Roger Craig Snubbed

Originally posted by FLYPxSYDE:
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.

You're 100% Correct, there is NO reason why Mr. D should not be in the NFL HOF. What Ed, and Bill Walsh built in San Francisco should be honored by the League. Ed DeBartolo was the 1st ownership to win 5 Super Bowl Championships within 20 years!

Maybe if Ed DeBartolo, & Roger Craig had jobs on the NFL Network (like Deion Sanders), they would have a Fast Track to the NFL HOF.

Originally posted by 49erWill:
The fumble

Yeah, first and foremost this.

But after that, he deserves HOF consideration for a REALLY strong career, multiple SBs and being the FIRST double grand back.

But in all honesty, compared to Faulk, he was kind of a one and done guy, where Faulk had that kind of career, not just a stellar season.

I kind of hate Faulk, but his RECEIVING yards would be around 50th all time for rushing yards in the NFL, plus he's 10th all time with rushing yards.

By the way, his receiving yards are 118th all time, most by a RB I'm pretty sure, and more than 11 HOFers including:

Marcus Allen, Lynn Swann, Frank Gifford, John Mackey, Mike Ditka, and Kellen Winslow.

Faulk, I hate to say it, is easily a first ballot HOFer.

Craig will probably, and should get it. But it will take while.

Originally posted by 9erB4Us:

Originally posted by FLYPxSYDE:
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.

You're 100% Correct, there is NO reason why Mr. D should not be in the NFL HOF. What Ed, and Bill Walsh built in San Francisco should be honored by the League. Ed DeBartolo was the 1st ownership to win 5 Super Bowl Championships within 20 years!

Maybe if Ed DeBartolo, & Roger Craig had jobs on the NFL Network (like Deion Sanders), they would have a Fast Track to the NFL HOF.

I know, right? That is a good idea though...I would watch with Eddie D and Craig on NFL Network.

Originally posted by cubanb:

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?

Yes. Suck it Dan Marino.

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.

LOL.

When Craig retired, he had more receiving yards than any back before him.

He also retired with more receptions than any back before him...even the ones that had played for Walsh before he was even drafted.

In addition, Craig retired with 13,143 total yards...which ranked him around 10th all time among running backs (12th all time overall) at the time of his retirement.

Was Craig the best ever? Of course not. Was he one of the best ever? You bet your @ss he was...and no amount of moaning on your part will change that.

See...I did do my homework. And the numbers prove it. Kthx bye.

Originally posted by Legbreaker:

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.

LOL.

When Craig retired, he had more receiving yards than any back before him.

He also retired with more receptions than any back before him...even the ones that had played for Walsh before he was even drafted.

In addition, Craig retired with 13,143 total yards...which ranked him around 10th all time among running backs (12th all time overall) at the time of his retirement.

Was Craig the best ever? Of course not. Was he one of the best ever? You bet your @ss he was...and no amount of moaning on your part will change that.

See...I did do my homework. And the numbers prove it. Kthx bye.

See, now I let your 1st quote go. Now i'm going to have to ask you to return to your desk and sit there until you ahve been dismissed!

YOU are the one posting a link by a guy who failed at skewing numbers. YOU (through the writer) are the one who is bellyaching and moaning. Cause see, the HOF committee agrees with me. I have nothing to bellyache or moan about. YOU do! it's YOU bellyaching and moaning as to why he should be there. kthx!

Now, on to your research....

You claim that the only modern era player that compares to Craig was Riggins to which you acknowledged he is already enshrined. The enshrined part is correct. But Craig and Riggins only compare in the total yard from scrimmage category. I have already stated Riggins numbers. #5 in rushing yards. #2 in rushing td's. #2 in total td's So i give you a D+ for this research.

You then say, Craig was used in a way NO OTHER RB before him ever was. When in fact, he was used in Bill Walsh's system EXACTLY the way the RB's under Walsh was used before him. 1979: Hofer and Jackson 1980: Hofer and Cooper 1982: (9 games) Jeff moore. Now did these guys put up the numebrs as Craig? combined yes! as individuals, No. So he was used in a way OTHER RB's were before him. on the exact same field. with the exact same team. in the exact same system. So while your wording fabricates the feat, I still give you a C+ because he was the first one to do it as an individual.

Next......."his numbers more than put him on par with the best players of his era" Yet the only player you reference to from his era is Riggins. Which i've already clarified. Now, if i'm reading you correctly, i'm assuming you only used Riggins cause he was the only he was "on par with" that is enshrined. Am I correct in assuming that? If so... I have one question for you. If the other guys he is "on par with in his era" isn't in, why should he be? I can't even give you an F for this one. You get a PH!

