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 » Sports Reference
For more from Chase and Jason, check out their work at Football Perspective and The Big Lead.
ShareThis2011 Hall of Fame Polls: Jerome Bettis
Yesterday's poll on Marshall Faulk was truly a no-brainer, with 98.6% of PFR readers considering him HoF-worthy. So let's challenge the voters with a more interesting question: is Jerome Bettis a Hall of Famer?
The facts on Bettis' career:
- 5th in career rushing yards (13,662)
- 10th in career rushing TDs (91)
- 4th in career rushing attempts (3,479) and touches (3,679)
- 18th in career yards from scrimmage (15,111)
- 6x Pro Bowler, 2x 1st Team All-Pro
- Super Bowl champion in 2005
- 382nd in career weighted Approximate Value (79)
- 23rd on Chase's list of the most dominant regular-season RB careers and 29th on his overall RB career list
- 2nd-best Steelers RB since 1950 by AV
- Had one of the best rookie RB seasons ever in 1993
So what do you think about Bettis?
This entry was posted on Friday, January 28th, 2011 at 11:35 am and is filed under Great Historical Players, HOF, PI Finds, Running Backs. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Bettis is really interesting, and I think his candidacy comes down to 1 question:
Do you view his longevity as a testament to his greatness or as enabling him to compile stats?
I'm generally of the latter opinion, and think he's close, but doesn't quite deserve it. Also, as I researched him, I found that he and Terrell Davis were very equal candidates, just in very different ways. In my opinion, if one of those 2 guys makes it in, then the other is deserving as well, but I'm hesitant to put either in.
However, Bettis has the advantages of A) playing for the Steelers, which makes him beloved by the media and a large number of fans and B) Working in the media after his career. Those 2 things give his candidacy a boost it shouldn't necessarily have.
I think he belongs, but I think he should have to wait a while before several more deserving people are put in.
You can't compare him straight up to most of his peers, because his size and style was so different. I liked the fact that the Steelers were the best team in the league on 3rd & 1 and 4th & 1 during his time in Pittsburgh, and since he's retired they've probably fallen to the bottom quarter of the league. He could do more than just get the 1 yard too. Playing that Bill Cowher offense where you just grind the clock down on the ground with the lead in the 2nd half, Bettis was a great fit for that.
And I think we seen his last two seasons that if he got to play with a great QB more often, he would have had more TDs. Better QB = better offensive production = more goal line opportunities.
He's an interesting candidate and I'm curious to see how this vote plays out and what the discussion is on him in the future. I will add that if Ben doesn't make that tackle of Nick Harper in Indy in 2005, Bettis would probably never get inducted to Canton.
I think at 5th in career rushing yards it will be hard to keep him out, plus he helped the Steelers win a Super Bowl which is all it takes for some voters.
He's ultimately an accumulator and was never one of the top 2, 3, or 4 guys at his position.
Now, how about Curtis Martin?
I consider him a 'compiler' and not one of those guys that was a perennial contender for best at his position even just in his conference, which is how I like to qualify HOF entrants. Faulk was a definite contender for best at his position across the entire league for years. Bettis' all pro 1996 year is a bit of a joke as the voters somehow overlooked that guy named Barry Sanders. I feel like Bettis will get the 'winner' and SB title boost that seems to overly influence voters minds. During their careers I would have take Edge and Corey Dillon over Bettis, but I think the media friendly, jolly fat guy will get in and they won't.
Look at the guys who had similar careers. If you disregard the players of the 60's (when the seasons were shorter), none of the players are in the hall, nor deserve to be. All of those guys were good for a few seasons, but none HOF worthy.
But I agree with the conclusion of the post. His media popularity will get him in eventually, but I hope he has to wait a while--at least say 5 yrs.
I definitely think that he should be in. He became the face of the franchise when they had to suffer through the likes of Mike Tomzcak and Kent Graham for a starting QB. The last 3 years of his career, he was no longer the feature back, but he still proved that he could carry the load on multiple occasions. The one that sticks out to me the most is his 100 yard second half against the Bears in 2005, where he ran through Brian Urlacher for a TD from the 5 yard line. Even in his decline, he was a very valuable player, and in his prime, he was right up there with his contemporaries. (Ok, not Barry Sanders, but please, who was?)
are these "will the guy ever get in" or "will he get in on the first try"?
