Draft Countdown Forums

Go Back   Draft Countdown Forums > Draft Countdown Forums > Pro Football

Pro Football Discuss professional football.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-26-2008, 05:24 AM    (permalink
flave1969
Rookie
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 246
Reputation: 26822
flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JordanTaber View Post
Didn't see this post and I wanted to address it.
What do you mean by "in 7 seasons they all exceeded Taylor's production in 9?" Taylor wasn't a starter for 9 seasons..
For starters the reference point is the "greatest duo in the world hands down" that has been the whole point of the posts in this thread.

Therefore talking about the eight seasons that Monk and Clark as a duo, and seven seasons with Sanders as a trio are the only seasons relevant to this argument.

The fact is in the 8 seasons they played together Monk/Clark put up numbers commensurate to the best duos of the era and beyond. If you add in Ricky Sanders who also in that scenario producing significant numbers. It is representative of what the best Wide Receiver groups have done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JordanTaber View Post

He only started 9+ games in 7 of his seasons. As I noted prior, he also missed quite a few games/parts of games in a few of those years. I even forgot to mention that he missed the 2nd half of the 1989 MNF game against the NY Giants, so his production that year was in 14 1/2 games. If you just take out the 7 best seasons of Monk/Clark/Sanders's careers, sure, they have better numbers. But then at least select the 7 best out of Taylor's. .
Once again I reiterate I did not take the seven best seasons, I took the seven seasons that Clark/Monk and Sanders played as a trio, they were the only ones relevant to the discussion of "Hands down the best duo to ever play the game". They do not count half games in the NFL, it is the most physical game out there. Monk,Clark and Sanders all came out of games. Ricky Sanders in the time of "The Posse" started just 42 games. Do we give him a pass as a #3 Receiver also. No he played, and played a significant part to the success of a perennial playoff team and two time Superbowl winner just like John Taylor.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JordanTaber View Post

A couple other notes:

1. The Redskins threw the ball more than the 49ers (though it wasn't a dramatic difference)
2. The Redskins didn't throw many passes to their backs. The 49ers had 100+ catches by running backs every season. This was a dramatic difference.

The 49ers had a different type of distribution than the Redskins, in other words...and it involved FAR more passes being thrown to members of the supporting cast. The Redskins focused their passing game on their receiving corps, the 49ers spread it around, involving their backs and the tight end in the passing game. The passes were going to Craig or Watters or Loville, Rathman or Logan or Floyd, Brent Jones, and Jerry Rice, and those exceeded those going to the 2 other Redskin wideouts (whichever aren't the receiver we're comparing to Taylor), their backs, and their tight ends.
You see all the above is making my point. I accept that the 49ers did things completely differently but as a result, Control simply cannot claim Taylor/Rice was hands down the greatest duo ever, if his own team focused its attention elsewhere.
You can't make a subjective argument about the greatest duos when even the team he played for did not see it as its greatest strength.

When Gary Clark came to the Skins the Redskins had one transition season where it transformed from a power running team to a more passing orientated attack. Then when Sanders came the Redskins concentrated its passing game on where its strength was and thats the key to this argument. If Taylor/Rice was the strength of the team that is where the focus would have gone. That is true for all teams that have ever played and is the raeson the Niners were the premier team of the 80's and early 90's, they played to their strengths.

I really do not want to denegrate Taylor's contribution because it was clearly significant, any player who has scored the winning TD in a Superbowl has much to be proud of but there is no bigger accomplishment. But his contribution was no bigger than that of all the players you mentioned above who played for the Niners and in a duo that was so slanted in favour of the other receiver, G.O.A.T or not, I have a real hard time accepting the argument that it was the greatest duo ever.

Instead of making arguments for why Taylor's production was what it was. Please make the argument to why Taylor/Rice was the greatest duo ever.
flave1969 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2008, 06:47 AM    (permalink
flave1969
Rookie
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 246
Reputation: 26822
flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JordanTaber View Post

So now we look at the pass distribution statistics--I’m going to analyze it by showing the number of pass completions to a player OTHER than the one in question out of the number of pass attempts the team threw (as a ratio) for each season during their prime years. In other words, how large a percentage of the team’s pass attempts did the supporting cast take up (completion-wise…we don’t have targeted pass figures, so we have to do without and just assume that number of catches is also a pretty good indicator of how many times that player was targeted overall, at least proportionately). To make this more fair, Taylor’s 1992 season (in which he only played 9 games) will be thrown out.

