The Pro Football Hall of Fame recently announced its class of 2010: Russ Grimm, Rickey Jackson, Dick LeBeau, Floyd Little, John Randle, Jerry Rice, and Emmitt Smith. From that group, Senior nominees LeBeau and Little have attracted the most discussion. In LeBeau's case, it centers mainly on his being nominated as a cornerback rather than a coach or contributor. In Little's, there has been a chorus proclaiming him unworthy of the honor, a stain on Canton's reputation. This is an example of how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
Little, a running back for the Broncos, ranks 62nd in career rushing yards, 82nd in rushing TDs, averaged 3.9 yards per carry, and only had one 1,000-yard rushing season. If this is all you know about Little, you probably do believe his election disgraces the Hall. There's more to the story.
Little played from 1967-1975. Here's everyone who never played a 16-game season and is ahead of Little on the career rushing list: Jim Brown, Joe Perry, Jim Taylor, Leroy Kelly, John Henry Johnson. All of them are Hall of Famers. Little played shorter seasons than modern RBs, and most teams used running back by committee in those days, so no one was getting 350 carries a season. In fact, Little was 28 years old before his first 200-carry season.
The other issue is that the late '60s and early '70s were dominated by defense, a terrible era for running backs to put up big numbers. By far the best RBs of that era were O.J. Simpson, Gale Sayers, Leroy Kelly, Larry Csonka, Larry Brown, and Floyd Little. There are other players from that era with statistics in the same ballpark — Mike Garrett, Calvin Hill, Ken Willard — but they were good players with long careers, never the best at their position. Sayers and Little and Brown were spectacular in short careers. No one ever argued that Garrett or Willard was the best running back in the league. Simpson and the others — including Little — might have been.
Among those six runners, Kelly, Sayers, and Simpson stand apart statistically, but Little's stats are very much in line with those of Csonka and Brown. Even that doesn't give Little full credit. Washington (33-24-3) and Miami (49-19-2) were good during these years; the Broncos (26-39-5) were not. During Little's prime, Denver never made the playoffs, and finished .500 only once. Little didn't have much help from his teammates; think of him as the Steven Jackson of the early '70s. On the other hand, the Dolphins of this era were perhaps the finest run-blocking team in history, making stars of Jim Kiick and Mercury Morris as well as Csonka. In fact, during his 11-year career, Csonka only led the Dolphins in rushing six times. During his three years in New York, he never led the Giants, with a high of 569 yards and 3.6 yds/att.
Let's be clear about something: the argument is not simply that Little played with sub-par linemen, though everyone agrees that he did. Rather, the case is that Little played well and put up good numbers despite inferior blocking. If his stats make him a borderline candidate, the environment in which they were produced puts him over the top.
How much difference did the quality of his team make? Little had probably his best statistical season in 1973, at age 31. No RB in history really played his best football past the age of 30, but the Broncos were getting better by that time (first winning record in franchise history). If Little, at 31, could outplay Brown, Csonka, Franco Harris, and John Riggins, all of whom were younger, how good must he have been at 27? It's tough to say, because the Broncos were always playing catch-up, and Little only got 146 carries. Is it more likely that in his mid-20s, Little was a great back limited by his circumstances, or that he had his best season at 31, just two years before he retired?
It was understood at the time that Little was doing heroic things behind a horrific line. Between AFL all-star games and Pro Bowls, he was a 5-time all-star. That's more than Brown or Sayers (4 each), equal to Csonka (5), and almost as many as Kelly and Simpson (6 each). Little fits in nicely with the other great RBs of his era. He was a well-rounded RB, good at everything. In addition to his rushing yardage, he had five seasons of at least 300 receiving yards and was one of the best kick returners of his era. Upon his retirement, Little ranked among the top 10 in career all-purpose yardage.
Part of the criticism surrounding Little's election has derived from misunderstandings. Little carried the Broncos through the darkest period in their history, and apart from John Elway, he is probably the most revered player in team history. Some have even speculated that Little helped keep the franchise afloat. This should only add to Little's credentials, but by itself it's not the sort of thing for which we'd want to send players to Canton. A few critics have seized on this line of reasoning and used it to argue that Little's candidacy was a farce, pretending that he has no other qualifications.
Others have looked skeptically at the idea that we should account for the quality of Little's teammates, suggesting that even the consideration of this factor de-legitimizes Little's enshrinement. But if we accept that good offensive linemen are an important component of a football team, we have to allow that poor linemen make it harder for a running back to post stats that reflect his level of play. We also know that bad teams don't run often, because they're passing to catch up, and that too limits an RB's stats.
In any case, Little's election was not based solely on his weak supporting cast. His statistics, taken at face value, are very much in line with those of the best RBs of his era. He was a five-time all-star, not a charity case. In 2002, Sports Illustrated's Dr. Z named Little one of the 30 best RBs he ever saw, calling him "an early Emmitt Smith."
Little is undoubtedly in the bottom portion of HOF RBs, and it wouldn't be a tragedy if his nomination had fallen short. But is he the worst RB in Hall? No. A disgrace to Canton? Far from it.
Leave a Comment