Tiki calls Irvin, Jackson "idiots."

[tlongII]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15317455/

Good for him.

[samikeyp]

He is right.

Tiki Barber has earned the right to speak on his career as he wants.

[MajorMike]

Well, I would say that a WR that got the world handed to him on a platter and couldn't keep coke out of him nose an idiot, yes.

[samikeyp]

I would disagree with he got everything handed to him. Irvin worked his ass off during the season and off season. On the field he was one of the best....off the field was another story.

[johnsmith]

I would disagree with he got everything handed to him. Irvin worked his ass off during the season and off season. On the field he was one of the best....off the field was another story.


Agreed

[FromWayDowntown]

I just don't understand why the mentality of football analysts is to question Tiki Barber's motivations. The dude has been an elite player for a long period of time, but he's nearing the natural end of his career, and rather than hang on until someone tells him to leave, he's ready to move on and do other things. That's an understandable decision, particularly for someone who has as many post-football options available to him as Tiki Barber does. If he wants to play football, he should play; but if he'd rather move on to new things, what the hell difference does it make to anyone else? If he's been talking to his teammates about this for a while now, what the hell difference does it make to anyone else that the story is now beyond the confines of the Giants locker room?

Tiki's decision makes perfect sense to me, and I have no idea why guys like Jackson and Irvin, who've been quite successful in their post-football careers, would question Tiki's desire to move along with his life. The sort of "you should play until you can't" projection strikes me as b.s. machismo and not an earnest assessment of what's right for Tiki.

I applaud Tiki Barber for having his priorities straight and deciding for himself what is best. If he comes back to play next year great; if he moves into new things, that's great too.

[samikeyp]

I applaud Tiki Barber for having his priorities straight and deciding for himself what is best. If he comes back to play next year great; if he moves into new things, that's great too.

Amen.

[ShoogarBear]

The average life span of a RB in the NFL is something like 3 years. Tiki realizes he's beaten considerable odds and wants to be able to walk away from the game . . . and still be walking.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I agree with Tiki on this one. I guess he should play til' he's 40 and outlasted his welcome, like Brett Favre.

[Melmart1]

Irvin IS an idiot. But to say he had everything handed to him and he didn't have to work to be a good player is just as idiotic.

[MajorMike]

Irvin IS an idiot. But to say he had everything handed to him and he didn't have to work to be a good player is just as idiotic.

His flashy and rebellious style fit in well at the University of Miami, but it quickly drew intrigue and controversy in conservative Dallas. He routinely parked his sports car, with its self-described, customized license plate "The Playmaker," in "No Parking" zones during Cowboys' training camps. He visited Dallas strip clubs with regularity, and was known for socializing with strippers (despite being married).

At 6'2" and 205 pounds, Irvin was a big, physical receiver who manhandled cornerbacks and often was able to make tough catches in defensive traffic. In part because of Irvin's ability to push off the defender with such ease, the NFL eventually changed its rules to adjust to wide receivers who emulated Irvin's physical style.

Irvin played on argueably the best college and best pro teams of his day. His fault, no, his benifit - the opportunities were handed to him. Let's see him get those numbers with Baylor and Cleveland, just like let's see Emmitt become the rushing leader behind Detroit's O-Line.

[samikeyp]

So then, Emmitt Smith and Michael Irvin had no talent?

[ShoogarBear]

Neither did Aikman.

All of these guys were made by the Cowboys O-line.

[TheTruth]

That isn't very far off. That Cowboys OLine during their 90's run was probably the best line ever. It's debatable at least.

Everything fed off of them. No doubt.


Irving is an idiot, and I'm waiting for the day he pulls a Lyons and gets his ass fired.

[TheTruth]

Then maybe they will hire the 2nd worst pre-game commentator ever...THE ONE AND ONLY SHANNON SHARPE. Great TE, Terrible TV personality.

[ShoogarBear]

I was only partially kidding. The big three were good, but if they were on another team only Smith is a Hall of Famer.

[johnsmith]

Then maybe they will hire the 2nd worst pre-game commentator ever...THE ONE AND ONLY SHANNON SHARPE. Great TE, Terrible TV personality.


The CBS pre-game team all fucking suck at their jobs.

[samikeyp]

I was only partially kidding. The big three were good, but if they were on another team only Smith is a Hall of Famer.

Depending on the system, maybe. You put Aikman with Shanahan or Walsh, I think he is there also.

Football is the ultimate team game, more often than not, to be successful, you need others.

[samikeyp]

Then maybe they will hire the 2nd worst pre-game commentator ever...THE ONE AND ONLY SHANNON SHARPE. Great TE, Terrible TV personality.

Agreed. A hall of famer on the field...but only on the field.

[ShoogarBear]

Depending on the system, maybe. You put Aikman with Shanahan or Walsh, I think he is there also.

Football is the ultimate team game, more often than not, to be successful, you need others.Maybe. But another way of looking at it, you put Drew Bledsoe or Vinnie Testeverde on the 90s Cowboys, and they are first-ballot HoFers.

[samikeyp]

I think that is a bit of a stretch...but always possible. That still doesn't mean that Aikman, Irvin and Smith did not have the talent to be great NFL players.

[MajorMike]

So then, Emmitt Smith and Michael Irvin had no talent?

Everyone in the NFL has talent. How good was Alvin Harper with the Cowboys? How good was he when he left?

[TheTruth]

I think that is a bit of a stretch...but always possible. That still doesn't mean that Aikman, Irvin and Smith did not have the talent to be great NFL players.
No it isn't. An in his prime Drew Bledsoe had more talent than Troy at any time. Put him with that offense and he is most definitely first ballot.

[ShoogarBear]

Just like you can't penalize Montana for being on a winner, you can't penalize Aikman. But in terms of QBing skills, I don't see that Aikman had anything over the other two, and he certainly had weapons they never did.

[samikeyp]

I don't doubt that a system has something to do with a players success. Look at the Broncos churning out star running backs. My point is that the system alone was not responsible for their success.

[samikeyp]

No it isn't. An in his prime Drew Bledsoe had more talent than Troy at any time. Put him with that offense and he is most definitely first ballot.

I still think its a stretch but you raise good points that is why I said it was still possible, especially in Bledsoe's case....Testaverde..I am still not convinced.

[FromWayDowntown]

Alright -- for all who say that the Cowboys O-line "made" Irvin and Aikman, other than Larry Allen, name me one Hall-of-Famer in that group. Just one.

[samikeyp]

Just like you can't penalize Montana for being on a winner, you can't penalize Aikman. But in terms of QBing skills, I don't see that Aikman had anything over the other two, and he certainly had weapons they never did.

Agreed...but that doesn't mean Aikman wasn't a good QB.

[MajorMike]

Maybe. But another way of looking at it, you put Drew Bledsoe or Vinnie Testeverde on the 90s Cowboys, and they are first-ballot HoFers.

I don't think the '90s Cowboys are the '90s Cowboys with Bledsoe or Vinnie.

