Should Ricky Watters be the next RB in Canton?

[readjack]

Should Ricky Watters be the next RB in Canton? Our group of historians thinks so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzhlGwLdeKE

Removing Adrian Peterson, who was one of the all-time greats, and Frank Gore, who created his own lane with his 16,000 rush yards, the question about next running back in Canton starts, for now, with Fred Taylor, who has the next highest career rushing total with 11,695 yards, 17th all-time. Voters have named him a semifinalist each of the past four years, making him essentially a lock for PFHOF, based on voting trends.

But Taylor is one of 13 running backs with 10,000+ rushing yards not yet in Canton, most of whom have elements on their resume that he lacks: MVP, OPOY, rush champ, TD champ, 2,000-yard season, All Pro 1st team, 2+ Pro Bowls, All-Decade, Super Bowl / ring, Super Bowl MVP.

As best as I can tell, voters are giving Taylor the nod because he's the next man on the rush list.

So our group, Not in the Hall of Fame, met earlier this month to debate this mass of super talented, accomplished running backs, which includes some guys who didn't reach 10k but stood out in other ways. We removed anyone not yet eligible as well as senior candidates, and then took out a bunch of great backs: Warrick Dunn, Matt Forte, Ahman Green, Chris Johnson, Thomas Jones, Clinton Portis, Ricky Williams. We looked at these nine:

Shaun Alexander
Tiki Barber
Corey Dillon
Eddie George
Priest Holmes
Steven Jackson
Jamal Lewis
Fred Taylor
Ricky Watters

We talked through each guy, had some debates, and then voted on our top 3 apiece. Here's how the voting turned out:

0 votes: Barber, Jackson, Lewis, Taylor
1 vote: Dillon, George
5 votes: Alexander, Holmes
9 votes: Ricky Watters

I don’t know that anyone had Ricky Watters as our #1 RB, but 9/10 of us had him in our top 3, easily the most votes. What we responded to: his style, versatility, impact and achievements. Three touchdowns in Super Bowl XXIX. 10+ TDs in each of his first five years. 7x 1000 yards in his nine full seasons. Scrimmage leader. And while some view him as a product of his teammates because of his time in San Fran (a disagree with that on its face), Watters only played on the 49ers for his 1st three seasons. His three-year averages:

* '92-'94 Niners: 1,430 scrimmage yards, 11 total TD
* '95-'97 Eagles: 1,704, 11 TD
* '98-'00 Seahawks: 1,688, 8 TD

Sorting through all of these RBs should be a huge challenge that voters address. If there is a case for Fred Taylor that isn't just, "He's 17th in career rushing," then that's great! I want to hear it.

Otherwise, our group hopes that voters will start looking elsewhere, starting with Watters.

[Brian wolf]

Great argument Jack ...

The total backs that could do everything, are being ignored, which hurts Watters, Holmes, Barber and even Ottis Anderson, who is finally getting a look this year. The Hall will have to evaluate them better because after Derrick Henry and possibly Cook and Chubb if they stay healthy, there might not be any other backs getting to 10,000 yards rushing, much less high scrimmage yards. Elliot could get there but his best days are gone ...

I like Watters, but Alexander and Holmes are high up there as well. I truly feel Holmes has the same injury argument as Terrell Davis with one less championship. Alexander of course, has 120 TDs counting postseason, which should put him in eventually. If votes were based on a back being valuable to team wins, George and Barber should be considered as well, but Barber is being penalized for leaving NY before Eli Manning stepped up his game ...

[Bryan]

We looked at these nine:

Shaun Alexander
Tiki Barber
Corey Dillon
Eddie George
Priest Holmes
Steven Jackson
Jamal Lewis
Fred Taylor
Ricky Watters

We talked through each guy, had some debates, and then voted on our top 3 apiece. Here's how the voting turned out:

0 votes: Barber, Jackson, Lewis, Taylor
1 vote: Dillon, George
5 votes: Alexander, Holmes
9 votes: Ricky Watters

I don’t know that anyone had Ricky Watters as our #1 RB, but 9/10 of us had him in our top 3, easily the most votes. What we responded to: his style, versatility, impact and achievements. Three touchdowns in Super Bowl XXIX. 10+ TDs in each of his first five years. 7x 1000 yards in his nine full seasons. Scrimmage leader.

