yall Posted June 2 Posted June 2 20 hours ago, BillsPride12 said: Yikes... And yet so many people in this thread trying to defend the guy. Not sure why this thread about this trash piece of ***** is still circling the bowl. Quote
Beast Posted June 2 Posted June 2 5 hours ago, WMDman said: I would just like to add before this thread gets locked I did buy a 22 white ford bronco the day before he croaked…does that mean anything probably not but we can’t be sure You need to change your screen name to Cowlings. Quote
hondo in seattle Posted June 3 Posted June 3 (edited) On 5/16/2024 at 1:27 PM, Rampant Buffalo said: When I watched Barry Sanders play, it was clear to me that he was a significantly better RB than Emmitt Smith. The stats bear that out. Sanders averaged 5 yards per carry, versus 4.2 for Smith, and 4.2 for Thurman Thomas. Barry Sanders was the best RB of his time. Putting the blame for a team's losses at the feet of its first ballot Hall of Fame RB is an atypical approach to analyzing a team's W/L record. When I think about why Detroit didn't win more games, the first thought which comes to my mind is that their QB was Scott Mitchell. Also, the NFC East teams were brutally tough back then, making it difficult for other teams to go very far in the playoffs. Comparing Barry Sanders to OJ Simpson: Simpson averaged 4.7 yards per attempt. That's better than the 4.2 for Thomas or Emmitt Smith, but not as good as the 5.0 for Barry Sanders. Simpson had five 1000 yard seasons, compared to ten such seasons for Sanders. Adjusting for the 14 game season doesn't help Simpson here: it's still five for him, ten for Sanders. Longevity clearly favors Sanders over Simpson. But what if you threw that out, and just looked at the two best seasons for both RBs? (Including Simpson's 2000 yard season)? Simpson's two best years: 1973, 1975 Sander's two best years: 1997, 1994 Total rushing yards for their two best seasons Simpson: 2003, 1817 Sanders: 2053, 1883 Yards per game (two best seasons) Simpson: 143, 130 Sanders: 128, 118 Yards per carry (two best seasons) Simpson: 6.0, 5.5 Sanders: 6.1, 5.7 If you looked just at each RB's two best seasons, which one did the better job? Sanders was a little better in terms of yards per carry. Simpson got a few more carries per game, and therefore had a few more yards per game. You can't just look at stats which are significantly determined by talent of the OL, play design, play-calling, rules of the era, defenses of the era, and so on. OJ played when hashmarks were wider, so the offense was often squeezed against one side of the field making play calls more predictable. Offensive lineman couldn't block with their hands the way they could later. Defenses were still built to stop the run in OJ's day but were focused on the pass by the time Barry played. In 1973, the Bills had no passing attack (less than 1,000 yards for the entire season) so opposing defenses had to do just one thing to win - stop OJ - and they couldn't do it. OJ played in more open-air stadiums and more crap weather... In the end, it's subjective. There's no scientifically or mathematically precise way to say who was better. But in my opinion, having watched them both play, OJ's the better running back. Just for fun, this is a list of the best running back seasons ranked by how dominant he was vis-a-vis the other RBs that year: Edited June 3 by hondo in seattle 1 Quote
Rampant Buffalo Posted June 3 Posted June 3 3 hours ago, hondo in seattle said: You can't just look at stats which are significantly determined by talent of the OL, play design, play-calling, rules of the era, defenses of the era, and so on. OJ played when hashmarks were wider, so the offense was often squeezed against one side of the field making play calls more predictable. Offensive lineman couldn't block with their hands the way they could later. Defenses were still built to stop the run in OJ's day but were focused on the pass by the time Barry played. In 1973, the Bills had no passing attack (less than 1,000 yards for the entire season) so opposing defenses had to do just one thing to win - stop OJ - and they couldn't do it. OJ played in more open-air stadiums and more crap weather... In the end, it's subjective. There's no scientifically or mathematically precise way to say who was better. But in my opinion, having watched them both play, OJ's the better running back. Just for fun, this is a list of the best running back seasons ranked by how dominant he was vis-a-vis the other RBs that year: That's a solid post. I agree that my analysis from earlier was incomplete. For example, Emmitt Smith played behind one of the two best OLs in NFL history. (The other being the OL from the 1970s Raiders.) That's going to make his stats look better than they otherwise would have. My earlier analysis was not intended to take OL play into account. You also made a good point about the importance of a passing game, to take pressure off the running game. Other than Herman Moore (WR), Detroit didn't have much in the way of a passing game. But it sounds like the Bills of 1973 had an even worse passing game, with less than 1000 passing yards! I'd like to thank you for the time you took to do your analysis, and I learned something from it. If you decide to analyze more, there are a couple suggestions I might make. 1) I'm at least as interested in a RB's yards per carry, as I am in his total