I think they are the Buddy Ryan or McNabb Eagles (always getting close but never getting there or winning while there), the 1999-2003 Rams (win a bunch, get to a couple SBs, win one), or Moon's Oilers/Peyton's Colts (damn good every year but can't win the big one).

[ShoogarBear]

Testaverde is a stretch I admit, but I don't think it's that outrageous when you consider Vinnie's career and numbers for a bunch of fair/mediocre teams.

Throw one more thing out there: if Norv Turner hadn't shown up, Aikman wouldn't even have made it as a Cowboy.

[samikeyp]

Throw one more thing out there: if Norv Turner hadn't shown up, Aikman wouldn't even have made it as a Cowboy.

Definetly.

[ShoogarBear]

Alright -- for all who say that the Cowboys O-line "made" Irvin and Aikman, other than Larry Allen, name me one Hall-of-Famer in that group. Just one.I don't care that they aren't in the HoF, but Stepnoski was a five time Pro-Bowler, Erik Willaims four times, Nate Newton six times, and Jay Novacek five times. I don't know how much they overlapped, but I bet at least 1-2 times four of them made the team.

Find another offensive line with those kinds of credentials.

Finally, almost never does a running back or quarterback make a lineman. (Exception might be soem of the guys on the Bills line when OJ was there). The other way around happens a lot.

[FromWayDowntown]

I think there's an equally plausible argument that goes that the Triplets made that offensive line look awfully good as well. What's telling to me is that from year-to-year, some of the faces on that line changed, but the results were fairly consistent.

Either they were remarkably lucky to find guys who just happened to fit in and excel, or the guys that they found were benefitted rather significantly by playing with Hall-of-Fame caliber skill players.

Ultimately, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle of the extremes, but it's untenable to me to argue that the offensive line was the decisive factor for those teams.

[FromWayDowntown]

Finally, almost never does a running back or quarterback make a lineman. (Exception might be soem of the guys on the Bills line when OJ was there). The other way around happens a lot.

I think that's incorrect, for the most part. Say you have a fairly poor offensive line that is able to open holes but not gash a defense. A running back who sees the fleeting holes and bursts through them before they close will gain yards, while a less assertive or less talented back will be stonewalled or dropped for losses. The hole is exactly the same in each scenario, but the result is different -- and not because of anything that the offensive line did.

As someone who toiled in high school and college as an o-lineman, you can be sure that I'm all about according fat guys their due respect. And certainly, offensive linemen make a significant difference to a team's success. But whether an offensive line appears to be good or not frequently depends on the quality of the backs running behind them. A mediocre group can be made to look great; a great group can be made to look fairly mediocre as well.

[samikeyp]

I think what everyone is forgetting is that no one can have success in football at any level without the help of a team.

[TheTruth]

Alright -- for all who say that the Cowboys O-line "made" Irvin and Aikman, other than Larry Allen, name me one Hall-of-Famer in that group. Just one.
Erik Williams

[TheTruth]

Troy Aikman would never have taken any of the teams to the Super Bowl that Elway did before Shanny got there.

[samikeyp]

Which is why I said...


You put Aikman with Shanahan or Walsh,

[ShoogarBear]

I knew you were an O-lineman, and I could be on shaky ground here, but fortunately I have the advantage in that you don't know anything about presenting a good argument.


I think that's incorrect, for the most part. Say you have a fairly poor offensive line that is able to open holes but not gash a defense. A running back who sees the fleeting holes and bursts through them before they close will gain yards, while a less assertive or less talented back will be stonewalled or dropped for losses. The hole is exactly the same in each scenario, but the result is different -- and not because of anything that the offensive line did.
I disagree that those things are not taken into consideration when evaluating line play. That's EXACTLY what we are attempting to do when we talk about how guys like Sayers or Sanders were great because they had mediocre (or worse) lines.

Offensive lineman ultimately are graded on how well they carry out their assignments. If they have clods in the backfield, the experts (of which I am certainly not one) make sure they recognize that. Guys like John Hannah and Anthony Munoz are pretty much universally acknowledged as being the best ever, even when they didn't play with very good QBs and RBs.

Now the difficulty may be when you get 2-3 good offensive lineman together, there probably is a synergy that makes it the whole greater than the sum of the parts. So maybe the right guard gets credit for a lot of stuff that happens only because his right tackle is so good. That still doesn't take away fromt he fact that the line itself is doing its job.


But whether an offensive line appears to be good or not frequently depends on the quality of the backs running behind them. A mediocre group can be made to look great; a great group can be made to look fairly mediocre as well.
Again, I think even the most minimially-sophisticated fan at least tries to normalize performance of the backfield to the performance of the line. When try to point out when a QB is getting time or when he's rushed. We note when the line is making good pushes. So I disagree that it's some big smorgasbord that can't be picked apart.

And again, there are numerous instances where we say "so-and-so" is good, too bad his line sucks, so the line automatically doesn't get credit for the backfield's successes.

[samikeyp]

a good line is a part of it, but it takes more than that to be a successful team.

[FromWayDowntown]

Erik Williams

Maybe if his career had ended in 1993. Nate Newton has a better case.

Frankly, I think the best of that whole bunch (other than Larry Allen) was Tuinei, but he didn't have the high profile that Williams did, because Madden never attached his lips to Tuinei's rear end.

[TheTruth]

Maybe if his career had ended in 1993. Nate Newton has a better case.

Frankly, I think the best of that whole bunch (other than Larry Allen) was Tuinei, but he didn't have the high profile that Williams did, because Madden never attached his lips to Tuinei's rear end.
you asked to name one, and I thought that shoogarbear did a fine job of pointing out the rest.

[ShoogarBear]

I think what everyone is forgetting is that no one can have success in football at any level without the help of a team.No I don't think anyone is forgetting that. But part of what we do as fans is try to determine what components of that team most contribute to the success.

Otherwise, there's no point in individual awards, Pro Bowls, Hall of Fame, etc, right?

I know you're not trying to say this, but taking it the extreme, we can't distinguish between the relative worths of Rocky Bleier and Tony Dorsett?

[samikeyp]

Williams was good, im not sure about HOF good. Who knows?

[Mr Dio]

Has anyone mentioned how good Novacek & Moose were in that O as well?
Next I guess we'll hear how bad Dallas' D was & how JJ wasn't a good coach at all.
For these guys not being much they sure came together as a team pretty nicely.
I even think they were good enough to win a Super Bowl.........or 2.................or

[TheTruth]

If you want to point out how "good" JJ was as a coach, lets talk Miami Dolphins football...

[TheTruth]

Those Cowboy's teams were soo good I bet even a dumbass like Barry Switzer could coach them to a Super Bowl.....

Hey Dio, I owe you a case of beer.

[samikeyp]

No I don't think anyone is forgetting that. But part of what we do as fans is try to determine what components of that team most contribute to the success.

Otherwise, there's no point in individual awards, Pro Bowls, Hall of Fame, etc, right?

