Former Jets, Pats RB Martin headlines Hall's Class of 2012

[woodbuck27]

http://bleacherreport.com/tb/bdPZc?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=nfl

INDIANAPOLIS -- Curtis Martin has gone from the mean streets of Pittsburgh to the Pro Football Hall of Fame (http://www.profootballhof.com/default.aspx).

The star running back with the Patriots and Jets for 11 seasons was one of six players elected Saturday to comprise the Class of 2012. Martin once disliked playing the game but used it to escape a neighborhood where his grandmother was murdered.

"When I get awarded something like the Hall of Fame, it's almost foreign to me," said Martin, the NFL's fourth-leading career rusher.

"This wasn't something I planned on doing. Football is something I did so I didn't end up jailed or dead.
Kirwan: Hall of Fame snubs
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/catch_all/nfl_image/pat_kirwan_110725_02_65.jpgBill Parcells won two Super Bowls and rebuilt three franchises, but that wasn't enough for Hall voters. Pat Kirwan examines the snubs. More ... (http://www.nfl.com/goto?id=09000d5d8269f58b)

» No HOF love for the receivers (http://blogs.nfl.com/2012/02/04/receivers-reed-carter-brown-left-out-of-hall-again/)
» Levy surprised by Parcells snub (http://blogs.nfl.com/2012/02/04/levy-surprised-super-bowl-foil-parcells-missed-hof-cut/)



"If you make up your mind to just do the right thing no matter what ... and you stick to it, which I did, this is how things can turn around. I feel as if my life turned around from what it used to be, and I think anyone has a chance."

Martin and four linemen were elected to the hall, along with one senior committee choice. Martin is joined by Chris Doleman, Cortez Kennedy, Willie Roaf, Dermontti Dawson, and senior selection Jack Butler.

Jerome Bettis, Cris Carter and Bill Parcells were among the finalists who didn't make it.

CLICK LINK for the complete story.

[pbmax]

Like all the picks with the exception of Jack Butler, whom I do not know at all.

They have to elect the WRs soon, or the logjam is going to be ridiculous. The inclusion of Monk, who had numbers more than dominant talent, makes this situation worse. Each of the three remaining receivers (Reed, Brown, Carter) was better and has better numbers.

[pbmax]

Also, the Senior committee ought to get Gillingham in there as well. They get two shots at the apple per year.

[Bretsky]

Charles Haley....huge Snub

When I think of Hall of Famers, I don't think of Curtis Martin. He was very solid, but IMO never great. He excelled over time.....I just never thoguht he was great

[Upnorth]

He was a compiler. He was consistently one of the best in the league but was always just eclipsed by Priest Holmes, Faulk, Alexander, Tomlinson, Green and others. Always the bridesmaid, never the bride. I do think he deserves it more than Monk, but I am not convinced he deserves to be there. I do love seeing 4 linemen get in this year though.

[Patler]

Curtis Martin had 10 consecutive years with over 1000 yards rushing. Only Emmitt Smith has had more, with 11. In 11 years Martin had over 14,000 yards rushing. Only Smith, Walter Payton and Barry Sanders have had more career rushing yards. Martin had nearly five hundred receptions for another 3,300 yards. Only Smith, Payton, Sanders, Tomlinson, Faulk and Marcus Allen have more combined yards from scrimmage than Martin, Marcus Allen played 5 more years than Martin, and leads him by 200 total yards.

Smith, Payton, Sanders, Faulk and Allen are all HOF'ers. Tomlinson probably will be too. Martin deserves it as well.

[pbmax]

Yes on Haley.

[Patler]

Haley? A disruptive force both on and off the field. Not a Hall of Famer in my opinion.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Haley was a dominant player. Curtis Martin was a very good player over a long career. It's the hall of fame, not the hall of very good.

Stats should be mostly ignored in these decisions.

[Patler]

Haley was a dominant ass, but just a very good player. Not a Hall of Famer.

Martin had 1697 yards rushing one season, 1513 another and two other seasons over 1450 yards. Martin has more yards rushing than Tomlinson and both have now played 11 seasons. Martin was a heck of a lot more than just very good.

How did Marcus Allen get in? It basically took him 16 years to do what Martin did in 11.

