MaddogCT Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 Perspective. Bettis is a good back. He has power and a nose for the end zone. And he was demoted two seasons ago for Duce Staley. And when call upon by the team to carry the load after Duce went down for the season, he stood up and did it. All of that is great. "A warrior!" "The ageless wonder!" "The best of the over thirty running backs" All of these comments, and those that are similar, are wrong. Jerome Bettis, meet John Riggins. While writers and television announcers are waxing poetic over thirteen touchdowns and 940 yards in 2004 at the age of 32, they are forgetting about a running back from Kansas. A running back, who at the age of 34, ran for 1,347 yards and 24 touchdowns. They are forgetting the next year at the age of 35, Riggins rumbled for 1,239 yards and "only" 14 touchdowns. Left out of the "ageless" discussion are the 610 yards and 4 touchdowns he made in four playoff games in 1982 at the age of 33. So, if you are in a bar or at work and someone says something about "The Bus" and how successful he is at 32....bring up "The Diesel" and show them what success is at the age of 34. :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeNoRevs Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 So let me get this right, Art Monk, one of the greatest two or three wide recievers in history, an integral part of a three-time champion dynasty, You lose all credibility with your post right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 I started to read your thread but then decided it was stupid. Bettis is one of the top running backs of all time. This thread sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeNoRevs Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 I started to read your thread but then decided it was stupid. Bettis is one of the top running backs of all time. This thread sucks. Could of not said it better myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazhog Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 I have no problem with Bettis getting into the hall... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 comparing rbs to wr's is apples and oranges Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 Bettis should definitely get in. He has the stats, although they aren't spectacular compared to other HOF running backs. He just won't be first ballot, or second and third ballot either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdskn4eva Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 The easiest way to get into the HOP is SB rings. The second easist is to get 100 tds. You do one of those, you should be a lock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jizmaglobin Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 Monk should be in but so should Bettis. Bettis is the 5th all time rusher and has 90+ TDs - that's why he is in. It doesn't hurt that he is one of the classiest guys in the NFL. i couldn't agree more.Bettis does deserve to be there because of his #5 on the all time list.that's pretty decent company up there.and i don't believe one can really compare any future players up for consideration to Art and then cite the fact that Monk still isn't in.Art should have been there years ago.he was the all time leading reciever when he retired.everybody doesn't get the same luxuries as Rice and get 2 HOF QB's throwing passes to him his entire carreer.i do have a question though,is Largent in the HOF already?if Steevo is there then Art should be too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 Who cares? The HOF is a wet dream voted on by the same idiots who said the Redskins were a 4-12 or 5-11 team this year. Talent evaluators they are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fight_on_til_you_have_won Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 I would vote Bettis for the HOF every time. Monk, too -- it's a shame the voters are so retarded. Stallworth, yes; Monk, no? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Williams Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 If I had to choose.... Bettis>Monk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 I would vote Bettis for the HOF every time. Monk, too -- it's a shame the voters are so retarded. Stallworth, yes; Monk, no? :doh: How about Lynn Swann? So he caught a few balls in the Super Bowl after doing nothing to get his teams there. Look at his season stats, they are pathetic. Timmy Smith, you don't know just how close you were to being a HOFer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 I'd have reservations on Bettis and would definitely vote no in the year. Bettis was great at what he did and I respect that. But there are some negatives too. 1) A career average of 3.9 yards per carry 2) He wasn't much of a receiver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeNoRevs Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 I'd have reservations on Bettis and would definitely vote no in the year. Bettis was great at what he did and I respect that. But there are some negatives too.1) A career average of 3.9 yards per carry 2) He wasn't much of a receiver Who cares if he wasnt much of a reciever, thats why he played the running back posistion. and 4 yards a carry isnt something to sneeze at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankRizzo Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 Bettis definitley deserves to be in the HOF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muzzah Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 what does super bowl rings have to do with being a great running back/player... *cough* Barry Sanders *cough* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 They should just call it the NFL experience and instead of highlighting a players' numbers just have one of a sh*tload of Bettis, Tiki, Strahan, or Favre interviews running on a loop on big screens where they're yuking it up with one talking head after another because they're so great and they're so funny and they're so talented that when they retire, sh*t ofcourse they're going to the HOF. ....well F*CK THAT! MONK IS STILL WAITING A**HOLES! If you understood football at all you would have never posted this thread :doh: I agree Monk has been screwed, but Bettis is a sure HOFer, a football fan would understand that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flowtrain Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 Bettis will make it. But he'll take a number behind Curtis Martin, who leads him in almost every major category despite playing 2 fewer seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happyfoosball Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 Art Monks not in the hall of fame? Rofl thats such crap. He was awsome. He along with Harry Carson should start a club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desertfox59 Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 The NFL hall of fame is, and will continue to be the Hall of Shame untill the Art Monk is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Betts should go, but leaving Monk out is like if they leave Emmitt Smith out. Both held records when they retired. Steve Largent held the receptions record when Monk broke it. Largent was never even on a SB team and never did **** in the playoffs but he went in the HOF first time up. The HOF is a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdsknbill Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 I personally don't think Bettis should go to the Hall of Fame. He was good, but not a great back in my opinion. He was durable and played a long time though. However, I think he deserves to go to the Hall of Fame before Art Monk ever would. Would you care to enlighten us on your reasoning that Monk doesn't deserve to be in the HOF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeNoRevs Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Betts should go, but leaving Monk out is like if they leave Emmitt Smith out. Both held records when they retired. Steve Largent held the receptions record when Monk broke it. Largent was never even on a SB team and never did **** in the playoffs but he went in the HOF first time up. The HOF is a joke. besides the record the 940 balls caught did he have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimReefa Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Jerome Bettis averaged under 4 yards a carry. His numbers are based on durability and consistency. Now, it just so happens that I believe durability and consistency are two important factors in determining Hall of Fame players and that, therefore, Jerome Bettis does deserve to be a Hall of Famer. HOWEVER, there is no arguement you can make against Art Monk which you could not make against Jerome Bettis. The two players' careers are very similar, except for one thing. Monk = 3 rings Bettis = 0 rings Therefore, Monk IS the better candidate than Bettis. And if Bettis gets in before Monk, that's a joke. Just like it's a joke if Irvin gets in before Monk. I'm not saying either of those guys doesn't deserve to be in the HOF, just that Monk deserves it more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.