I know you're not trying to say this, but taking it the extreme, we can't distinguish between the relative worths of Rocky Bleier and Tony Dorsett

I see where you're going shoog and you are right, I am not saying we don't need to count yards or other individual production. I guess what I was trying to say that while the o-line is a key component, I don't think anymore important than another.

[ShoogarBear]

Crap, I'm going to puke from having to say so many complementary things about friggin Cowboys . . .

[samikeyp]

Jimmy Johnson brought in that talent to Dallas. He didn't have the flexibility to do that when he got to Miami. I would have liked to see what JJ would have done the rest of the decade when he had to deal with cap space and such. I think some of the desicions would have been different if he were involved in making them instead just Jones.

[TheTruth]

The offensive line is the single most important part of offensive football. You could have Joe Montana back there, and he wouldn't win you a superbowl if he were playing behind a mediocre line.

[TheTruth]

Jimmy Johnson brought in that talent to Dallas. He didn't have the flexibility to do that when he got to Miami. I would have liked to see what JJ would have done the rest of the decade when he had to deal with cap space and such. I think some of the desicions would have been different if he were involved in making them instead just Jones.
A lot of those players were in place before JJ got there.

[samikeyp]

Crap, I'm going to puke from having to say so many complementary things about friggin Cowboys . . .

Well Shoog...this should make you feel better..

I think Art Monk should be in the HOF before Irvin and Rod Smith and Monk should have been in a long time ago.

[samikeyp]

A lot of those players were in place before JJ got there.

No they werent.

[ShoogarBear]

I see where you're going shoog and you are right, I am not saying we don't need to count yards or other individual production. I guess what I was trying to say that while the o-line is a key component, I don't think anymore important than another.Yeah, well, I guess I've made obvious my bias. I've always believed if you have a great offensive line, all you need are competent players in the backfield and the ends and you'll have a very good team. If you have very good players handling the ball, you'll have a great team like the Dolphins and Raiders of the 70s. Just my personal bias, though.

[samikeyp]

Oh I am with you. I am old school enough to believe that is where success starts.

[ShoogarBear]

Either I've stunned FWD into silence or he's preparing something in Latin . . .

[whottt]

Aikman and Irvin are getting sold a little short here...Aikman had the respect of every guy on that team because he was flat out fearless and willing to get his head completely knocked off to complete a pass...and he never threw with fear. Hence his short career. Aikman was getting the guys who broke Montana's back, Theisman's leg and Elway's heart, two times a year for the first half of his career.

You can say he wasn't as great as Montana or Elway, but to put him in Bledsoe's league is a travesty...Bledsoe gets happy feet and he always has, Aikman was fearless to the point of stupidity.

That's why Aikman always had the respect of every guy on that team...not because of his arm, or because of his mind, but because he was completely fearless and willing to take inhuman amounts of punishment rather than give up on a play.

And that same offensive line that everyone says is so great gave up an NFL single game record for sacks early in his career...it was made up of washouts and converted defensive lineman and they were a completely crappy line prior to the arrival of Emmitt Smith.

In most cases, the line does make the back, but in the case of the Cowboys it was Emmitt that made that line...Aside from Allen, how many probowls did they go to when they weren't blocking for Emmitt Smith, before or after?

None. Not a one of them. Allen's a HOF'er but he wasn't there when Emmitt started winning rushing titles...The rest of them had long careers before and after blocking for Emmitt and didn't do shit...and neither did any other back that ran behind that line.

Emmitt was definitely the backbone of that team and their greatest player...but Michael Irvin was the heart and soul and hunger of that team, he was the one that believed, and they fed off his hunger...and Aikman was the fearless leader.

The most fearless one of them...

I mean after that neck injury against the Bears in 97 Emmitt was never the same player...he pretty much played the rest of his career trying to avoid injury...that's not what Aikman did.


Could they have found another QB to do what Aikman did? Yes...but not as easily as some may think...and I don't think anyone could have replaced Irvin on those teams...when Irvin started having off the field problems was when the team stopped winning Superbowls.

I personally think that Charles Haley was a huge unsung part of winning those Superbowls as well...Yeah he's a nutcase, but he was a nutcase that got big sacks in big games.

[whottt]

Maybe if his career had ended in 1993. Nate Newton has a better case.

Frankly, I think the best of that whole bunch (other than Larry Allen) was Tuinei, but he didn't have the high profile that Williams did, because Madden never attached his lips to Tuinei's rear end.


And Tuenei was a converted defensive lineman...a bad defensive lineman.

[samikeyp]

and a sad ending for him as well.

[samikeyp]

A lot of those players were in place before JJ got there.

Jimmy Johnson drafted:

Aikman
Emmitt
Stepnoski
Allen
Lett
EWilliams
Tony Tolbert
Maryland
Harper
Larry Brown
Kevin Smith
Darren Woodson
Leon Lett
Moose Johnston
Jimmy Smith (although Jerry let him go)

Brought in Novacek, Thomas Everett, Charles Haley

and pulled the trigger on the Herschel Walker deal that gave the Cowboys most of those draft picks.

[whottt]

I understand why Shoogarbear attributes so much to the line...his team could plug in QB and RB and win Superbowls every year...that really wasn't the case with the Cowboys Superbowl teams. It was definitely a core group of players at the skill positions that won those Superbowls for Dallas and it was the lineman that were interchangeable...I think Tuinei and Newton were the only guys on the line for all 3 Superbowls. Those Dallas teams didn't win the same way Gibb's Redskins did...with Dallas it was the linemen that were interchangeable...not the skill guys.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Not unlike ShoogarBear having to heap praise on the Cowboys, I am utterly shocked that I agree with most everything Whottt just said.

Does this mean I'm a neo-con now?

[whottt]

Charles Haley

and pulled the trigger on the Herschel Walker deal that gave the Cowboys most of those draft picks.


To be fair...Jerry Jones had a whole lot to do with the Herchel Walker trade...and the Haley trade was a bad attempt by the Niners to sabotage the Cowboys chemistry...

[samikeyp]

The Hogs were very formidable. My question is why aren't some of those guys in?

[whottt]

Not unlike ShoogarBear having to heap praise on the Cowboys, I am utterly shocked that I agree with most everything Whottt just said.

Does this mean I'm a neo-con now?


I'm not a neocon...I just play one on the political forum.

[samikeyp]

To be fair...Jerry Jones had a whole lot to do with the Herchel Walker trade...and the Haley trade was a bad attempt by the Niners to sabotage the Cowboys chemistry...

agreed.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

I'm not a neocon...I just play one on the political forum.

I'm still pissed at you. That Gervin jersey should be rightfully mine. :lol

[whottt]

Do I smell a jersey for Rondo trade in the works?

[tlongII]

As a Seahawks fan it's easy for me to see the impact a great offensive line has on a team. The hawks offense was orders of magnitude better last year because of one player...Steve Hutchinson. You put a great tacke and a great guard on the same side and you can do all kinds of things to the defense.

[FromWayDowntown]

I knew you were an O-lineman, and I could be on shaky ground here, but fortunately I have the advantage in that you don't know anything about presenting a good argument.

So now you're disparaging my ability to perform professionally?