Haley was a spectacle of sorts, so he gained name recogniotion. Curtis Martin just quietly went about his business and exceeded the performance of all but a few truly elite players; Smith, Payton and Sanders. Haley was basically a 8-10 sacks/year guy at his best (one year with 16). In his 13 year career he had 100 sacks, 96 in his first 10 years. Hardly a dominating player, just a good one.

[Patler]

Haley was a dominant player. Curtis Martin was a very good player over a long career. It's the hall of fame, not the hall of very good.

Stats should be mostly ignored in these decisions.

Ya, ignore actual performance, just go on whether or not you remember the guy's name, and make no effort to recall why you remember his name. Sounds like good criteria to pick HOF members.

Kevin Greene and Charles Haley played at the same time. They played basically the same game. Green outplayed Haley by a lot (165 sacks to 100 sacks). Greene can't seem to get in, and you think Haley should?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Ya, ignore actual performance, just go on whether or not you remember the guy's name, yes, exactly. that's the way to do it.

stats are a good way to identify candidates. But what really matters is the subjective judgement of how dominant the guy was. Like the definition of pornography, I know what it is when I see it, and Curtis Martin was no porn star.

[pbmax]

Haley was a dominant ass, but just a very good player. Not a Hall of Famer.

Martin had over 1697 yards rushing one season, 1513 another and two other seasons over 1450 yards. Martin has more yards rushing than Tomlinson and both have now played 11 seasons. Martin was a heck of a lot more than just very good.

How did Marcus Allen get in? It basically took him 16 years to do what Martin did in 11.

Haley was a spectacle of sorts, so he gained name recogniotion. Curtis Martin just quietly went about his business and exceeded the performance of all but a few truly elite players; Smith, Payton and Sanders. Haley was basically a 8-10 sacks/year guy at his best (one year with 16). In his 13 year career he had 100 sacks, 96 in his first 10 years. Hardly a dominating player, just a good one.

I am surprised by the low sack total, but what I remember of him was that he could not be blocked on a pass rush and teams tried to run at him but eventually gave up making it their focus. He essentially played full time for 10 years and averaged 10 sacks in those years (actually 9.6). That includes the first two years at San Fran when he was a situational sub for pass rush.

If anything, I am less concerned about his impact as I am about 8 full years as a full-time starter. While that is a longer than most and a good career, it might not be enough.

[SkinBasket]

Ya, ignore actual performance, just go on whether or not you remember the guy's name, and make no effort to recall why you remember his name. Sounds like good criteria to pick HOF members.

Don't worry, it's how he picks his political candidates too.

[Patler]

Haley was fortunate to play on two very good franchises at just the right times, when they were the darlings of the league and media. As a result very good players on those teams, like Haley, were portrayed as truly dominating players, which they weren't. Haley played from 1986 to 1999, Kevin Greene from 1985 to 1999. Kevin Greene was a dominating player for most of that time. Haley had a few flashy years, some very good years and a couple when people were wondering where he went. Until Kevin Greene gets in, voters shouldn't give Haley a second thought..

[Upnorth]

So as usual Patler has won me oer to the Curtis Martin side. Anyone rb with 4 years over 1450 yards with longevity to boot belongs in. The Haley debate does bring up one very interesting question I have never seen a good response to. How can Kevin Greene not be in the HOF??? Yes he played on a dominant defence, but he is one of the reasons it was so dominant. It like saying Ed Reed is not as good as he looks because Ray Lewis is on the D with him.

[pbmax]

Greene had five seasons with an AV (Approximate Value as measured by Pro Football Reference) above ten (and one season of 9). That is a tick above Haley and Greene was effective for longer. I have no problem with Haley waiting for Greene.

Though comparing both to Doleman, it might be a long wait for both.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I thought Martin was a no-brainer to get in. Completely agree on the Haley/Greene argument with Patler as well.

[Smidgeon]

Ya, ignore actual performance, just go on whether or not you remember the guy's name, and make no effort to recall why you remember his name. Sounds like good criteria to pick HOF members.

Kevin Greene and Charles Haley played at the same time. They played basically the same game. Green outplayed Haley by a lot (165 sacks to 100 sacks). Greene can't seem to get in, and you think Haley should?

