| |
Sound Off: HOF RB?
Okay, I recognize that previews and the like don't encourage reader response (assuming there are any of you out there). As a solution, I am unveiling the "Sound Off" feature. Periodically, I will present an unresolved argument, state my case and then give you the opportunity to put your two cents in.
This week's question is a good one. Does Terrell Davis, former Denver Broncos' running back, belong in the Hall of Fame? Expect to hear this topic creep up more and more, as this year Davis is Hall of Fame eligible for the first time. I will admit, I go back and forth on this question. Most days, I come to the conclusion that he is not HOF worthy. But after examining his career against other inductees, the picture has become less clear rather than more so.
First, let's present the raw numbers. Terrell Davis played seven years in the league. However, he will be measured by the four seasons prior to his catastrophic knee injury. Those four seasons (1995-1998) were exemplary; he finished ninth, second, second and first in rushing yards. From 1996-1998, he also finished tied for third, tied for first and first in rushing touchdowns. Davis' average season in that span: 1600 rushing yards, 4.75 yards per carry, 15 total touchdowns. He was awarded the MVP in Super Bowl XXXII (32 rushes, 167 yards, 1 TD). And 1998 was one of the greatest running back seasons in history: Davis won the NFL MVP award and took home a Super Bowl ring while posting 2,008 rushing yards, 23 total touchdowns and 5.1 yards per carry.
For four seasons, there is no question that Terrell Davis put up Hall of Fame numbers. The issue of his legacy really turns on one question- Are four outstanding seasons enough to merit Hall of Fame induction?
We should look for that answer inside the Hall.
The Hall of Fame divides its running back inductees into pre-modern and modern eras. In the 20s through the 40s, the game was radically different. Running backs and quarterbacks often shared similar roles and in many cases played both offense and defense. Since we are looking for a Terrell Davis already in the HOF, let's stick to the modern era. Of the those running backs, a significant number played less than 10 seasons:
Nine seasons- Jim Brown, Earl Campbell, Paul Hornung, Marion Motley, Charley Trippi
Seven seasons- Gale Sayers
Six seasons- Doak Walker
Most of these players are not ripe for a Terrell Davis comparison. Jim Brown was simply incomparable, putting up nine of the finest seasons in NFL history and retiring while still in his prime. Paul Hornung was a true triple-threat player; rushing, receiving and kicking his way into the HOF. Marion Motley was a crossover player from the old All-America Football Conference (not to be confused with the AFL) who only managed a 5.7 yards per carry average over nine seasons (still the all-time record). Charley Trippi sits on the borderline between football's two eras and made his name rushing, receiving, passing, punting and even as a defensive back. Doak Walker, who had the shortest career amongst these runners, showed even greater versatility as a runner, receiver, passer, returner, kicker, punter and occasional defender.
That leaves us two players for closer examination: Gale Sayers and Earl Campbell.
This is where my Chicago bias comes into play. As soon as Davis retired, the HOF debate began. Sayers' name was often invoked to justify Davis' induction. On paper, it is a logical comparison. Sayers was inducted after a seven-year career and only five seasons of peak performance. Davis played seven years and had four seasons of peak performance. During those peak years, Davis played in 61 games while Sayers played in 64. In fairness to Davis, he trumped Sayers in every rushing category except yards per carry. Plus, you have to include Davis' tremendous postseason performances. Sayers didn't have the same opportunities in that setting.
But for me, here's the rub: I don't think Sayers got into the HOF based on statistics alone.
Let's not minimize Sayers' statistical accomplishments: he is neck and neck with Jim Brown and Barry Sanders in career yards per carry. He retired as the NFL's all-time leader in kickoff returns. His rookie season is still the stuff of legend. In that campaign, he had his signature six touchdown performance against the 49ers, as well as another four touchdowns against Minnesota. In his preseason debut, he scored on a 77-yard punt return, a 93-yard kick return and threw a 25-yard scoring pass.