Let’s start with Taylor:

1989: 60 catches, 279 completions to other players. 483 pass attempts. 279/483=57.8%
1990: 49 catches, 311 completions to other players. 583 pass attempts. 311/583=53.3%
1991: 64 catches, 261 completions to other players. 522 pass attempts. 261/522=50.0%
1993: 56 catches, 298 completions to other players. 524 pass attempts. 298/524=56.9%
1994: 41 catches, 318 completions to other players. 511 pass attempts. 318/511=62.2%

Now the Redskin receivers:

Gary Clark

1985: 72 catches, 202 completions to other players. 512 pass attempts. 202/512=39.5%
1986: 74 catches, 202 completions to other players. 542 pass attempts. 202/542=37.3%
1987: 56 catches, 191 completions to other players. 478 pass attempts. 191/478=40.0%
1988: 59 catches, 268 completions to other players. 592 pass attempts. 268/592=45.3%
1989: 79 catches, 258 completions to other players. 581 pass attempts. 258/581=44.4%
1990: 75 catches, 226 completions to other players. 536 pass attempts. 226/536=42.2%
1991: 70 catches, 191 completions to other players. 447 pass attempts. 191/447=42.7%

Art Monk

1983: 47 catches, 231 completions to other players. 463 pass attempts. 231/463=49.9%
1984: 106 catches, 186 completions to other players. 485 pass attempts. 186/485=38.4%
1985: 91 catches, 189 completions to other players. 512 pass attempts. 189/512=36.9%
1986: 73 catches, 203 completions to other players. 542 pass attempts. 203/542=37.5%
1987: 38 catches, 209 completions to other players. 478 pass attempts. 209/478=43.7%
1988: 72 catches, 255 completions to other players. 592 pass attempts. 255/592=43.1%
1989: 86 catches, 251 completions to other players. 581 pass attempts. 251/581=43.2%
1990: 68 catches, 233 completions to other players. 536 pass attempts. 233/536=43.5%
1991: 71 catches, 190 completions to other players. 447 pass attempts. 190/447=42.5%

Ricky Sanders

1987: 37 catches, 210 completions to other players. 478 pass attempts. 210/478=43.9%
1988: 73 catches, 254 completions to other players. 592 pass attempts. 254/592=42.9%
1989: 80 catches, 257 completions to other players. 581 pass attempts. 257/581=44.2%
1990: 56 catches, 245 completions to other players. 536 pass attempts. 245/536=45.7%
1991: 45 catches, 216 completions to other players. 447 pass attempts. 216/447=48.3%
1992: 51 catches, 221 completions to other players. 485 pass attempts. 221/485=45.6%
1993: 58 catches, 229 completions to other players. 533 pass attempts. 229/533=43.0%

I’d say it’s pretty clear cut here.

.
There is nothing clear cut at all. For a start the sample pool sizes are not the same. If one team has more players to throw too it will skew the figures as is true in this case. Take 89 and 90 for instance the 49ers fielded more players at the skill positions in their offense than the Redskins.

Whilst at face value that validates your argument(the way you hoped),

It actually invalidates the above stats because unless you either take the extra players the Niners had away, or put imaginary players onto the Redskin roster to make the sample pool match, the results will be skewed one way or another. Trouble is you can't do this because who do you take away and who do you add?

Secondly of course the above stats do not take into the vastly different offensive styles and the impact that has on the stats. If you say took it down to Wide Receivers only then maybe you could make the above argument
but of course that would create a whole bunch of problems for your arguments.

Third problem you need to be more asidious in which seasons you pick and choose. You removed 92 for Taylor because he played only 9 games, but did not remove 87 for Monk who only played 9 games also. You also chose seasons that are irrelevant to this argument, 83 and 84 for Monk and 93 for Sanders.

Fourthly, You have only presented 5 seasons and 76 games for Taylor as evidence and chosen to discount 45 other games in which he played. Why? Especially in light of the fact you granted no such favours to the other players in your stats. Monk only played 12 games in 83 after recovering from a broken leg, you did not include 1995 for Taylor when he played 12 games only.