If people like art monk, cris carter and tim brown either don't get in or are perennially on the fence, then bettis belongs there as well. I don't really know if bettis was ever a truly elite player for more than one year of his career and while longevity is important, there is a reason the hall is very hard, especially at running back where you need to really have several defining seasons of excellence to be considered. Bettis' ring quest probably got him way more headlines than any steeler has that will probably resonate with sports writers, but in the end, he belongs in the hall of the very good, not hall of fame.
#2 and #5 both basically hit on the big reasons why Bettis belongs. It's apples and oranges to compare him to the likes of Faulk and Sanders. Sanders was more of a "homerun" type whereas Bettis was more the "grinder/closer" type. I wouldn't rank Bettis as high as Sanders on the all-time running backs list, but I don't think there's much doubt that Bettis was the better goaline/short yardage back of the two. Now, it's possible that Barry could've been effective in this roles, but the fact is that, for one reason or another, he wasn't utilized in those ways for the majority of his career.
Bettis, also had three, maybe four seasons during his time with the Steelers in which he more or less had to carry the offense on his back. In 2001, when Hines Ward and Plaxico Burress both had breakout seasons and Kordell Stewart played decently, Bettis was leading the NFL is rushing before injuring his groin in a week 11 game against the Vikings.
In 2004, he ended up with almost 1,000 yards despite starting only 6 games after Duce Staley was sidelined with an injury.
In '05, Willie Parker was the primary starter but, as mentioned above, Bettis turned in a great performance in the season-saving win over the Bears, punctuated by his "signature play" TD run over Urlacher.
#4: There's a few differences, but I think Riggins is the HOF RB that Bettis compares the best to, at least as far as RBs who played at least half of their careers during the 16-game era.
I will agree that there are others as deserving that should get in before him.
I'd rather see Ricky Watters in than Jerome Bettis. Bettis was no threat out of the backfield and not a home-run threat whatsoever. Him and Eddie George were just overrated guys.
That old quote about Walt Garrison applies to Bettis. If you need 3 yards, Jerome would get you 3 yards. If you need 7 yards, Jerome would get you 3 yards. He just played at an above-average level for a lot of years, but was rarely if ever one of the best backs in the league. His closest comp career is Corey Dillon and I think any honest person would rather have Dillon's peak than Bettis'.
Martin, Bettis, and Faulk will all get in, but I have an issue with Faulk and Bettis getting in before Martin: both of them were labelled as busts early in their career after a strong start, then they found their game again after a few years lost in the wilderness. Martin was a consistent force as a three-down back right from day one, right through to his second-last season, winning the rushing title at age 31.
First off, I want to say that I believe we have 3 backs that are up for the consideration of the Hall of Fame that are should be in it. Personally I believe that Marshall Faulk is the best back in this class because he changed the game. He could block, catch, and run as well as be that elusive back that was so feared in the league. His IQ was so unbelievably good and was an all-purpose threat in today's game.
The problem for Jerome Bettis is that he was not always the best back in the league! There were times where he would have those lulls in his career and to me, only in 1996 was he the best back in the league and then after that I did not here from him again. In my opinion he had only two elite years as a running back which was in 93 as a rookie and in 96 as his first year as a steeler. The rest of his career was average at best. I personally believe that he should wait a year or two before entering Canton.
#12: I don't think that quote fully applies to Bettis, at least not during the first decade of his career. Either way, people sometimes take for granted how valuable it is to have a guy who can consistently pick up 2-3 yards on 3rd/4th & 1 or 2.
Dillon was very talented and may have a shot at the HOF down the road, but I think I'd take Bettis over him, particularly once you factor in Dillon's attitude/off-field issues. Bettis actually had one more 1,400 yard + rushing season (3) than Dillon did (2). I know Dillon was stuck in a bad situation with the Bengals, but it seemed like he really became a cancer as time went on. I think Bettis was also the more steady of the two backs. Dillon had some amazing games during his career (3 200 yard games and came within 8 yards of a fourth), but it seemed like he also had his share of games where he was very quiet. Some of that, I'm sure, was because of the lack of surrounding talent he had with the Bengals, but I think some of it was on him.
Once he got out of Cincy, he had a great first season (probably his best overall) with the Patriots and was a key factor in helping them win their third title in four seasons. However, that season is pretty comparable with Bettis's best season (1997), except that Dillon had Tom Brady at QB and Bettis had Kordell Stewart. Now, that was arguably Stewart's best overall season at qb, but, still, obviously no comparison with Brady.