Lastly You state that....

Quote:
"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."

followed in your next post with......

Quote:
In addition, Craig retired with 13,143 total yards...which ranked him around 10th all time among running backs (12th all time overall) at the time of his retirement

.

Oh So that 1,594 yards, 7 td's and 58 receptions he got from Minnesota and Oakland you decided to throw in there help get him to crack the top 10 did it? I also like how you added among running backs to get him into to the top 10 of something.

Now you're dismissed!

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!

Did Bush spend his first two years in the league as a full back?

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.

Exactly. Faulk's overall career and his stats trump roger's any day.

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by Legbreaker:

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.

LOL.

When Craig retired, he had more receiving yards than any back before him.

He also retired with more receptions than any back before him...even the ones that had played for Walsh before he was even drafted.

In addition, Craig retired with 13,143 total yards...which ranked him around 10th all time among running backs (12th all time overall) at the time of his retirement.

Was Craig the best ever? Of course not. Was he one of the best ever? You bet your @ss he was...and no amount of moaning on your part will change that.

See...I did do my homework. And the numbers prove it. Kthx bye.

See, now I let your 1st quote go. Now i'm going to have to ask you to return to your desk and sit there until you ahve been dismissed!

YOU are the one posting a link by a guy who failed at skewing numbers. YOU (through the writer) are the one who is bellyaching and moaning. Cause see, the HOF committee agrees with me. I have nothing to bellyache or moan about. YOU do! it's YOU bellyaching and moaning as to why he should be there. kthx!

Now, on to your research....

You claim that the only modern era player that compares to Craig was Riggins to which you acknowledged he is already enshrined. The enshrined part is correct. But Craig and Riggins only compare in the total yard from scrimmage category. I have already stated Riggins numbers. #5 in rushing yards. #2 in rushing td's. #2 in total td's So i give you a D+ for this research.

You then say, Craig was used in a way NO OTHER RB before him ever was. When in fact, he was used in Bill Walsh's system EXACTLY the way the RB's under Walsh was used before him. 1979: Hofer and Jackson 1980: Hofer and Cooper 1982: (9 games) Jeff moore. Now did these guys put up the numebrs as Craig? combined yes! as individuals, No. So he was used in a way OTHER RB's were before him. on the exact same field. with the exact same team. in the exact same system. So while your wording fabricates the feat, I still give you a C+ because he was the first one to do it as an individual.

Next......."his numbers more than put him on par with the best players of his era" Yet the only player you reference to from his era is Riggins. Which i've already clarified. Now, if i'm reading you correctly, i'm assuming you only used Riggins cause he was the only he was "on par with" that is enshrined. Am I correct in assuming that? If so... I have one question for you. If the other guys he is "on par with in his era" isn't in, why should he be? I can't even give you an F for this one. You get a PH!

Lastly You state that....

Quote:
"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."

followed in your next post with......

Quote:
In addition, Craig retired with 13,143 total yards...which ranked him around 10th all time among running backs (12th all time overall) at the time of his retirement

.

Oh So that 1,594 yards, 7 td's and 58 receptions he got from Minnesota and Oakland you decided to throw in there help get him to crack the top 10 did it? I also like how you added among running backs to get him into to the top 10 of something.

Now you're dismissed!

First off...I wrote the article. I did the research for it, and if you were more interested in the truth of the matter than proving that you're right, you'd see that my argument has merit.

1) You were upset about me not quantifying Craig's total body of work. So, using your definition, I did. When I did, the numbers show that at the time of his retirement, he was #12 all time overall/#10 all time among runners in total yards from scrimmage, #1 overall in total receptions among running backs, and #1 overall in receiving yards among running backs. That proves that Craig ranks among the best backs ever. Along with the context of his career and individual accolades, doesn't that make him worthy of the Hall?

2) Hofer, Cooper, Jackson and Moore were platooned because they could not do what Craig could. If you need to go back in time to add the numbers of multiple players to prove that Craig was "ordinary" in comparison...you've pretty much proved MY point: Craig was the first back that could do it all.