So why isn't Greene in? What's the argument?

[Smeefers]

So why isn't Greene in? What's the argument?

From what I understand, the reason greene isn't in is because he was a journey man. He never stuck with one team, so never got a large fan base behind him with is sort of needed for the hall. If nobody is lobbying for you to get in, it's much more difficult to get in.

Of course, this is all just recycled garbage I've read and heard over the years that very well could be wrong.

[Cheesehead Craig]

It's wierd, it seems like guys who are good enough to have real long careers are penalized if they don't have those 4-5 spectacular seasons. Look at Carter and Brown. Two HOF guys in my book but just cannot seem to get in. Shouldn't the fact that you were able to play the game for 12+ seasons mean something as much as the stats?

[Harlan Huckleby]

It's wierd, it seems like guys who are good enough to have real long careers are penalized if they don't have those 4-5 spectacular seasons. In my opinion, guys who have good, long careers should not be in the hall of fame at all. The hall should only be for players who have spectacular seasons.

[pbmax]

In my opinion, guys who have good, long careers should not be in the hall of fame at all. The hall should only be for players who have spectacular seasons.

Brown is good enough based on immediate impact on both offense and special teams. Carter satisfies you spectacular season with season records for catches and TDs.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I definitely think Carter should be in hof.


If I were emperor, I'd go into both baseball and football HOF's and throw half the guys out. Maybe give the busts to family members if they claim them within 48 hrs - I do have a heart.

[pbmax]

I definitely think Carter should be in hof.


If I were emperor, I'd go into both baseball and football HOF's and throw half the guys out. Maybe give the busts to family members if they claim them within 48 hrs - I do have a heart.

I blame Phil Rizzuto.

[Smeefers]

In my opinion, guys who have good, long careers should not be in the hall of fame at all. The hall should only be for players who have spectacular seasons.

Well, if we're going to go with random reasons to keep people out of the HOF, then I think we should toss out any left handed people and red heads. They're creepy and really people anyways.

[Joemailman]

I can see Harlan's point. Maybe the question that should be asked is: Was this player at any point in his career considered to be as good or better than anyone at his position?

[Patler]

In my opinion, a Hall of Fame should always have room for a guy who did his job so well for so long that when he was done very few exceeded his career performance, even if at any one time there may have been someone better during a single season. A Hall of fame isn't just about flash.

Perhaps a HOF should really be more exclusive than most are, and you should have had to be the best at your time and have played long enough to impact career records. Maybe guys like Martin and Bradshaw don't belong there because they were never the best at their positions and Sterling Sharpe should never get in and Gale Sayers, Leroy Kelly and Floyd Little should not have because they just did not play well enough for long enough to impact career records. (Personally, I never thought Leroy Kelly belonged in the Hall of Fame, and I wasn't much more enthusiastic about Floyd Little getting in.)

Of course, then maybe Jim Taylor should not be in the HOF either, because Jim Brown was flat out better than Taylor, and they played at the same time.

[Harlan Huckleby]

no, a player shouldn't have to be best at position, that's just a matter of chance.

I think player must have some wow factor, a guy who stands out week to week, like Mathews, Rodgers & Woodson, and plays at inspired level for 3 seasons. A long career is a plus. I'm not ready to put Clay Mathews in hall, but he does have that man-among-boys effect.

I'd DEFINITELY put Sterling Sharpe in hall because he was spectacular, even tho career length limited stats.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Well, if we're going to go with random reasons to keep people out of the HOF, then I think we should toss out any left handed people and red heads. They're creepy and really people anyways.

I certainly agree with oppression of red heads, but a subjective evaluation is not random.

[Joemailman]

In my opinion, a Hall of Fame should always have room for a guy who did his job so well for so long that when he was done very few exceeded his career performance, even if at any one time there may have been someone better during a single season. A Hall of fame isn't just about flash.

Perhaps a HOF should really be more exclusive than most are, and you should have had to be the best at your time and have played long enough to impact career records. Maybe guys like Martin and Bradshaw don't belong there because they were never the best at their positions and Sterling Sharpe should never get in and Gale Sayers, Leroy Kelly and Floyd Little should not have because they just did not play well enough for long enough to impact career records. (Personally, I never thought Leroy Kelly belonged in the Hall of Fame, and I wasn't much more enthusiastic about Floyd Little getting in.)