Dillon didn't fall off completely after 2004, but he did have some injury issues + split time with Laurence Maroney and actually ended up with less yards combined during his last two seasons (1,545) than he had in '04 (1,635). He then retired after the 2006 season.
Very productive career, overall, and the majority of it came with teams that wern't very good. On the other hand, his career length was relatively short and he has had some attitude/off-field things that may hurt him.
Out of the group of Dillon, George, Barber, Alexander, Dunn and Taylor, I'd put Dillon #1, but it wouldn't surprise me if none of them end up getting in.
#14: Really, you didn't hear from Bettis after '96? How about in '97 when he ran for 1,651 yards or in '01 when he was leading the NFL in rushing at the beginning of December? His numbers slipped a little from 1998-2000, but the rest of the Steeler offense was pretty mediocre (sometimes worse) through most of that period.
I can't see why he is considered so much of a lock to make it. He had only 4 seasons which would be considered anything above average,with several well below average seasons. At no point in his career would be be placed in the top 5 RB's in the game. With Faulk I saw greatness. With Bettis,he was functional and never elite. There is no doubt he's a good guy, but I'm sure you can say that about a lot of players.
I say no way on Bettis. Running backs are ridiculously overrepresented in the Hall as is, and inducting solid, above average, not great guys like Bettis (or Martin) is making things worse. I would vote for Faulk, because he wasn't just a running back. He was arguably the Rams' best receiver too. You can't say the same about Bettis, who was never a threat to catch the ball. The interesting thing about Jerome was that his best season was probably his rookie season, when he led the league in rushing value (per Football Outsiders). Of course, the next 2 seasons he was sub replacement level. Not below average, below replacement level. Maybe you say his line sucked, but I'd like my Hall of Fame running back to overcome that. In 1996, he led the league in rushing value again after a move to Pittsburgh, but was sub replacement as a receiver. In 1997, he had a pretty good season (4th in rushing value, nothing as a receiver). Then his 375 carry season in 1997 took a toll on him. Sub replacement level (again!!) in 98, mediocre in 99, solid in 2000 (heavy workload, mediocre per carry numbers, nothing as a receiver), average at best in 01-02 (decent rushing, no receiving), sub replacement in 03 (that's 4 seasons), pretty good in 04, and average in 05.
How in the hell is this a Hall of Fame career? I see a guy who in any given year is more likely to be worse than your typical waiver wire guy than he is great. And saying "but his offensive line sucked" is no excuse. I realise that running backs are generally fungible and about as good as the guys in front of them, but the Hall of Famers are the guys who are exceptions to this rule, not the guys who prove it. Bettis' rushing value seemed to bounce around depending on who was blocking for him, so I'd say the credit for his good seasons (and the blame for his bad ones) belongs just as much to his offensive line. He was also an absolute zero as a receiver.
As for the "winner" stuff, get real. The Steelers won one Super Bowl with him, and what was his biggest contribution that post season? Fumbling on the 1 yard line against the Colts. If Nick Harper doesn't inexplicably cut inside or if "money" Vanderjagt doesn't shank his kick, we're remembering Jerome as the guy who single handedly dropped the Super Bowl.
I don't know if Bettis would be the worst guy to ever make the Hall, but he'd be in the discussion and would seriously lower the standards, and open the door for arguments for other non hall of famers (how can you put in Bettis but not Curtis Martin, Fred Taylor or Corey Dillon for instance?)
Bettis should get in after Faulk, and Curtis Martin. Marshall Faulk should get in first. The only reason Bettis gets in is due to the Art Monk in the Hall of Fame. Art was a stat compiler and I saw the same thing out of Bettis.
Jerome had more seasons the Curtis, but Curtis was the better back. Curtis had more season of over 4 yards a carry than Bettis matter of fact.
Jerome had 8 1,000 yard seasons, but I argue that his career rushing totals were more on amount of carries. Bettis outside of his 4 seasons over 4 yards per carry was anywhere from 3.2 to 3.8 yards per carry. Bettis had two great offensive lineman in his career with the Steelers. He had Alan Faneca in his prime. Dermontti Dawson was still in his prime when Bettis was trade to the Steelers.
Dermontti Dawson a case that I don't understand why he isn't in the Hall of Fame yet despite being a Packer Fan. Alan Faneca is a future Haller when he retires.