yardage. For example, let's say you're comparing OJ Simpson to another RB of his era, such as Franco Harris. The Steelers used a RB by committee approach. In order for Rocky Bleier to get his share of carries, Harris had to get fewer carries than Simpson. If Harris is rushing for fewer yards than Simpson, is that because he's getting fewer carries? Or is it because he's doing less well than Simpson with the carries he's being given? Simpson averaged 4.7 yards per carry, compared to 4.1 for Harris. I'd argue OJ Simpson was a better RB than Franco Harris. Another point I'd like to raise is this. Some seasons, there might be two or more great RBs playing at the same time. Other seasons, there might be just one great RB. Using your method, the best RB in the league benefits when the second-best RB is as bad as possible. That's going to penalize the best RB in the league, if there happens to be another great RB active at the same time. To avoid this problem, maybe compare the best RB to the 5th or 10th best RB. I'd think that would give you a steadier, more reasonable comparison. 1 Quote
Trev Posted June 3 Posted June 3 I’m vote to put him back on the wall. Treat him like an artist. Quote
hondo in seattle Posted June 3 Posted June 3 8 hours ago, Rampant Buffalo said: That's a solid post. I agree that my analysis from earlier was incomplete. For example, Emmitt Smith played behind one of the two best OLs in NFL history. (The other being the OL from the 1970s Raiders.) That's going to make his stats look better than they otherwise would have. My earlier analysis was not intended to take OL play into account. You also made a good point about the importance of a passing game, to take pressure off the running game. Other than Herman Moore (WR), Detroit didn't have much in the way of a passing game. But it sounds like the Bills of 1973 had an even worse passing game, with less than 1000 passing yards! I'd like to thank you for the time you took to do your analysis, and I learned something from it. If you decide to analyze more, there are a couple suggestions I might make. 1) I'm at least as interested in a RB's yards per carry, as I am in his total yardage. For example, let's say you're comparing OJ Simpson to another RB of his era, such as Franco Harris. The Steelers used a RB by committee approach. In order for Rocky Bleier to get his share of carries, Harris had to get fewer carries than Simpson. If Harris is rushing for fewer yards than Simpson, is that because he's getting fewer carries? Or is it because he's doing less well than Simpson with the carries he's being given? Simpson averaged 4.7 yards per carry, compared to 4.1 for Harris. I'd argue OJ Simpson was a better RB than Franco Harris. Another point I'd like to raise is this. Some seasons, there might be two or more great RBs playing at the same time. Other seasons, there might be just one great RB. Using your method, the best RB in the league benefits when the second-best RB is as bad as possible. That's going to penalize the best RB in the league, if there happens to be another great RB active at the same time. To avoid this problem, maybe compare the best RB to the 5th or 10th best RB. I'd think that would give you a steadier, more reasonable comparison. Good points. I had thought to compare the #1 back to the average of the #2-10 backs which would be fairer and largely correct for the problems of two great backs playing contemporaneously. But it was too much work. One thing OJ's career teaches us is the importance of coaches. As you know, OJ's statistical output his first three years was mediocre because he was misused in an inept offense. Then Lou Saban came along and designed a good running attack that highlighted OJ's skills. Let's remember back in OJ's and Jim Brown's day, LBs weren't quick guys with nimble feet who were good in coverage. They were mean hulking monsters born-and-bred to destroy RBs: Dick Butkus, Ray Nitschke, Ted Hendricks, Jack 'Jack Splat' Lambert, Chuck 'Concrete Charlie' Bednarik, etc. I think Jim Brown, for example, would feast against today's pass-first defenses. I agree about Emmit. He's not the best RB in NFL history despite being the rushing leader. He played on balanced offenses - defenses couldn't sell out to stop him. He played behind good lines. And I guess I should give him credit for his longevity, but I don't. When I think of the "greatest" RBs, I think about who dominated in his prime. Jim Brown, OJ, Walter Payton, and Barry are the guys that first come to mind. For me, these are the Big Four just based on personal observation (in Brown's case - highlight film), not based on stats. And if I was asked to name my top five, I'd be tempted to add Gale Sayers to the list - his highlights are a joy to watch though he only had 2 thousand-yard seasons. I fancied myself a WR when I was young. Yet when I watched games on TV, I always focused on the RB. The combination of finesse, power, speed, athleticism, vision... It fascinated me. Still does. 1 Quote