:lol


I disagree that those things are not taken into consideration when evaluating line play. That's EXACTLY what we are attempting to do when we talk about how guys like Sayers or Sanders were great because they had mediocre (or worse) lines.

Offensive lineman ultimately are graded on how well they carry out their assignments. If they have clods in the backfield, the experts (of which I am certainly not one) make sure they recognize that. Guys like John Hannah and Anthony Munoz are pretty much universally acknowledged as being the best ever, even when they didn't play with very good QBs and RBs.

It's far more than carrying out assignments, though that's certainly a part of it. My point isn't that individual linemen can't be great, just that a lineman (or a group of linemen) can be made to look substantially better than they really are if they play with a quality back who exploits what they do.

There's a qualitative difference between a line that functions well enough to open some creases and give backs an opportunity and a line that is overpowered, but made to look good by a back who can overcome that problem. Barry Sanders, for instance, played a long time with linemen who didn't do a good job of carrying out assignments and frequently didn't get great push up the field. Part of that was a product of the system -- the sorts of linemen who excel in pass protection are usually weaker run blockers and the Lions commitment to the Run-and-Shoot in the late 80's and early 90's dictated that they be good pass protectors -- part of that was a lack of talent (though Lomas Brown was a fairly consistent recipient of Hawaii trips, as was Kevin Glover) and part of that was Barry's style. Barry Sanders, to me, was always very different than Emmitt Smith, because Sanders loved to dance in the backfield and probe for openings and cut-backs, rather than run the ball downhill and take whatever holes existed. It obviously worked well for Barry, but that style is problematic if the goal is to determine if the offensive line is any good. Barry would dance even when there weren't defensive players in the backfield, though he certainly had occasion to dance because of immediate threats near to him. I've often wondered what the difference would have been had Barry ended up in Dallas and Emmitt in Detroit. My sense is that each would have been great, but that Barry would be considered great despite his line and that Emmitt would have brought 3-4 Lions with him to Honolulu every year. That's the nature of their styles. Emmitt ran the ball downhill and made it appear that his line was gashing huge holes in defenses; in reality, he was exploiting the sorts of holes that most offensive lines make -- he just was better than anyone else ever at attacking those holes and consistently churning out yards. Barry danced around in the backfield and made it appear that he was succeeding without any help -- he was better than anyone else ever at eluding tacklers and making gigantic plays out of seemingly lost causes.


Now the difficulty may be when you get 2-3 good offensive lineman together, there probably is a synergy that makes it the whole greater than the sum of the parts. So maybe the right guard gets credit for a lot of stuff that happens only because his right tackle is so good. That still doesn't take away fromt he fact that the line itself is doing its job.

Again, I think even the most minimially-sophisticated fan at least tries to normalize performance of the backfield to the performance of the line. When try to point out when a QB is getting time or when he's rushed. We note when the line is making good pushes. So I disagree that it's some big smorgasbord that can't be picked apart.

I don't think that's inconsistent with my point. I just think that there is a symbiosis there that fans frequently don't appreciate. If a back is stopped for a loss, many fans immediately complain that the offensive line didn't do it's job; sometimes, though, the offensive line has done exactly what it's supposed to do, but the back hasn't. The back doesn't take the blame, the big guys do.

I'm a fan of offensive line play and frequently when I watch games, I will watch the big guys do their thing without regard to where the ball is going. I got sort of trained to do that. I'll tell you that some of the most effective offensive lines don't get great backwards push in the running game -- they're effective because they create and sustain gaps that backs can exploit. If the backs don't exploit the holes, the offensive line is deemed ineffective. If the backs exploit the holes, the offensive line is considered to be good or great.

There's no simple formula; this argument is an uncomfortable one for me, because the thing that I decry frequently about professional football is that there's so little done to educate fans about the nuances of what offensive linemen do. Madden doesn't really do that -- he celebrates the high-end stuff that make o-linemen look larger-than-life. You don't often see an extensive breakdown of the center's turnout block on the weakside 3-technique, which creates the cutback lane for the back after a trapping guard whiffs. You don't regularly see a celebration of a guard who comes off a double-team just in time to nudge a linebacker and reroute him so that a back's cut-back run gains 2-3 more yards. You might see replays of a well-executed trap block by a pulling guard, but you'll rarely see an isolation on the tackle who leads through the hole immediately behind the guard and walls off the pursuit.

With that said, I still think that the ultimate success of any offensive line is a byproduct of the skills and abilities of the back running behind it.


And again, there are numerous instances where we say "so-and-so" is good, too bad his line sucks, so the line automatically doesn't get credit for the backfield's successes.

I think a lot of the willingness to credit or discredit backs is subjective and that the willingness to credit or discredit lines is equally subjective. It's virtually impossible to fairly apportion the credit for success or the blame for failure in a situation where one group is entirely dependent on another. A line could open gigantic holes on a routine basis, but if the back doesn't attack those holes, nobody will ever think the line great. A line could open the tiniest slivers of holes for fleeting seconds, and a back that attacks those holes will make the line look great.

Say what you will, but I think the praise that is heaped on the Cowboys' line in the 1990's was largely a credit to Emmitt Smith. Had it been the big boys that were mostly responsible, the Cowboys would have been dominant with anyone in the backfield. But, curiously, Derrick Lassic and Sherman Williams and the other guys who ran behind that line weren't exactly rolling up the sort of yards per carry numbers that Emmitt was. The line was good -- there's no doubt about that -- but Emmitt made them look great and got those guys to Hawaii perennially.

[johnsmith]

If you've never played football in your life, read the above.

[johnsmith]

So now you're disparaging my ability to perform professionally?

:lol



It's far more than carrying out assignments, though that's certainly a part of it. My point isn't that individual linemen can't be great, just that a lineman (or a group of linemen) can be made to look substantially better than they really are if they play with a quality back who exploits what they do.

There's a qualitative difference between a line that functions well enough to open some creases and give backs an opportunity and a line that is overpowered, but made to look good by a back who can overcome that problem. Barry Sanders, for instance, played a long time with linemen who didn't do a good job of carrying out assignments and frequently didn't get great push up the field. Part of that was a product of the system -- the sorts of linemen who excel in pass protection are usually weaker run blockers and the Lions commitment to the Run-and-Shoot in the late 80's and early 90's dictated that they be good pass protectors -- part of that was a lack of talent (though Lomas Brown was a fairly consistent recipient of Hawaii trips, as was Kevin Glover) and part of that was Barry's style. Barry Sanders, to me, was always very different than Emmitt Smith, because Sanders loved to dance in the backfield and probe for openings and cut-backs, rather than run the ball downhill and take whatever holes existed. It obviously worked well for Barry, but that style is problematic if the goal is to determine if the offensive line is any good. Barry would dance even when there weren't defensive players in the backfield, though he certainly had occasion to dance because of immediate threats near to him. I've often wondered what the difference would have been had Barry ended up in Dallas and Emmitt in Detroit. My sense is that each would have been great, but that Barry would be considered great despite his line and that Emmitt would have brought 3-4 Lions with him to Honolulu every year. That's the nature of their styles. Emmitt ran the ball downhill and made it appear that his line was gashing huge holes in defenses; in reality, he was exploiting the sorts of holes that most offensive lines make -- he just was better than anyone else ever at attacking those holes and consistently churning out yards. Barry danced around in the backfield and made it appear that he was succeeding without any help -- he was better than anyone else ever at eluding tacklers and making gigantic plays out of seemingly lost causes.