3) Context: I stated that Craig was on par with his contemporaries as it pertains to yards per touch. I even went so far as to list the numbers before the statement. A refresher:

Quote:
Now consider average yards per touch over the same period. Sanders averaged 5.27 ypt, Allen averaged 5.04 ypt, Payton averaged 4.83 ypt, Dickerson averaged 4.80 ypt, and Riggins average 4.64 ypt. Craig's average: 5.24 ypt. As you can see, Craig is about on par with Barry Sanders, and much better than the rest...and every one of his peers listed is already in the Hall of Fame.

4)

Quote:
You claim that the only modern era player that compares to Craig was Riggins to which you acknowledged he is already enshrined. The enshrined part is correct. But Craig and Riggins only compare in the total yard from scrimmage category.

Craig was used as a dual threat...a runner AND receiver. To liken him to other players of his era, you have got to look at his total yards from scrimmage, because he wasn't solely used as a rusher.

5) I also stated that there are players that have been inducted into the Hall recently that have worse numbers than Roger. For example: Michael Irvin (Inducted in 2007) had 11,910 yards from scrimmage and 65 TDs.

Instead of trying to prove I'm wrong, why not look into what I've posted instead of winging it? I've backed up every assertion I have with facts. Maybe you should focus on the truth of the matter and less on trying to refute my argument. Disagree if you like, but there's no need to get chippy.

Maybe when we're done with this,we could argue the merits of Vernon Davis' career.

Originally posted by LB49ers:

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!

Did Bush spend his first two years in the league as a full back?

Unless Craig was a full time FB, which he wasn't, it has no bearing on his career totals.

Originally posted by VA49er:
I don't know if anyone saw the NFL network HOF finalist intros. It's bad enough that Roger Craig got snubbed from the finalists this year. It's worse that Marshall Faulk will likely go in before him. I won't get into how arrogant I think Faulk is...anyways...the thing that really got my goat was Steve Mariucci of all people said something to the effect of the following. Blah blah blah....marshall faulk you revolutionized the position...nobody ever used a back like you before. Then Michael Irvin chimes in with the whole receiving threat back like Marshall Faulk pioneered it. I understand that faulk is a great back. One of the greatest. But to basically sit on the air in front of a national audience and completely disregard the historical fact that is Roger Craig and him being the guy who absolutely revolutionized the position and its use. Also when you talk about versatility and that's the criteria by which the great Marshall Faulk will be enshrined someone show me the part on his resume where he goes to the pro bowl as a full back. It's not there.

Craig was the prototype multi-dimensional, pass catching back. The 1000/1000 seasn, and good career numbers, warrants a place in the Hall of Fame. Having said that, Marshall Faulk was a better football player than Craig. They should both go IMO.

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by LB49ers:

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!

Did Bush spend his first two years in the league as a full back?

Unless Craig was a full time FB, which he wasn't, it has no bearing on his career totals.

For the first 4.5 seasons of his career he was. Just saying.

Originally posted by Legbreaker:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by Legbreaker:

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.

LOL.

When Craig retired, he had more receiving yards than any back before him.

He also retired with more receptions than any back before him...even the ones that had played for Walsh before he was even drafted.

In addition, Craig retired with 13,143 total yards...which ranked him around 10th all time among running backs (12th all time overall) at the time of his retirement.

Was Craig the best ever? Of course not. Was he one of the best ever? You bet your @ss he was...and no amount of moaning on your part will change that.

See...I did do my homework. And the numbers prove it. Kthx bye.

See, now I let your 1st quote go. Now i'm going to have to ask you to return to your desk and sit there until you ahve been dismissed!

YOU are the one posting a link by a guy who failed at skewing numbers. YOU (through the writer) are the one who is bellyaching and moaning. Cause see, the HOF committee agrees with me. I have nothing to bellyache or moan about. YOU do! it's YOU bellyaching and moaning as to why he should be there. kthx!

Now, on to your research....

You claim that the only modern era player that compares to Craig was Riggins to which you acknowledged he is already enshrined. The enshrined part is correct. But Craig and Riggins only compare in the total yard from scrimmage category. I have already stated Riggins numbers. #5 in rushing yards. #2 in rushing td's. #2 in total td's So i give you a D+ for this research.

You then say, Craig was used in a way NO OTHER RB before him ever was. When in fact, he was used in Bill Walsh's system EXACTLY the way the RB's under Walsh was used before him. 1979: Hofer and Jackson 1980: Hofer and Cooper 1982: (9 games) Jeff moore. Now did these guys put up the numebrs as Craig? combined yes! as individuals, No. So he was used in a way OTHER RB's were before him. on the exact same field. with the exact same team. in the exact same system. So while your wording fabricates the feat, I still give you a C+ because he was the first one to do it as an individual.

