Roger Craig Snubbed

Did the OP really just say that Craig should get in before Marshall Faulk?!?!? LOLOLOL.

Please stop being a homer for a second if you are going to make threads on NT.

Craig wont be on the ballet for anther 10 years

9 out of the top 15 rushing leaders in the history of the nfl are in the HOF

2011 ballet
Martin (4th)
Bettis (5th)
Faulk (10th)

12 out of 15 when these three get in

Craig isn't going to get a look until the top 20 RB are in the HOF

still got guys playing like LT (6th)

Edge James (11th)
Fred Taylor (15th)

Dillion (17th)
Dunn (19th)
Watters (20th)

Craig is (36th)
gonna be a while

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!

Looking back at his numbers the whole body of work doesn't look HOF worthy. Like most running backs he declined rapidly when he hit 30. His last 4 yrs he put up sub par numbers. You can't ignore him being the first dual threat back.

Originally posted by BobS:

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.

its amazing how many people don't properly respect the difference between era's.

Its all about how you stack up to your competitors in your day.

Roger Craig was THE versatile back of his day.
Marshall Faulk was THE versatile back of his day.
Roger Craig should be in the HOF
Marshall Faulk should be in the HOF
Roger Craigs day, occured before Marshall Faulk
Roger Craig should go in before Marshall Faulk

Its really as simple as that. I don't even think people need to waste their time with who was the first to do what. Its all nonsense. If there is a "THE versatile back of the 70's" He should be in too. If there is nobody that fits that description than Roger Craig should get credit for being the first....but again, I don't even think that is a necessary recognition for Roger Craig to get in

Originally posted by RedWaltz24:
Craig will probably eventually make it in, but I think some here are looking at him through 49er colored glasses. To say he should go in before Marshall Faulk is a real stretch.

"Marshall is one of the 3 players (Marcus Allen & Tiki Barber) to reach at least 10,000 rushing yards and 5,000 receiving yards in his career and the only one to have 12,000 yards rushing, 6,000 yards receiving.[1] His seven two-point conversions are an NFL record.[2] His 5 games of 250+ yards from scrimmage and 14 games of 200+ yards from scrimmage are also NFL records. Marshall Faulk is the only player to have 70+ rushing touchdowns and 30+ receiving touchdowns."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Faulk

There are just too many good RB's out there this year.

I agree. Being the first doesn't make you the best. I LOVE Craig, but Faulk was better. I'd go so far as to say that the greatest show on turf doesn't happen without a back like Faulk. In the case of Craig, eventually he may go in, but there are better players. I take Haley over Craig. I take Andre Reed over Craig. I take Ken Stabler, who isn't even a finalist over Craig. You certainly have to take Sanders. Roger Craig will be one of those guys that will get in when there are no bigger name modern era players and/or the veteran committee gets him in.

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by modninerfan:
Roger Craig - 11 years

8,189 yards rushing
4.1 ypc
56 rushing TDs

4,911 receiving yards
566 receptions
17 receiving TD's


Marshall Faulk - 12 years

12,279 yards rushing
4.3 ypc
100 Rushing TDs

6,875 receiving yards
767 receptions
36 Receiving TDs

Faulk and not even close

Comparing eras - we always get in trouble when doing it. I don't think you can compare eras - just me.

Not to mention, you don't have a "Faulk" as a receiver without a "Craig". Someone had to prove first the value of having a RB who was also a capable receiver.

Not to mention that the WCO split a lot of carries with its FB. So Rathman took a lot of those catches and runs also. You would have to give me 5 minutes in Google to find out who was the FB at the Rams because I have no idea.

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by LifelongNiner:

Originally posted by RedWaltz24:
Craig will probably eventually make it in, but I think some here are looking at him through 49er colored glasses. To say he should go in before Marshall Faulk is a real stretch.

"Marshall is one of the 3 players (Marcus Allen & Tiki Barber) to reach at least 10,000 rushing yards and 5,000 receiving yards in his career and the only one to have 12,000 yards rushing, 6,000 yards receiving.[1] His seven two-point conversions are an NFL record.[2] His 5 games of 250+ yards from scrimmage and 14 games of 200+ yards from scrimmage are also NFL records. Marshall Faulk is the only player to have 70+ rushing touchdowns and 30+ receiving touchdowns."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Faulk

There are just too many good RB's out there this year.

I agree. Being the first doesn't make you the best. I LOVE Craig, but Faulk was better. I'd go so far as to say that the greatest show on turf doesn't happen without a back like Faulk. In the case of Craig, eventually he may go in, but there are better players. I take Haley over Craig. I take Andre Reed over Craig. I take Ken Stabler, who isn't even a finalist over Craig. You certainly have to take Sanders. Roger Craig will be one of those guys that will get in when there are no bigger name modern era players and/or the veteran committee gets him in.

When did the HOF be about being the best?

Michael Irvin

That was a head scratcher. Michael Irvin is a HOF player. I was just shocked that he got in so quickly. Don't let Cowboys hatred blind you. T

Originally posted by modninerfan:
Roger Craig - 11 years

8,189 yards rushing
4.1 ypc
56 rushing TDs

4,911 receiving yards
566 receptions
17 receiving TD's


Marshall Faulk - 12 years

12,279 yards rushing
4.3 ypc
100 Rushing TDs

6,875 receiving yards
767 receptions
36 Receiving TDs

Faulk and not even close

It simply a joke that anyone would even compare Craig to Faulk and suggest that Roger should be voted into the HOF before Faulk. Craig was a very good back who has an elite year or 2. Faulk was simply an elite RB who was the best in the league for a period of time.

It isnt even close. Faulk is a first ballot HOF player and Craig is borderline at best.

I is really a shame. I think once Faulk gets in, Roger will get his.

The epic fumble strikes again!

Craig should be in...big time.

Here's why:
The Case for Craig

Originally posted by Envy:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by modninerfan:
Roger Craig - 11 years

8,189 yards rushing
4.1 ypc
56 rushing TDs

4,911 receiving yards
566 receptions
17 receiving TD's


Marshall Faulk - 12 years

12,279 yards rushing
4.3 ypc
100 Rushing TDs

6,875 receiving yards
767 receptions
36 Receiving TDs

Faulk and not even close

Comparing eras - we always get in trouble when doing it. I don't think you can compare eras - just me.

Not to mention, you don't have a "Faulk" as a receiver without a "Craig". Someone had to prove first the value of having a RB who was also a capable receiver.

Not to mention that the WCO split a lot of carries with its FB. So Rathman took a lot of those catches and runs also. You would have to give me 5 minutes in Google to find out who was the FB at the Rams because I have no idea.

Not to mention...Craig WAS the FB from 1983 to mid 1987.

ridiculous...1st player to ever amass 1000 rush yds and 1000 receiving yards in a single season

Originally posted by BleedRednGold:

Originally posted by okdkid:
We're biased. He was good. But not as good as Frank Gore. He had the luxury of playing with many, many HOF guys. Can't say by himself he was HOF worthy.

Craig won two, I repeat TWO superbowls before rice and all them showed up.

it was just one, rice was drafted in 85 and craig in 83