(02-10-2022, 07:42 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote:

(02-10-2022, 07:20 PM)Eric1 Wrote: Gale was THAT DUDE when he played though right? From what 65-70? What other great RBs did he contend with during that time frame? I know Jim Brown's last season was 1965. This was obviously all way before my time started on this planet.

Part of why Taylor gets forgotten, besides the market he played in is because he played with some other big time RBs during that time. Tomlinson, Bettis, Eddie George, Curtis Martin, Emmitt Smith, Ricky Williams, Marshall Faulk, Priest Holmes, Edgerrin James etc. etc, just to name a few off the top of my head. There were plenty of others, but Taylor played in a era with a bunch of great RBs.

That's not to say he isn't up there, he was one of the greatest to ever do it and maybe the most underrated RB of all time, but the market he played in and the other Backs in the league at that time are a big reason why he always gets forgotten, sadly. It's wrong and he deserves to be in the HoF as well.

Taylor is currently 17th on the All Time NFL rushing leaders list. Every player ahead of him besides Frank Gore (at #3) and Adrian Peterson (at #5) are in the HoF. It's only a matter of time before Gore and Peterson get in as well. Then there's about 20 more guys behind Taylor on the list that are in the HoF as well.

Sayers was unique for his era, and so that helped a bunch. Leroy Kelley of the NFL and Jim Nance (not the broadcaster) of the AFL were his closest equals at the time. Its insane that there are 20 behind him that are in. That seems like obvious team bias, the 'era of rushing' notwithstanding. Guess the passing era QB's are going to face the same questions in a few years.

I don't think it's unfair to note that the players of 60s, 70s, and 80s cannot be compared to players today (with a few exceptions). Today's players are bigger, stronger, faster, and more skilled (as a group). Fred, Jimmy, and those guys played against better competition in 90s and 00s and still put up great numbers. IMO, the reason you have Irvin in the HoF is that he was on the Cowboys and is a media personality. His numbers are fine. And he was really good. But is he objectively better than Jimmy Smith? No way.

---