I don't think that's inconsistent with my point. I just think that there is a symbiosis there that fans frequently don't appreciate. If a back is stopped for a loss, many fans immediately complain that the offensive line didn't do it's job; sometimes, though, the offensive line has done exactly what it's supposed to do, but the back hasn't. The back doesn't take the blame, the big guys do.

I'm a fan of offensive line play and frequently when I watch games, I will watch the big guys do their thing without regard to where the ball is going. I got sort of trained to do that. I'll tell you that some of the most effective offensive lines don't get great backwards push in the running game -- they're effective because they create and sustain gaps that backs can exploit. If the backs don't exploit the holes, the offensive line is deemed ineffective. If the backs exploit the holes, the offensive line is considered to be good or great.

There's no simple formula; this argument is an uncomfortable one for me, because the thing that I decry frequently about professional football is that there's so little done to educate fans about the nuances of what offensive linemen do. Madden doesn't really do that -- he celebrates the high-end stuff that make o-linemen look larger-than-life. You don't often see an extensive breakdown of the center's turnout block on the weakside 3-technique, which creates the cutback lane for the back after a trapping guard whiffs. You don't regularly see a celebration of a guard who comes off a double-team just in time to nudge a linebacker and reroute him so that a back's cut-back run gains 2-3 more yards. You might see replays of a well-executed trap block by a pulling guard, but you'll rarely see an isolation on the tackle who leads through the hole immediately behind the guard and walls off the pursuit.

With that said, I still think that the ultimate success of any offensive line is a byproduct of the skills and abilities of the back running behind it.



I think a lot of the willingness to credit or discredit backs is subjective and that the willingness to credit or discredit lines is equally subjective. It's virtually impossible to fairly apportion the credit for success or the blame for failure in a situation where one group is entirely dependent on another. A line could open gigantic holes on a routine basis, but if the back doesn't attack those holes, nobody will ever think the line great. A line could open the tiniest slivers of holes for fleeting seconds, and a back that attacks those holes will make the line look great.

Say what you will, but I think the praise that is heaped on the Cowboys' line in the 1990's was largely a credit to Emmitt Smith. Had it been the big boys that were mostly responsible, the Cowboys would have been dominant with anyone in the backfield. But, curiously, Derrick Lassic and Sherman Williams and the other guys who ran behind that line weren't exactly rolling up the sort of yards per carry numbers that Emmitt was. The line was good -- there's no doubt about that -- but Emmitt made them look great and got those guys to Hawaii perennially.


I think you are generally dead on throughout this, although there is a little too much "if (insert player) played for (insert team) then (insert results) would have occurred".

Having been a linebacker through high school and college, I can say that I would much rather see a runningback dance around in the backfield then I would a power runner hitting the appropriate hole as soon as he gets the ball handed to him. Having said that, some of those little fuckers juking around back there were a pain in the ass to try and catch as well.

You need both a talented offensive line that can sustain blocks (not just pancake) as well as a talented (and smart helps too) runningback in order to have a superior run game. However, a dominant offensive line can more then make up for an inferior runningback (in my opinion).

[ShoogarBear]

The Hogs were very formidable. My question is why aren't some of those guys in?Very touchy subject in DC, as you might imagine. (So is Monk. In fact the only HoFers from their Super Bowl teams are Gibbs and John Riggins [Darrell Green will be next or Canton will be burned to the ground]. So Dallas fans STFU about not getting respect from the HoF.) The Hogs had the catchy nickname, but I think only Jacoby and Grimm ever made the Pro Bowl (four times each). It could be easily argued that the Cowboys O-line of the 90s was better.

whottt makes a good point in that maybe I am letting the Skins' history influence my thinking about the Cowboys. I still think that line was great, and is seems Cowboy fans underappreciate them.

(I am arguing with a lineman about offensive lines and with Cowboy fans about the Cowboys. No way was this going to come to a good end.)

[FromWayDowntown]

The Hogs are similiar to me, but I think the Hogs were truly the more physically dominant group - in each of their incarnations.

Personally, I think the Redskins O-line in 1991 was the most complete and physically-dominant group that I've ever seen play.

edit: I also think Pro Bowls are a terrible measure for judging offensive linemen, because Pro Bowl selections aren't always merit-based. With that said, between 1982 and 1991 (the span of time covering their 3 Super Bowl wins and the heyday of the Hogs) the Redskins had 6 different offensive linemen selected for Honolulu:

Joe Jacoby - 4
Russ Grimm - 4
Jim Lachey - 2
Jeff Bostic - 1
Mark May - 1
Mark Schlereth - 1

[ShoogarBear]

So now you're disparaging my ability to perform professionally?

:lol Legal disclaimer: My comments were meant only as a joke, not an excuse for some lawsuit-mad shyster to assemble a libel case. :lol



Barry Sanders, to me, was always very different than Emmitt Smith, because Sanders loved to dance in the backfield and probe for openings and cut-backs, rather than run the ball downhill and take whatever holes existed. It obviously worked well for Barry, but that style is problematic if the goal is to determine if the offensive line is any good. Barry would dance even when there weren't defensive players in the backfield, though he certainly had occasion to dance because of immediate threats near to him. I've often wondered what the difference would have been had Barry ended up in Dallas and Emmitt in Detroit. My sense is that each would have been great, but that Barry would be considered great despite his line and that Emmitt would have brought 3-4 Lions with him to Honolulu every year. I obviously am not qualifed to get into a discussion of the nuances with you, but it sounds like you're suggesting that while Emmitt made his line look better than they were, Barry made his line look worse than they were.




I don't think that's inconsistent with my point. I just think that there is a symbiosis there that fans frequently don't appreciate. If a back is stopped for a loss, many fans immediately complain that the offensive line didn't do it's job; sometimes, though, the offensive line has done exactly what it's supposed to do, but the back hasn't. The back doesn't take the blame, the big guys do.

I'm a fan of offensive line play and frequently when I watch games, I will watch the big guys do their thing without regard to where the ball is going. I got sort of trained to do that. I'll tell you that some of the most effective offensive lines don't get great backwards push in the running game -- they're effective because they create and sustain gaps that backs can exploit. If the backs don't exploit the holes, the offensive line is deemed ineffective. If the backs exploit the holes, the offensive line is considered to be good or great.Eh, I dunno. I think once you get past the casual fans, most fans have at least a little appreciation of this distinction. In DC, for example, people are always complaing about how Ledell Betts, despite being physically similar to Clinton Portis, just doesn't know how to use his blocks and cutbacks the way Portis does.