I meant to future Hall of Famer instead of future Haller.
The really odd thing about Bettis to me is that while he has a reputation as being someone who produced at a decent level for a long time but didn't have a very high peak, he really was someone who produced at a very high level for a few seasons (1993, 1996, 1997, and maybe 2000) and had a lot of poor seasons (1994, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2002, 2003). He just had a very oddly-shaped career.
I looked up some stats just because I was curious whether I could find evidence either for or against the idea that Bettis was someone who "got the yards the team needed" or was a special "goal-line back" and what I found was sort of interesting.
Football Outsiders has a statistic called "success rate" that should reward someone who can "get the yards the team needs" but nothing extra. Bettis had a few really good years by this statistic (60% for third in the league in 1993, 53% for third in the league in 1996, and 61% to lead the league in 1997), one awful year (39% to rank 41st in the league in 1995), and a lot that don't really stand out either way. I think success rate makes him look a little better than standard stats, so maybe it bolsters the "got the yards he needed" argument a little.
However, they also have an offensive line statistic that's success rate in "power" situations. It starts in 1996, so we don't have his first three years, but after that, the Steelers ranked 1, 3, 13, 16, 10, 18, 20, 22, 10, and 12 in the league. Obviously, Bettis doesn't deserve anything close to full credit or blame for those numbers, but even taking them with a healthy dose of salt, they doesn't seem to bolster the goal-line back rep.
I think it's pretty obvious that his traditional stats (beyond career rushing yards) don't warrant getting in--his ypc was generally quite a bit below average, he was absolutely no receiving threat, and his longevity and durability aren't absolutely overwhelming. His advanced statistics, while they may make him look a bit better, still aren't Hall of Fame level. He certainly never seemed to me, when he was playing, to be a Hall of Fame level player. I don't see a good argument for putting him in. He wouldn't be Paul Hornung bad, but I'm not sure that's possible.
The bus was really good, but definitely not hall of fame level. Edgerrin James and Jamal Lewis have better hof cases then the bus. Unfortunately, there is probably no chance for either of them to make the hall. Does anyone know if these two have any shot?
I kind of agree with you, but I generally like Bettis less. I agree that 1993 was a great season. 1st in rushing value for the old Rams? That's really good. But he didn't have much else. His 1996 wasn't that great because he did nothing as a receiver. 1997 and 2000 weren't that great either, so I'd say he only really had one great season.
I wouldn't say that advanced stats help him either, quite the opposite. Before looking him up I'd always thought of him in the same way most people seem to. As a good, long career running back, who probably wasn't quite HOF level. When I looked it up though, I was shocked by how many seasons he had where he was just flat out terrible.
As merely the third-best running back among the 2011 finalists, Bettis won't make it this year. A casualty of the (necessary) limit on inductees each year. Thurman Thomas didn't make it his first year of eligibility, and he was superior to Bettis.
@ Duff Soviet Union
I honestly had much the same reaction you did to the advanced stats from looking at his p-f-r page. Using the league average ypc (as shown here: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=6325), Bettis was below average in 1994, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. Worse still, he was at least .5 ypc below the league average (in other words, downright awful) in 1994, 2002, 2003, and 2005. He was above average in ypc in 1993, 1996, 1997, and 2001.
Here is his career vs. league average ypc
1993: 294 attempts, +.94
1994: 319 attempts, -.54
1995: 183 attempts, -.49
1996: 320 carries, +.57
1997: 375 carries, +.44
1998: 316 carries, -.22
1999: 299 carries, -.24
2000: 355 carries, -.21
2001: 225 carries, +.72
2002: 187 carries, -.59
2003: 246 carries, -.88
2004: 250 carries, -.42
2005: 110 carries, -.72
Here is his career in FO's numbers (DYAR (Rank)/DVOA (Rank)/Success Rate (Rank)):
1993: 342 (1)/18.4% (3)/60% (3)
1994: -183 (39)/-21.7% (34)/45% (26)
1995: -78 (38)/-18.8% (39)/39% (41)
1996: 313 (1)/15.0% (4)/53% (3)
1997: 223 (4)/5.3% (10)/61% (1)
1998: -15 (27)/-9.7% (27)/43% (24)
1999: 62 (16)/-3.9% (19)/47% (11)
2000: 237 (6)/7.2% (8)/50% (6)
2001: 102 (10)/2.3% (11)/46% (17)
2002: 89 (20)/2.4% (15)/49% (17)
2003: -34 (38)/-11.9% (36)/48% (13)
2004: 172 (9)/7.6% (12)/52% (10)
2005: 94 (13)/8.9% (11)/51% (6)
As you can see, 2001 is really his only season that looks worse by those numbers than by ypc, but his 2000, 2004, and 2005 look like pretty valuable seasons where they did not before. I don't think it helps him much, but I think it does a little.
