Roger Craig Snubbed

Originally posted by bsyde82:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
Why is it laughable to compare him to Faulk? Before Faulk, for a long time, was the ONLY guy to rush for 1k and receive 1k in a year.
1k yards receiving for a RB is insane, that's running the ball like Mostert and catching passes like Deebo.
When the Rams brought Faulk to the Rams it was only because they were going to make him their Roger Craig. They weren't going to make him Ricky Watters or anyone else. I mean, shoot, the short post concept that Martz put in was just a variation on the texas concept BW designed for Craig.

Roger might have been the pre-cursor to Faulk, but it doesn't mean they're remotely on the same level. Just looking at their peaks, it's not really close in terms of stats, and I feel like both had teams that were relatively equally stacked. Morever, Faulk I felt like was the lynchpin of the greatest show on turf. While Roger, while important, was just another piece on a stacked team. I admit I'm mostly just going off my fuzzy sports memories.

The Hall of Fame shouldn't just be about stats. It should also be about impact on the game. Jimmy Johnson got in not so much because he won 2 Super Bowls (and only was 80-64 in his career), but because he completely changed how teams drafted, traded, and built a winner. Joe Namath isn't in the HoF because of his stats, but because he was the QB in the most important game in NFL history.

Craig should be in the HoF because of his combination of peak performance and impact on changing how the game is played.

Don Coryell should be in the HoF because he completely changed the offensive strategy of the sport. His 114–89–1 coaching record is almost irrelevant.

Originally posted by captveg:

Originally posted by bsyde82:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
Why is it laughable to compare him to Faulk? Before Faulk, for a long time, was the ONLY guy to rush for 1k and receive 1k in a year.
1k yards receiving for a RB is insane, that's running the ball like Mostert and catching passes like Deebo.
When the Rams brought Faulk to the Rams it was only because they were going to make him their Roger Craig. They weren't going to make him Ricky Watters or anyone else. I mean, shoot, the short post concept that Martz put in was just a variation on the texas concept BW designed for Craig.

Roger might have been the pre-cursor to Faulk, but it doesn't mean they're remotely on the same level. Just looking at their peaks, it's not really close in terms of stats, and I feel like both had teams that were relatively equally stacked. Morever, Faulk I felt like was the lynchpin of the greatest show on turf. While Roger, while important, was just another piece on a stacked team. I admit I'm mostly just going off my fuzzy sports memories.

The Hall of Fame shouldn't just be about stats. It should also be about impact on the game. Jimmy Johnson got in not so much because he won 2 Super Bowls (and only was 80-64 in his career), but because he completely changed how teams drafted, traded, and built a winner. Joe Namath isn't in the HoF because of his stats, but because he was the QB in the most important game in NFL history.

Craig should be in the HoF because of his combination of peak performance and impact on changing how the game is played.

Don Coryell should be in the HoF because he completely changed the offensive strategy of the sport. His 114–89–1 coaching record is almost irrelevant.

This. People would say Kamara is a future HOFer but his stats don't compare to Craig's. Craig allowed Walsh to take advantage of a defense's weakness and spread them thin horizontally. That was what made the O great work to perfection.

Originally posted by jcs:
The Fumble is still costing him.

HOF voters aren't just 49er fans. They don't care about one fumble any more than they care about one TD.

He doesn't have the numbers to get in. He had a handful of great seasons but that was it. HOF requires consistent greatness.

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

He doesn't have the numbers to get in. He had a handful of great seasons but that was it. HOF requires consistent greatness.

Then explain to me how Terrell Davis is in, but Craig isnt?

Davis: 8,887 all purpose yds, 65 TD's, 3 pro bowls, 2 rings

Craig: 13,100 all purpose yds, 73 TD's, 4 pro bowls, 3 rings

Originally posted by Niners99:
Then explain to me how Terrell Davis is in, but Craig isnt?

Davis: 8,887 all purpose yds, 65 TD's, 3 pro bowls, 2 rings

Craig: 13,100 all purpose yds, 73 TD's, 4 pro bowls, 3 rings

Davis was the offense while in Denver. Everything revolved around him even though they had Elway. Roger was part of an offensive machine. I'm not saying that should be a factor but some voters may view it that way. Remember, the voters all have different criteria. Some are all about stas, some about how mant SB's or pro bowls and some look at the impact on his team or the game overall. There are no rules on how to vote.