Say what you will, but I think the praise that is heaped on the Cowboys' line in the 1990's was largely a credit to Emmitt Smith. Had it been the big boys that were mostly responsible, the Cowboys would have been dominant with anyone in the backfield. But, curiously, Derrick Lassic and Sherman Williams and the other guys who ran behind that line weren't exactly rolling up the sort of yards per carry numbers that Emmitt was. The line was good -- there's no doubt about that -- but Emmitt made them look great and got those guys to Hawaii perennially.I never implied that you could stick just any back behind that line and they would gain yards. I also said that Smith was a HoF behind any line. But I think there are a couple of non HoF contemporaries of Smith (Thurman Thomas, Curtis Martin) who could have played behind that line without a huge dropoff in productivity.

[ShoogarBear]

IHowever, a dominant offensive line can more then make up for an inferior runningback (in my opinion).Outside of the argument about Smith, this is along the lines of what I have been trying to say.

Actually, what I have been saying is that a dominant offensive line can make a competent back look very good, and a very good back look like a superstar. And I think this is more likely to happen than a superstar back making a competent offensive line look better than they are.

[FromWayDowntown]

I don't mean to pay short-shrift to the conversation, Shoog, but are you saying that Thurman Thomas (8th All-Time in total yards from scrimmage and 12th All-Time in rushing yards) and Curtis Martin (4th All-Time in rushing yards; 4,000 yards short of Emmitt in 4 fewer seasons) are not Hall of Famers?

[ShoogarBear]

Thomas didn't make it his first year of eligibility. I've heard/seen a few discussions about the media about whether Martin deserves to get in, and if he does whether he deserves first ballot.

If you think stats mean something, ask Art Monk.

[ShoogarBear]

BTW, guys, thanks for pissing away my day. I got about 90 minutes to get work done.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Some of these Emmitt/Barry comparisons are funny.

[samikeyp]

Very touchy subject in DC, as you might imagine. (So is Monk. In fact the only HoFers from their Super Bowl teams are Gibbs and John Riggins [Darrell Green will be next or Canton will be burned to the ground]. So Dallas fans STFU about not getting respect from the HoF.

Good....then you know how we feel. :)

If Darrell Green is not a first ballot shoo-in...I will lead that party to burn it down. I never rooted for him but I have mad respect for all he did and for how long he did it.

[ShoogarBear]

Some of these Emmitt/Barry comparisons are funny.Disgruntling, even?

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

It's no use trying to persuade people that Barry was better than Emmitt, especially people from TX.

[samikeyp]

So..if someone doesn't believe they way you do...they are wrong?

Personally I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I believe what I believe. I have a right to believe what I want and no one has the right to convince me otherwise.

Just because you think Barry was better doesn't mean its true, just like because I think Emmitt was better doesn't make it true.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Where did I say it was wrong?

One played for a consistently good team that won titles, the other played on a Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde team. It makes a difference, and that's about as much as we'd agree on, if that.

[samikeyp]

It's no use trying to persuade people that Barry was better than Emmitt, especially people from TX.

You act as though people from Texas are incapable of objective thought.

It does make a difference but not necessarily enough of one to determine a HOF worthy career.

Let me ask this....do you think the reason Emmitt Smith may make the hall of fame is because of the team he is on?

[FromWayDowntown]

For the record, I never said Barry was better than Emmitt or vice-versa. I compared their styles and suggested that the styles might have had something to do with the public perceptions of the lines that played in front of them. But, I'm pretty sure that I also said that I thought if they had traded places, they each would have had stellar careers. I'm not sure how that's a slight on Barry.

Curiously, just as DLF perceives that Cowboys fans don't think objectively about the comparison, favoring Emmitt, it sure seems like Lions fans suffer the same sort of non-objectivity in Barry's favor. Just an observation.

[ShoogarBear]

You act as though people from Texas are incapable of objective thought. George W. Bush troll in 4 . . . 3 . . . 2 . . .

[johnsmith]

For the record, I never said Barry was better than Emmitt or vice-versa. I compared their styles and suggested that the styles might have had something to do with the public perceptions of the lines that played in front of them. But, I'm pretty sure that I also said that I thought if they had traded places, they each would have had stellar careers. I'm not sure how that's a slight on Barry.

Curiously, just as DLF perceives that Cowboys fans don't think objectively about the comparison, favoring Emmitt, it sure seems like Lions fans suffer the same sort of non-objectivity in Barry's favor. Just an observation.


This is what I love about debating sports, every one admits in the end that they could be wrong, or they know how the other feels, or they see the others point of view.

Well, everyone except Obstructed View, that guys an idiot.

[samikeyp]

George W. Bush troll in 4 . . . 3 . . . 2 . . .

oh crap...did I leave that door open? :lol

I should know better on these here internets! :lol

[samikeyp]

This is what I love about debating sports, every one admits in the end that they could be wrong, or they know how the other feels, or they see the others point of view.

Well, everyone except Obstructed View, that guys an idiot.

Good point...and in no way by choosing Emmitt over Barry means I think Barry sucks. IMO, he is the best pure runner ever.

[ShoogarBear]

I am from Texas, but obviously not a Cowboys fan.

I'm guessing that very few non-Cowboy fans would be of the opinion that Emmitt was better than Barry.

However, it's somewhat amusing that in order to make that argument they sort of have to throw the Cowboys' offensive line under the bus.

So I guess it hasn't been a wasted day after all.

[tlongII]

I am from Texas, but obviously not a Cowboys fan.

I'm guessing that very few non-Cowboy fans would be of the opinion that Emmitt was better than Barry.

However, it's somewhat amusing that in order to make that argument they sort of have to throw the Cowboys' offensive line under the bus.

So I guess it hasn't been a wasted day after all.

Don't you have a surgery to get to?

[johnsmith]

I am from Texas, but obviously not a Cowboys fan.

I'm guessing that very few non-Cowboy fans would be of the opinion that Emmitt was better than Barry.

However, it's somewhat amusing that in order to make that argument they sort of have to throw the Cowboys' offensive line under the bus.

So I guess it hasn't been a wasted day after all.


What, did you think that coming on this site would have made your day productive in any way, shape or form?

Fuck, I pretty much wasted this whole week on this thing.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

You act as though people from Texas are incapable of objective thought.

It does make a difference but not necessarily enough of one to determine a HOF worthy career.

Let me ask this....do you think the reason Emmitt Smith may make the hall of fame is because of the team he is on?

I said that because most people from TX weren't able to watch BS on a weekly basis like they could ES.

[samikeyp]

Remember long ago when this thread was about Tiki Barber? :lol

[johnsmith]

Remember long ago when this thread was about Tiki Barber? :lol


Who?

[samikeyp]

I said that because most people from TX weren't able to watch BS on a weekly basis like they could ES.

Fair enough.

Though couldn't that work both ways?

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Fair enough.

Though couldn't that work both ways?


The Cowboys were always on nationally during that time. The Lions? Not so much.

[samikeyp]

Again fair enough.