Next......."his numbers more than put him on par with the best players of his era" Yet the only player you reference to from his era is Riggins. Which i've already clarified. Now, if i'm reading you correctly, i'm assuming you only used Riggins cause he was the only he was "on par with" that is enshrined. Am I correct in assuming that? If so... I have one question for you. If the other guys he is "on par with in his era" isn't in, why should he be? I can't even give you an F for this one. You get a PH!

Lastly You state that....

Quote:
"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."

followed in your next post with......

Quote:
In addition, Craig retired with 13,143 total yards...which ranked him around 10th all time among running backs (12th all time overall) at the time of his retirement

.

Oh So that 1,594 yards, 7 td's and 58 receptions he got from Minnesota and Oakland you decided to throw in there help get him to crack the top 10 did it? I also like how you added among running backs to get him into to the top 10 of something.

Now you're dismissed!

First off...I wrote the article. I did the research for it, and if you were more interested in the truth of the matter than proving that you're right, you'd see that my argument has merit.

1) You were upset about me not quantifying Craig's total body of work. So, using your definition, I did. When I did, the numbers show that at the time of his retirement, he was #12 all time overall/#10 all time among runners in total yards from scrimmage, #1 overall in total receptions among running backs, and #1 overall in receiving yards among running backs. That proves that Craig ranks among the best backs ever. Along with the context of his career and individual accolades, doesn't that make him worthy of the Hall?

2) Hofer, Cooper, Jackson and Moore were platooned because they could not do what Craig could. If you need to go back in time to add the numbers of multiple players to prove that Craig was "ordinary" in comparison...you've pretty much proved MY point: Craig was the first back that could do it all.

3) Context: I stated that Craig was on par with his contemporaries as it pertains to yards per touch. I even went so far as to list the numbers before the statement. A refresher:

Quote:
Now consider average yards per touch over the same period. Sanders averaged 5.27 ypt, Allen averaged 5.04 ypt, Payton averaged 4.83 ypt, Dickerson averaged 4.80 ypt, and Riggins average 4.64 ypt. Craig's average: 5.24 ypt. As you can see, Craig is about on par with Barry Sanders, and much better than the rest...and every one of his peers listed is already in the Hall of Fame.

4)

Quote:
You claim that the only modern era player that compares to Craig was Riggins to which you acknowledged he is already enshrined. The enshrined part is correct. But Craig and Riggins only compare in the total yard from scrimmage category.

Craig was used as a dual threat...a runner AND receiver. To liken him to other players of his era, you have got to look at his total yards from scrimmage, because he wasn't solely used as a rusher.

5) I also stated that there are players that have been inducted into the Hall recently that have worse numbers than Roger. For example: Michael Irvin (Inducted in 2007) had 11,910 yards from scrimmage and 65 TDs.

Instead of trying to prove I'm wrong, why not look into what I've posted instead of winging it? I've backed up every assertion I have with facts. Maybe you should focus on the truth of the matter and less on trying to refute my argument. Disagree if you like, but there's no need to get chippy.

Maybe when we're done with this,we could argue the merits of Vernon Davis' career.

Now that I feel we're back to a civilized conversation....

I did actually read your article, most of it anyway. If you wasn't too busy defending your article as opposed to what I wrote you would have seen....

Quote:
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.

But you went straight at the part where I talked about your article. To which I completely understand.

Now on to your points.

1) you continue to throw meaningless stats out there. yes the 12th all-time in YPS looks good on his resume. But..... Let me ask you this, Otis Anderson 10th in YFS when he retired does he belong in too? Whcih BTW the argument could be made he actually was the 1st RB to be used as a dual threat.

2) Not saying Craig wasn't good but It was the system, hence why Craig was a FB his 1st 4 years.

3) Once again meaningless stats. YPT? totally irrelevant. Just one of the categories he's near the top in and you decided to throw out there.

4) That's all good and fine but with marginal stats it doesn't give him that eye appeal to select him. Especially now that his one "speciality" has been surpassed by the likes of Larry Centers, Keith byars and Ronnie freaking Harmon. Not exactly HOFers there now are they. And agian, Otis Anderson could be argued to be the 1st real dueal threat and he's not in and has more YFS than Craig

5) You get no arguments from me on this one. Craig easily should go in over Irvin in my opinion. Maybe even some other guys that are in. Hell even the Cowboys didn't retire his jersey. With that said, it wouldn't be any different that putting him in and leaving Otis Anderson, Warrick Dunn and Ricky watters out. They all had better YFS stats than Craig and I wouldn't put any of them 3 in either.

