This is where stats get interesting with guys like George...

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...G/GeorEd00.htm

There are a TON of great players with great stats, do they all deserve consideration? I dunno. George was definitely above average and one of the best at his position, but there were a lot of great RBs in his era.

I view George as the Rod Smith of RBs during his era... but without the rings. Don't get me wrong, I think Rod deserves consideration... but, there's a lot of guys with great numbers during that era.

Quite possibly could be Dallas and he won't have a choice...

Comparison to one of the more recently inducted RBs: Thurman Thomas.

Thomas
13 seasons
182 games
2877 carries (222 per year)
12074 yards
65 TDs
4.2 ypc
472 receptions
4458 yards
23 TDs
9.4 ypr
5 straight Pro-Bowls
2x All-Pro

George
9 seasons
141 games
2865 carries (319 per year)
10441 yards
68 TDs
3.6 ypc
268 receptions
2227 yards
10 TDs
8.3 ypr
4 straight Pro-Bowls
1x All-Pro

The other problem for George: Emmitt Smith, Marshall Faulk, Curtis Martin, Jerome Bettis were all better and all, except Martin, have a ring(s).

The NFL is at the point where they really have to be careful of who gets in... because there are great players that are on pace to have great stats.

Would anyone consider Ocho Cinco a HOFer? Not me, but his stats could put him in that discussion at some point.

You can run just off the stats, but it's a bit silly.

First, you give no credit for toughness/longevity.

Second, mediocre suggests BELOW average. Are you saying you think that he was getting all those carries even though he was below the average NFL RB? Not below average HOFer. Just a below average RB during those years int he NFL? It's silly.

Third, those were run oriented teams. Everyone knew what was coming. They didn't have fabulous talent on offense. It was Eddie George and a cloud of dust.

How much different is Bettis?

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...B/BettJe00.htm

Throw out the last two years when George was running on fumes, and he gets pretty close to BEttis' 3.9 YPC average for his career.

But yeah, again, George ain't a HOFer to me no matter how many yards he has, while Bettis is.

Gradishar, Mecklinburg, Upchurch all overrated players that won poularity contests.

Upchurch, Van Johnson and Ricky Nattiel all had difficulty in getting separation, and Elway made them all look better than they were cause he could bought time so often with his legs.

The only players that Elway played with in his career who are worthy of HoF consideration are Steve Atwater, Sharpe and Terrell Davis, and he won't shouldn't get in because of his lack of longevity.

You have to compare players to their peers. Ocho Cinco will not get in over Randy Moss, Larry Fitzgerald, Marvin Harrison, Isaac Bruce, Torry Holt, Hines Ward or TO.

And Martin was obviously better, stat wise, than either George or Bettis.

Yeah, how many HOFers has Belichick had to team with Brady? Moss is the only clear-cut one, and he wasnt' involved in the three SB wins. Maybe Vinatieri as a fan favorite, but he's a freaking kicker. I'm ignoring guys at the end of their rope like Junior Seau.

So Belichick has 3 with the all world QB and a bunch of good players, and Reeves has zero.

Yes.

From http://www.pro-football-reference.com
Eddie George
Players whose career was of similar quality and shape
Chuck Muncie, Leroy Kelly, Earl Campbell, Ottis Anderson, Clinton Portis, Shaun Alexander, John L. Williams, Floyd Little, Jim Taylor, Jamal Lewis

I would have taylor and campbell in before george.
I think the rest are comparable.
Good but not sure HOF's.


Explanation of the similarity scores
At baseball-reference.com you'll find, for each player in baseball history, a list of players similar to that player. These lists are generated by a method introduced by Bill James in the 1980s, and his aim was to find players who were similar in quality, but also similar in style of play.

The similar players lists here at pro-football-reference are NOT the same thing.

Unfortunately, football stats just aren't descriptive enough to capture players' styles. So we have settled for a method that attempts to find players whose careers were similar in terms of quality and shape. By shape, we mean things like: how many years did he play? how good were his best years, compared to his worst years? did he have a few great years and then several mediocre years, or did he have many good-but-not-great years?

Essentially, if you run across a player you've never heard of before, and if the list of similar players has some names you recognize, this gives you a quick way to (very roughly) figure out where the guy fits in history.

I agree and on that note...

Michael Irvin - 12 seasons / HOF Inductee
147 Games
750 receptions
11,904 yards
65 TDs
3 Rings
5 Pro Bowls
7 - 1,000+ yd seasons

Rod Smith - 12 seasons
158 Games
849 receptions
11,389 yards
68 TDs
2 Rings
3 Pro Bowls
8 - 1,000+ yd seasons

I call George mediocre because he was a suckass RB.

He never impressed me.

Mediocre is how I saw him.

As I've said many times, stats don't mean jack to me, but you asked to see them.

I think you're really going out of your way to dismiss the level of talent on the NE teams.