs in a SB, for example. Maybe not enough to get him in, but perhaps enough to give him more consideration than some may think.
Craig was a good player on a great team. Not a HOFer, though. He has 3 1000 yards rushing seasons and 2 of those three were between 1000 and 1100 yards. Even combined yards he had 3 1500 yard seasons and the one 2000 yard season. 50th all time in combined yards isn't all that high for a guy that is supposedly the prototypical rushing/receiving back. His career rushing average was 50 yards a game and only one season did he average of 70 yards a game rushing.
Stats have to play a role in the evaluation process. It should not just be about good players on great teams who have won the most SBs. Otherwise you might as well just start inducting teams into the hall of fame and disregard the individual nominations.
Yards per game can be a very misleading stat. Sometimes a back is used sparingly while nursing an injury. And when a player is at the tail end of their career sometimes they simply aren't the starting RB so the yards per game number goes way down.
Roger should be in and that is that! I doubt that he will get in this year though!
Back to my post at # 11, I meant to say NOT as in the status of one player in the HOF should NOT determine the status for another--I was agreeing with Chase in priniciple. Need to read my postings better!
Roger Craig was a great football player and VERY fun to watch. He could run, catch and block. With that said, I don't think he is HOF material. He was never the dominant RB that others were (e.g., Payton, Sanders, Smith, etc.). I would even argue that Terrell Davis is HOF material over Craig because for a span of about 3-4 years, he was a dominant player.
A few things on Craig:
1) Making decisions based on his rushing stats alone is inane. He was the first player to run and receive for over 1000 yards in a season, and the next didn't happen for over a decade. Take the total contribution, not just what was typical for the position.
2) Roger Craig was explicitly someone defenses prepared for. Specifically, the guy's particular style of running made defenses prepare to tackle in a different way: Going for Craig's legs was a dangerous and terrifying proposition, something contemporary defensive players have commented on in the past.
3) Craig was probably the 10th or 11th best player on the 80s 49ers teams. Which was arguably the most successful franchise in all of sports for that time period.
Hall of Famer? Probably not this year, but eventually he should be.
Total contribution works both ways. Lets use yards from scrimmage as a more reasonable proxy for total contribution than rushing yards.
Craig's 1000/1000 year then ranked 10th of all time. Keep in mind, the NFL had only been using 16 game seasons for 7 years at that point, so most of the seasons above him and a bunch of seasons just below him did it in fewer games. It only ranks second for 1985 itself, behind Marcus Allen. Payton and Riggs were both within spitting distance that year too. That 10th is now all the way down to 41st. Now in terms of total contribution, his historic year is simply a very good one. His 1988 season was also quite impressive, somewhere outside the top 10 at the time, but still quite good. None of his other seasons were very impressive.
He was a great 49er. He was fun to watch. He had a couple great seasons. But not a hall of famer.
A great player, but I agree ... falls a little short of HOF precident/standard ... goes onto the heap of players to "maybe" go in during years where there are no clear cut candidates (there are plenty of those in this upcoming year).
craig is not a hall of fame back-t.davis is. lets just be honest. you have to be a horse and craig was not. a better reggie bush. davis was like emmitt,barry,and martin. elite for a streach not a year or two.
Terrell Davis's "stretch" (I assume for simplification's sake we're talking 1000+ yard rushing years) lasted only 4 years and he has nothing beyond that for a HoF case. That's very small compared to Emmitt Smith's 11 such years, Curtis Martin's 10 such years, and Barry Sanders's 10 such years. Regardless of whether Davis is a HoF level back or not, to suggest that Davis's peak is somehow analogous to that of the other three is just plain wrong.
Not all 1000+ yard seasons are equal though. In my mind, Davis' 2000 yard season is FAR more than twice as impressive as a pair of 1000 yard seasons. I wrote something using yards from scrimmage and a power formula instead of simply additive.
1500 yards/scrimmage -> 2 pts (good)
2000 yards/scrimmage -> 10 pts (top 50ish)
2500 yards/scrimmage -> 44 pts (never happened)
I plugged in a few careers and this is how they shook out.
Faulk: 102
Tomlinson: 98
Sanders: 80
Payton: 77
Dickerson: 68
Smith: 53
Thomas: 45
Davis: 39
Allen: 38
Martin: 35
Craig: 28
Dorsett: 26
Campbell: 19
Sayers: 11
The formula is far too simple to work very well but I think it's a reasonable rough approximation -- TD's career is nowhere near comparable to guys like Sanders, but the amazingly high peak he attained could put him on the same level as HOFers like Dorsett, Campbell, and Sayers.
