Namath is in the hall of fame for 5 reasons (counting backwards): 5. He was the best QB in the AFL from 1965-1969. 4. When healthy his teams were always a threat to win it all. 3. He had a great rivalry with Johny Unitas and hooked up in several memorable games with him that drew wide attention around the NFL. 2. When the AFL looked like clearly the junior league, after the Packers had walked over the Chiefs and the Raiders by a combined score of 68-24 in the first 2 Super Bowls, he lead the Jets to a convincing 16-7 victory over the best single team of the 60's the 1968 Colts who had gone 13-1 and outscored their opponents 402 to 144. That same Colts team had routed the Cleveland Browns, one of the best NFL teams of the 60's, 34-0 2 weeks early in the NFL championship. 1. He took his team on his back in the 2 weeks before the Super Bowl, when everybody was saying the Colts were gonna mangle the Jets (the line reached 19 points at it's most ridiculous), and two days before the game went the final step and predicted the Jets would beat the Colts. Many of his teammates credited his confidence during the whole leadup to the game as being the single factor that held them together. Oh yeah, there a number 0 reason also in the list. 0. The NFL-AFL merger happened largely because the NFL supremacists had to shut up and eat crow after their great team got beat by the third best team in the AFL. The Raiders and Chiefs failed to prove the AFL worthy and Joe Namath lead the Jets into parity with the NFL. That's why he's in the hall of fame and he deserves it as much as any player in there.
Biggs, I'm disappointed. I expected more from you than using a kicker as fodder to support your argument.
I'm not going to get into the whole Joe Namath, HOF thing again as it has been done ad nauseam here. He clearly belongs, but those looking just at stats are not seeing the entire picture of football at those times. But with that said, I don't agree with the statement you made above. The league merger was affected somewhat by the drafting of Namath in 65, but the merger was agreed upon in 66 and was in no way driven by the Jets SuperBowl victory. As mentioned, it was already agreed upon in the summer of 66 and scheduled to take affect in 70 assuming Congress would change some anti-trust laws and such (which they did). This notion that the Jets victory forced the merger is a fallacy that I've seen perpetuated many times....
There were a lot of people backtracking on the merger by 1968. The Packers dominance of the AFL in the first two Super Bowls was very telling in their opinion. I wasn't old enough at the time to follow all of this so I have to rely on my uncles who told me that the merger of the two entities was definitely in doubt as of 1968. Maybe a few AFL teams would have been absorbed into the NFL if the Jets had gotten slaughtered like the Raiders and Chiefs before them. Then again my uncles thought Namath walked on water so they may have been exaggerating a bit.
I love Curtis and all he has done with the Jets, but there is no way he is a first time ballet HOF'er. When someone asks you what RB you want on your team, very rarely the answer is Curtis. Yes, he has great stats and is # 4 All Time, but he was a compiler. Never did he have that MVP type season. Even the year he led the league in Rushing, it wasn't like he was averaging 5.5 YPC.
Let me start by saying, I am in no way denigrating anything Curtis Martin has done in his career. Great player and Hall of Famer, case closed. What I find ridiculous is the notion that him getting in on anything other than the first ballot is a snub. What I am trying to say is that the first-ballot distinction should be reserved for legendary players. Martin was very good for a long time. That will get you into the HOF. However, he was never a legendary figure. Whether you like him or not (and honestly, I am no lover of his), Franco Harris is huge NFL figure. Much of that is due to the teams he played on. If he put up the same stats for the Seahawks in that same period, he would still be in the HOF, but would not have been a first-ballot guy. Add 4 SBs to CM's resume and he is a slam-dunk first ballot guy too (and you can probably add 3 or 4 more Pro Bowls). And to address some of your other points, a Pro Bowl selection is in itself meaningless, but it comes into play when discussing a players legacy. John Lynch may not have been worthy of a Pro Bowl selection last season, but he is a 7-time Pro-Bowler who is destined for the HOF. The selection committee is largely comprised of jounalists. They are swayed by this sort of stuff. It is the Pro Football Hall of Fame. While Warren Moon's Grey Cup experience is not directly a reason to put him in, it is a noteworthy footnote, in that his first 6 seasons (in which he was great) were played in the CFL and he STILL earned 9 NFL Pro Bowl selections. Your Young arguement could be made for many players in the HOF. Guys like Harry Carson, Lynn Swann, Dan Hampton, and Michael Irvin wouldn't be in the HOF if they didn't have great players around them. Put Joe Klecko on the 85 Bears and he would be in Canton today. Is it fair? Who is to say, but it's the way it is. It gets you in, but not on the first ballot. You want a comparison player: Art Monk. When he retired, he was the all-time leader in receptions, 4th all-time in receiving yards, 3 Pro Bowls, and Won 3 Super Bowls. He retired in 1995 and is STILL waiting on a call from the HOF. Many view Martin as comparable to Monk....very good player for a long time. Again, I repeat myself...Martin will get in, but not on the first ballot.
