There are lot of old time players i personally dont feel belong in the Hall just based on stats alone. Joe Namath, Lynn Swann to name a couple.

But these guys were crucial to old time NFL lore and helped make the league to where its at today. Thats why they are in more than anything really. Relative to the era they played in....their stats were good, but compared to today, its a joke. Its a different league now. But they made big time plays in big games, thus transcending.

It has, but not to the degree Dane is contending.

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...FL/rushing.htm

In the 70s you could expect YPC to be around 4.0 YPC. 80s - largely the same story.

The 90's looked to vacillate a little more, but YPC do have a downward trend; 3.9 seems pretty fair and by Tomlinson's 'peak' years it had come up to about 4.1 YPC.

We're talking percentage points here and there; in any given 'era' you're looking about a variation of about 2-4%.

He's right that it's gotten a little easier, but not by that much and certainly not when you compare it to the guys in the 70s and 80s.

But there weren't guys running sub-4.5 40's across the board, either.

The game has changed dramatically.

Players can only play under the rules of their time. And the attributes of the players involved effect the game tremendously as well. I don't think there's even an argument to be made that strength and conditioning has had a greater impact on the game than the rules changes have.

And as to LDT vs. Sanders - that's fine. I now my position isn't going to be the more common one there and there are great arguments to be made to the contrary. I just believe the fact that the discussion can be had at all says that Sanders should be a HoFer.

I can't say I agree here, as I admittedly wasn't a football guru at the age of 8 when Barry was in his prime, but you've brought up a point I'd like to delve into that's pertinent to this argument.

(To Dane)

When considering HOF enshrinement, what's the argument against LT? That he's not "transcendent"? LMAO That he didn't carry his team to a Super Bowl? DJ just noted that LT did a hell of a lot more to carry his team to a championship than a guy like Sanders or many others did.

Yeah, Barry was electric and all that. But, once again, speaking in terms of HOF argument, he had weaknesses. He had, what, over 1,000 negative yards throughout his career in gambing for the big run? He also didn't score many TDs, relatively speaking, as compared to the amount of yardage he totalled.

Jim Brown? That dude was dominant but in a time when he weighed probably 20 pounds less than the average defensive lineman.

Emmitt Smith? Don't even get me started on that guy. How many All-Pro and HOF offensive linemen did he run behind? Not to mention the HOF QB and WR that he also had the pleasure of playing with..

The 5 guys with the highest Pro Football Reference Weighted Career AVs (fwiw) are:

1. Derrick Brooks 140
2. Marvin Harrison 124
3. Michael Strahan 121
4. Will Shields 113
5. Aeneas Williams 106

Just missing the cut were a couple of Raiders, Tim Brown and Steve Wisniewski at 104.

Well, for one, when his team needed him most, he was out, injured.

Secondly, the Chargers WERE a loaded team with a Super Bowl winning coach (albeit as an OC but nonetheless). Vincent Jackson, Tomlinson, Gates, Rivers (or Brees), etc. Yet, they could never get over the hump and he never carried them over the hump.

Again, he was a great running back but I wouldn't vote for him as a Hall of Famer, any more than I'd vote Davis, George, Holmes, etc.

He failed to elevate the Chargers or Jets when it mattered most.

Of course it has.

And those guys running sub 4.5 40's are often CBs trying to track you down or even more terrifying, 240 lb LBers. There damn sure weren't any Dontari Poes in the middle of the line that can leg press a light pickup and clock a 4.9.

Speak to the rules all you want, but the results don't lie - their impact on the actual performance of RBs by era has been in the margins at best. Offenses have adjusted the help they give RBs to fit the rules and the gazelles that are built line 70s era lineman are now LBs are that can fly to the edges (on the same sized field, mind you) and keep modern RBs from getting the corner that they would've made it to in the past.

When you're trumpeting Norv Turner in an attempt to run down LaDanian Tomlinson, your argument is really starting to run out of steam.

So, tell us why Tomlinson should be in the Hall of Fame? What makes him worthy, other than some gaudy stats, which other players outside the Hall have as well?

What made him unique? Why should he be revered 100 years from now?

:facepalm:

We've been doing that, Dane..

Not buying it

He's the 2nd best combination of pass-catcher and rusher in league history (behind only Faulk) while simultaneously being responsible in every facet of the game.

His numbers, even era adjusted, stack up to anyone's. And as I've pointed out several times, there's not a good reason to apply a significant era adjustment to RB as they've been remarkably static in their performance throughout history. His regular season record is sterling as well; the Chargers really began their turnaround with him taking the reigns. Despite different coaches, QBs and skill position players, they just kept winning - LDT was the constant.

The only argument you have against him appears to be that he never won a SB. Well I guess Shields and Gonzalez are ****ed. DT shouldn't have been in there. And why are we still discussing Sanders?

You just move the goalposts every time I address an issue. You've now settle on a nebulous definition of 'transcendent'. And for the record, no, there's not a single player outside the hall that has stats on par with Tomlinsons. Not one. In fact, his are better than most of the guys that are already in it.

You're just seeing what you want to see.

If Coryell doesn't get into the HOF, it's a travesty. None of the offenses putting up video game numbers today that Goodell and the owners love so much would have been possible without him.

But he only won 3 playoff games, so I guess he's not "transcendent" enough for the Hall. :rolleyes:

Bullshit.

First off, Will Shields was a Pro Bowler 12 of his 14 seasons, an 8 time All Pro and an NFL Man of the Year. His level of play was unique and unquestioned.

Tony Gonzalez has more catches than anyone in NFL history other than Jerry Rice. He was the first of new breed of tight ends and is a 13 time Pro Bowler that's still an effective player 17 years into his playing career. His level of play is unique and unquestioned.

LaDanian Tomlinson was a very good running back on a team with many offensive weapons and an "Elite" QB (two, if you count Brees). His teams never won an AFC Championship and by the time he actually played in two AFC Championships, his skills had begun to erode.

While I think he was an excellent player in his era, I do not believe that he is a Hall of Famer.

Nothing that you say can change my mind.