Of course, then maybe Jim Taylor should not be in the HOF either, because Jim Brown was flat out better than Taylor, and they played at the same time.

The argument could be made that in 1961 and 1962 Taylor was as good as Brown. Not in talent maybe, but in production. Same thing with Sharpe being as good or better than Rice a couple of years. I'd say both Taylor and Sharpe had that combo of being the best at sometime in their careers as well as enough career excellence to qualify.

[pbmax]

In my opinion, a Hall of Fame should always have room for a guy who did his job so well for so long that when he was done very few exceeded his career performance, even if at any one time there may have been someone better during a single season. A Hall of fame isn't just about flash.

Perhaps a HOF should really be more exclusive than most are, and you should have had to be the best at your time and have played long enough to impact career records. Maybe guys like Martin and Bradshaw don't belong there because they were never the best at their positions and Sterling Sharpe should never get in and Gale Sayers, Leroy Kelly and Floyd Little should not have because they just did not play well enough for long enough to impact career records. (Personally, I never thought Leroy Kelly belonged in the Hall of Fame, and I wasn't much more enthusiastic about Floyd Little getting in.)

Of course, then maybe Jim Taylor should not be in the HOF either, because Jim Brown was flat out better than Taylor, and they played at the same time.

In baseball HOF debates, I prefer the measurements that take into account era, so you know how they stacked up to their peers. While such data is far more sparse in football, I would not have an objection to both Brown and Taylor in the HOF if both were head and shoulders above their running back peers. And from reputation alone,that would seem to be the case with a short exception for Sayers.

[Smeefers]

no, a player shouldn't have to be best at position, that's just a matter of chance.

I think player must have some wow factor, a guy who stands out week to week, like Mathews, Rodgers & Woodson, and plays at inspired level for 3 seasons. A long career is a plus. I'm not ready to put Clay Mathews in hall, but he does have that man-among-boys effect.

I'd DEFINITELY put Sterling Sharpe in hall because he was spectacular, even tho career length limited stats.

Gayle Sayers got into the Hall on a short career. Was Sterling that good? Cause that's what it takes.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Gayle Sayers got into the Hall on a short career. Was Sterling that good? Cause that's what it takes.
I thought Sterling Sharpe was on a par with Jerry Rice.

[Patler]

The argument could be made that in 1961 and 1962 Taylor was as good as Brown. Not in talent maybe, but in production. Same thing with Sharpe being as good or better than Rice a couple of years. I'd say both Taylor and Sharpe had that combo of being the best at sometime in their careers as well as enough career excellence to qualify.

Brown was the better back. Not really even that close. I remember at the time just wishing he were a Packer. He was something else to watch. Fifty years later, I still think he is the best running back I have ever seen.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Walter Payton was the best football player ever, and he sired a son that made it to NFL.

edit: "ever" is time that I saw NFL on TV. Before that doesn't count for shit.

[Patler]

... and he sired a son that made it to NFL.


Not uncommon at all.

[Fritz]

Well, you have to be careful about simple longevity. I don't think Chad Clifton is a HOF left tackle, for example.

Another consideration is position. Probably offensive lineman really should be judged more on longevity, despite my example above, because there's only so much flash-and-dash to be had out of the left guard position, for example.

On the other hand, a running back might be "workmanlike" (even Vince Workman-like) and not be close to the HOF.

[Patler]

Well, you have to be careful about simple longevity. I don't think Chad Clifton is a HOF left tackle, for example.

Another consideration is position. Probably offensive lineman really should be judged more on longevity, despite my example above, because there's only so much flash-and-dash to be had out of the left guard position, for example.

On the other hand, a running back might be "workmanlike" (even Vince Workman-like) and not be close to the HOF.

I don't think anyone has suggested that "simple longevity" should get anyone into the HOF.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't think anyone has suggested that "simple longevity" should get anyone into the HOF.

no, but I think somebody suggested "ignore actual performance, just go on whether or not you remember the guy's name."