Still, Sayers got into the HOF because of the way he ran. Sayers had the kind of make-you-miss ability only matched by Barry Sanders. Even Sanders' darting, waterbug style isn't a complete identity. Sayers had more of a glide, he was like trying to grasp running water. If Reggie Bush lives up to the hype, he may wind up as the closest comparison.
Sayers played forty years ago, for a very short period of time, on mostly mediocre teams. He played at the same time as the greatest runner in NFL history (Brown). His numbers are very good, but far from mind blowing. Yet he is regularly mentioned when discussing the all-time greatest runners. Why? Because he captured people's imaginations with transcendent talent. Can the same be said of Davis? Davis' one-cut and go style can be compared to any number of great runners playing today, and simply does not separate him from the pack.
Okay, so the Sayers argument doesn't do it for me. What about Campbell?
Earl provides the best comparison to Davis, and perhaps the best argument for his induction. Campbell played from 1978-1985, in roughly the same as Davis. As stated earlier, Davis' average season during his four peak years consisted of 1600 yards, 4.75 yards per carry and 15 total touchdowns. Earl Campbell lasted nine seasons in the NFL, but played only five years at the top of his game. His averages in those five seasons: 1550 rushing yards, 4.5 yards per carry, 13 total touchdowns.
So their stats are a virtual deadlock, with a slight edge to Davis. Campbell also captured one AP NFL MVP and two from the Pro Football Writers of America (Davis has one of each for 1998). Campbell did not have the same kind of postseason success as Davis, but shouldn't be faulted for not playing with John Elway and a great Denver Broncos team. In terms of running style, Campbell was distinctive. He was a battering ram of a runner; think Jerome Bettis before he got obscenely large. Still, that doesn't create a clear separation.
So what does?
In my mind, the difference between Davis and Campbell is that Campbell was the Oilers of the late 70s and early 80s. The years they made the playoffs, Earl carried them on his back. In comparison, Davis played with one of the greatest quarterbacks of all-time, arguably the greatest tight end of all-time (Shannon Sharpe) and an offensive line that continued to produce leading rushers after he was gone. Davis feels like a guy in the right place at the right time.
But isn't that the case with most great players? Not really, not with running backs. Campbell played on playoff teams his first three years, but those teams were hardly world beaters. Sayers' squads consistently hovered around the .500 mark. The great Walter Payton struggled on some terrible teams upon his arrival in Chicago. And despite Barry Sanders, the Detroit Lions were never considered a Super Bowl contender. These players all excelled in less-than-ideal circumstances, and that is a significant part of their legacies.
Which isn't to say that you can't be a Hall of Famer on a team of Hall of Famers. Emmitt Smith undoubtedly benefited from the immense talent that surrounded him. But what makes Emmitt special is that he was a 15-year warrior. Longevity is a significant part of his legacy. If he had posted four great seasons in Dallas, I just don't know if I would look at him the same.
You probably shouldn't hold a guy's teammates against him, but Davis was a man in a great system for running backs. His numbers are a product of his talent, but they are a product of that system, too. Without more years to look at, it is hard to tell which played the greater role.
In fact, you can make a case that Terrell Davis wasn't even one of the top five running backs of his era. Three present or likely first ballot Hall of Famers were putting up big numbers at the same time as Davis: Barry Sanders, Emitt Smith and Marshall Faulk. Two more players, Curtis Martin and Jerome Bettis, possessed the longevity that Davis did not. They will likely find their way to the Hall on the strength of career numbers that rank amongst the best of all-time. Even more damning is that Davis didn't put up the best four-year spurt of his era. Compare his numbers with Priest Holmes:
Totals for best four seasons:
Davis: 61 games, 1343 attempts, 6413 rushing yards, 4.8 yards per carry, 56 rushing touchdowns, 152 receptions, 1181 receiving yards, 7.8 yards per catch, 6 touchdown receptions
Holmes: 54 games, 1156 attempts, 5482 yards, 4.7 yards per carry, 70 rushing touchdowns, 225 receptions, 2163 receiving yards, 9.6 yards per catch, 6 touchdown receptions
At his best, Davis gave you 105 rushing yards per game, about 20 receiving yards per game and almost exactly 1 touchdown per game. That is tremendous production. But at his best, Holmes gave you 102 rushing yards per game, another 40 receiving yards per game and 1.4 touchdowns every game. Davis scored a touchdown about once in every 24 times he touched the ball, while Holmes scored once every 18 touches. Davis has Holmes down two to none in Super Bowl rings, and has one Super Bowl MVP and one NFL MVP award. But if you asked me to pick the better running back, I'd take Priest Holmes. Of course, I don't think either of them deserves to be in the Hall.
