Roger Craig Snubbed

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by DynastyPart2:

Originally posted by krizay:
i'll try this again since I think my last attempt got lost somewhere.


Reggie Bush (widely considered a bust) career averages...

60 games
34.8 yards a game rushing. 17 td's
35.7 yards a game receiving. 12 td's

For a total of 70.5 yards from scrimmage a game. and .48 Td's per game

Roger Craig
165 games
49.6 yards a game rushing 56 td's
29.7 yards a game receiving 17 td's

for a total of 79.3 yards from scrimmage a game. and a .44 td's per game average.


So Reggie Bush is considered a bust and Roger Carig is HOF material? Let's face it, Craig only had 3 HOF caliber seasons.

Not enough to get in, in my book!

Again,

Soggy turf 8 times per year vs carpet.

Oh i'm sorry! I thought you got into the Hall Of Fame because of the numbers you put up in your career. Did not know Field conditions was part of the criteria! Please excuse my previous post.

Originally posted by nw49erfan:
Does anyone else think it's because the fumble?

Sad but it's still the 1st thing that comes to mind when I think of Craig...

First thing I think of is his TD run against the Dolphins in Superbowl 16.

Wait, I think it was actually a pass, AND it was 19 not 16. I was thinking of our first Superbowl! It can't be all that bad if you forget what Superbowl and type of play your favorite Niner scored in.

There is obviously a disconnect between some here about how important #'s are for the HOF. Craig has Three really good #s to help him out. Consider the amount of the 49ers offense he accounted for during even the Rice years and I think you will respect those numbers even more. He was a feature in the offense and one of the best offenses ever. He was a warrior and a great athlete.

That being said there are plenty of people who don't have "numbers" who are in the HOF and deserve to be. Andre Reed will probably go in and Art Monk already went in. Their "numbers" stink. But they changed the game and there is plenty to be said for that. if the HOF was all about #'s then explain to me why FLOYD LITTLE got in last year.

Also, I can't harp on this point enough. Watch the NFL Network broadcast of the anouncement. Those guys are not only making a pitch that Faulk had great numbers but they are also pitching him as the back who changed the position. Marricci says it and Irvin backs him up. This is a slight no matter what you think about how they compare or if Craig deserves to be in. Marshall Faulk should not go in being talked about as THE guy who revolutionized the RB position. Which is what they are doing now. Craig is that guy and regardless if you think he is a HOF player or not (HE IS) it is bad journalism, cronyism, and really stealing Rogers accomplishments to talk about Marshall Faulk and say that he and not Craig transformed the way the RB position was played. Faulk was huge in an era which had more stats, playing on faster turf, and against a rule restrained pass defense. he has better numbers, he would have fit right in to Bill Walshes system. HE DID NOT REINVENT THE RB POSITION! You can't take that from Craig. You just can't.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-gameday/09000d5d81d90c9a/Hall-of-Fame-finalists?module=HP_video

About 6:26 to start the conversation. 6:57 Marriucci-"Changed the Game, the way the Running Back postion has been utilized since". Irvin then elaborates on him being a RB and reciever.

Originally posted by VA49er:
There is obviously a disconnect between some here about how important #'s are for the HOF. Craig has Three really good #s to help him out. Consider the amount of the 49ers offense he accounted for during even the Rice years and I think you will respect those numbers even more. He was a feature in the offense and one of the best offenses ever. He was a warrior and a great athlete.

That being said there are plenty of people who don't have "numbers" who are in the HOF and deserve to be. Andre Reed will probably go in and Art Monk already went in. Their "numbers" stink. But they changed the game and there is plenty to be said for that. if the HOF was all about #'s then explain to me why FLOYD LITTLE got in last year.

Also, I can't harp on this point enough. Watch the NFL Network broadcast of the anouncement. Those guys are not only making a pitch that Faulk had great numbers but they are also pitching him as the back who changed the position. Marricci says it and Irvin backs him up. This is a slight no matter what you think about how they compare or if Craig deserves to be in. Marshall Faulk should not go in being talked about as THE guy who revolutionized the RB position. Which is what they are doing now. Craig is that guy and regardless if you think he is a HOF player or not (HE IS) it is bad journalism, cronyism, and really stealing Rogers accomplishments to talk about Marshall Faulk and say that he and not Craig transformed the way the RB position was played. Faulk was huge in an era which had more stats, playing on faster turf, and against a rule restrained pass defense. he has better numbers, he would have fit right in to Bill Walshes system. HE DID NOT REINVENT THE RB POSITION! You can't take that from Craig. You just can't.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-gameday/09000d5d81d90c9a/Hall-of-Fame-finalists?module=HP_video

About 6:26 to start the conversation. 6:57 Marriucci-"Changed the Game, the way the Running Back postion has been utilized since". Irvin then elaborates on him being a RB and reciever.