FO's receiving numbers do make him look worse than his already poor traditional receiving numbers, but I'm not sure how fair it is to dock him as much as DVOA/DYAR do.
Another thing that should come up more in discussions of him is just how bad his 1994 season was. 319 carries for 1025 yards, 3 TD, -183 DYAR, -21.7% DVOA. That's just amazingly bad.
#25 - Here are Bettis' numbers according to the YPC Index I cooked up in this post:
(100 = Average, >100 is better than avg, <100 is worse.)
For all of you people who say Bettis merely accumulated yards, it should be pointed out that he was in more Pro Bowls than Curtis Martin, Thurman Thomas, John Riggins, Earl Campbell, and Tony Dorsett, And the same as Marcus Allen, Eric Dickerson, and O.J. Simpson. So to say he is somebody who didn't have excellent seasons and merely accumulated yards just isn't correct.
Also, it is wrong to talk about statistics like yards per rushing attempt with him because he was a different kind of back. He could run for 60 yards in a game and have a huge effect because of the abuse he would unleash on tacklers.
Bottom line, Bettis won't have to wait for long to go to the Hall of Fame and he deserves it. So the detractors may as well make peace with it.
Edgerrin James has a good shot, but Jamal Lewis doesn't for the Hall of Fame.
James almost has many rushing yards as Marshall Faulk does. James was great at Indy, but he really wasn't great with the Cardinals. The Cardinal were not good at running blocking. James has over 1,500 yards 4 times and had over 4 yards per carry each of those years. He also was a very good pass catching running back also. He also has also has over 90 total touchdowns. The only problem James has with the voters is how much of his success is caused by Peyton Manning being on the same team.
Jamal Lewis doesn't really have a chance because because his peak as running back was short and part of that is injury. He missed a season with the Ravens due to a torn ACL matter of fact. He also had surgery on his ACL after the 2003 season even. Another strike against Lewis is he had one great season with 2,000 yards. He had 3 very good seasons of 1,300 yards each. If he didn't miss the 2001 season with a torn ACL, he would have had a better shot considering the back he was early in his career. It is hard not to vote in a back around 11,500 - 12,00 rushing yards than one with 10, 607 yards.The third strike against is he was a solid, not great receiver out of the backfield. The 4th strike him is low amount of touchdowns with 62.
@26--Thanks, Neil.
Yellowdog,
The first thing is Pro Bowls is a bad indicator if a player goes to the Hall of Fame or not. The only stock a pro bowl has for the Hall of Fame is if a player goes over 8 times, the player actually was great or very deserving for some of theme. All Pro is a way better indicator for most positions.
For the last 15 to 20 years the Pro Bowl is a joke.
That is even before a couple years ago having the Pro Bowl for the Super Bowl.Many players that got voted in into the Pro Bowl pull out of including players that didn't need surgery. Pro Bowl Selections is more based on who is popular instead who is the best. There has been players that were selected there because of reputation only.
The 2nd thing is Jerome Bettis from 1993 to 2001 was used differently than he was later on in his career. Jerome was more like an everyday back from the 1993 to 2001 time period. Yards per carry is a great argument with Jerome from that time period. His 1994, 1995, 1999 seasons were pretty back in yards per carry. Jerome was more used for shortage situations after 2001, when the number 1 back was healthy.
Jerome Bettis is one of the least-worthy finalists in PFHOF history. He was never the best player at his position and he never had a truly great season. Look at his career page on this site. No black ink, apart from one season when he led the league in attempts (but finished 3rd in yards).
In his whole career, Bettis had 3½ seasons worthy of note: 93, 96, 97, and the beginning of '01. None of those are Terrell Davis seasons -- they're Tony Dorsett seasons, Curtis Martin seasons, except Dorsett and Martin were at that level for a decade. Bettis is a beneficiary of how common 1,000-yard seasons have become. His greatest virtue as a player is that his body held up long enough for him to carry the ball 3,479 times. Most of his yardage is hang-around value, a warm body. Terrell Davis had three seasons better than anything Bettis did. So did a lot of other guys.
