Damn Panthers cut Keshawn!!
- Thread starter LordSinister
- Start date
Ming Fei Hong said:
Thats whats up!
KEYSHAWN IS DOING 
RIGHT NOW! THEY JUST PAID HIM A 3 MILLION DOLLAR ROSTER BONUS LAST MONTH. NOW HE DOESN'T HAVE TO PLAY FOR THEM AND CAN GO COLLECT ANOTHER CHECK AND GO TO WHATEVER TEAM HE WANTS. DON'T BE SURPRISED IF HE ENDS UP IN FOXBORO! BONEHEAD MOVE BY THE PANTHERS! TERRIBLE ACCOUNTING. UNLESS SOMETHING RIDICULOUS HAPPENED AFTER YOU GAVE HIM THE 3 MILLION, YOU SHOULD'VE CUT HIM BEFORE THAT AND SAVED THE MONEY!
RIGHT NOW! THEY JUST PAID HIM A 3 MILLION DOLLAR ROSTER BONUS LAST MONTH. NOW HE DOESN'T HAVE TO PLAY FOR THEM AND CAN GO COLLECT ANOTHER CHECK AND GO TO WHATEVER TEAM HE WANTS. DON'T BE SURPRISED IF HE ENDS UP IN FOXBORO! BONEHEAD MOVE BY THE PANTHERS! TERRIBLE ACCOUNTING. UNLESS SOMETHING RIDICULOUS HAPPENED AFTER YOU GAVE HIM THE 3 MILLION, YOU SHOULD'VE CUT HIM BEFORE THAT AND SAVED THE MONEY! 
eewwll said:
Irvin is NOT in a class with Carter and Harrison. He only caught 750 balls, and only had 7 (out of 12) years where he caught over 65. He had a GREAT run during the Super Bowl era (which is why he's in the HALL), but it also took him 3 years to get rollin'.
Keyshawn has caught more passes than Irvin (814 to 750) in just 7 (or so) more games. He's also caught 65 or more passes in 10 of his 11 seasons (9 with 70 or more). His consistency has been special. Monk caught 65 or more in just 7 of his 16 years!!
Irvin was the better deep threat, as he averaged around 3 yards more per catch than Johnson (and about 2.5 more than Monk).
DaleMabry said:
During the draft when they called Jarret, Keyshawn spoke to him directly and also said he would help him get acclimated to the NFL.
Blunt said:
You have no idea what youre talking about. Irvin is in a different league than Johnson. Irvin changed the way the game was played at that position. He redefined the position and thats why he is in the hall.
Irvin also set records in the league and one still stands today. 11 consecutive games with 100+ yards. He led the league in receiving a couple of times and he broke all of the Cowboys receiving records.....
You simply cannot compare the two...
The NFL changed rules due to Irvins impact.....
and dont forget hes in the top ten in everything yet his career was ended prematurely
Blunt stick to celebs homeboy
Shit, the Vikings better call this nigga up. He could play mentor to those younger WR's.
DarkCity said:Damn will you give the rest of the league a chance.
I dont think he'll retire he is still a pretty good 2nd or 3rd receiver. Was he still on the Bucs the year they won the SB. I know he was deactivated for the remainder of a season but i'm not sure which one it was.
Oh of COURSE. We would not have made it to the Superbowl without him. He was deactivated the next year, same year Gruden pushed McKay out of Tampa and to ATL.
Blunt said:
See, let me get just beyond the stats. Stats only tell part of the story and Irvin has those. But when it was third and 8, Irvin was money..he would run the perfect route every time to get you the 8 or more yards you needed to get the first down. Irvin moved the sticks. Whenever you needed to the to get the first down..no matter the yardage and the defensive alignment..you could count on Irvin to run the perfect route and arrive exactly where he should be and catch the ball. He did it even more so come playoff time. Irvin, was also the only receiver besides Rice, that routinely beat the best cornerbacks in the game like Sanders. It was not because of his speed.. but like Harrison, he ran PERFECT routes. You can't defend a receiver that runs great routes.
That is what i meant by a different league. Rice, Carter, and Irvin were the same way.the ran perfect routes and made big plays when you needed them. Johnson was not that type of impact receiver. He did a lot of the dirty work.. but he was not of the same caliber as those great receivers previously mentioned.