The Earl Campbell argument brings me as close as ever to granting Terrell Davis passage into immortality. But I'm still not on board. If Davis is inducted, he will have had the shortest career of any modern era HOF runner. In my opinion, to achieve that distinction, you have to be more than great. You have to be a player that defines your era. Put bluntly, I don't think of Davis that way. Perhaps it is unfair, but to me he is a very good player who benefited from the players around him.
When you are asking to make an unprecedented move in Hall of Fame history, that just isn't good enough.
But what do you think?
Let’s face it, at its first mention; Yoga might not come off as the most masculine exercise. But that’s just it-at its first mention. When you delve deeper into it, you will realize nothing could be further from the truth.
More males are discovering this and consequently more American men are now flocking to the yoga mats where once, it seemed, only women dared to tread. However the irony is in India where it originated, it wasn’t until recently that women were even allowed to practice yoga-that with restrictions still applied at times.
Men now make up 25 percent of America's 17 million enthusiasts and this figure is increasing steadily. Perhaps it may be because several successful men in various walks of life attest to Yoga’s efficiency and openly advocate its practice.
Take Hip-Hop entrepreneur, Russell Simmons for example, when I read he practiced Yoga (just like Sting, Quincy Jones and Woody Harrelson), it further increased my belief that in no time perhaps NOT practicing Yoga will be seen as strange.
Okay, maybe I overstated that, however, for Simmons (someone viewed as a pioneer in such a masculine and testosterone driven lifestyle known as Hip-Hop) to openly show off his Yoga Skills in a recent issue of the popular Yoga Journal Magazine, don’t be surprised if more ‘cats’ start following suit.
This may happen a lot faster as I once read in an article online that the successful coach of the Chicago Bulls and Los Angeles Lakers, Phil Jackson,
often uses Yoga Philosophies in the training of both teams.
It had to have been effective if it led to the Bulls being 3-time Champions and the Lakers winning their first championship in 12 years back in 2000, both under his guidance.
Now most men who practice yoga tend to favor the more athletic, fast-moving styles such as Vinyasa and Ashtanga. Personally, I bow to the simple yet powerful Sun Salutations common to the Sivananda style of Yoga.
I showed this routine and some other balancing poses to a couple of friends once and these tough workout animals were shocked at how strenuous yoga can be.
They discovered that holding the asanas (or poses) such as the peacock pose, builds strength-not the brute strength of a power lifter but the tensile strength of a martial-arts master.
Several pro-athletes such as the Tennessee Titans running back Eddie George,
Broncos tight end Shannon Sharpe, Oakland A's pitcher ace Barry Zito, NBA superstar Kevin Garnett and PGA standouts Ty Tyron and David Duval have all at some point attested to this fact.
Either way it goes, Yoga is being rediscovered on an almost daily basis by men as indeed being ‘the’ way to go as far as exercise; sometimes exclusively, oft-times in combination with more common forms of fitness regimens.
So fellas, if you are you stilled not convinced this isn’t just a ‘girl’s exercise, do this, go to your favorite search engine, type up one of the following: The Peacock, 4-limbed or wheel pose.
Try either one for a full minute and you will be shocked-like my hard as nails friend once said-to discover that “Yoga ain’t no joke!”
Gentlemen, ‘real’ dudes indeed do practice Yoga.
Foras Aje is an independent health researcher and founder of Bodyhealthsoul. For more Yoga tips and information on Yoga for beginners stop by his website today.
Denver Broncos Schedule
Other Searched Terms: nfl players fathering children out of wedlock shannon sharpe
, shannon sharpe 's contract with the denver broncos
,
|
|