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

He doesn't have the numbers to get in. He had a handful of great seasons but that was it. HOF requires consistent greatness.

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

Originally posted by Niners99:

Then explain to me how Terrell Davis is in, but Craig isnt?

Davis: 8,887 all purpose yds, 65 TD's, 3 pro bowls, 2 rings

Craig: 13,100 all purpose yds, 73 TD's, 4 pro bowls, 3 rings

Davis was the offense while in Denver. Everything revolved around him even though they had Elway. Roger was part of an offensive machine. I'm not saying that should be a factor but some voters may view it that way. Remember, the voters all have different criteria. Some are all about stas, some about how mant SB's or pro bowls and some look at the impact on his team or the game overall. There are no rules on how to vote.

lol theres no argument for this. Craig had the better career, and revolutionized the position. Its totally hypocritical to have Davis is but not Craig
.

Whats probably going against him is he was a FB for the first few years of his career.

He did the first 1000 x 1000 as a FB. Thats nuts.

Originally posted by Niners99:
lol theres no argument for this. Craig had the better career, and revolutionized the position. Its totally hypocritical to have Davis is but not Craig
.

This stuff often comes down to who a voter likes. Guys get screwed over all the time and you can always make an argument that this guy or that guy should be in. You ever see a boxing match where all the judges vote one way except for one guy that sees it just the opposite. If there were rules that said you must go by stats then people would complain that it wasn't fair because he played on a better team. If you went by stats alone Emmitt Smith is the greatest RB of all time but I doubt many people that watch the NFL would think he is. He benefited from playing behind one of the best O lines in history. In the case of Davis and Craig, both had great O lines.

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

Originally posted by Niners99:

lol theres no argument for this. Craig had the better career, and revolutionized the position. Its totally hypocritical to have Davis is but not Craig
.

This stuff often comes down to who a voter likes. Guys get screwed over all the time and you can always make an argument that this guy or that guy should be in. You ever see a boxing match where all the judges vote one way except for one guy that sees it just the opposite. If there were rules that said you must go by stats then people would complain that it wasn't fair because he played on a better team. If you went by stats alone Emmitt Smith is the greatest RB of all time but I doubt many people that watch the NFL would think he is. He benefited from playing behind one of the best O lines in history. In the case of Davis and Craig, both had great O lines.

I think, and it's sad to say this, but he doesn't get in because he's not in the highlight reels all the time from the era for the team. There's tons of Walter from the bears teams, Dickerson from the Rams, Faulk with the Rams, but when people think of the niners of the 8o's they think if Mkntana, Clark, Rice and Lott because of the highlights. Roger was phenomenal but didnt have the highlight reels stuff.

A bunch of BS. He was a pioneer at the position. First player to reach 1000/1000 with only three players total to do it. Some of the players and coaches getting inducted these days are questionable in opinion and for Roger to get passed over is just wrong.

Craig's career numbers are hurt by hitting the wall at age 30 and sharing carries his first few years with Tyler and Cribbs. There are some rare cases of players with shorter careers/fewer career yards in the HOF, but most have more longevity.

49er fans still hold the fumble ruining the 3-peat against him?? They needed him to be in that spot in the first place. Now the 89' season, they were so dominant that they could have plugged in an average RB and still won it all. But 88,??!! They would not have won the SB after the 88' season without him. They barely made the postseason and needed a great season from Craig to get in. He was 2nd in MVP voting behind Boomer (and played much better in the SB I might add).

It would have been a tall order to beat Buffalo if we had gotten past NY.

Originally posted by Erratic:

Craig's career numbers are hurt by hitting the wall at age 30 and sharing carries his first few years with Tyler and Cribbs. There are some rare cases of players with shorter careers/fewer career yards in the HOF, but most have more longevity.

49er fans still hold the fumble ruining the 3-peat against him?? They needed him to be in that spot in the first place. Now the 89' season, they were so dominant that they could have plugged in an average RB and still won it all. But 88,??!! They would not have won the SB after the 88' season without him. They barely made the postseason and needed a great season from Craig to get in. He was 2nd in MVP voting behind Boomer (and played much better in the SB I might add).

It would have been a tall order to beat Buffalo if we had gotten past NY.

We definitely could not have used the Giants game plan on offense to beat Buffalo (running the ball) but I do think we had the guns for a shoot out. We could've had 5 DBs all game, daring them to run and Joe would've needed to throw 40 times. I think we could have won.