Keyshawn, depsite his blocking ability and statistics..and even his toughness in terms of going through the middle, was not a 1st tier WR receiver... when was the last time he was even the best WR on his team? That is what I meant by tier.. sometimes stats are enough..something stats don't define the entire story...like for instance.. no matter the TD's and and being the all-time rushing yards leader.. Emmitt Smith does not make most top 5 running back of all time lists... stats alone dont tell the story.
eewwll said:
Co-siggy. Keyshawn will make te hall if he gets another ring. That is why he will play for New England for chump change.
alexw said:
Key has been known as a "Poor Man's Michael Irvin" his whole career. I love Key and I love his game (dont love his ego sometimes lol) but the only arena in which he will surpass Michael Irvin will be as a TV talking head--he destroys Mike Irvin in that regard.
DaleMabry said:
Key has been known as a "Poor Man's Michael Irvin" his whole career. I love Key and I love his game (dont love his ego sometimes lol) but the only arena in which he will surpass Michael Irvin will be as a TV talking head--he destroys Mike Irvin in that regard.
alexw said:
Your reading skills must really suck, as I never said that Johnson was superior, actually quite the opposite. Just mentioned that there were statistical parallels to their careers and that Johnson was more comparable to Irvin than to Swann.
Irvin never led the league in receiving and only led the league in yardage once. Breaking Cowboys receiving records wasn't all that hard. He played during a passing-friendly era. As stated earlier, he only had 7 65+ reception seasons. His reign was brief. Johnson has had 10.
In terms of their on-field reputations, no. In terms of their career numbers, yes.
No, he's not in the Top Ten of anything. He and Keyshawn are pretty close in every category (Keyshawn leads in receptions, Irvin has an edge in yardage and TDs, by one), and Keyshawn's played one fewer year and also got a late start in his career (at age 24).
I think you'd best address that to yourself. Nothing I've said is incorrect (and your lack of knowledge of the basic stats is made clear above).
alexw said:
Co-sign 100%
Deion Sanders has said on a number of occasions that Michael Irvin was the toughest receiver that he faced other than Jerry Rice. That was enough for me. You couldn't bump and run him because he would throw you off like a rag doll and you couldn't play off because he would catch five straight slants. Plus, people always comment on how great of a blocker Keyshawn is, but Irvin blocked for the NFL career rushing yards leader. Emmitt was not fast and the only way he could break those long runs were with the help of his receivers.
Irvin=Beast and great teammate (off the field he partied hard)
MeShawn=solid receiver that always wore out his welcome
Keyshawn to DA RAIDAHS!!!!!!
eewwll said:
How many great "teams" did Johnson play for? One. Hard to have an "impact" when you're on a scufflin' team.
Who was better than him on the JETS? Wayne Chrebet? How about when he led the NFC in pass receptions with 106 in 2001?
Right, so then why mention Cris Carter since he was ALL about stats? His 1,000+ receptions are his claim-to-fame, not Super Bowl rings or memorable clutch performances. Even Marvin Harrison has been a playoff dud for most of his career.
It's also stupid to deny Emmitt Smith his props for his remarkable consistency. The fact that he (and Keyshawn) can perform at such a high level year-in-and-year-out has considerable value to those who can see beyond the glitz and glam of the short-term superstars.
I'm always impressed with players like Keyshawn (in any sport) whose career numbers manage to creep up to near the top without anyone really noticing (or giving proper praise). These types of players are easy to overlook, but also always worth discovering.
DaleMabry said:
If he plays, he's going to a contender. San Diego, NE, Colts, or even *gasp* the bears.
Irvin had four or five years better than Keyshawns best year.
Keyshawns best year
2001 Tampa 106 rec 1266 yds 1 TD
Irvin
1991 93 rec 1523 yds 16.4avg 8 TD
1992 78 rec 1396 yds 17.9avg 7 TD
1993 88 rec 1330 yds 15.1avg 7 TD
1994 79 rec 1241 yds 15.7avg 6 TD
1995 111 rec 1603 yds 14.4avg 10 TD
Keyshawns best year
2001 Tampa 106 rec 1266 yds 1 TD
Irvin
1991 93 rec 1523 yds 16.4avg 8 TD
1992 78 rec 1396 yds 17.9avg 7 TD
1993 88 rec 1330 yds 15.1avg 7 TD
1994 79 rec 1241 yds 15.7avg 6 TD
1995 111 rec 1603 yds 14.4avg 10 TD
Blunt said:
Come on Blunt. Let's not turn a discussion into a meaningless argument. If you do not know the meaning of the word impact: having an impact does not presuppose a positive or negative precondition. It means having a substantial positive contribution on overall team dynamics and or meaningful situations..whether those be first downs or Superbowls or even just in temperament with leadership ability. My problem with this is that I think you only do searches on stats, yet have not really watched much of these players in question. However, I could be wrong. If you think a team has to be good in order for a player to have an impact you have sadly mistaken. A great player can have an immediate impact on wins and losses (We can use Tim Duncan as an example in the NBA as the Spurs were in the gutter the year before..even with Robinson out the year before it was remarkable..we could also use Nash in Phoenix). Having an impact does NOT presuppose any condition.