Good arguments all. I guess we'll just agree to disagree. Is Curtis a first-ballot HOFer. I think so, but arguments can surely be made to the contrary. In the end, a standard is in place based on past inclusions, and he is no less deserving IMO. I think, too, as the move toward specialization increases (two backs), his achievements will stand out even further. Finally, comparing past generations to current is becoming more difficult. Has the evolution of the passing game been beneficial or detrimental to the running back position? One side says it's been beneficial, as the defense doesn't stack the box. The other side is that has been detrimental, as the passing focus has taken carries/touches away from the position. Who knows.
Than you missed my point which is not that Martin doesn't belong but that he is not deserving first ballot status and arguing other guys shouldn't be in the HOF doesn't change that.
You misconstrue. I'm not saying that those guys aren't worthy, but they are no more worthy than Curtis (or said another way, Curtis is no less deserving). If you want to reserve first ballot initiation rights for the icons, then I can think of five guys post 1980 who should receive the honor: LT, Jerry Rice, Joe Montana, Emmitt Smith, Reggie White. Game changing legends. That's about it. I wouldn't put Aikman or Marino or Bruce Smith in the group. So the honor has been demeaned, but you're treating the standard like it's still golden and it's not. If Curtis doesn't get in on first ballot, then I can see the argument as to why. But then there's a lot of explaining that needs to be done by NFL writers and voters generally. I'm all for keeping the honor holy -- just don't sin on the side. And Stenerud was a great kicker, but how can anyone with that little of an ability to affect change be a first-ballot guy? Sure, someone will argue, Vinatieri won two Super Bowls! I don't think I saw him running the ball, catching the ball, creating a hole or throwing the ball in any of those drives leading up to the winning score. "It's not his job to do any of those tasks," the argument will continue. And I agree, and that's exactly why he shouldn't be a first-ballot guy. If Stenerud made it, why hasn't Ray Guy. He was the preeminent punter of his day. He was excellent at his craft, too. A great punt can turn the game as easily as a 40-yarder into the win as time expires. But he's a footnote in every article come election time. I think we all agree Curtis is a HOFer, regardless of the timing.
Honestly I think the criteria for first ballot hall of famer should be whether or not the player was seen as the best or nearly the best at his position for most of his career. The guys you didn't list who clearly were first ballot hall of famers were Barry Sanders, Dan Marino, Derrick Thomas (it's a travesty that he has not been elected and was not a first ballot hall of famer), Ronnie Lott (got in 2nd year) and Mike Singletary. People elected on the first go round who really probably should have waited a year include Troy Aikman and John Elway, both of whom did great things with more talent around them than virtually any other QB in history.
That's a no-no. His accomplishments in that other league with its significantly different style of football had no bearing on his induction into the PFHOF. When you read a write-up on Moon like the one at the Hall of Fame website, it'll make mention of his CFL days, along with where he was born and where he played collegiately, etc. Don't be fooled by the CFL stuff. It's just there for background and filling out stories.
From my foggy memory, Namath is in for the same reason Gale Sayers is in and Terrell Davis should go in, he simply was the most dynamic player in football when he was healthy and on the field everyone seems to forget that. Curtis Martin as good a back as he was was never great in the way Namath was great.