[Guiness]

It's the accumulators you have to be careful of - there are two poster children for that, one in the hall, one out. The guy who's out ranks 7th all time in passing yards and 8th all time in TDs - Vinny Testaverde. Who's in? Art Monk, and I'm not sure how he did it. A lot of guys ahead of him who aren't in the hall, although most played after him.

[Joemailman]

It's the accumulators you have to be careful of - there are two poster children for that, one in the hall, one out. The guy who's out ranks 7th all time in passing yards and 8th all time in TDs - Vinny Testaverde. Who's in? Art Monk, and I'm not sure how he did it. A lot of guys ahead of him who aren't in the hall, although most played after him.

Vinny was never really considered one of the top QB's. Really only had 2 very good years. Compiled stats strictly through longevity. Monk made it, but it took him 13 years. Not sure he should have made it. He may have been helped by the fact that he won 3 Super Bowls and played for one of the high-profile teams of that time.

[Cheesehead Craig]

There was a NY writer who is on the HOF voting committee on KFAN last night. He was talking a bit about the voting process. He said that Carter, Reed and Brown were all in the final 10 candidates for the HOF but none made the top 5. He feels that it's very hard to get more than 1 person from a position in the HOF in a given season. The problem with these 3 is that they all have their supporters but given each of them can have a solid case to make it in, they are preventing each other from getting in as the votes are too split up.

One thing they all need to worry about is if they aren't in within the next few years, then Moss and TO get eligibility and that's going to muck it up even more.

I wish I could remember the guy's name who said this. It was an interesting insider take on the situation with the WRs. He also said that during deliberations that the off the field stuff is not brought up at all. Only their production and actions on the field. Just thought I'd pass this on.

[pbmax]

I suspect the group of similar players is the problem with WR. They need to get over the idea that they cannot vote for more than one player from a group his contemporaries at a time.

I think from the outside looking in, personalities look to play a role, but while that is convenient to explain Parcells or Carter, it doesn't explain Brown or Reed. Football writers also tend to be for less grandiose and self-important than old baseball writers.

[Bretsky]

Haley was fortunate to play on two very good franchises at just the right times, when they were the darlings of the league and media. As a result very good players on those teams, like Haley, were portrayed as truly dominating players, which they weren't. Haley played from 1986 to 1999, Kevin Greene from 1985 to 1999. Kevin Greene was a dominating player for most of that time. Haley had a few flashy years, some very good years and a couple when people were wondering where he went. Until Kevin Greene gets in, voters shouldn't give Haley a second thought..


Haley just played DE while Green was mainly at OLB, right ? If so an OLB often racks up more sacks. I remember Haley being dominant; I read about how coaches feared his impact and game planned how to contain him with doubleteams. He was an absolute jerk....won't deny that. He may have tunred it on and off. But IMO he was dominant.

I always liked Keven Greene the player. But he really didn't scare me that much. When I thnk of dominating OLB's I think Derrick Thomas and Lawrence Taylor. Talent wise I think Green is a strong notch below them.

Is Haley a strong notch below some of the recent DL who have been inducted ?

[Patler]

Haley just played DE while Green was mainly at OLB, right ? If so an OLB often racks up more sacks. I remember Haley being dominant; I read about how coaches feared his impact and game planned how to contain him with doubleteams. He was an absolute jerk....won't deny that. He may have tunred it on and off. But IMO he was dominant.

I always liked Keven Greene the player. But he really didn't scare me that much. When I thnk of dominating OLB's I think Derrick Thomas and Lawrence Taylor. Talent wise I think Green is a strong notch below them.

Is Haley a strong notch below some of the recent DL who have been inducted ?

Haley was a LOLB in San Francisco, primarily an RDE in Dallas.