Blunt said:
My question to you was: when was Key the the #1 receiver on this TEAM. So 2001 is your reference. We are now entering the 2007-2008 season and you have go back 7 years for a reference. Also, when you looked up his stats and looked for big numbers and found season 2001..did you happen to see that little number in the TD spot... for all those big numbers in his BEST season he had ONE touchdown. Again..you are helping me make my IMPACT argument. That should make things very clear. Up until Irvin retired, he was the best receiver on his team. Irvin was never a real #1 go to receiver even when he was in Dallas.
Blunt said:
I do not know if you are struggling with reading comprehension. I said stats are but ONE data set to use when coming to a determination of greatness. I never mentioned winning a super bowl as a requirement. I said the ability to produce in necessary situations.. game winning, situations where first downs are requirements.
Carter can't be penalized because he played for a perennially losing organization. However, throwing stats out of the picture (which he has just like Irvin) Carter had some of the "surest" hands in the league. He caught EVERYTHING thrown in his direction and again..when you needed a first down or a big reception..he was a go to receiver and always delivered.
Keyshawn is/was a great possession receiver but not a game changing receiver. He never was a deep ball threat and was not an... it's third and 13 late in the 4th and I need the big catch type of receiver. Carter CLEARLY was and so was Irvin.. Carter was just not fortunate enough to play for Super Bowl caliber teams yet he had a great IMPACT on his teams offense..
Blunt said:
Be careful here Blunt. Be very careful. Your consistency in spinning a disagreement into a pissing contest really tends to get to the best of you.
My post had nothing to do with not giving Emmitt Smith his props. The reference was very clear if you did not get it. Your argument has SOLELY rested on digging up stats. The point was that it is fallacious to SOLELY use stats to judge players against each other. Again, Smith is the all time leading TD producer and rusher in NFL. However, he is NOT better than Jim Brown, Gale Sayers, Barry Sanders, etc. I would comfortably put Emmitt Smith in 6th place. It is not about giving him props for his consistency, it is taking all the circumstances into consideration and putting them into perspective before placing him. 6th position is a great position to be in in terms of ALL TIME RBs. Again, stats ALONE, are not enough to make the determination on the ladder, comparatively speaking.
Blunt said:
That's all fine and dandy.. but every player I have mentioned was consistent yearly and also had greater impact on their teams. None of them were short-term superstars so that comment is just irrelevant.
I have always been aware of Johnson. Nothing I have said is a disrepect to his game. But he has never been known as a dominant, impact #1 receiver. He is a great possession receiver that does all the dirty work you need. However, he is not the impact receiver like Irvin..who was clutch and gave you the big plays when you needed them.
Last edited:
Damn. After he talked about grooming Dwayne Jarret they let him go
Obviously reading comprehension isnt your strength. I said they were in different leagues. I never said one was superior over the other, although its very obvious.Blunt said:
Look up the year 1991. Anyways, if Irvins reign was brief. At least he reigned and that is a gross understatement. Dallas ran the ball 75% of the time in this so called pass friendly era. In that offense, Irvins numbers are phenomenal. Aikmans first read was always Jay Novachek you big dummy.
Their career numbers arent comparable. Keyshawns best year isnt even close to Irvins. Irvin also missed more games than Johnson. Besides, Irvin gave his last ounce of blood for the cowboys on the field. Keyshawn was a team problem. On the field > Off the field
I have to be more specific for the nitwits. At the time he retired, Irvin was in the top ten of everything. But remember, Irvins career ended early due to injury. Keyshawn's career has basically ended due to him being cut.
Everything youve said is false. Youre looking at these stats as if this is the game of baseball. Football is a game of intangibles. Irvin dominated and was far from a possession receiver.
Last edited:
redsox said:
CO-MUTHAFUCKIN'-SIGN!
Bet they don't do it. Damn it sucks to be a Falcons fan some times. I know we couldn't afford Moss. I know this. But DAMN! We could use ya boy. Blank better get on this shit personally right damn now.
I doubt he comes to the Raiders.Our recieving corps aint bad and we already have enough guys with attitudes on our squad.I suspect Keyshawn wants to play for a SB contender and will take a pay cut to play for SD or NE.
eewwll said:
I think you've already done that. All I've been saying is that Johnson has had a Hall of Fame quality career and rates higher statistically than most are aware of.
No shit.