As we are throwing out seasons as you did for Taylor in 1992, Throw out Monk in 87 who only played 9 games also. Actually you might as well throw 87 out full stop as it was a strike season and they only played 12 games with the proper teams, you discounted 1995 for Taylor even though he played 12 games.
Also the figures you have for 87 include all the production of the strike players, that will skew the figure completely.

Sanders inclusion should also be qualified with the fact that he only started 42 games in the time he played with Monk and Clark. This actually hurts your argument as he was equally productive from the #3 position on his positional depth chart as Taylor was at #2.

Are you starting to see the problems your presentation of stats, you have been knowingly selective in what you chose to present. You have made no attempt to make the sample pool size even. and you have switched the argument to suit your needs whilst ignoring the fact that this whole argument is referenced to one statement.

"Rice/Taylor was hands down the greatest duo to ever play the game"

Prove that to me.

Last edited by flave1969 : 05-26-2008 at 09:41 AM.
flave1969 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2008, 09:34 AM    (permalink
flave1969
Rookie
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 246
Reputation: 26822
flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JordanTaber View Post

NOW: Receiver’s catch percentage out of available attempts (to give somewhat of an indication as to whether or not they take advantage of their opportunities):

John Taylor:

1989: 60 catches out of 204 remaining pass attempts: 29.4%.
1990: 49 catches out of 272 remaining pass attempts: 18.0%.
1991: 64 catches out of 261 remaining pass attempts: 24.5%.
1993: 56 catches out of 226 remaining pass attempts. 24.8%.
1994: 41 catches out of 193 remaining pass attempts. 21.2%.

Gary Clark:

1985: 72 catches out of 310 remaining pass attempts. 23.2%
1986: 74 catches out of 340 remaining pass attempts. 21.8%.
1987: 56 catches out of 287 remaining pass attempts. 19.5%.
1988: 59 catches out of 324 remaining pass attempts. 18.2%.
1989: 79 catches out of 323 remaining pass attempts. 24.5%.
1990: 75 catches out of 306 remaining pass attempts. 24.5%.
1991: 70 catches out of 256 remaining pass attempts. 27.3%.

Art Monk:

1983: 47 catches out of 232 remaining pass attempts. 20.3%.
1984: 106 catches out of 299 remaining pass attempts. 35.5%.
1985: 91 catches out of 323 remaining pass attempts. 28.2%.
1986: 73 catches out of 339 remaining pass attempts. 21.5%.
1987: 38 catches out of 269 remaining pass attempts. 14.1%.
1988: 72 catches out of 337 remaining pass attempts. 21.4%.
1989: 86 catches out of 330 remaining pass attempts. 26.1%.
1990: 68 catches out of 303 remaining pass attempts. 22.4%.
1991: 71 catches out of 257 remaining pass attempts. 27.6%.

Ricky Sanders:

1987: 37 catches out of 268 remaining pass attempts. 13.8%.
1988: 73 catches out of 338 remaining pass attempts. 21.6%.
1989: 80 catches out of 324 remaining pass attempts. 24.7%.
1990: 56 catches out of 291 remaining pass attempts. 19.2%.
1991: 45 catches out of 231 remaining pass attempts. 19.5%.
1992: 51 catches out of 264 remaining pass attempts. 19.3%.
1993: 58 catches out of 304 remaining pass attempts. 19.1%.
As stated with the prior post, such selective sampling of stats and the imbalanced sample pool render these stats selective at best but useless in this argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JordanTaber View Post

With the pass attempts that aren’t completions to another player, Taylor’s catches took up about an equal proportion to Clark (the mean and median actually give the edge to Taylor), meaning he made just as much of his opportunities in terms of catching balls (a rough sketch, obviously, since we don’t have statistics pertaining to the number of times the other players were targeted on passes they didn’t catch, for whatever reason). Taylor had a higher yards/catch average for his career than Clark (16.1 to 15.5), so one would expect Taylor to be at least slightly more productive than Clark given equal distribution for the two players.
You see this is where it gets ridiculous because you cannot magic up equal distribution between players especially when your sample is so flawed. You can only do means and medians if the parameters that determine them are the same. Had you taken Clarks best five years and Taylor's best five and compared all stats then we could argue. However, you have taken Taylor's best years without removing any of the warts in Clark's, used selective stats that only you seemingly use and then made the presumption that had Taylor received the same amount of balls as Clark had, he would have produced in exactly the same way.