Faulk did change the position. Yes Craig was the first 1,000/1,000 guys but Faulk changed it in the sense that A) they lined him up at WR quite a bit. B) Small fast guys was never thought of as a featured back/work horse.

All Roger did was become the 1st 1,000/1,000 guy. Which was an awesome feat no doubt. But other RB's in that era caught balls out of the backfield too.

Originally posted by 49erWill:
The fumble

that still ticks me off

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by VA49er:
There is obviously a disconnect between some here about how important #'s are for the HOF. Craig has Three really good #s to help him out. Consider the amount of the 49ers offense he accounted for during even the Rice years and I think you will respect those numbers even more. He was a feature in the offense and one of the best offenses ever. He was a warrior and a great athlete.

That being said there are plenty of people who don't have "numbers" who are in the HOF and deserve to be. Andre Reed will probably go in and Art Monk already went in. Their "numbers" stink. But they changed the game and there is plenty to be said for that. if the HOF was all about #'s then explain to me why FLOYD LITTLE got in last year.

Also, I can't harp on this point enough. Watch the NFL Network broadcast of the anouncement. Those guys are not only making a pitch that Faulk had great numbers but they are also pitching him as the back who changed the position. Marricci says it and Irvin backs him up. This is a slight no matter what you think about how they compare or if Craig deserves to be in. Marshall Faulk should not go in being talked about as THE guy who revolutionized the RB position. Which is what they are doing now. Craig is that guy and regardless if you think he is a HOF player or not (HE IS) it is bad journalism, cronyism, and really stealing Rogers accomplishments to talk about Marshall Faulk and say that he and not Craig transformed the way the RB position was played. Faulk was huge in an era which had more stats, playing on faster turf, and against a rule restrained pass defense. he has better numbers, he would have fit right in to Bill Walshes system. HE DID NOT REINVENT THE RB POSITION! You can't take that from Craig. You just can't.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-gameday/09000d5d81d90c9a/Hall-of-Fame-finalists?module=HP_video

About 6:26 to start the conversation. 6:57 Marriucci-"Changed the Game, the way the Running Back postion has been utilized since". Irvin then elaborates on him being a RB and reciever.

Faulk did change the position. Yes Craig was the first 1,000/1,000 guys but Faulk changed it in the sense that A) they lined him up at WR quite a bit. B) Small fast guys was never thought of as a featured back/work horse.

All Roger did was become the 1st 1,000/1,000 guy. Which was an awesome feat no doubt. But other RB's in that era caught balls out of the backfield too.

Did Chuck Foreman make it into the Hall? I don't remember if he did, or didn't.

Originally posted by lssanjose:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by VA49er:
There is obviously a disconnect between some here about how important #'s are for the HOF. Craig has Three really good #s to help him out. Consider the amount of the 49ers offense he accounted for during even the Rice years and I think you will respect those numbers even more. He was a feature in the offense and one of the best offenses ever. He was a warrior and a great athlete.

That being said there are plenty of people who don't have "numbers" who are in the HOF and deserve to be. Andre Reed will probably go in and Art Monk already went in. Their "numbers" stink. But they changed the game and there is plenty to be said for that. if the HOF was all about #'s then explain to me why FLOYD LITTLE got in last year.

Also, I can't harp on this point enough. Watch the NFL Network broadcast of the anouncement. Those guys are not only making a pitch that Faulk had great numbers but they are also pitching him as the back who changed the position. Marricci says it and Irvin backs him up. This is a slight no matter what you think about how they compare or if Craig deserves to be in. Marshall Faulk should not go in being talked about as THE guy who revolutionized the RB position. Which is what they are doing now. Craig is that guy and regardless if you think he is a HOF player or not (HE IS) it is bad journalism, cronyism, and really stealing Rogers accomplishments to talk about Marshall Faulk and say that he and not Craig transformed the way the RB position was played. Faulk was huge in an era which had more stats, playing on faster turf, and against a rule restrained pass defense. he has better numbers, he would have fit right in to Bill Walshes system. HE DID NOT REINVENT THE RB POSITION! You can't take that from Craig. You just can't.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-gameday/09000d5d81d90c9a/Hall-of-Fame-finalists?module=HP_video

About 6:26 to start the conversation. 6:57 Marriucci-"Changed the Game, the way the Running Back postion has been utilized since". Irvin then elaborates on him being a RB and reciever.

Faulk did change the position. Yes Craig was the first 1,000/1,000 guys but Faulk changed it in the sense that A) they lined him up at WR quite a bit. B) Small fast guys was never thought of as a featured back/work horse.

All Roger did was become the 1st 1,000/1,000 guy. Which was an awesome feat no doubt. But other RB's in that era caught balls out of the backfield too.

Did Chuck Foreman make it into the Hall? I don't remember if he did, or didn't.

negative

Originally posted by BasharCali49:
I guess they don't want too many 49ers in the Hall of Fame.