Rampant Buffalo Posted June 3 Posted June 3 1 hour ago, hondo in seattle said: Good points. I had thought to compare the #1 back to the average of the #2-10 backs which would be fairer and largely correct for the problems of two great backs playing contemporaneously. But it was too much work. One thing OJ's career teaches us is the importance of coaches. As you know, OJ's statistical output his first three years was mediocre because he was misused in an inept offense. Then Lou Saban came along and designed a good running attack that highlighted OJ's skills. Let's remember back in OJ's and Jim Brown's day, LBs weren't quick guys with nimble feet who were good in coverage. They were mean hulking monsters born-and-bred to destroy RBs: Dick Butkus, Ray Nitschke, Ted Hendricks, Jack 'Jack Splat' Lambert, Chuck 'Concrete Charlie' Bednarik, etc. I think Jim Brown, for example, would feast against today's pass-first defenses. I agree about Emmit. He's not the best RB in NFL history despite being the rushing leader. He played on balanced offenses - defenses couldn't sell out to stop him. He played behind good lines. And I guess I should give him credit for his longevity, but I don't. When I think of the "greatest" RBs, I think about who dominated in his prime. Jim Brown, OJ, Walter Payton, and Barry are the guys that first come to mind. For me, these are the Big Four just based on personal observation (in Brown's case - highlight film), not based on stats. And if I was asked to name my top five, I'd be tempted to add Gale Sayers to the list - his highlights are a joy to watch though he only had 2 thousand-yard seasons. I fancied myself a WR when I was young. Yet when I watched games on TV, I always focused on the RB. The combination of finesse, power, speed, athleticism, vision... It fascinated me. Still does. Your list of Big Four RBs makes sense to me. If I were to add a couple guys to that list, they would be Earl Campbell and Eric Dickerson. When I look at a player, I ask myself two questions. 1) How good was he when he was in his prime? 2) What was his longevity like? You take a guy like Emmitt Smith. When he was in his prime, he was a good player. Probably a step up from Rodney Hampton. But, he was not a great RB, even though he had great longevity. For me, longevity serves as a sort of tiebreaker. You have two RBs who produced similar levels of play when in their prime. One had much better longevity than the other. I'd say the one with more longevity was the better player. If I'm comparing Emmitt Smith to Rodney Hampton, Smith's longevity plays a big role in my comparison. If however I'm comparing Emmitt Smith to OJ Simpson, I'm not putting much emphasis on Emmitt's longevity. Emmitt's prime years weren't good enough to put him in the same category as O.J. Simpson. Quote
Beast Posted June 3 Posted June 3 2 hours ago, Brian Higgins hair said: Remove the name in the new stadium. They aren’t removing his name or bust at Canton. No reason to remove it from whatever platform they recognize the Wall of Famers at the new stadium. And, yes, OJ was a murderer. 1 Quote
hondo in seattle Posted June 3 Posted June 3 1 hour ago, Rampant Buffalo said: Your list of Big Four RBs makes sense to me. If I were to add a couple guys to that list, they would be Earl Campbell and Eric Dickerson. When I look at a player, I ask myself two questions. 1) How good was he when he was in his prime? 2) What was his longevity like? You take a guy like Emmitt Smith. When he was in his prime, he was a good player. Probably a step up from Rodney Hampton. But, he was not a great RB, even though he had great longevity. For me, longevity serves as a sort of tiebreaker. You have two RBs who produced similar levels of play when in their prime. One had much better longevity than the other. I'd say the one with more longevity was the better player. If I'm comparing Emmitt Smith to Rodney Hampton, Smith's longevity plays a big role in my comparison. If however I'm comparing Emmitt Smith to OJ Simpson, I'm not putting much emphasis on Emmitt's longevity. Emmitt's prime years weren't good enough to put him in the same category as O.J. Simpson. Funny you mention Earl. As soon as I posted, I regretted not mentioning Campbell - the human battering ram. Loved watching him play. Dickerson, too, though I never quite put him in the OJ-Jim Brown tier. I've always been more of a Bills fan than an NFL fan. But in the old days before Sunday ticket, if I had a chance to watch a great RB on some other team, I did. I guess I should give Emmitt credit for his longevity. He was tough enough to avoid career-ending injuries. He kept himself in shape. Etc. But whenever I watched him, even in his prime, I felt like I was seeing a good back in action, not a great one. But using longevity as a tiebreaker makes sense. One guy I wish I could see more highlights of is Cookie Gilchrist. As I recall, Larry Felser (of the Buffalo Evening News) among others said Cookie in his prime (1962) was as good as Jim Brown. The stats don't seem to support that but there's one story about Cookie that I love and wish I could see. It was the last game of the season and the Bills had to beat the Pats at Fenway to make the playoffs. The first play of the game was a sweep. The DB squares up to tackle Cookie and instead of side-stepping him (Cookie was hard to arm-tackle), Cookie brutally plows directly into the man and knocks him unconscious. Then he walks over to the Pat huddle and challenged them, "Which one of you mother-f****ers is next?" The Pats folded. I'd love Cookie - with that attitude - on the Bills. Him hammering up the middle... Josh throwing all over the field... How could you defend that? www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF-VeROi5kA&t=193s 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.