That is a leap you simply cannot make for a number of reasons that should be obvious. Again the argument you base it on is flawed.There is no such thing as equal distribution in Football, there are #1 and #2's for a reason as you have stated. Most importantly all the shortcomings of Taylor you have listed would have stopped him getting equal distribution, especially his injury problems. Thats what stopped such a scenario happening in the first place. You are basically saying that had Clark and Taylor had an equal shot he would have come out on Top, that is frankly ridiculous.

What makes a great duo is seeing how close the great duos get to eachother in terms of production when they hit the field. I mean Clark and Monk in their 120 games they played together both averaged 4.5 catches per game. Clark had 71.7 yards per game, Monk 63.8 yards per game. That's a true duo. Take a look at Clayton/Duper in Miami also it is the same. I don't need to make any qualifying stats up for these players this happened.

You can bring systems into the equation but there is no way to measure that effectively. The fact is as Joe Gibbs proved throughout his career he would play whatever the best way to win was. He used whichever position would be the most effective to win, any successful team does. George Seifert would have used Taylor on more plays if he thought it was the best way to win. To argue any differently requires a large amount of supposition or fiddling of the stats.

Last edited by flave1969 : 05-26-2008 at 09:46 AM.
flave1969 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2008, 09:37 AM    (permalink
flave1969
Rookie
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 246
Reputation: 26822
flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JordanTaber View Post

Also, I’m puzzled as to why you say “especially on returns”…when he really only returned punts well for 2 seasons and had a grand total of 2 punt return touchdowns in his career (both coming in 1988). .
Taylor made the Pro Bowl in 1988 as a return man that is what I based this on. My bad.
flave1969 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2008, 04:36 PM    (permalink
yodabear
Magic Fingers
Legend
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Milwaukee!
Posts: 20,008
Reputation: 948723
yodabear is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yodabear is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yodabear is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yodabear is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yodabear is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yodabear is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yodabear is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yodabear is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yodabear is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yodabear is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yodabear is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Please don't kill me fellow Ram fans, but I have to agree with the people who say our receivers from the GSOT era don't deserve to be the #2 receiving core in NFL history. I mean were we good, defntly. Were we in the top 10, we prolly were, but not in #2.
__________________
yodabear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2008, 04:47 PM    (permalink
nfrillman
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 958
Reputation: 3073
nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Control View Post
Oh yeah, and Torry Holt/Isaac Bruce/Az Hakim at #2 is freakin' hilarious.
HATER IN THE HOUSE!!!!!!!!!!! That goes for JordanTaber as well. Listen guys, just because your 49ers haven't been relevant in over a decade doesn't mean you have to bash everything about the Rams. I could respect that opinion if you two weren't such obvious homers and bash Holt to the point of absurdity. You guys are just haters, plain and simple.
__________________

I am done arguing, until somebody says something stupid.
nfrillman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2008, 04:50 PM    (permalink
yodabear
Magic Fingers
Legend
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Milwaukee!
Posts: 20,008
Reputation: 948723
yodabear is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yodabear is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yodabear is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yodabear is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yodabear is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yodabear is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yodabear is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yodabear is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yodabear is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yodabear is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yodabear is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nfrillman View Post
HATER IN THE HOUSE!!!!!!!!!!! That goes for JordanTaber as well. Listen guys, just because your 49ers haven't been relevant in over a decade doesn't mean you have to bash everything about the Rams. I could respect that opinion if you two weren't such obvious homers and bash Holt to the point of absurdity. You guys are just haters, plain and simple.
I guess it is kinda flattering to hate on us since no one else in our division has ever won a super bowl, but yeah, u basically have said everything I think in a much, much nicer, kinder, and less cursing way.
__________________
yodabear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2008, 05:16 PM    (permalink
flave1969
Rookie
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 246
Reputation: 26822
flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yodachu View Post
Please don't kill me fellow Ram fans, but I have to agree with the people who say our receivers from the GSOT era don't deserve to be the #2 receiving core in NFL history. I mean were we good, defntly. Were we in the top 10, we prolly were, but not in #2.
I think on reflection I forgot one very important part of the GSOT crew and that was Marshall Faulk. That elevates them right there. Not many groups on this list had such a consistently good receiver out of the backfield.
flave1969 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2008, 05:31 PM    (permalink
Control
Rookie
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 57
Reputation: -12533
Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nfrillman View Post
HATER IN THE HOUSE!!!!!!!!!!! That goes for JordanTaber as well. Listen guys, just because your 49ers haven't been relevant in over a decade doesn't mean you have to bash everything about the Rams. I could respect that opinion if you two weren't such obvious homers and bash Holt to the point of absurdity. You guys are just haters, plain and simple.
Please...Anyone who has a clue when it comes to football would laugh if they heard that Torry Holt/Isaac Bruce were AHEAD of Jerry Rice/John Taylor or Randy Moss/Cris Carter on a list. It's a freakin' disgrace.