I still feel though even though fans in Texas saw more of Emmitt doesn't mean that their feelings of Emmitt being better aren't legit.

The way I see it, and this is a personal assessment...

I think Barry was a better pure runner...I think Emmitt was a better running back. IMO, Emmitt was a better blocker and reciever.

Just my .02

[whottt]

Jimmy Johnson recruited Barry(who was a back up) and coached Emmitt...

And I quote:

"If I wanted to sell tickets I'd draft Barry Sanders, if I wanted to win Superbowls I'd draft Emmitt Smith"


One was a north south runner who seldom was tackled for a loss and was always moving forward, and who was one of the great goal line backs in NFL history...

One was an East West runner who ran around like a chicken with his head cut off and you never knew if he was going to get tackled for a 15 yard loss or go 80 yards for a touchdown and that's why he couldn't even get the call on the goal line over other RB's on his own team...is that Emmitt's fault?


Is it Emmitt's fault that Barry was the first 1500 hundred yard back in history to play on a team with 2 thousand yard recievers and a 3500 yard passer and still got his ass kicked out of the playoffs(held to - yardage I believe, something that happened quite a few times with Barry) and the very next week Emmitt ripped them for a 150 yards?


Barry was helter skelter yards, fun as hell to watch but you never knew what was going to happen with him...you knew Emmitt was going to be going straight ahead, that's why I think the longest loss he ever got tackled for was about 4 yards and I'd frequently see Barry at half time with -15-20 yards...yeah he'd still end up with a 150 from his two 80 yard runs he'd get after his team was down by 30 in the second half...but you get the point...that's also why they didn't want to give it to him on the goal line...


And don't say Emmitt had a great offensive line the last 5 or 6 years of his career...when he was still wracking up 1000 yard season, and sodomizing the Redskins with regularity, albeit almost with a Sanders like lack of passion and purpose, a far cry from earlier in his career.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

I hate that argument because the Cowboy coaches>>>Lion coaches and they knew how to use ES. The Lion coaches? They took Barry out inside the 10 for Tommy Vardell.

[johnsmith]

I'd take Walter Payton over both of them.

[samikeyp]

I would take Jim Brown over anyone.

[whottt]

Because Barry might get tackled for a 15 yard loss...I don't blame them. You could put no offensive line in front of Emmitt and he still wasn't going to wind up 15 yards in the backfield. It wasn't they way he ran.

Was it the coaches that made Barry run 15 yards in the backfield? Or was it just the way Barry ran...

[FromWayDowntown]

I still back Tiki's position.

[ShoogarBear]

I'd take Walter Payton over both of them.:tu

[johnsmith]

I still back Tiki's position.
:lmao :lmao :lmao

[tlongII]

Jim Brown was the best ever.

[whottt]

Too bad Barry wasn't getting him some Wilbur Marshall, Andre Waters, Reggie White, LT and Pepper Johnson bi annually like Emmitt was...Sheyittt Barry would have had a couple of -100 yard games had he faced that Eagles D more.

[ShoogarBear]

I would take Jim Brown over anyone.:tu

Although . . . Brown apparently refused to block and was a poor receiver.

Now you might argue why TF you'd want Michelangelo to sing. . . but still, Sweetness was the better all-around football player while Brown was the best running back.

[ShoogarBear]

Too bad Barry wasn't getting him some Wilbur Marshall, Andre Waters, Reggie White, LT and Pepper Johnson bi annually like Emmitt was...Shit Barry would have had a couple of -100 yard games had he faced that Eagles D more.whottt has found his football equivalent of Hakeem and Avery Johnson combined in Barry Sanders.

[samikeyp]

Although . . . Brown apparently refused to block and was a poor receiver.

Now you might argue why TF you'd want Michelangelo to sing. . . but still, Sweetness was the better all-around football player while Brown was the best running back.


Touche'

[johnsmith]

I would take Jim Brown over anyone.


I think going back all the way to Jim Brown is an unfair comparison in regards to comparing runningbacks.

Jim Brown was like a man among boys when he played (at least from the old films I've seen, it looks that way). It's reminscent of Wilt the Stilt playing basketball against a bunch of short white guys.

Don't get me wrong here though, I'm sure he was amazing and from what I have seen, he certainly is, but Payton played against a bunch of juiced up steroid freaks during the late 70's and early 80's and still made them look like women.

Wow, race disrimination as well as female discrimination in one post..........good for me.

[whottt]

whottt has found his football equivalent of Hakeem and Avery Johnson combined in Barry Sanders.


I've always known it and done it many times on other boards...only in this argument I'm on the Hakeem side.

[samikeyp]

I think going back all the way to Jim Brown is an unfair comparison in regards to comparing runningbacks.

possibly...then again I think most of the "Best (insert player or position here)....." arguments are exercises in futility.

Maybe should stick to what we have seen.

Best Running Back I have ever seen is Emmitt Smith.

[johnsmith]

possibly...then again I think most of the "Best (insert player or position here)....." arguments are exercises in futility.

Maybe should stick to what we have seen.

Best Running Back I have ever seen is Emmitt Smith.


I'd put Payton over any runner I've ever seen.

[ShoogarBear]

Best Running Back I have ever seen is Emmitt Smith.Did you actually see him?

Or did you see an electronic representation of him on your television?

No weasel room in here, dammit.

[samikeyp]

I actually saw him.

[whottt]

Jim Brown was fantastic...I mean look at that crap offensive line he had...it was so bad that the year after he retired his replacement won the rushing title.

It's not like Paul Brown ever won anything without Jim Brown either...

[ShoogarBear]

I like all Dallas teams.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Too bad Barry wasn't getting him some Wilbur Marshall, Andre Waters, Reggie White, LT and Pepper Johnson bi annually like Emmitt was...Sheyittt Barry would have had a couple of -100 yard games had he faced that Eagles D more.


In '92, the Packers, Bears, Vikings and Bucs gave up less yards per rush than the Eagles. The Pack, Bears and Bucs gave up less rushing TDs that year.

In '93, the Packers, Bears, Vikings and Bucs gave up less yards per rush than the Eagles. Bears and Packers gave up less rushing TDs.

In '94, the Packers, Bears, Vikings and Bucs gave up less yards...

[whottt]

I'm taking Wilt over Russell in this one

[whottt]

In '92, the Packers, Bears, Vikings and Bucs gave up less yards per rush than the Eagles. The Pack, Bears and Bucs gave up less rushing TDs that year.

In '93, the Packers, Bears, Vikings and Bucs gave up less yards per rush than the Eagles. Bears and Packers gave up less rushing TDs.

In '94, the Packers, Bears, Vikings and Bucs gave up less yards...


Yeah...because they didn't have Emmitt running up their butts like the Eagles, Giants and Skins did.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

The Cowboys played the Bears, Bucs and Pack during those years.

[whottt]

And whupped them no doubt...but I don't think they switched divisions during those years.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

No they didn't, and I don't think they switched defenses either.

[samikeyp]

And whupped them no doubt...but I don't think they switched divisions during those years.

In the 90's, Dallas was...

