jjgman21

you're fricken nuts. Aikmen was far better than Anderson. sacrificing Aikmen for Smith. whatever. I prefer intellectual honesty myself.

You're comparing a 6'8" that can move to guys that are shorter but what your missing is that Mikan didn't dominate the game like Brown did. Yes, Mikan was a cordinated big guy but Brown owned defenses like no other. Chamberlain made the NBA change the key rule not Mikan. Mikan was an inovator but don't confuse that with being the best ever and IMO that's what you are doing. Mikan dominated every bit as much as Brown. they had to change all the rules because of Mikan, or he would've dominated even more. you're still missing the point. I never said Brown wasn't the great. I repeatedly said he was great and would have been in any era. the point is he played with that body in that era. had he played with that body in a later era, he would not have had the mind boggling stats he did. That can be said about a lot of players. Campbell or Bo Jackson could have that said about them. I understand what you're saying and maybe I'm not expressing what I'm thinking well enough. Yes, both Mikan and Brown had superior bodies to their opponents. I don't understand why you would punish them for it though? If some RB could run a 3.6 40 in the NFL and rush for 2500 yards per year I wouldn't say that just because he can do that he should not be considered one of the best. I think that's what you are saying and IMO it's wrong for you to claim that against them. Just because he can do things others can't isn't his fault and shouldn't be counted against him. what I am saying is Mikan dominated because of talent, AND because he was 6'10" when everone else in the game was 6'4" and shorter. Brown dominated because of talent, AND because he was bigger than all the linemen and linebackers he faced. today Brown would be a nice big running back, not one of the biggest players in the game, and the fastest/strongest to boot. put his body and his skills in today's game, and he's damn good, but not average 5+ ypc over the course of his career good.

are you suggesting that an act that results in positive stats may not be the best play a player could make. thanks for helping me make a point. your position is untenable. Your position is no better. You act as if you've taken the "objective" viewpoint, yet it comes in as choosing the player whom your a biased for. While I may not always want my QB running, I definitely want my RB running and scoring TD's and Emmit did that better than any back in the history of the game. but that's not what my position is. I've never said I am being objective. I've readily admitted the only way to do such comparisons is subjective. your position, that statistics is the best way to measure a football player, is absurd. it's just the way it is, and that false argument is the only thing holding "Emmitt was the greatest" together. so based on the comparison, who was the better QB, Anderson or Aikmen. Anderson leads by a wide margin in alot of catagories. Aikmen lead by a small margin in a couple. clearly Anderson, right? right? that is your point, is it not? that football stats show who is best and therefore Emmitt is best, so clearly it translates to QB too, and Anderson was better, right?

are you suggesting that an act that results in positive stats may not be the best play a player could make. thanks for helping me make a point. your position is untenable.

which is exactly the problem with your argument because...let's say it one more time...football statistics do not measure individual performance. you absolutely have to use subjectivity and what ifs in football. there is no two ways around it. if I am not mistaken, Moneyball includes a couple of paragraphs about why it is possible to use stats to compare players in baseball but it doesn't work out so well in other sports. using stats to be objective is a real popular argument around here. hard to get a word in edgewise actually. the problem is you are using that argument in a different sport. one more time...the reason you can do it with baseball is because the stats measure individual performance. the reason you can't do it in football is because the stats don't measure individual performance. So, you can't say definitively that Smith isn't the best back. When playing the "What-if" game, you just don't know. What we do know, is that Smith was the most productive back in NFL history. Lacking any other metric, I'd take the most productive back as the best. He made the most of the opportunity he had. I've asked you several questions like the one I am about to ask, yet I haven't received an answer. Ken Anderson or Troy Aikmen. who's the better quarterback? what do the stats say? Considering Aikman had more passing yards, completions and a higher completion percentage, I'd take Aikman. And I do rank Marino as the best QB ever, despite the lack of championships. more yards...by 104. better complete percentage by 2%. what about yards per attempt, yard per completion (12.37 to 11.37), touchdowns, TD/Int ration, rushing yards, rushing touchdowns? when not using your carefully selected stats, who was the better quarterback, Anderson or Aikmen?