Bettis averaged under 4 yards per carry and was useless as a receiver. He had a nice rookie season, then played on good teams that handed off a lot. He was a good player, but he wasn't a Hall of Famer on the best day of his life. There are a dozen eligible RBs more deserving than Bettis, maybe two dozen.
He seems like a nice guy; I have nothing against him except that he doesn't belong in Canton.
Lack of receiving yards is another useless argument and only proves my point that his style was different than most other running backs. How many 260 pound running backs do you know that caught a lot of passes? Anybody who says Bettis won't get in are people who are sick of the Steelers dominating Super Bowls and the Hall of Fame. He shouldn't pay because people are jealous of the Steelers. He finished fifth all-time in rushing and had a season with 1600+ years, two more 1400+ yard seasons, and a 1300+ yard season. This is a no brainer. He won't have to wait any longer than three seasons.
Yellowdog, career stats are not everything. If you elect Bettis, here's who else needs to go in: curtis martin, edgerrin james, corey dillon, jamal lewis, fred taylor, clinton portis, eddie george, tiki barber, thomas jones, shaun alexander and a few others. Look, bettis was a good rb, but he was NEVER the best in the league. Unlike martin, he was not consistent either. To make the hall of fame, you need to either have a dominant peak (campbell, simpson, sayers) or longevity (dorsett, franco). Bettis had neither. He's a lot like Hines Ward: a good player for a long time. Put him in the Steelers' ring of fame, retire his number, but don't put him in the hall.
I totally agree with you Brad O. If you want a real indictment on his case, think of this. If you just removed the sub replacement level seasons (where he racked up yardage and TD's while doing less than nothing to help his team win games) from his career (1994-5, 1998, 2003), he would be a better player...and yet he would be considered absolutely no chance of seeing Canton. That's how much his "case" depends on accumulating yardage over the years. I often think so called "compilers" (e.g. Jimmy Smith) get short shrift, but Bettis is the perfect example. Is durability and longevity really that good when a lot of those seasons aren't just average, but terrible?
@32
"[Bettis] had a season with 1600+ years, two more 1400+ yard seasons, and a 1300+ yard season."
So did Shaun Alexander (he also had a season of over 1800 yards), Tiki Barber (he also had a season of over 1800 yards), and Edgerrin James. Clinton Portis would have too if he had 9 more yards in 2003.
WOW! All you experts have contradicted yourselves so many times over this Hof class it's making my head spin. And some of this sabermetric type crap is hillarious. Put your fantasy sheets down and go outside and play the game. Maybe we Should remove all the hof qb's who played before the mid 1980's because they wouldn't have won you any of your leagues. Bettis won't get in this year because two other rb's are up and they deserve it more. But he will get elected in a year or two and deservedly so. And if you're all just Steeler haters, I've got one thing to say to you.....CRY!!!
"WOW! All you experts have contradicted yourselves so many times over this Hof class it's making my head spin. And some of this sabermetric type crap is hillarious. Put your fantasy sheets down and go outside and play the game."
Have you played in the nfl? No, didn't think so. If you don't like what this site has to offer, then you're free to leave. No one is forcing you to read this stuff.
"Maybe we Should remove all the hof qb's who played before the mid 1980's because they wouldn't have won you any of your leagues."
Who said anything about removing earlier qbs? If anything, this site tries to illustrate how to look at stats in context. Too often, you hear players praised for team success. Jim Plunkett has 2 rings. Would you take him over Peyton Manning, Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Fran Tarkenton etc?
"Bettis won't get in this year because two other rb's are up and they deserve it more. But he will get elected in a year or two and deservedly so. And if you're all just Steeler haters, I've got one thing to say to you.....CRY!!!"
Bettis will be one of the weaker hof rbs inducted. What's the difference between Bettis and Eddie George? Same type of back except Bettis was lucky and got a ring in his final year while George's team came up 1 yard short. Guys like Edgerrin James, Clinton Portis, and Corey Dillon will be hard pressed to get in the hall of fame even though their resumes are similar or superior to Bettis' in many regards.