East Coast bias...

Originally posted by 9erfan4life:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by DynastyPart2:

Originally posted by krizay:
i'll try this again since I think my last attempt got lost somewhere.


Reggie Bush (widely considered a bust) career averages...

60 games
34.8 yards a game rushing. 17 td's
35.7 yards a game receiving. 12 td's

For a total of 70.5 yards from scrimmage a game. and .48 Td's per game

Roger Craig
165 games
49.6 yards a game rushing 56 td's
29.7 yards a game receiving 17 td's

for a total of 79.3 yards from scrimmage a game. and a .44 td's per game average.


So Reggie Bush is considered a bust and Roger Carig is HOF material? Let's face it, Craig only had 3 HOF caliber seasons.

Not enough to get in, in my book!

Again,

Soggy turf 8 times per year vs carpet.

Oh i'm sorry! I thought you got into the Hall Of Fame because of the numbers you put up in your career. Did not know Field conditions was part of the criteria! Please excuse my previous post.

Hey, you guys leave him alone, that was a commendable effort on DynastyPart2's part.

Originally posted by JerryRice1848:

Originally posted by 49erWill:
The fumble

Why did I watch this. Just ruined my whole day. I feel sick now.

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by VA49er:
There is obviously a disconnect between some here about how important #'s are for the HOF. Craig has Three really good #s to help him out. Consider the amount of the 49ers offense he accounted for during even the Rice years and I think you will respect those numbers even more. He was a feature in the offense and one of the best offenses ever. He was a warrior and a great athlete.

That being said there are plenty of people who don't have "numbers" who are in the HOF and deserve to be. Andre Reed will probably go in and Art Monk already went in. Their "numbers" stink. But they changed the game and there is plenty to be said for that. if the HOF was all about #'s then explain to me why FLOYD LITTLE got in last year.

Also, I can't harp on this point enough. Watch the NFL Network broadcast of the anouncement. Those guys are not only making a pitch that Faulk had great numbers but they are also pitching him as the back who changed the position. Marricci says it and Irvin backs him up. This is a slight no matter what you think about how they compare or if Craig deserves to be in. Marshall Faulk should not go in being talked about as THE guy who revolutionized the RB position. Which is what they are doing now. Craig is that guy and regardless if you think he is a HOF player or not (HE IS) it is bad journalism, cronyism, and really stealing Rogers accomplishments to talk about Marshall Faulk and say that he and not Craig transformed the way the RB position was played. Faulk was huge in an era which had more stats, playing on faster turf, and against a rule restrained pass defense. he has better numbers, he would have fit right in to Bill Walshes system. HE DID NOT REINVENT THE RB POSITION! You can't take that from Craig. You just can't.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-gameday/09000d5d81d90c9a/Hall-of-Fame-finalists?module=HP_video

About 6:26 to start the conversation. 6:57 Marriucci-"Changed the Game, the way the Running Back postion has been utilized since". Irvin then elaborates on him being a RB and reciever.

Faulk did change the position. Yes Craig was the first 1,000/1,000 guys but Faulk changed it in the sense that A) they lined him up at WR quite a bit. B) Small fast guys was never thought of as a featured back/work horse.

All Roger did was become the 1st 1,000/1,000 guy. Which was an awesome feat no doubt. But other RB's in that era caught balls out of the backfield too.

This.

Craig was the first time a back was highly used in the passing game out of the backfield but Faulk's abilities to play the game took it to another level. You had to put a CB on him when he was lined up at WR or he would own you. Roger Craig was a RB who could catch. Faulk was a football player you can put anywhere.

Either way, though, to say Faulk revolutionized the position is not the most accurate comment. Revolutionizing the position is seeing it used that way for the first time and that is what Roger Craig did.

Faulk >> Craig. Craig just got unlucky that Faulk is also being considered.

Maybe if he didn't fumble he would get in.

Faulk's numbers BLOW Craigs out of the water.

The fumble is what he is most remembered for is also a problem

Here's my two cents...
if you take stats out of the equation here (cause it's not always about #'s), then someone make an argument as to why Daryl Johnson deserves to be a first ballot HOFer... before Craig?
I know he was a good fullback as well as receiver out of the backfield, but i can't help but to think that blocking for the "all-time leading rusher and HOFer" has more to do with it.
I don't meant to change the subject on the thread but while everyone is quick to state stats, there's always a comparable player that comes to mind when making arguments, and he's the first that i can think of, but i am also aware that he played his entire career as a fullback.

Originally posted by nw49erfan:
Does anyone else think it's because the fumble?

Sad but it's still the 1st thing that comes to mind when I think of Craig...

He wasn't a fumbler, one of his rare fumbles came at a real bad time. When I think of Craig I think of him high stepping and breaking a dozen tackles against the Rams in a game I saw down here in Anaheim.