Roger Craig Snubbed

Originally posted by JayBee:
Roger should not be in.

Why you say that? He made the pro bowl as a RB and a FB was the first to rush and receive for 1000 yards. I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. So you tell my why not.

For someone like Deon Sanders to (most likely gonna get in due to popularity) get in and a player that revolutionized his position to get the cold shoulder is just wrong IMO.

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.

Dilfer won a super bowl, does that mean he is better than Marino?

Originally posted by Legbreaker:
Craig should be in...big time.

Here's why:
The Case for Craig

This is nothing more than a poor attempt to skew numbers.

His numbers are his numbers. Pure and simple. So he played 4 1/2 years of his career as a fullback, Doesn't mean diddly when you look at his numbers. So he played alongside Jerry Rice, doesn't mean diddly when you look at his numbers.

The ONLY thing he can hang his hat on is he was the first player with 1,000/1,000. That's it.

Now don't get me wrong, if he made it in, I don't think anyone could/would say he doesn't deserve to get in. At the same time, if he doesn't I don't see where anyone outside of his ex-teammates and family members can say he deserves to be in. When he only has 3 HOF caliber seasons under his belt and only the 1,000/1,000 feat as a true barometer. To which that alone doesn't deserve to get him in. Now should his cleats/jersey/or the gameball/ in which was in use be in the HOF cause of the feat? Sure, it should. Shouldn't get him in though. the COMPLETE body of work isn't there. Even when comparing him to his era like the writer in you link tried to do and failed.

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by Legbreaker:
Craig should be in...big time.

Here's why:
The Case for Craig

This is nothing more than a poor attempt to skew numbers.

His numbers are his numbers. Pure and simple. So he played 4 1/2 years of his career as a fullback, Doesn't mean diddly when you look at his numbers. So he played alongside Jerry Rice, doesn't mean diddly when you look at his numbers.

The ONLY thing he can hang his hat on is he was the first player with 1,000/1,000. That's it.

Now don't get me wrong, if he made it in, I don't think anyone could/would say he doesn't deserve to get in. At the same time, if he doesn't I don't see where anyone outside of his ex-teammates and family members can say he deserves to be in. When he only has 3 HOF caliber seasons under his belt and only the 1,000/1,000 feat as a true barometer. To which that alone doesn't deserve to get him in. Now should his cleats/jersey/or the gameball/ in which was in use be in the HOF cause of the feat? Sure, it should. Shouldn't get him in though. the COMPLETE body of work isn't there. Even when comparing him to his era like the writer in you link tried to do and failed.

Huh? A poor attempt to skew numbers? Yawn. Is that the best you've got? Weak.

The fact is, the only modern era player with the same career arc as Craig (Riggins) is already enshrined. Craig was not a pure runner, and he was used in a way that NO BACK BEFORE him ever was. He was a ridiculously productive player given his position, and no amount of bellyaching on your part will change that, Krizay. When he was healthy, his numbers more than put him on par with the best players of his era. That's not my opinion...it's what the numbers show, plain and simple.

His COMPLETE body of work is his career with the Niners...but you wouldn't know that unless you bothered to do the research. Craig's last 3 seasons were hampered by injury. His body broke down on him and that just is what it is.

If you want to disagree with me, that's fine...but if all you want to do is spit hate without backing it up with facts, save it.

Originally posted by backontop:
Faulk had a better overall career and deserves to go into the HOF. Not saying that Craig doesn't he just happned to be going against a loaded ballet.

Yep. love Craig but Faulk>Craig. As a matter of fact, Faulk is the best back in the past 20-25 years other than Barry Sanders imo.

Originally posted by jones49:

Originally posted by backontop:
Faulk had a better overall career and deserves to go into the HOF. Not saying that Craig doesn't he just happned to be going against a loaded ballet.

Yep. love Craig but Faulk>Craig. As a matter of fact, Faulk is the best back in the past 20-25 years other than Barry Sanders imo.

But would you use Faulk as a reason to keep Craig out of the Hall?

Faulk was drafted a year after Craig retired. Why compare Craig to a guy that hadn't even played a down before he retired?

Originally posted by Legbreaker:

Originally posted by jones49:

Originally posted by backontop:
Faulk had a better overall career and deserves to go into the HOF. Not saying that Craig doesn't he just happned to be going against a loaded ballet.

Yep. love Craig but Faulk>Craig. As a matter of fact, Faulk is the best back in the past 20-25 years other than Barry Sanders imo.

But would you use Faulk as a reason to keep Craig out of the Hall?

Faulk was drafted a year after Craig retired. Why compare Craig to a guy that hadn't even played a down before he retired?

Not really using as a reason for Craig not to get in just saying he's not the first RB that I would vote in. Craig is a borderline HOF'er. I hope he gets in but its 50/50 at best.

Originally posted by jones49:

Originally posted by Legbreaker:

Originally posted by jones49:

Originally posted by backontop:
Faulk had a better overall career and deserves to go into the HOF. Not saying that Craig doesn't he just happned to be going against a loaded ballet.

Yep. love Craig but Faulk>Craig. As a matter of fact, Faulk is the best back in the past 20-25 years other than Barry Sanders imo.

But would you use Faulk as a reason to keep Craig out of the Hall?

Faulk was drafted a year after Craig retired. Why compare Craig to a guy that hadn't even played a down before he retired?

Not really using as a reason for Craig not to get in just saying he's not the first RB that I would vote in. Craig is a borderline HOF'er. I hope he gets in but its 50/50 at best.

Even though his numbers more than support it, I fear you are correct.

What is sad is that there are some marginal guys already in that Craig MORE than trumps statistically.