You're comparing a 6'8" that can move to guys that are shorter but what your missing is that Mikan didn't dominate the game like Brown did. Yes, Mikan was a cordinated big guy but Brown owned defenses like no other. Chamberlain made the NBA change the key rule not Mikan. Mikan was an inovator but don't confuse that with being the best ever and IMO that's what you are doing. Mikan dominated every bit as much as Brown. they had to change all the rules because of Mikan, or he would've dominated even more. you're still missing the point. I never said Brown wasn't the great. I repeatedly said he was great and would have been in any era. the point is he played with that body in that era. had he played with that body in a later era, he would not have had the mind boggling stats he did.

which is exactly the problem with your argument because...let's say it one more time...football statistics do not measure individual performance. you absolutely have to use subjectivity and what ifs in football. there is no two ways around it. if I am not mistaken, Moneyball includes a couple of paragraphs about why it is possible to use stats to compare players in baseball but it doesn't work out so well in other sports. using stats to be objective is a real popular argument around here. hard to get a word in edgewise actually. the problem is you are using that argument in a different sport. one more time...the reason you can do it with baseball is because the stats measure individual performance. the reason you can't do it in football is because the stats don't measure individual performance. So, you can't say definitively that Smith isn't the best back. When playing the "What-if" game, you just don't know. What we do know, is that Smith was the most productive back in NFL history. Lacking any other metric, I'd take the most productive back as the best. He made the most of the opportunity he had. I've asked you several questions like the one I am about to ask, yet I haven't received an answer. Ken Anderson or Troy Aikmen. who's the better quarterback? what do the stats say?

which is exactly the problem with your argument because...let's say it one more time...football statistics do not measure individual performance. you absolutely have to use subjectivity and what ifs in football. there is no two ways around it. if I am not mistaken, Moneyball includes a couple of paragraphs about why it is possible to use stats to compare players in baseball but it doesn't work out so well in other sports. using stats to be objective is a real popular argument around here. hard to get a word in edgewise actually. the problem is you are using that argument in a different sport. one more time...the reason you can do it with baseball is because the stats measure individual performance. the reason you can't do it in football is because the stats don't measure individual performance.

to me that's like saying Mikan miles and miles Russell Kareem Shaq = Chamberlain This isn't baskettball. When Miken played, baskettball barely resembles the game that is played today. In football it's not so much the case. No one is hailing Broco Nagursky or "Crazy legs" Hursh. basketball doesn't resemble the game played today in large part because of Mikan. the up tempo game was invented (and many rules changed) to combat his presence in the lane. I understand your point, but my point is this, both of these athletes owed much of their success to their physical freakishness relative to the other players in the game at the time, as they did to pure talent. that's simply an incontrovertable fact. their accomplishments cannot be viewed in a vacuum. you simply must play the 'what if' game that Vance so vehemently opposes, if you want to have a meaningful discussion of how good these players were. Brown was dominate at RB and many consider him the greatest while very few ever consider Mikan as the greatest player in NBA history. Mikan changed the game but Brown simply was the guy all teams keyed on to stop the Browns. Brown had records Rushing and TD's that were only erased because players played 2 to 4 games more a year. He could have been the MVP in every year he played. Mikan was great but not one of the elite of the NBA and I can't think of any records he had broken. Ask a NBA GM if he would take Mikan, Russell or Chamberlain and I'd be surprised if Mikan would get picked 5 out of 100 times. You put Brown against the top RB's of all time and he would get at least 25 votes by NFL GM's. not the point

to me that's like saying Mikan miles and miles Russell Kareem Shaq = Chamberlain This isn't baskettball. When Miken played, baskettball barely resembles the game that is played today. In football it's not so much the case. No one is hailing Broco Nagursky or "Crazy legs" Hursh. basketball doesn't resemble the game played today in large part because of Mikan. the up tempo game was invented (and many rules changed) to combat his presence in the lane. I understand your point, but my point is this, both of these athletes owed much of their success to their physical freakishness relative to the other players in the game at the time, as they did to pure talent. that's simply an incontrovertable fact. their accomplishments cannot be viewed in a vacuum. you simply must play the 'what if' game that Vance so vehemently opposes, if you want to have a meaningful discussion of how good these players were.