Their playing for the Rams has nothing to do with it. Their style of play is what matters...And their style of play was/is soft. Which is why they shouldn't be anywhere NEAR #2 all-time.
Control is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2008, 06:59 PM    (permalink
nfrillman
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 958
Reputation: 3073
nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Control View Post
Please...Anyone who has a clue when it comes to football would laugh if they heard that Torry Holt/Isaac Bruce were AHEAD of Jerry Rice/John Taylor or Randy Moss/Cris Carter on a list. It's a freakin' disgrace.

Their playing for the Rams has nothing to do with it. Their style of play is what matters...And their style of play was/is soft. Which is why they shouldn't be anywhere NEAR #2 all-time.
And you prove your stupidity with that statement. Did you really just say that their play has nothing to do with it???? Wow, so rankings of groups and individuals has nothing to do with their accomplishments and productivity on the field. Good freaking lord man, that is without a doubt the stupidest thing I have seen someone say on here, and everyone who's been here a while knows there have been some dooseys. It's all about style to you I guess. So which running style superior.....power or elusiveness? Answer wisely, because your answer automatically means either Jim Brown or Barry Sanders is vastly overrated. How about DT style, is it pass rushing or run stuffing......be careful because it will mean that either Warren Sapp or Sam Adams is actually way overrated. I cannot believe you just said that. A person's play doesn't matter?!?!?!?!?!" You know Joe Montana did not have the most powerful or accurate arm in NFL history, but he played pretty damn well. Kyle Boller can throw the hell out of the ball and Chad Pennington is extremely accurate. Which style is the "right" one? Your answer will mean that you think either Boller or Pennington is freaking awesome, because Boller is among the hardest passers and Pennington among the most accurate. The Chargers should move Antonio Gates to WR, because just think about it, he would be the most physical damn WR in the league. Thus meaning he would be the best. Man, all these teams are stupid. Just think of how physical Gonzalez, Winslow, Witten, Heap, and others would be at WR. THEY WOULD BE AWESOME WIDE RECEIVERS!!!!!!!

PS- The Greatest Show on Turf wasn't just Bruce and Holt. You may have forgotten about Hakim, Proehl, and Faulk.........it understandable though because you are clearly ignorant.
__________________

I am done arguing, until somebody says something stupid.

Last edited by nfrillman : 05-26-2008 at 07:02 PM.
nfrillman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2008, 07:07 PM    (permalink
eaglesfan_45
Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 1,750
Reputation: -1586
eaglesfan_45 smells like sex panther.eaglesfan_45 smells like sex panther.eaglesfan_45 smells like sex panther.eaglesfan_45 smells like sex panther.eaglesfan_45 smells like sex panther.eaglesfan_45 smells like sex panther.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nfrillman View Post
And you prove your stupidity with that statement. Did you really just say that their play has nothing to do with it???? Wow, so rankings of groups and individuals has nothing to do with their accomplishments and productivity on the field. Good freaking lord man, that is without a doubt the stupidest thing I have seen someone say on here, and everyone who's been here a while knows there have been some dooseys. It's all about style to you I guess. So which running style superior.....power or elusiveness? Answer wisely, because your answer automatically means either Jim Brown or Barry Sanders is vastly overrated. How about DT style, is it pass rushing or run stuffing......be careful because it will mean that either Warren Sapp or Sam Adams is actually way overrated. I cannot believe you just said that. A person's play doesn't matter?!?!?!?!?!" You know Joe Montana did not have the most powerful or accurate arm in NFL history, but he played pretty damn well. Kyle Boller can throw the hell out of the ball and Chad Pennington is extremely accurate. Which style is the "right" one? Your answer will mean that you think either Boller or Pennington is freaking awesome, because Boller is among the hardest passers and Pennington among the most accurate. The Chargers should move Antonio Gates to WR, because just think about it, he would be the most physical damn WR in the league. Thus meaning he would be the best. Man, all these teams are stupid. Just think of how physical Gonzalez, Winslow, Witten, Heap, and others would be at WR. THEY WOULD BE AWESOME WIDE RECEIVERS!!!!!!!