Mattie, interesting exercise.
This all raises a few good questions, such as whether a shorter, higher peak (Terrell Davis) is preferable to a longer duration but lower level one (Curtis Martin). In other words, a variant on the peak value versus longevity argument.
There's also a question of period adjustment. If one removes Sanders, Payton, Dickerson, and Martin from this list of 14 backs and switches #2 Tomlinson and #1 Faulk, a quick eyeballing of the list suggests the players on the list more or less run backwards chronologically. That may or may not be a coincidence and may or may not even be meaningful, but it's interesting to bring up.
If Leroy Kelly, Larry Csonka and Earl Campbell "deserved" their HOF slots, so does Roger Craig.
Craig wasn't comparably "popular" then or now, but he was comparably productive. And despite his smallish size for a FB, Craig was a proficient blocker, backfield or downfield.
In addition to the numbers cited above, there's PFR's own "approximate value." Craig's AV is considerably higher than all 3.
Craig earned much of that value catching passes, but Walsh's then-innovative offense was, if nothing else, a pass-as-run or pass-to-setup-the-run mode of ball control.
Should Craig be penalized for receiving yardage that would've been rushing yardage in another offense?
Take a second look at Wendell Tyler. Sure, Tyler was a dynamic runner. But Tyler also and always lacked the hands Walsh coveted in a multipurpose back. Enter Craig.
3rd, 4th or 5th option? Ask Brent Jones, John Taylor or Jerry Rice about THAT. Craig was *essential* to San Francisco's offense in the same way Marshall Faulk was to Indy or St. Louis. Craig was a *critical* contributor to 3 Super Bowl winning seasons, 3 of Walsh-Seifert's *best* seasons (independent of the precap All-Star team DeBartolo *rented* in 1996 to nudge Steve "Choker" Young over his postseason hump).
As Chase notes, Craig wasn't completely overlooked. 4 x Pro Bowl appearances and 1 x All Pro selection isn't football ignominy. But he isn't universally "legendary" a la Kelly, Campbell or Csonka and their mass media hypesters -- despite production, value, uniqueness that remain 49er legend.
Roger Craig. Perfect running back for the 80's Niners. If he looks like a HOF'er he probably is. No argument, Craig should be a HOF'er.
Latopia, I haven't seen any arguments saying that Larry Csonka, Leroy Kelly, and Earl Campbell are HoF elite RBs. Have you? It's always a bad argument to compare someone not in the HoF to its weaker members and say they belong in if Mr-non-elite-so-and-so is in.
People do this all the time regarding Lynn Swann, but that doesn't make it a good argument.
The words first and only should mean big things to anyone who reads them.
Roger Craig was the First player to get 1000 rushing and 1000 receiving, and I am sure the other players like Faulk will and should be in the HOF. This is ground breaking this is how many years of NFL play and he was the first.
Roger Craig was the only player, let me reiterate only player in the entire history of the nfl to ever lead the league in receiving that was not a receiver. These two marks are incredible. Lets see 11 years of going to the playoffs! Do you think any other running back has ever done that? What does running back of the Decade mean? These are all huge accomoplishments and should not be over looked because you are trying to compare him to players 10 or 15 years later.
Glenn,
2004 - Tony Gonzalez
1983, 1986 - Todd Christensen
1980, 1981 - Kellen Winslow
1979 - Joe Washington
1978 - Rickey Young
1974, 1977 - Lydell Mitchell
1976 - MacArthur Lane
1975 - Chuck Foreman
All of those players in addition to Craig have led the league in receptions and were not wide receivers. That's just since the merger.
While Craig's 1000/1000 season is neat trivia, that's all it really is. It's not as if 2000 YFS had never been done before, and in fact, that season Marcus Allen had 250 more YFS than Craig.
The playoff trips are impressive, but that's a team accomplishment, not a Craig accomplishment.
Roger Craig should go in before him the 49ers had nothing as far as a running game was concerned with Roger Joe Montana had alot taken off his shoulders and was a very solid runner and reciever out of the backfield plus don,t forget since 1985 he's still the only rb to have 1,000 yds both rushing and recieving.
John Baxter: the 49ers indeed had a "running game" before Roger Craig. Ever heard of Hugh McElhenny and Joe Perry?