That is pretty bizarre. I think all other 8 RBs had points in their career in which they were better than Watters. Not looking at stats, I'd have almost all of the other RBs as being subjectively "better" than Watters. At their peak, Lewis, Alexander, Holmes, Dillon were much better than peak Watters, and you could make a case for the other 4 RBs being better than Watters as well.

I guess I don't remember Watters being "elite" or ever being thought of as one of the best RBs in the NFL. I went back and looked at Watters' career....and I was right. He never came close to leading the league in rushing. One year he led the NFL in 'scrimmage yards' while averaging 4.0 YPC and 8.7 YPC. The best he could do was three 2nd team all-conference mentions. He played 10 seasons, and in 5 of them he averaged less than 4 YPC, with most of those being in the middle of his career. I didn't see the 'greatness' then, and I'm not seeing it retrospectively either. He is more of a grinder....which has its merit, but for a guy who didn't have HOF talent or a HOF career, I don't understand how Watters is so elevated above those other RBs. He certainly wasn't "better" by any degree.

Oh, and welcome to the forum! Good first postings!

[rewing84]

All I will say is not before Larry Brown or Chuck Foreman

[readjack]

That is pretty bizarre. I think all other 8 RBs had points in their career in which they were better than Watters. Not looking at stats, I'd have almost all of the other RBs as being subjectively "better" than Watters. At their peak, Lewis, Alexander, Holmes, Dillon were much better than peak Watters, and you could make a case for the other 4 RBs being better than Watters as well.

I guess I don't remember Watters being "elite" or ever being thought of as one of the best RBs in the NFL. I went back and looked at Watters' career....and I was right. He never came close to leading the league in rushing. One year he led the NFL in 'scrimmage yards' while averaging 4.0 YPC and 8.7 YPC. The best he could do was three 2nd team all-conference mentions. He played 10 seasons, and in 5 of them he averaged less than 4 YPC, with most of those being in the middle of his career. I didn't see the 'greatness' then, and I'm not seeing it retrospectively either. He is more of a grinder....which has its merit, but for a guy who didn't have HOF talent or a HOF career, I don't understand how Watters is so elevated above those other RBs. He certainly wasn't "better" by any degree.

Oh, and welcome to the forum! Good first postings!

Thank you! Glad to be here.

Obviously we disagree on Watters. Multi-skilled player who was a great receiver for his position, along with the running, at 4.1 per carry for his career. Rush yards would be higher if he hadn't been under 300 carries every year in San Fran, but to me, Watters was always about his versatility. He basically played nine seasons (just five games his final year) and he was top 10 in yards from scrimmage in 8/9 years. Succeeded on all three of his teams. Big-game player, with 3 TDs in SB XXIX and 5 TDs in the 1993 divisional win over the Giants.

My #1 is Alexander, with those 100 rush touchdowns. And then I go back and forth between Priest and Watters, with obviously Priest as the better player and Ricky as the better career. But I think those are decent comparisons, as Watters could do a lot of what Priest could do, just slower. (Their 40 times were about the same, but YPC and just the visual of their breakaway speed says that Priest had the edge.) Watters in SF wasn't getting nearly the touches that Priest got in his three-year peak in KC, but their production per touch was similar, with Priest a smidge ahead in yards per touch (5.6 to 5.4) and a smidge ahead in TDs per touch (.05 to .04).

I don't like getting that granular because I think it detracts from the broader case, which is that while I don't know that I ever thought Watters was a top 3 RB in the league, I thought he was top 5-6 for most of his career. He could play on a champ, and after San Fran he was the featured back on playoff teams led by Rodney Peete, Ty Detmer and Jon Kitna. His collection of talent made him a threat all over the field. I recall him being a fine blocker. He could run between the tackles or outside, and in the passing game he was sick with screen passes but could also go down the seam or run corner routes out of the backfield. I don't remember him splitting out like Faulk or Forte (could be wrong) but I generally just felt like when I watched him I was looking at a complete back who also had gamebreaking abilities.

[Brian wolf]

LeSean McCoy is another intriguing back that will get evaluated for enshrinement based on totals and numbers, yet despite ability and big plays, I never looked at him as a HOF player. I thought his numbers were quiet and never saw him as a consistent, clutch player ...