PS- The Greatest Show on Turf wasn't just Bruce and Holt. You may have forgotten about Hakim, Proehl, and Faulk.........it understandable though because you are clearly ignorant.
well that was a long drawn out stupid response to something you mis-read. He said that it didn't matter that they played for the Rams. Meaning that he would think the same thing about them if they were on a different team.

congragulations, you just wasted 5 minutes of your life
eaglesfan_45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2008, 08:43 PM    (permalink
Ness
Icon
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: California
Posts: 19,766
Reputation: 2051641
Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Control View Post
Please...Anyone who has a clue when it comes to football would laugh if they heard that Torry Holt/Isaac Bruce were AHEAD of Jerry Rice/John Taylor or Randy Moss/Cris Carter on a list. It's a freakin' disgrace.

Their playing for the Rams has nothing to do with it. Their style of play is what matters...And their style of play was/is soft. Which is why they shouldn't be anywhere NEAR #2 all-time.
Torry Holt and Issac Bruce were still a very good pair. Regardless of what system they played in or their playing styles. They still got the job done.
__________________

"Every light must fade, every heart return to darkness!"
-San Francisco 49ers: Five Time Super Bowl Champions-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borat View Post
Oh, my bad. Didn't realize SWDC was the pinnacle of class and grace.
Ness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2008, 08:49 PM    (permalink
Crickett
All-Pro
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,168
Reputation: 950956
Crickett is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Crickett is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Crickett is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Crickett is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Crickett is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Crickett is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Crickett is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Crickett is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Crickett is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Crickett is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Crickett is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ness View Post
Torry Holt and Issac Bruce were still a very good pair. Regardless of what system they played in or their playing styles. They still got the job done.
But the only reason they were good was because........
















wait for it................................................



























the power of Mike Martz's mind.
Crickett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2008, 10:34 PM    (permalink
nfrillman
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 958
Reputation: 3073
nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eaglesfan_45 View Post
well that was a long drawn out stupid response to something you mis-read. He said that it didn't matter that they played for the Rams. Meaning that he would think the same thing about them if they were on a different team.

congragulations, you just wasted 5 minutes of your life
Well there's only 5 or 6 lines referring to the "playing" comment. The main point has to do with the irrational love affair with certain playing styles.
__________________

I am done arguing, until somebody says something stupid.
nfrillman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2008, 11:01 PM    (permalink
Control
Rookie
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 57
Reputation: -12533
Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nfrillman View Post
Well there's only 5 or 6 lines referring to the "playing" comment. The main point has to do with the irrational love affair with certain playing styles.
Yep, cause it's SOOOO irrational to expect Holt/Bruce to NOT be complete pussies and slide to the ground in the open field when there are yards to be gained. Right.
Control is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2008, 11:08 PM    (permalink
Control
Rookie
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 57
Reputation: -12533
Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ness View Post
Torry Holt and Issac Bruce were still a very good pair. Regardless of what system they played in or their playing styles. They still got the job done.
Oh, they got the job done, did they? Very original comment there!!! /sarcasm

No one is saying they weren't a good pair. #2 all-time AND ahead of Rice/Taylor, maybe the 1 and 2 best runners after the catch ever? LMAO...No freaking way. That's just hilarious.
Control is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2008, 11:10 PM    (permalink
LonghornsLegend
Legend
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 20,775
Reputation: 1970779
LonghornsLegend is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.LonghornsLegend is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.LonghornsLegend is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.LonghornsLegend is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.LonghornsLegend is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.LonghornsLegend is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.LonghornsLegend is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.LonghornsLegend is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.LonghornsLegend is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.LonghornsLegend is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.LonghornsLegend is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

So we basically have two "Torry Holt is overrated" threads now, awesome!!! I love that we have posters who dedicated their life to proving how bad he is, good stuff
__________________





Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wright View Post
I guarantee that if someone picks Cam Newton in the Top 5 they will regret it.
LonghornsLegend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2008, 11:18 PM    (permalink
art vandelay
Team Leader
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,592
Reputation: 5546
art vandelay wakes up in the morning and pisses excellence.art vandelay wakes up in the morning and pisses excellence.art vandelay wakes up in the morning and pisses excellence.art vandelay wakes up in the morning and pisses excellence.art vandelay wakes up in the morning and pisses excellence.art vandelay wakes up in the morning and pisses excellence.art vandelay wakes up in the morning and pisses excellence.art vandelay wakes up in the morning and pisses excellence.art vandelay wakes up in the morning and pisses excellence.art vandelay wakes up in the morning and pisses excellence.art vandelay wakes up in the morning and pisses excellence.
Default

I still can't believe that the 90's Bills aren't on there.

Andre Reed, James Lofton and Don Beebe? That should be top 5.
art vandelay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2008, 11:39 PM    (permalink
Ness
Icon
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: California
Posts: 19,766
Reputation: 2051641
Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Control View Post
Oh, they got the job done, did they? Very original comment there!!! /sarcasm

No one is saying they weren't a good pair. #2 all-time AND ahead of Rice/Taylor, maybe the 1 and 2 best runners after the catch ever? LMAO...No freaking way. That's just hilarious.
Thanks?

Anyways the entire list is subjective. Even you should know that. As for you thinking it's hilarious you seem to be the only one amused...
__________________

"Every light must fade, every heart return to darkness!"
-San Francisco 49ers: Five Time Super Bowl Champions-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borat View Post
Oh, my bad. Didn't realize SWDC was the pinnacle of class and grace.
Ness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2008, 02:02 AM    (permalink
nfrillman
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 958
Reputation: 3073
nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.nfrillman could make a wolverine purr.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by art vandelay View Post
I still can't believe that the 90's Bills aren't on there.

Andre Reed, James Lofton and Don Beebe? That should be top 5.
That is a bit surprising. They should probably be on there. If the Bills had won one Superbowl they would definetily be up there on the list, especially if you factor in Thurman Thomas.
__________________

I am done arguing, until somebody says something stupid.
nfrillman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2008, 05:45 AM    (permalink
Control
Rookie
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 57
Reputation: -12533
Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ness View Post
Thanks?

Anyways the entire list is subjective. Even you should know that. As for you thinking it's hilarious you seem to be the only one amused...


If you wanna call it subjective, then sure. But then, anyone who would take Holt/Bruce over say Jerry Rice and John Taylor or Randy Moss and Cris Carter obviously has a pretty feeble understanding of the WR position and football in general...Given that the latter two pairs did virtually everything better, and some things MANY MANY times better. For example, Randy Moss in 1998 alone was more explosive/threatening than Holt/Bruce was...Not even taking Cris f'ing Carter into consideration.

And then, Jerry Rice (in his prime) and John Taylor...Both receivers that could beat you in virtually any way at any time. Either of them was a constant threat to hit the home run deep, or take the short pass for a TD long (two of the best ever IMO in that aspect). Both we're very solid blockers.

Holt/Bruce on the other hand, even at the height of their effectiveness, were below-average YAC runners...Holt being flat-out AWFUL in that area. Neither was ever what you'd call "elite" when it comes to stretching the field, either (as guys like Moss, Owens, Rice and Taylor are/were)...And again both were inferior blockers. That basically leaves the only "semi-sane" (and I use that term graciously) argument for Holt/Bruce being better being heavily dependent on route running and hands...Which again, are pretty tall orders to overtake Rice/Taylor in. And I'll note that route running is an extremely hard thing to truly judge, and that EVERY receiver drops passes....

Now, do you understand why i think it somewhat comical that Holt/Bruce is as high as they are on this list?
Control is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2008, 10:01 AM    (permalink
nrk
Pro Bowler
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Norman, OK
Posts: 3,325
Reputation: 311721
nrk is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.nrk is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.nrk is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.nrk is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.nrk is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.nrk is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.nrk is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.nrk is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.nrk is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.nrk is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.nrk is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Control View Post


If you wanna call it subjective, then sure. But then, anyone who would take Holt/Bruce over say Jerry Rice and John Taylor or Randy Moss and Cris Carter obviously has a pretty feeble understanding of the WR position and football in general...Given that the latter two pairs did virtually everything better, and some things MANY MANY times better. For example, Randy Moss in 1998 alone was more explosive/threatening than Holt/Bruce was...Not even taking Cris f'ing Carter into consideration.