3-2 against the Bears
2-0 against the Bucs
9-1 against the Pack

[whottt]

No they didn't, and I don't think they switched defenses either.


So are you trying to say that the Bucs, Packers and Bears all had better D than the Eagles back then? Maybe the Packers...who were Emmit's shankass bitch above all others...

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

They had better rushing Ds. I'm not saying it, they did.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Far be it for me to bring this thread back to its original purpose, but I found this commentary interesting.



(The Ugly) As I am sure you all know by now, a New York Times profile two weeks ago of the Giants’ star running back Tiki Barber noted that he likely plans on retiring at the end of this season. In subsequent interviews, Barber has confirmed this and last week, three members of the sports commentariat questioned Barber’s decision, or at least the timing of it. Gary Myers, of the New York Daily News, and ESPN’s Tom Jackson suggested that the retirement talk might be a distraction to the team and Michael Irvin went a step further, saying that the announcement, in the middle of the season was tantamount to Barber “quitting” on his teammates. Irvin later elaborated that what he meant to raise was the adverse effect of Tiki’s announcement on his ability to be a team leader the rest of the season, asserting that if Barber tries to pump up his players at a key moment in the game, the younger players are now going to ignore him because of what he’s done.
Tiki, seemingly out of character, criticized all three men, calling them “idiots” on his Sirius radio program this past Tuesday and reserving particular contempt for Irvin, whom he referred to as a “character guy” before adding, “facetiously speaking, of course.”

Tiki especially criticized all three men for failing to talk to his teammates about whether they thought his impending retirement was a distraction before asserting that it was. But, each of the three essentially rejected the idea that they needed to do so.

Here’s what Myers wrote in the Daily News this past week in response to Tiki’s comments:

“I began covering the NFL when Barber was 3 years old and can sense when I believe something will be a distraction. Inthis case, polling his Giants teammates on the Barber Issue, as he suggested should have been done, was not required, although I felt confident that trustworthy people shared my opinion.”

As best as I can tell, this is not so much a defense of how Myers’ practices journalism as it is a refusal to acknowledge that he is one. Because Myers has been doing this for a long time, he doesn’t need to talk to anybody – we should just take his expertise as sufficient for him to assert whatever he thinks is right or true.

Tom Jackson told Mike and the Mad Dog this week that he heard Tiki’s remarks because he was listening to Barber’s show, which TJ said he likes a great deal. TJ also disputed the idea that it was necessary to talk to any of Barber’s teammates before offering his opinion because, after all, TJ is paid to offer his opinion. Jackson also expressed disappointment at Barber’s name calling and suggested that Tiki issues opinions about all sorts of things on his show, such as the war in Iraq without necessarily talking to people in the administration, for example. So, Jackson wanted to know, how is this really any different?

But, according to SI’s Peter King, Barber has interviewed, among other people, John McCain, John Kerry and Condoleeza Rice. In other words, despite the fact that Tiki is a still active NFL player who does a radio show on the side, he would appear to have gone to some length to educate himself about, for example, the Iraq war in order to formulate opinions he expresses on the show. Jackson, by contrast, is a full-time ESPN employee and, presumably, has more ready access to the Giants’ locker room than Barber does to our nation’s leading policy-makers,

Irvin has also bristled at Tiki’s personal shots and defended his opinions primarily by reference to his credentials – as a key leader on a team that won three Super Bowls in four years. Therefore, Irvin has argued this week, he’s been hired by ESPN because of his expertise about what it takes to be an NFL leader.

The problem with arguing that your opinion is unassailable on the basis of your credentials alone is that if you find someone whose credentials are arguably better than yours, doesn’t that make their opinion better than yours? Even leaving aside Barber’s teammates, like Michael Strahan, who have rejected Irvin’s assertions, lots of people this week have dismissed Irvin’s comments – the Giants sure aren’t playing like a distracted team right now, and Tiki is universally respected, especially in his own locker room where, by all accounts, his teammates have known this was coming for at least a year. Mike Ditka is among those who have categorically rejected Irvin’s assertions. Ditka, of course, was a key leader on NFL championship teams as a player and head coach. If credentials make the opinion, doesn’t Ditka’s trump Irvin’s?

Irvin’s comments are also bizarrely out of step with what we know to be Tiki’s on-field personality. If the label “leads-by-example” applies to anyone, it applies to Barber. I’ve watched many Giants games over the years, and I have never seen Barber running up and down the sidelines verbally exhorting his teammates. That’s not his style. If Irvin is reduced to saying that when his teammates watch him perform and no longer feel motivated by that, then he’s really reaching.

Defenders of TJ and Irvin have argued that they were hired to give their opinions and that they are, therefore, entitled to do so. But, the obvious response is that Tiki’s entitled to his opinion, too. Furthermore, being entitled to an opinion is not the same as being entitled to having others respect your opinion. If you make a claim that you cannot back up in any way other than “trust me, I know what I’m talking about, even if the people directly involved categorically disagree” then you’re opening yourself up to having your credibility questioned.

Sports commentary is an opinion-driven, seat-of-the pants phenomenon. I understand that and, as a co-host of a community radio sports talk show, I engage in some of that, too. But, being a high profile commentator doesn’t absolve any of these guys of criticism when they fail to substantiate their claims. That the standards of their profession are as low as they are may lead them to believe that they can say whatever they want without justification. But, it doesn’t follow that their own low standards for their work ought to be the only basis for how other people might judge them.


http://journals.aol.com/sportsmediaguy/SportsMediaReview/entries/2006/10/30/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-now-thats-original/248

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm still with Tiki.

[samikeyp]

I don't have a problem with what any of them did. Jackson and Irvin are paid to give their opinions and insight...they did....Sirius Radio pays Tiki to give his opinion and insight...he did. I don't think name calling was needed but I understand Tiki's frustration. I don't agree with what Irvin and Jackson said, but I agree with their right (and Tiki's) to say it.

[tlongII]

I agree with this for the most part. Irvin and Jackson can say just about anything they want as it is just their opinion. However, I don't blame Tiki for calling them out either. I think Jackson's, and even moreso Irvin's reactions to being called out were stupid though. As the scenario is being played out it appears that Tiki is the one that most knows what he is talking about.

[samikeyp]

I think everybody in this took it a little too personal. If they are going to be in the business they are in (and rumor has it, Tiki wants to be as well) you need to have a little thicker skin.

[whottt]

Eh...Irvin's got a point, and he knows a lot more about what it takes to lead a team to a championship(since he's won a bunch of them usually being the emotional leader of his teams) than Tiki does...Tiki ignoring Mike's advice on what it takes to win is almost as funny as him ignoring Irvin's advice on where to get the best coke....

And I'd say even if it wasn't a distraction before...it certainly is now that it's turned into a media sniping festival, after his comments.


Come to think of it...Mike's a pretty good expert on being a distraction as well.

Tiki's no stranger to being a distraction BTW...last time around he butted in and opened his big trap on Strahan's contract negotiations and pissed off quite a few of his teamates.

[McKenzie]

:lmao