Tiki Barber -- Hall-of-Famer?

In terms of sheer numbers, Alexander is coming off one of the greatest five-year stretches in history: roughly 7,500 yards, an astounding 98 TDs and 2 yards from consecutive rushing titles. Barber's numbers in that same span don't come close: 6,000 yards, 44 TDs. BTW, LT's numbers in that period were 7,200/80, and two of those years his YPC average was under 4.0.

Barber's receiving numbers are fairly impressive, but a RB catching a lot of passes is not that special these days. Lamont Jordan, who's only going to Canton to visit, led the NFL last year in that category, and Larry Centers once caught 100 passes in a season.

 

Understood, but Barber's different from a guy like Jordan (who isn't a 1,500-yard rusher) or a guy like Centers (who was always a pass-catcher but never much of a runner) because he can do both -- run and catch. He's not Marshall Faulk, but he's similar in that he's a threat on two fronts. Perhaps Thurman Thomas is a good comparison, although I'd take Thomas over Barber.

 

There's a thread idea: Lamont Jordan -- will he ever visit Canton?

 

Good comparison, and I think Thomas should get in the Hall of Fame soon.

 

I definitely think there is something to be said for his improvement as he has gotten older, as well as his change in attitude and style at an age where most RBs are on the decline.

 

On another tack, what have Barber's yards meant to the team success? The Giants have never been anything better than average in his peak period.

I know that's not fair to him, but just sayin'.

 

Barber's a nice back, but would there be this HOF debate if he'd spent his career in, say, Jacksonville or KC?

I vote no.

 

Not a close call - not near a HOF'er. He's a good back, but I never watched a Giant game and thought I was watching an all time great player. His fumbleitis doesn't help.

Terrible comparison with Earl Campbell. When watching Earl I always thought I was watching an all time great. Campbell dominated defenses, the opposition feared him. No one fears Tiki Barber.

 

Fumbling was only really a problem for Tiki for a season or two. He's had that corrected for a while now. He's also ranked 17th all time in yards from scrimmage. He's the only active player inside the top 30 in that category (Isaac Bruce is ranked 30th).

I can understand that people don't think of him as a dominant back, but I think that has more to do with his lack of TDs than anything. His coaches have (foolishly) never really given him the ball at the goal line, but I think anyone who watches him knows that he is quite capable of grinding out the tough yards when he needs to and can break big ones as well.

I think he's quite underrated.

I'd say he makes the HOF if he continues to play like this for the rest of this season and next season, maybe even if he retires (he'll be over 10,000 yards rushing after this season most likely, with better than 5,000 receiving yards). I can see the other side, but I think he makes it.


PS -- I don't think it's stretching to include his receiving yards. Yards are yards and whether he gains them rushing or receiving, he helps the team when gains them. And, as someone else pointed out, his receiving yards are largely glorified rushes, coming on short swing passes or check downs. I think the only real argument against him is touchdowns. Anything else is turning a blind eye to outstanding numbers.

 

The Campbell comparision was intended to point out that football players who are dominant for a brief period of time, particularly RBs, often garner serious HOF consideration. We had this discussion when Terrell Davis retired,

I surely was not comparing the two and saying well, if Earl is in then so should Tiki, And I'm too young to know or remember how defenses planned around Campbell.

And FWIW, Ricky Watters isn't eligible yet for the HOF. Next year, I believe.

 

If he finishes his career with 15,000+ total yards... with all those plays of 20+ yards he has piled up, he is in.

Not up for debate among the sane.

Which players with 15,000 total yards aren't in?