And then, Jerry Rice (in his prime) and John Taylor...Both receivers that could beat you in virtually any way at any time. Either of them was a constant threat to hit the home run deep, or take the short pass for a TD long (two of the best ever IMO in that aspect). Both we're very solid blockers.

Holt/Bruce on the other hand, even at the height of their effectiveness, were below-average YAC runners...Holt being flat-out AWFUL in that area. Neither was ever what you'd call "elite" when it comes to stretching the field, either (as guys like Moss, Owens, Rice and Taylor are/were)...And again both were inferior blockers. That basically leaves the only "semi-sane" (and I use that term graciously) argument for Holt/Bruce being better being heavily dependent on route running and hands...Which again, are pretty tall orders to overtake Rice/Taylor in. And I'll note that route running is an extremely hard thing to truly judge, and that EVERY receiver drops passes....

Now, do you understand why i think it somewhat comical that Holt/Bruce is as high as they are on this list?
Did you even read what the list was for? Receiving Corps not Duo. Way to go champ!!!!!!!!
nrk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2008, 11:12 AM    (permalink
flave1969
Rookie
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 246
Reputation: 26822
flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nrk View Post
Did you even read what the list was for? Receiving Corps not Duo. Way to go champ!!!!!!!!
That has been the problem all through this thread, so much so I have been arguing about John Taylor and the statement that "Taylor/Rice were hands down the greatest duo ever" for half of it.

Fact is a receiving corp that includes Holt/Bruce/Faulk/Proehl and a bunch of other players who produced inspite of their overall talent deserve a place on the list. This top ten is as much about the system as anything that got lost in this argument.
flave1969 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2008, 11:17 AM    (permalink
flave1969
Rookie
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 246
Reputation: 26822
flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.flave1969 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by art vandelay View Post
I still can't believe that the 90's Bills aren't on there.

Andre Reed, James Lofton and Don Beebe? That should be top 5.
With Thurman Thomas, Pete Metzelaars and Keith McKellar as well I totally agree, they were a very productive unit.
flave1969 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2008, 12:14 PM    (permalink
Ness
Icon
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: California
Posts: 19,766
Reputation: 2051641
Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Control View Post


If you wanna call it subjective, then sure. But then, anyone who would take Holt/Bruce over say Jerry Rice and John Taylor or Randy Moss and Cris Carter obviously has a pretty feeble understanding of the WR position and football in general...Given that the latter two pairs did virtually everything better, and some things MANY MANY times better. For example, Randy Moss in 1998 alone was more explosive/threatening than Holt/Bruce was...Not even taking Cris f'ing Carter into consideration.

And then, Jerry Rice (in his prime) and John Taylor...Both receivers that could beat you in virtually any way at any time. Either of them was a constant threat to hit the home run deep, or take the short pass for a TD long (two of the best ever IMO in that aspect). Both we're very solid blockers.

Holt/Bruce on the other hand, even at the height of their effectiveness, were below-average YAC runners...Holt being flat-out AWFUL in that area. Neither was ever what you'd call "elite" when it comes to stretching the field, either (as guys like Moss, Owens, Rice and Taylor are/were)...And again both were inferior blockers. That basically leaves the only "semi-sane" (and I use that term graciously) argument for Holt/Bruce being better being heavily dependent on route running and hands...Which again, are pretty tall orders to overtake Rice/Taylor in. And I'll note that route running is an extremely hard thing to truly judge, and that EVERY receiver drops passes....

Now, do you understand why i think it somewhat comical that Holt/Bruce is as high as they are on this list?
If you just take receiving pairs into consideration, I'd say you would have a point. But that's not the emphasis of this thread. It's entire receiving groups. Torry Holt and Isaac Bruce didn't reach the number two spot alone, it was also because they were a part of a group that included Proehl, Hakim, and Faulk. Having Faulk in their alone boosts their status sky high.
__________________

"Every light must fade, every heart return to darkness!"
-San Francisco 49ers: Five Time Super Bowl Champions-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borat View Post
Oh, my bad. Didn't realize SWDC was the pinnacle of class and grace.
Ness is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.