Lets' compare him to some of the RBs: Marcus Allen: Allen was top 10 in rushing 4 times and led the league once while Curtis was top 10 7 times and led once. Allen was top 5 twice, Curtis top 5 4 times. Allen had just 3 1,000 yd seasons, Curtis had 10. The area where Allen is ahead of him is in TDs but Alklen averaged 8 TDs a season while Curtis averaged 8 a season it's just marcus played 16 years compared to 11(per game Allen scored a TD .56 and Curtis .54- that's close. Curtis was a better player than Allen) Tony Dorsett: Top 10 8 times w/o a rushing title, Curtis top 10 7 times w/ a rushing title. Top 5 3 times while Curtis was top 10 4 times. Curtis scored 13 more TDs in 5 less games. Rushing TDs Dorsett top 10 3 times Curtis 6 times. Dorsett has a slightly higher YPC. Curtis compares favorably to Dorsett. Franco Harris: Top 8 in rush yards 8 times w/o a rush title, Curtis 7 w/a rush title. Top 5 3 times, Curtis top 3 4 times. Scored 1 more TD but played 5 more games. Both top 10 in rush tds 6 times, both top 5 3 times. Their #s are very similar. Franco had the team advantage though.
You think Warren Moon's Grey Cups helped him get into the Hall? Moon is in b/c he is black and there was a bias against black QBs that kept him out of the NFL in his younger years. He did not play like a HOFer in the NFL- great stats but w/ some very talentd teams never even made an AFC Title Game. Namath is in the hall for ONE reason- SB III in regards to your points: 5. Overall dawson was better. Both made 4 PBs/AS games in that time period, dawson had 97 TDs and 63 INts, Joe had 97 TDs and 104 INTs. dawson led his team to 2 SBs, winning 1 and 3 PO appearances while Joe led the Jets to 1 SB(won) and 2 PO appearances and hea dto head KC beat the Jets at Shea in '69. 4. He only made 2 playoff appearances, so he was healthy only 2 seasons? 3. Didn't he play Unitas only once or twice? I know they had that great game in '72 but I wouldn't call it a rivalry. 2 & 1 were basically the same. he got in b/c of SB III and everything he meant to league off the field.
Marcus Allen was a much better all around back than Martin. Allen lead the leauge in rushing TD's 2 was top 5 6 times. He lead the leauge in total yards from scrimage twice top 5 3 times. He lead the league in combined rushing/recieving TD's 2 top 5, 5 times. More importantly in 16 post season games he averaged more than 5 yards per including a 191 yard 2 TD perfomance in the SB which got him SB MVP. In a big game in their prime any one who would take Curtis over Allen would have to be a total tool. This is debatable but the fact is Dorsett was simply better against top competition in the playoffs averaging almost .5 yards more a carry in the playoffs. Harris played in a 2 back offense and played FB. Completely different position very tough to compare based on the fact he was not asked to carry the load and was more of a role player. He did however do something Curtis never did, had a great playoff and SB.
Allen's career high for Tds was 13, Curtis had 14 twice. Allen led in the strike shortened 1982 season and in 1993. Allen had 6 years of double digit TDs in his 16 year career, Curtis had 5 in 11 years. I don't know Allen's postseason #s outside of his great SB but Curtis had a good SB in his lone appearance they just didn't give him the ball enough and he helped carry Bledsoe to a SB. Again, I don't have Dorsett's postseason #s except his SB appearance but he also played on much better teams. he was their feature back, whether you want to label him a Fb or a Hb doesn't matter. He got the bulk of the carries, some yers it was close but overall he had by far the most carris for Pitt during the 70s-early 80s.
at the HOF site it has championship game #s and marcus was great in '83 w/ 25 for 154 against Sea in the AFC Title game then 20 for 191 against wash in the SB but in '90 against Buf he ran it 10 times for 26 yards and in '93 against Buf he ran it 18 tims for 50 yards. It says: I would guess most of that production came in his great 1983 postseason.
In 10 postseason games Curtis had 795 rush yds a game for an average of 80(rounded up) per game, in 17 postseason games Dorsett averaged 81 rush yds a game. Harris averaged 82 and he is listed as a RB in the HOF. Allen averaged 89 yds a game.
Right in his prime Marcus Allen carried he's team to a SB and dominated in his prime. In 1990 and 93 Allen was allready old. Curtis didn't last to 33 years old.