Bruce Smith was an RDE - 200 sacks
Reggie White was an LDE - 198 sacks
Kevin Greene - LOLB - 160 sacks
Chris Doleman was an RDE - 150.5 sacks
Michael Strahan - LDE - 141.5 sacks
Jason Taylor - RDE - 139.5 sacks
Richard Dent - RDE - 137.5 sacks
Lawrence Taylor - ROLB - 132.5 sacks
Leslie O'Neal - RDE mostly/ROLB - 132.5 sacks
Ricky Jackson - LOLB mostley - 128 sacks
Derrick Thomas - ROLB/LOLB - 126.5 sacks
Simeon Rice - RDE - 122 sacks
Clyde Simmons - RDE - 121.5 sacks
Sean Jones - RDE - 113 sacks
John Abraham - RDE - 112
Greg Townsend - all over - 109.5
Other DEs with 100 or more - Trace Armstrong, Neil Smith, Kevin Carter, Dwight Freeney, William Fuller
Other LBs with 100 or more - Pat Swilling, Andre Tippet

Jim Jeffcoat, who was Haley's team mate in Dallas, played RDE before Haley came, then swithced to LDE. Ended his career with 102.5 sacks. In the eight years he started at RDE before Haley came, he had 68 sacks. In the next 5 years at RDE, Haley had 33 sacks.

Special mention for Jared Allen - RDE - who in just 8 seasons already has 105 sacks.

An awful lot of DE's on that list, and many of them played at about the same time as Haley (Smith, White, Doleman, Dent, O'Neal, Simmons, Jones, Townsend, Armstrong, Smith, Jeffcoat, Fuller). My impressions of Haley was a guy with immense ability who didn't really get the most out of it.. His best seasons for sacks - 16.0, 12.5, 12.0, 11.5, 10.5, 10.5, 7.0. They make a big deal about his 5 Super Bowl rings, as if he was the primary factor in getting them. Marv Flemming has 4 Super Bowl rings, maybe he should get more consideration for the Hall.

Dexter Manley was an RDE, played 143 games and ended his career with 97.5 sacks. Haley got three more sacks in 169 games. Manley was a good player, a strong pass rusher. Haley was a good player, a strong pass rusher. Neither one deserves the HOF, (imoboaloo).

Charles Haley is just another of the many Cowboys who are given much more credit than they should have. The Dallas propaganda machine was running full throttle in those days, and Haley was one of the primary beneficiaries, in my opinion. Of course, Haley's personality got him in trouble and traded by SF, and it also kept him in the sports news, which added to his reputation. Packer fans had absolute paranoia when it came to playing Dallas, and the impression was that everyone they had was unstoppable, and a future HOF'er.

[Scott Campbell]

Haley was a dominant ass, but just a very good player. Not a Hall of Famer.

Martin had 1697 yards rushing one season, 1513 another and two other seasons over 1450 yards. Martin has more yards rushing than Tomlinson and both have now played 11 seasons. Martin was a heck of a lot more than just very good.

How did Marcus Allen get in? It basically took him 16 years to do what Martin did in 11.

Haley was a spectacle of sorts, so he gained name recogniotion. Curtis Martin just quietly went about his business and exceeded the performance of all but a few truly elite players; Smith, Payton and Sanders. Haley was basically a 8-10 sacks/year guy at his best (one year with 16). In his 13 year career he had 100 sacks, 96 in his first 10 years. Hardly a dominating player, just a good one.


Haley may have been perceived as an ass, but that's not an uncommon perception of people with bi-polar disorder.

Haley has 5 Superbowl Championship rings - more than any other player. I have no issue with him becoming a HOF'er.

[pbmax]

If you look at Doleman's stats, and the average value assigned to them by Pro Football Reference, Doleman stands out as being better for longer and at a higher level than Greene or Haley. But I always thought Doleman was a one trick pony (pass rusher supreme) who got better all around as he aged. Richard Dent, for instance, does not have his numbers, but always seemed better to me.

[Patler]

Haley has 5 Superbowl Championship rings - more than any other player. I have no issue with him becoming a HOF'er.

..and Marv Flemming has four. On the right team at the right time.

[Upnorth]

Championships are over inflated at the individual in a team game. Either that or else Marino had some amazing publicists working for him.

No one player can bring a championship, they can help but it is more a function of the organization. The Patriots of the early 2000's are a great example. The offense right now is far better, but the team as a whole was better then and they got 3 championships as a result. Look at the walsh 49ers. Sure Montana got all the glory but what a great pass defense, oline and rb's!

[gbgary]

Haley? A disruptive force both on and off the field. Not a Hall of Famer in my opinion.

i'm with you. not enough sacks.

no problem with martin though. he's like 4th all time and played fewer years than emmit and walter.