to me that's like saying Mikan miles and miles Russell Kareem Shaq = Chamberlain

have you actually seen the old footage of 1950's NFL. you're completely wrong on this point. again, Brown would be great in any era, but I guaranty he wouldn't have averaged over 5 yards per carry. not even close.

see my point earlier about Brown. I wonder how all the post 1970 RB's would like to play against defenses that didn't have a single player bigger than he was. He also could outrun those guys that were smaller or the same size as him. Obviously you're comparing different era's, but Jim Brown was a man amongst boys like Babe Ruth was in baseball. He had the total package as a runner and had some insane production. 1. Jim Brown 2. Walter Payton 3. Barry Sanders 4. Emmit Smith That's it, that's the list. like I said earlier, the better comparison for Jim Brown is George Mikan. Mikan completely dominated basketbal...but he was 6-8 inches taller than the next tallest guy on the court. same with Brown. Brown would have been great in any era, but to assume he would dominate like he did in the 50's against the defenses of the 70's - 00's is absurd. not a single guy could tackle Brown by himself when he was playing. most linebackers playing today could bring him down no problem. And that right there is why the "what-if" game is somewhat ridiculous here. We don't know what if, we do know what happened. Successful = productivity. Emmit Smith was the most productive back in history. That's true if you look at yardage or touchdowns. He even has the championships as well. just doesn't get it. actually, you're a smart guy and I know you do, but you are sticking to your guns for some reason (to be a homer about Smith). let's make it real simple. many baseball statistics measure individual performance (ERA, Ave., OBP, Slg.). some measure team performance (W-L, runs, RBI). the game is one of one on one confrontation, pitcher against batter. we can use the ones that measure individual performance to compare across eras because the game changes little over time. football statistics for the most part measure team performance. it is a game of team on team confrontation. you can't score a touchdown or even gain a yard without 10 other guys. furthermore, we can not use stats to compare players over time in football because the game changes vastly from generation to generation. by your logic, Marino is the greatest QB of all time, and Unitas and Stauback and Bradshaw are not even in the discussion. you have two choices, acknowledge this is true and move on, or start to back people up when they try to argue that W-L is a meaningful measurement of pitcher performance and RBI/Runs is a meaningful measurement of batting performance. anything else is just pure disengenuousness and hypocrisy. edit for this point: because football stats measure team performance and the game changes over time, it is absolutely necessary to play the 'what-if' game, as I already explained to you. because we are not measuring individual performance with stats, we need a way to measure the individual. it is subjective, and it is why there is no SAFR movement, like there is a SABR movement.

just doesn't get it. Andruw Jones was clearly the NL mvp last year because he led the league in RBI.

see my point earlier about Brown. I wonder how all the post 1970 RB's would like to play against defenses that didn't have a single player bigger than he was. He also could outrun those guys that were smaller or the same size as him. Obviously you're comparing different era's, but Jim Brown was a man amongst boys like Babe Ruth was in baseball. He had the total package as a runner and had some insane production. 1. Jim Brown 2. Walter Payton 3. Barry Sanders 4. Emmit Smith That's it, that's the list. like I said earlier, the better comparison for Jim Brown is George Mikan. Mikan completely dominated basketbal...but he was 6-8 inches taller than the next tallest guy on the court. same with Brown. Brown would have been great in any era, but to assume he would dominate like he did in the 50's against the defenses of the 70's - 00's is absurd. not a single guy could tackle Brown by himself when he was playing. most linebackers playing today could bring him down no problem.

see my point earlier about Brown. I wonder how all the post 1970 RB's would like to play against defenses that didn't have a single player bigger than he was.

I think this example of your football knowledge speaks for itself, although I don't think you really think this and are only using it to prop up a weak argument that Smith is one of the greatest running backs of all time.