Vince,
I never joined a fantasy Football Team. If i am so biased with my packers, how come I brought Dermontti Dawson and Alan Faneca as offensive lineman that belong to Hall Hall of Fame and argued that Bettis should've had a better yards per carry because of those two lineman?
I only brought up yards with Jamal Lewis, and Edgerrin James because my favorite stat yards carry isn't an issue with those two unlike Bettis. Hall of Fame Voters look at rushing yards and touchdowns in a lot of cases like they do with Wide Recievers. One of Art Monk's argument for not getting in was his low amount of Touchdown catches by Peter King.
I never joined a fantasy Football Team. If i am so biased with my packers, how come I brought Dermontti Dawson and Alan Faneca as offensive lineman that belong to Hall Hall of Fame. I also mentioned on post 19 that Bettis underachieved in better yards per carry considered the fact he had those two lineman.
Bettis only had three seasons (1996-98) with Dawson while both were still in their primes. We know what Bettis did in '96 & '97. While Dawson was still playing at a high level in '98, the Steelers lost LT John Jackson in UFA. That was a blow that the team didn't fully recover from for a couple years, until after they signed Wayne Gandy as a FA and he became acclimated to the position. Also, Dawson missed sizable parts of the '99 and '00 seasons due to injury and retired shortly before the '01 season. The Steelers didn't really have an o-line as good as their '96 and '97 seasons again until 2001, when Faneca entered his prime, Gandy had become fully comfortable at LT and the team signed Jeff Hartings as a FA to take over for Dawson at center. As mentioned above, Bettis led the NFL going into December, but injured his groin in the week 11 game against the Vikings. Such a shame that he got hurt because otherwise it's very likely that that would've been a 1,500 + season for him and possibly a rushing title.
I'm a Steeler fan, and I don't think Bettis belongs in the Hall. I think he has a case, I think he's maybe close, I think his numbers are better than some of the arguments against him suggest.
(For example, he not only played with terrible QBs in his prime, but he was also a strictly between-the-tackles runner. In other words, not only did he run against defenses stacked to stop him, defenses that expected the run, but also against defenses who didn't have to worry as much about the edge as they did with the middle.)
My final point: Bettis should not go to the Hall because of his fumble at Indy. Hall of Fame players don't have to be flawless, of course (Montana played poorly in some terrible playoff losses, after all) but in that situation, with what was on the line at the time, that one play does it for me.
I am a steeler fan so i maybe a little biased. Personally, i don't think the bus is a better guy than marshall faulk. the prime years faulk have his best ypg is during the greatest show on turf years, so I may say every, including faulk, bettis or whoever, work best with a good passing game in general.
Bettis 3.9ypc wasn't great, but he is a between-the-tackle guy, so he wouldn't help his case with long run to improve his average. But he have lots of goal-line, 3 and 1 ... carries than the others, and he still get his yards.
It is just a matter of philosophy of football, the bus for power, or faulk for big runs, but either way both of them should hav been in the hof
Hey Joe Joe, guess what else I'm free to do. I'm free to keep reading this site and the things it has to offer and I'm free to disagree with some of it. Guess what else. You're free to not read MY comments. No one is forcing you. Or is this a site where all opinions count as long as they agree with yours?
And tell me when I said anything about any of you having to have played in the nfl.
And believe it or not, the players aren't robots. Their performance isn't dictated soley on past stats. Their performance changes with the pressures of a game and a season. I guess you would have no problem putting Rivers in the hof right now.
Fortuantely, the hof voters tend to agree more with me than with you. They don't base a players credentials soley on a stat sheet. Stats are mainly for we the fans. That's why at the nfl draft you don't see qb's, rb's and wr's drafted in perfect decending order of the yards they accumulated.
I also find it interesting that you base everything on the statistical facts yet you use "luck" to make a desciption of Bettis.
As I stated before, I don't think Bettis will get in this year because there are two more qualified rb's in the same class. But he will eventually get in and he deserves to. When he does, I assume you will be taking your argument up with the hof voters. Won't you? And I don't think that Edgerrin James will have much of a problem getting in.
Sorry for disagreeing with you. Well, actually, I'm not.
Jerome Bettis has a chance simply because he played a long time for the Pittsburgh Steelers. If you want a chance at making the Hall of Fame, then play for either USC in college without much of a NFL career (Marcus Allen) or for one of the big 4 in the NFL: Dallas, Green Bay, Pittsburgh, and Chicago. Everyone else has to sweat it out.
