Well said....although apparently Capt.Mike can.![]()
See, I totally agree with this, you can't penalize Montana. I still think Elway is the best qb of all time, but you CANNOT blame Montana for the team he was on. Plus, that's what makes the great ones great, surround them with talent and they win super bowls (see Broncos 1997-1999).
Actually... that's exactly what I am saying.
Emmitt Smith behind Barry Sanders' O-Line does not get Barry Sanders' numbers.
Barry Sanders behind Emmitt's O-Line and Barry gets multiple 2,000 yard seasons instead of just one.
so then you can penalize a player for being on a good team.
there is no proof that Emmitt Smith could not have got the same numbers behind a different line. opinions, yes but no facts.
Well, you might say that if a good running back goes to a worse team he might get more carries, but it's hard to argue that in Emmitt's case.
It's also hard to imagine that he would have gotten more yards with a worse offensive line (and a worse defense supporting him).
So in Emmitt's case, he was a workhorse on a good team, I could see that his stats would get worse.
Aikman, on the other hand, would probably have been forced to pass more on a worse team, so maybe his yards, TDs, etc might have been more.
I think we can all agree that guys like Sanders, Payton (pre-Ditka), and Gale Sayers were freaking amazing in that they were able to do what they did with the Little Sisters of the Poor blocking for them.
Definetly....not to mention Jim Brown....I am not sure he even needed a line in front of him.I think we can all agree that guys like Sanders, Payton (pre-Ditka), and Gale Sayers were freaking amazing in that they were able to do what they did with the Little Sisters of the Poor blocking for them.
I would have liked to see what Sayers could have done with a full career....we might not even be having this discussion.
Does Terrell Davis deserve to get in the hall of fame? I could go either way on this argument............much like ObstructedView could go both ways in his sexuality.
Good question...I would like to see the other Bronco fans weigh in on this.
Not a Bronco fan, but . . .
I wouldn't necessarily hold Terrell's lack of longevity against him, however, I think Terrell's argument is weakened by the fact that just about every other back who came through Denver after him gained a load of yards. So he was clearly good, but it's unclear if he was really better than everyone else.
Trust me, he was much better then all of them, even Clinton Portis........having said that, you are absolutely correct.
Nope, not a chance. Two really good/great years does not make a HOFer. Unless, of course, you think Kurt Warner is HOF material...
Terrell led the AFC in rushing three straight years, and the NFL in one.
I wouldn't be upset if he got in, but it would have been "better" if Denver's running game had really suffered without him.
Or Gale Sayers.
So getting game winning touchdowns, fumble recoveries and interceptions doesn't count in his favor, but not making a play to stop a touchdown counts against him. Good logic. Fortunately Steve A er had TD or he'd be as big a loser as Williams.
I put Sayers on a pedestal. His line sucked, his QB sucked, his receivers sucked, his defense sucked except for Butkus.
And oh, by the way, he holds the NFL record for lifetime kick return average.
Ummm, Ok, yes, that is fortunate.
I know, me too, but it's my only defense on why TD should be in the Hall.
td has the jewelry though. that does play a role in the decision a lot of he time.
Holmes does have one ring with the Ravens, though he was backing up Lewis at the time.
I did not know that.
Nice pass interference on a ball that no way in would have been caught that led to the equalizer.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)