Originally posted by Legbreaker:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by Legbreaker:
Craig should be in...big time.

Here's why:
The Case for Craig

This is nothing more than a poor attempt to skew numbers.

His numbers are his numbers. Pure and simple. So he played 4 1/2 years of his career as a fullback, Doesn't mean diddly when you look at his numbers. So he played alongside Jerry Rice, doesn't mean diddly when you look at his numbers.

The ONLY thing he can hang his hat on is he was the first player with 1,000/1,000. That's it.

Now don't get me wrong, if he made it in, I don't think anyone could/would say he doesn't deserve to get in. At the same time, if he doesn't I don't see where anyone outside of his ex-teammates and family members can say he deserves to be in. When he only has 3 HOF caliber seasons under his belt and only the 1,000/1,000 feat as a true barometer. To which that alone doesn't deserve to get him in. Now should his cleats/jersey/or the gameball/ in which was in use be in the HOF cause of the feat? Sure, it should. Shouldn't get him in though. the COMPLETE body of work isn't there. Even when comparing him to his era like the writer in you link tried to do and failed.

Huh? A poor attempt to skew numbers? Yawn. Is that the best you've got? Weak.

The fact is, the only modern era player with the same career arc as Craig (Riggins) is already enshrined. Craig was not a pure runner, and he was used in a way that NO BACK BEFORE him ever was. He was a ridiculously productive player given his position, and no amount of bellyaching on your part will change that, Krizay. When he was healthy, his numbers more than put him on par with the best players of his era. That's not my opinion...it's what the numbers show, plain and simple.

His COMPLETE body of work is his career with the Niners...but you wouldn't know that unless you bothered to do the research. Craig's last 3 seasons were hampered by injury. His body broke down on him and that just is what it is.

If you want to disagree with me, that's fine...but if all you want to do is spit hate without backing it up with facts, save it.

I already did earlier in this thread.

As for Riggins, when he retired he was AT WORST the #5 all time leading rushers. plus he had 40 ,more td's than Craig.

And i did do my research, Which is why I know his numebrs don't stack up. like I stated earleir in this thread. His per game averages are on par with the likes of Reggie Bush. Who is widely consisered a bust around these parts.

I also researched the fact that HE didn't change the position as much as Walsh did. If you did YOUR research and checked the amount of catches the RB's and FB's had in Walsh's system before Craig was even drafted you would have known that.

Originally posted by Legbreaker:

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.

You dont make the hall of fame on what you could have done but what you did, and Faulk did more. And the "Someone had to do it first" argument is weak. if Craig didnt do it how do you know Faulk wouldnt have done it?

Snubbed? Lol

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by Legbreaker:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by Legbreaker:
Craig should be in...big time.

Here's why:
The Case for Craig

This is nothing more than a poor attempt to skew numbers.

His numbers are his numbers. Pure and simple. So he played 4 1/2 years of his career as a fullback, Doesn't mean diddly when you look at his numbers. So he played alongside Jerry Rice, doesn't mean diddly when you look at his numbers.

The ONLY thing he can hang his hat on is he was the first player with 1,000/1,000. That's it.

Now don't get me wrong, if he made it in, I don't think anyone could/would say he doesn't deserve to get in. At the same time, if he doesn't I don't see where anyone outside of his ex-teammates and family members can say he deserves to be in. When he only has 3 HOF caliber seasons under his belt and only the 1,000/1,000 feat as a true barometer. To which that alone doesn't deserve to get him in. Now should his cleats/jersey/or the gameball/ in which was in use be in the HOF cause of the feat? Sure, it should. Shouldn't get him in though. the COMPLETE body of work isn't there. Even when comparing him to his era like the writer in you link tried to do and failed.

Huh? A poor attempt to skew numbers? Yawn. Is that the best you've got? Weak.

The fact is, the only modern era player with the same career arc as Craig (Riggins) is already enshrined. Craig was not a pure runner, and he was used in a way that NO BACK BEFORE him ever was. He was a ridiculously productive player given his position, and no amount of bellyaching on your part will change that, Krizay. When he was healthy, his numbers more than put him on par with the best players of his era. That's not my opinion...it's what the numbers show, plain and simple.

His COMPLETE body of work is his career with the Niners...but you wouldn't know that unless you bothered to do the research. Craig's last 3 seasons were hampered by injury. His body broke down on him and that just is what it is.

If you want to disagree with me, that's fine...but if all you want to do is spit hate without backing it up with facts, save it.

I already did earlier in this thread.

As for Riggins, when he retired he was AT WORST the #5 all time leading rushers. plus he had 40 ,more td's than Craig.

And i did do my research, Which is why I know his numebrs don't stack up. like I stated earleir in this thread. His per game averages are on par with the likes of Reggie Bush. Who is widely consisered a bust around these parts.

I also researched the fact that HE didn't change the position as much as Walsh did. If you did YOUR research and checked the amount of catches the RB's and FB's had in Walsh's system before Craig was even drafted you would have known that.

I would like to add to my above post that when Riggins retired he was #2 on the alltime rushing TD list.

So Riggins was #5 all time in rushing.
#2 all time in rushing TD's
#2 all time in total td's

at the time he retired.

Originally posted by 49erRider:

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.

No it isn't. He should have been in before Faulk was even eligible.

Because he's debatable thats why hes not in yet. I'm a big fan of Roger Craig don't get me wrong its just at least IMO everyone thats been picked before him has had better overall careers, not to take away anything that Craig has done its just we should just realize that it is in fact debatable.

The person/49er who is getting snubbed from HoF induction is none other than Eddie D.

I know the probable reason why he isn't in, but still... he needs his bust in Canton.