Anyone that claims Marcus Allen didn't have much of a career needs to go some research on him.
He Caught over 580 passes as a Running back, great blocker and very good runner. He was a complete back despite not being the fastest. He basically was made to be west coast offense running back. What Roger Craig did with the 49ers, Marcus Allen also could do in the offense as good as Roger did or possibly even better.
He was the top 1 or 2 goal line back of all time. He had the most touchdowns at the time he retired not not name Jerry Rice.
Marcus Allen was Offensive Player of the year in 1985, Super MVP, 6 time pro bowler.
Marcus Allen didn't have the amount 1,000 yard seasons as person expects in his career. The catch is Allen had Bo Jackson as a teammate with the Raiders and Allen numbers went down partly to that and might have cost him a couple 1, 000 yard rushing seasons. Bo Jackson was a strong, big, fast running back. If Bo focused on football full time, and didn't have a career ending hip injury, He would have went to Canton.
The other problem was Al Davis and Marcus Allen had a really bad relationship because of contract disputes. Al Davis was accused of ruining Marcus Allen matter of fact for part his Raider career by telling coaches to bench Marcus Allen.
Research on Marcus Allen isn't all stats. Marcus was one of the most underrated players.
A person needs to watch from the early to mid 1980's to see how good Marcus All really was.
The later years as a Raider, Allen was wasted because Al Davis told the coach not to play him. Allen also was sharing the carries with Bo Jackson.
Isn't the NFL Hall of Fame supposed to be the home of the elite?
Was off to etc were all still better, and Eddie George was knocking on that door, a great start to his career, but Chris Warren, Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, Curtis Martin, and hell Ricky Watters from what I recall of the early 90's were all better. Got to Pittsburgh, immediately posted his two best rushing yardage totals of his career, but Sanders, Smith, Davis were all still better RB's, and Eddie George was knocking on that door, and then there was a massive slew of high production play by a number of RB's in the 2000's which blow him away (Holmes, Tomlinson, Green, James, Faulk, Martin still, Barber, and so forth)
Bettis at his peak was at most the third best RB in the league, and even then that was for about two seasons. He has the same number of all pro selections as RB's such as George Rogers and Joe Morris. I think you need to do more than that to be a hall of fame talent at the RB position.
Er, not sure what happened with formatting there, should begin with "He had a great start to his career"
Bettis, Edge James and Jamal Lewis are all "close but no cigar" guys. Bettis has the only shot not because of accomplishments, but because he is a Steeler. Period. If he played in say Minnesota like Chris Doleman who repeatedly gets snubbed he would not even be in the conversation.
He was never great. Never dynamic. Only averaged 4ypc in 4 of his 13 years. And if there was ever a "compiler" just look at his last 4 years which were nothing more to him hanging on and riding a great defense to a Super Bowl as a short yardage back.
He averaged 3.5 YPC in those last 4 years, and racked up 38 of his 90 TD's by getting the ball on the 1 yard line and pounding it in from 02 to 05.
It isn't even close and it will be a disgrace if he ever gets in.
I like Bettis, but he doesn't deserve a Hall pass, ever. Faulk deserved his year 1 election, Martin deserves a Hall pass as well.
As for the person who thought Monk helped the case for Bettis, I can see why someone might believe that. The 'compiler' argument has some traction. In Monk's case, it was a terrible disservice to a very deserving HOF player.
Compare him to the other 6 guys who were all-time reception leaders in the NFL in the past 50 years or so -- Ray Berry, Don Maynard, Charley Taylor, Charlie Joiner, Steve Largent and Jerry Rice. Monk stacks up extremely well, even against this group -- all in the HOF. All had HOF QBs -- except Monk and Largent. Monk was probably the best blocker of the group (a very valuable skill in the Skins offense), is tied with Rice for the most rings in the group and was very strong in the postseason (of WRs recently inducted or being considered now, his postseason yds/game is higher than all but Rice and irvin) . The Skins were very balanced in run/pass ratio over the course of Monk's career, so his numbers didn't come because the Skins threw the ball a ton. Plus Monk was the only one who played often in 3 WR sets -- over a 5 year period ('88-92?), all 3 guys were top 15 in the entire NFL receptions -- meaning he compiled his stats on a relatively modest number of passes in his direction.
I know Monk's reputation got pretty badly stepped on over the years and it was entirely undeserved. He's easily a HOF player.