....oh, that's right. Emmitt broke the rushing record in Dallas. he only hung on with the Cardinals to break Walter's yards from scrimmage record. and he still never blocked.

it's a damn argument about the greatest running back of all time. all 'greatest of all-time' arguments lend themselves to 'what it.' but the game where the what if argument carries the least weight is baseball because, as I repeatedly have stated, it's individual v. individual and the game is rather static. thus you need not use the what if. there has to be a way of comparing the players themselves as individuals, and the only way to do that in football is by using what if discussion. and the reason you hear less of it about Rice is because he blew all the old records out of the water to such a vast degree. that can't be said for Smith, who hung on longer than he should, even signing with a crap team to break the record. Smith was still a Cowboy when he broke the all-time rushing record. But thanks for playing. your logic goes completely against everything you espouse in every other thread. thanks for going home.

I'm not saying that. And I don't think Emmitt should be off the radar. However, you do have to take the strength of the team each guy played for into consideration. Emmitt's line blew open tremendous holes play after play. Barry and Walter had to create their own holes and then get creative to get downfield. You didn't, but the poster above the post where I responded with that did. you simply don't get it. and in fact, you're smartassedness and sarcasm is working against you. your point about Manning fits perfectly with what I have been talking about. great stats in football does not mean the player was great. was Steve Largeant the third greatest receiver ever? was Marino the greatest QB ever? was Mark Gastineua great? get it through your head. football stats are far less meaningful than baseball stats. its like trying to use RBI and runs scored to determine who the best players in baseball are. they are completely team dependant. you will defend that notion in baseball threads, why won't you acknowledge it here?

it's a damn argument about the greatest running back of all time. all 'greatest of all-time' arguments lend themselves to 'what it.' but the game where the what if argument carries the least weight is baseball because, as I repeatedly have stated, it's individual v. individual and the game is rather static. thus you need not use the what if. there has to be a way of comparing the players themselves as individuals, and the only way to do that in football is by using what if discussion. and the reason you hear less of it about Rice is because he blew all the old records out of the water to such a vast degree. that can't be said for Smith, who hung on longer than he should, even signing with a crap team to break the record.

where's the warning for personal attacks? it's not stupid. this is football. the entire sabremetric movement is possible because the game of baseball changes little and stats are pretty much exclusively a measure of individual performance. the stat has much greater meaning in baseball. in football, they have meaning, but certainly aren't determinitive of who was or was not great or the greatest. Dan Marino has all the passing records. was he the greatest quarterback? not by a fricken long shot. probably in the same league as Archie Manning. edit: another example of the meaningless of stats. at one time it was "who will reach Brown first, Payton or Harris?" yet the name Franco Harris hasn't even come up in this debate.

Emmitt Smith does not even belong in this discussion for all the aforementioned reasons, and another mentioned below. You can point to his stats, but stats carry far less meaning in football than in baseball. The game changes too much from generation to generation, and the game is so team dependant, for stats arguments to carry much weight. Although he was great and an incredible athlete and would have been great in any era, I think James Brown has to be excluded as well. First, all the arguments made against Smith can be said about Brown as well. He played for championship teams and was surrounded by hall-of-famers. Second, he was bigger than all the defensive lineman and linebackers. It’s like saying George Mikan was one of the greatest centers ever. He would have been a capable player in any era, but his “greatness” was more a product of being ahead of his time physically as compared to the players he competed against. To me, it comes down to Sanders, Jackson and Payton. I think the debate depends on how you define running back. If you are talking about the greatest runner from scrimmage, it goes to Sanders IMO. He did it longer than Jackson, and like Payton, he did it for crappy teams. But you have to consider that at least half the downs in every game, the quarterback does not hand the ball to the running back. Thus, Payton, hands down. Of all the names mentioned, his receiving skills were only matched by Smith, and Smith did not block, even though once in awhile a broadcaster would try to give him credit for doing so.

doesn't failure to make the adjustment to stop the same soft tossing lefty from throwing 26 straight scoreless innings against you signal to everyone on earth that something is seriously wrong with the way this team is being coached and managed?

Pitchers were making clutch pitches against Corey all last year. It was just a tough break. he was getting some ridiculous strikes called on him by the umps, particularly pitches 3-4 inches off the inside corner. at times it seemed like he was better off swinging at anything because the ump would be raising that right arm no matter where the pitch was.