Terrell Davis for Hall of Fame?

In this week's Monday Morning Quarterback, Peter King writes that he's having a hard time making up his mind about whether former Broncos running back Terrell Davis is worthy of the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

King writes that Davis has favorable rushing numbers to Gale Sayers, who also had a short career but made it to the Hall of Fame, but also notes that Sayers was a great return man and Davis wasn't.

But here's the reason I'd have to vote no on Davis: He consistently got too much credit for the work of the Broncos' great offensive line. Those 1990s Broncos were an offensive force, no doubt. One member of that team, John Elway, is already in the Hall of Fame, and a few others, including Shannon Sharpe and Tom Nalen, have a good chance of getting there some day. Davis, in my view, falls just short of those three in terms of total career productivity, and therefore just short of worthiness for the Hall of Fame.

Note: King also writes, "Bylaws prevent me from disclosing my ballot of the final 15." I find it disappointing that the journalists on the Hall of Fame selection committee would agree to bylaws that prevent them from providing information to their readers.

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

12-08-2007 @ 9:29AM

Josh said...

i dont care what anybody else really thjinks but Terrell Davis deserves a shot at being inducted into the hall of fame. When it really comes down to it the Broncos are a rushing offense yeah grant it Elway& Sharpe where a huge contribution to the Off. but when it came to it Davis did 90% of the work behind the great o-line

12-03-2007 @ 1:10PM

Chris said...

I didnt know you could get in the HOF for setting on the bench?
This guy had 1 good season and was hurt the rest of the time. Come on there are alot more deserving players out there. TD is a good player but no where near Elawy status...

12-03-2007 @ 1:18PM

milton thuroughood III said...

oh hellll no. Tatum Bell could've been plugged into that team and done the same, if not better.

12-03-2007 @ 1:55PM

nickstoli said...

As good as he was, no. Same for Tim Brown, no.

It ain't the Hall of the Good. Terrell just needed a couple more seasons. Tim Brown has stats, but was he ever considered one of the best receivers in football? Even for one season?

12-03-2007 @ 3:17PM

Feruw said...

If we're refusing to reward players who simply played behind a great 90's offensive line, can we make sure Emmitt Smith won't be going into the hall of fame?

If Barry Sanders would have played in their system, his numbers would have been ungodly.

12-07-2007 @ 11:51AM

bachslunch said...

1. I think Peter King's comparison of Terrell Davis to Gale Sayers makes sense. Both played seven years. Sayers had five big years and two useless ones (of 2 games each). Davis has four big years, one average year, and two useless ones (of 4 and 5 games each), which already puts him slightly behind Sayers. But the big difference is kick returning, at which Sayers was one of the best ever and Davis did none. Given that short career players don't usually fare well in HoF voting, Davis's lack of kick returning may make a difference.

2. It's not necessary for Tim Brown to have been the best ever at his position during his era to be worthy of the HoF. The average number of receivers in per time period is anywhere from 3 to 5, so just being within that parameter should make a player worthy. From Brown's standpoint, he's certainly in that range (Jerry Rice, Cris Carter, Brown, Michael Irvin, and Andre Reed would likely be the top bunch, with some overlap from Art Monk), plus Brown has the counting stats, 9 pro bowls, a hugely long career, and membership on the all-90s decade team, plus excellent kick return numbers (his one 1st team all pro selection was as a KR). To say Brown's not worthy is inconsistent with the HoF's own standards thus far. He may well not make it in on his first shot, of course, but of the players above, Rice could be the only one who does.