Yes you backed up you assertions with facts. But mainly meaningless stats. IMO!

We can argue the whole VD thing if ya like. But if you don't know what my stance is/was on him at the beginning there's no sense...

Originally posted by Legbreaker:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by LB49ers:

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!

Did Bush spend his first two years in the league as a full back?

Unless Craig was a full time FB, which he wasn't, it has no bearing on his career totals.

For the first 4.5 seasons of his career he was. Just saying.

Only by title. Fact is he lead the team in rushing attempts every year in SF except 84.

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by Legbreaker:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by Legbreaker:

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.

LOL.

When Craig retired, he had more receiving yards than any back before him.

He also retired with more receptions than any back before him...even the ones that had played for Walsh before he was even drafted.

In addition, Craig retired with 13,143 total yards...which ranked him around 10th all time among running backs (12th all time overall) at the time of his retirement.

Was Craig the best ever? Of course not. Was he one of the best ever? You bet your @ss he was...and no amount of moaning on your part will change that.

See...I did do my homework. And the numbers prove it. Kthx bye.

See, now I let your 1st quote go. Now i'm going to have to ask you to return to your desk and sit there until you ahve been dismissed!

YOU are the one posting a link by a guy who failed at skewing numbers. YOU (through the writer) are the one who is bellyaching and moaning. Cause see, the HOF committee agrees with me. I have nothing to bellyache or moan about. YOU do! it's YOU bellyaching and moaning as to why he should be there. kthx!

Now, on to your research....

You claim that the only modern era player that compares to Craig was Riggins to which you acknowledged he is already enshrined. The enshrined part is correct. But Craig and Riggins only compare in the total yard from scrimmage category. I have already stated Riggins numbers. #5 in rushing yards. #2 in rushing td's. #2 in total td's So i give you a D+ for this research.

You then say, Craig was used in a way NO OTHER RB before him ever was. When in fact, he was used in Bill Walsh's system EXACTLY the way the RB's under Walsh was used before him. 1979: Hofer and Jackson 1980: Hofer and Cooper 1982: (9 games) Jeff moore. Now did these guys put up the numebrs as Craig? combined yes! as individuals, No. So he was used in a way OTHER RB's were before him. on the exact same field. with the exact same team. in the exact same system. So while your wording fabricates the feat, I still give you a C+ because he was the first one to do it as an individual.

Next......."his numbers more than put him on par with the best players of his era" Yet the only player you reference to from his era is Riggins. Which i've already clarified. Now, if i'm reading you correctly, i'm assuming you only used Riggins cause he was the only he was "on par with" that is enshrined. Am I correct in assuming that? If so... I have one question for you. If the other guys he is "on par with in his era" isn't in, why should he be? I can't even give you an F for this one. You get a PH!

Lastly You state that....

Quote:
"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."

followed in your next post with......

Quote:
In addition, Craig retired with 13,143 total yards...which ranked him around 10th all time among running backs (12th all time overall) at the time of his retirement

.

Oh So that 1,594 yards, 7 td's and 58 receptions he got from Minnesota and Oakland you decided to throw in there help get him to crack the top 10 did it? I also like how you added among running backs to get him into to the top 10 of something.

Now you're dismissed!

First off...I wrote the article. I did the research for it, and if you were more interested in the truth of the matter than proving that you're right, you'd see that my argument has merit.

1) You were upset about me not quantifying Craig's total body of work. So, using your definition, I did. When I did, the numbers show that at the time of his retirement, he was #12 all time overall/#10 all time among runners in total yards from scrimmage, #1 overall in total receptions among running backs, and #1 overall in receiving yards among running backs. That proves that Craig ranks among the best backs ever. Along with the context of his career and individual accolades, doesn't that make him worthy of the Hall?

2) Hofer, Cooper, Jackson and Moore were platooned because they could not do what Craig could. If you need to go back in time to add the numbers of multiple players to prove that Craig was "ordinary" in comparison...you've pretty much proved MY point: Craig was the first back that could do it all.

