Maybe. Only if he could have stayed on the field more. Curtis never had an automatic third down move the sticks guy to come in for him either, like Scott Dierking.
I would think it's from his last game, 2005. Sad the way it ends. Two of the greatest athletes to play for my teams, Curtis Martin and Scott Stevens, both went out unceremoniously with injuries. I guess both guys were so tough that nobody knew if they could still come back. In the end, maybe that's better than the dog and pony show a la Tiki Barber.
I will really worry about this in five years. However, if this guy is of the opinion that he is not a mortal lock to get in fine whatever. F-him and Clayton and whomever does not think he had the chops to be an HOF'er. I am saying this not as a Jets fan but as a Football fan. If they are not willing to put someone in that exuded the class both on and off the field as CMart than they can stick it where the sun does not shine. So Cmart was not the top rusher every year. He was consistently a top 5 RB almost every year he was in the league. He was a constant performer in a position where change/injury is usually the only constant. I suppose that does not count nowadays. What really counts are the stats where he was nowhere near the leader....................... Most times caught with a crack pipe, Most kids out of wedlock, most arrests, most times crying to the media etc. etc. etc. Like I said there comes a point in time to say as a voter, "WTF? how can this player not be in." If you polled most of the modern players that are in and asked," Would you be honored to have Cmart beside you in the HOF?" I think you would get a resounding hell yes. If the fat sausage chewing whino's that write about Football think otherwise well read what I said above!
I completely disagree. I think Freeman was the more talented back BUt Freeman as always hurt, we could always rely on Curtis while the same could not be said for Freeman. If Freeman was as durable as Curtis he'd be in the HOF right now and there wouldn't be a discussion who was better freeman or Curtis but durability counts.
Raises an interesting point though. Are hall of famers hall of famers for durability, or because they we're dominant players of there time? It would be fair to say that Curtis didn't really "take over" games, rather he grinded out the yards on a decent amount of carries. He was never really a flashy player on the field, and certainly was not off it either. He was just incredibly consistent. I think he should go in, but when you think about a HOF player, usually there are certain plays and characteristics that come to mind. Durability and consistency are great attributes, but they do not make a player dominant.
I'd say longevity definately has alot to do with getting into the HOF. That's not to say Cmart wasn't dominant. He didn't have break away speed and you don't remember him taking over games, but somehow he finished as top rusher for the majority of his career. That's not something a compiler does.
Curtis wasn't just a compiler though, he was consistent but consistent at a very high level. he didn't just hang around and gain yards like a jerome Bettis. he was consistently near the top in rushing just about every year.
he did carry Drew Bledsoe to a SB so he took ovre in the '96 playoffs, he carried us to 8 wins in '99 w/ 6 of them while Lucas was at QB, he carried us to 10 wins in 2001 and 2004.
I agree, but depending on who else is on the list when Curtis is, voters may elect to put in game changers and personalities over consistent performers. Curtis was so low key that it will probably put him at a disadvantage come voting time...and if he's percieved that way now, how will voters percieve it after 5 years have passed? Out of sight, out of mind, ya know?
I don't think there is any such thing as a compiler in football, especially at RB. It's not baseball, you can't hang around and get lefties out until you're 43 and rack up numbers. Every year younger, faster guys are coming out of college and challenging for your job, the average career for a RB is four years. If you're good enough to not only play but start and get 1,000 yards for 10 or 11 years, whatever it was, you are a Hall of Famer. If you're in the top 5 or 6 RBs in yardage ever, you are a Hall of Famer, no doubt.
Have to be honest, I was never a Curtis guy. Part of it was that he came from New England: Always prefer the home-drafted guys and have a hard time warming up to guys coming in from teams in our division. Part of it was that he was too quiet for my tastes: He was a team leader but he was just to somber. Part of it was the debacle of the Lamont Jordan situation: Curt was caught in the middle of a bad debate between his fans and the people who wanted Jordan retained for the future. Finally, part of it was performance based. In addition to the less than EmmitSmith-like games in the playoffs vs. Denver, Oakland and Pittsburgh, there was this constant visual image in my head of Curtis was him leaving us in 3rd and 1. It always seemed like he just couldn't bust through for that extra yard when we really needed to move the chains. 2nd and 4, Curtis gets three. 2nd and 7, Curtis get 6, 2nd and 9, Curtis makes a terrific run for 8. An invariably, Martin or whoever failed to convert on 3rd down. Still, Curtis was tough, and a good guy, and soldiered on despite injuries. With his numbers, I would vote for him, though not all that convinced he needs to be the first time. His style lacked urgency, and so I don't see the need for urgency in voting him in.
Curtis is a lock no doubt. That guys an asshole who knows nothing thats why hes writing for yahoo and not espn although ESPN isnt any better.
Two reasons Curtis is a lock: 1)His stats speak for themselves 2)He's such a class act it will be tough for anyone with a vote not to vote him in.