I would go with Craig for the next HOF back but also like Ottis Anderson, Cookie Gilchrist and Abner Haynes amongst senior backs. Foreman and Brown were great despite short careers and we will see if they get future traction because the two AFL backs I mentioned, wont.

[readjack]

I guess I should have called this "next modern-era RB in Canton," as I don't tie modern to senior. I do think that Roger Craig and Ricky Watters have similar cases, not only because of the Niners connection.

[Brian wolf]

No problem Jack but at least we are discussing running backs, period ...

Why do so many people discuss a "logjam" at wide receiver but not running backs?
As I speculated on another thread, RBs simply have much more responsibility than receivers but people seem so preoccupied by statistics rather than overrall impact. Sure, Don Perkins wasnt much of a receiver for the Cowboys but thats because he was needed for pass protection or blocking for other backs. Was he impactful, obviously so because the Cowboys went from expansion to challeging for a SB berth the last three years of his career. Other than Hines Ward and maybe Michael Irvin, which modern receivers were known for blocking? Shouldnt the receivers simply be lumped together without anyone truly sticking out, like the running backs? I think so, yet it seems everyone speculates that the wide receiver logjam needs to be alleviated. They can wait like the runners have to do ...

[Bryan]

Obviously we disagree on Watters. Multi-skilled player who was a great receiver for his position, along with the running, at 4.1 per carry for his career. Rush yards would be higher if he hadn't been under 300 carries every year in San Fran

Yeah, obviously, but in his three years in San Fran his number of carries was inversely related to his YPC to a pretty extreme degree…fewest carries was 4.9 YPC, most carries was 3.7 YPC. The years in Seattle & Philly when he had 300+ carries were the years where he posted his worst YPC.

He basically played nine seasons (just five games his final year) and he was top 10 in yards from scrimmage in 8/9 years. Succeeded on all three of his teams.

I get it, and that is probably the most laudable stat in Ricky’s career, but even then, is top 10 in yards from scrimmage in 8/9 years where you typically finish in spots #7 - #9 a HOF-defining statistic? To me, that is more like a Harold Baines stat than a Mickey Mantle stat. Watters was very consistent.

Watters in SF wasn't getting nearly the touches that Priest got in his three-year peak in KC, but their production per touch was similar, with Priest a smidge ahead in yards per touch (5.6 to 5.4) and a smidge ahead in TDs per touch (.05 to .04)

This is where you really lose me….if you think Watters’ time in SF is comparable to Priest in KC, then I guess it makes sense that everyone in your group thinks so highly of Watters. They are nothing alike. First, Priest is miles ahead of Watters in number of touches (among other things, like every counting stat). Second, when Watters had anything similar to Priest’s workload during his career, his ‘yards per touch’ was 4.3, 4.6 and 4.3. So for Priest to have a 5.6 yards per touch and such a high workload is remarkable.

I don't like getting that granular because I think it detracts from the broader case, which is that while I don't know that I ever thought Watters was a top 3 RB in the league, I thought he was top 5-6 for most of his career.

Considering Watters’ career overlapped with Emmitt Smith and Barry Sanders, in order for anyone to consider Watters a top 3 RB they would have to think that Watters was better than prime Marshall Faulk, prime Thurman Thomas, prime Jerome Bettis, prime Curtis Martin, young Edgerrin James, one-hit wonders like Barry Foster and Jamal Anderson…it was a golden age of RBs. The point I am trying to make is that no one ever in their right mind, at any point in time, remotely considered Ricky Watters to be a top 3 RB. There were too many other great RBs.

I am looking at All-Pro teams from Ricky’s era, and 1996 is the only year in which I would consider Watters to be in the top 6 of RBs. I would be interested to see what years you viewed Watters as being top 5-6 for most of his career.

[Brian wolf]

Getting back to Jack's original post about modern running backs, Fred Taylor may get the nod over Watters, Alexander, Holmes etc but you have to wonder how good his career could have been without the games missed due to injuries? He was an explosive back but very similar to LeSean McCoy, he seemed to play when he wanted to ...

I dont see how he is objectively above other backs like Barber, Watters and Dunn, who have more scrimmage yards and Dillon, who has a SB ring? Alexander, Lewis and especially Portis, averaged more rushing yards per game. Warrick Dunn may not ever make the HOF, yet you have to admire his career and staying healthy despite his small size. He could have had even more rushing yardage had he not shared carries with Alstott, though it helped his career ...