3) Context: I stated that Craig was on par with his contemporaries as it pertains to yards per touch. I even went so far as to list the numbers before the statement. A refresher:

Quote:
Now consider average yards per touch over the same period. Sanders averaged 5.27 ypt, Allen averaged 5.04 ypt, Payton averaged 4.83 ypt, Dickerson averaged 4.80 ypt, and Riggins average 4.64 ypt. Craig's average: 5.24 ypt. As you can see, Craig is about on par with Barry Sanders, and much better than the rest...and every one of his peers listed is already in the Hall of Fame.

4)

Quote:
You claim that the only modern era player that compares to Craig was Riggins to which you acknowledged he is already enshrined. The enshrined part is correct. But Craig and Riggins only compare in the total yard from scrimmage category.

Craig was used as a dual threat...a runner AND receiver. To liken him to other players of his era, you have got to look at his total yards from scrimmage, because he wasn't solely used as a rusher.

5) I also stated that there are players that have been inducted into the Hall recently that have worse numbers than Roger. For example: Michael Irvin (Inducted in 2007) had 11,910 yards from scrimmage and 65 TDs.

Instead of trying to prove I'm wrong, why not look into what I've posted instead of winging it? I've backed up every assertion I have with facts. Maybe you should focus on the truth of the matter and less on trying to refute my argument. Disagree if you like, but there's no need to get chippy.

Maybe when we're done with this,we could argue the merits of Vernon Davis' career.

Now that I feel we're back to a civilized conversation....

I did actually read your article, most of it anyway. If you wasn't too busy defending your article as opposed to what I wrote you would have seen....

Quote:
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.

But you went straight at the part where I talked about your article. To which I completely understand.

Now on to your points.

1) you continue to throw meaningless stats out there. yes the 12th all-time in YPS looks good on his resume. But..... Let me ask you this, Otis Anderson 10th in YFS when he retired does he belong in too? Whcih BTW the argument could be made he actually was the 1st RB to be used as a dual threat.

2) Not saying Craig wasn't good but It was the system, hence why Craig was a FB his 1st 4 years.

3) Once again meaningless stats. YPT? totally irrelevant. Just one of the categories he's near the top in and you decided to throw out there.

4) That's all good and fine but with marginal stats it doesn't give him that eye appeal to select him. Especially now that his one "speciality" has been surpassed by the likes of Larry Centers, Keith byars and Ronnie freaking Harmon. Not exactly HOFers there now are they. And agian, Otis Anderson could be argued to be the 1st real dueal threat and he's not in and has more YFS than Craig

5) You get no arguments from me on this one. Craig easily should go in over Irvin in my opinion. Maybe even some other guys that are in. Hell even the Cowboys didn't retire his jersey. With that said, it wouldn't be any different that putting him in and leaving Otis Anderson, Warrick Dunn and Ricky watters out. They all had better YFS stats than Craig and I wouldn't put any of them 3 in either.

Yes you backed up you assertions with facts. But mainly meaningless stats. IMO!

We can argue the whole VD thing if ya like. But if you don't know what my stance is/was on him at the beginning there's no sense...

1)

Quote:
3) Once again meaningless stats. YPT? totally irrelevant. Just one of the categories he's near the top in and you decided to throw out there.

How is YPT a meaningless stat? It's a ratio that blends rushing yards and receiving yards. When making the case for a guy like Craig it is imperative to look at rushes as well as receptions.

2)

Quote:
4) That's all good and fine but with marginal stats it doesn't give him that eye appeal to select him. Especially now that his one "speciality" has been surpassed by the likes of Larry Centers, Keith byars and Ronnie freaking Harmon. Not exactly HOFers there now are they. And agian, Otis Anderson could be argued to be the 1st real dueal threat and he's not in and has more YFS than Craig

Centers was a pass catcher with almost no rushing ability, plus he lacks the individual accolades that Craig earned during his career. Byars was moved to TE because he couldn't run...his finished his career there. Ronnie Harmon couldn't run either. Otis Anderson was productive, but his numbers were complied over a much longer career, and his best season receiving was for 611 yards. He ever had another season receiving like that in his career. Now add that none of the above was ever the leagues leading pass catcher, and that all of them but Anderson came after Roger was already retired. Why compare Roger to players that retired years after he did? Shouldn't he be measured by where his numbers stacked up when he was done?

3)

Quote:
With that said, it wouldn't be any different that putting him in and leaving Otis Anderson, Warrick Dunn and Ricky watters out. They all had better YFS stats than Craig and I wouldn't put any of them 3 in either.

Dunn and Watters came into the league after Craig was retired. Their numbers should have no bearing on his inclusion or exclusion from the Hall. When Craig retired, these guys hadn't even played pro ball yet.