Originally Posted by -p.tiddy-
any time a RB goes for 1,000+ and stays healthy 16 games that is above average to me...
if those are his 3 worst years then holy shit...
Campbell had a stronger prime, but it was short...Curtis played twice as long, has double the numbers...yes that means something
btw, go look at some of the average years for Earl
Aside from Earl, because that is really a prime vs. longevity debate...Martin should certainly be ranked above Gale Sayers all time.
1000 yards in 16 games is a seriously low expectation of being above average, especially back then when the run game with 1 featured back was much more prevelant, almost standard.
It's not even all about yards anyway....touchdowns and yards per carry are as important than the total number of yards rushing someone gets, that's why I don't value Martin' season where he got 1287 yards highly at all, 3.5 yards a carry is almost embarrassing for a HOF running back.
If Earl wasn't such a monster in his prime I could see Martin's longevity and durability making up for it, but Earl was on some prime Shaq shit back then.