That's a lame supposition, as I wouldn't know enough to do "searches on stats" for them if I'd never watched them play (or followed them throughout their entire careers, visually and statistically). The fact remains that "stats" DO matter, especially when there are strongly differing subjective views on a player. Hard DATA often mitigates against faulty perceptions. Eyewitness testimony, as we know, is the least reliable in terms of judging the truth in court cases.
I shudder when folks tell me to forget the stats and just accept their "expert" opinion on something. I don't even feel comfortable promoting my own personal analysis of athletic peformance based solely on what I've seen, without valid back-up. So don't knock the numbers They help settle countless arguments based on dueling perceptions.
It's obviously much easier to ASSUME someone has made an impact when a team wins. Otherwise, said "impact" is fruitless.
LOL. That season is just the most obvious reference. If you don't think he was the KEY receiver on that team, then who was? Fact is, Keyshawn was the KEY receiver the next year on the Super Bowl team as well, with 76 catches and 5 TDS. He also was the #1 receiver on the Jets for years.
That one TD season was a fluke. Brad Johnson threw just 13 all year. The team's (and Tony Dungy's) passing game was miserable, save for Keyshawn. He was a one man show, just not at the goal line. He did catch 5 the next year and led the AFC with 10 earlier, but catching TDs wasn't really his game. You'd know that if you "watched him play."
Not really debating Irvin's "impact" here, though he certainly was on a team stacked with All-Pros, who made his job easier and gave him more opportunities to make an "impact."
Maybe you've forgotten, but Keyshawn was the heart and soul of the JETS. Parcells loved him and DID consider him an impact player. He had a number of excellent years there (in fact, ALL of them were).
All of which Keyshawn has done (from accumulating stats, to winning a Super Bowl, to producing in key situations to getting big first downs).
Yet Moss still overshadowed him with a different skill set. Yet that didn't make Carter less worthy of praise. Nor should Keyshawn be penalized for not being a swift game-breaker.
Obviously wasn't "go to" enough to win anything.
No one said he was a "game-changing" receiver, and who says that's more important than being a GREAT possession receiver (and supreme blocker) for 11 straight years (an entire career)??
Not a deep threat, but certainly a big 3rd down receiver. Not sure what you were watchin'. Ask Parcells.
Actually, Carter did play on Super Bowl caliber teams, and failed to take them over the top. But this isn't about him. Bottom-line is, Carter has great stats (which will get him into the Hall easily). Caught a lot of balls. Wasn't the game-breaker that Moss was. But this isn't about him.
Not sure what there is to disagree about. You're just into hyping your favorites and all I'm saying is that Keyshawn Johnson had a damn sight better career (in every which way) than most want to credit him with.
First of all, stats are used to judge players against each other. That's how it works (career-wise and yearly). My whole point here was to bring some tangible evidence of Johnson's career performance, which may have escaped such predisposed folks as yourself.
My argument for Keyshawn is actually based on the fact that his stats surprisingly match-up with his well-known intangibles. His numbers are comparable to Irvin's. Whether you like that or not is up to you. It's just a fact, and part of the equation in judging his career.
Everyone knows about how they individually FEEL about him from just watching him play (or listening to him). Big deal. Your personal opinion isn't gonna do anything for his Hall of Fame chances (pro or con). You have to judge him based on all the criteria that people use (including objective statistical data, effort, coaches opinions and contribution to team performance).
Well "stats alone" are how you know Jim Brown was great because you likely never saw him play during his era. He may look domineering to you in the old clips, but its the FACTUAL DATA of his stats that PROVE how domineering he actually was. So please, don't brush off "stats" because they're inconvenient to your argument, and don't assume that they're the only consideration I'm using when judging Keyshawn. His great stats simply ADD verifiable substance to his noteworthy (and sometimes distracting) resume.
Well, not true. Both Brown and Sayers had truncated careers, while Irvin was dominant for about 8 years. As I stated earlier, it'd be wrong to overlook Keyshawn's 11 years of consistent, productive play. I'll bet lots of folks aren't even aware of his excellent "stats," unlike with the more obvious record-setting superstars. That's why it's important to emphasize them in his case, as a brilliant blocking/possession receiver's numbers are easy to overlook.
It's unfair to compare him with a different type of player. Fact is he has been consistently DOMINANT (and impactful) at the game that he's been best suited to play. You're making my point by judging him based on the standards of others rather than on his particular type of contribution. Fact is that for a "possession" receiver to amass such great numbers makes my whole point. He's been more productive and impactful than folks like you give him credit for, and I'm just giving him his props!!
This isn't about him being better than all these different types of receivers. It's about him reaching a certain exalted career status playing a very different type of receiving game than the flashier types.
If someone as over-hyped (and hated) as he was when he came into the league can ever be considered UNDERRRATED, then he certainly qualifies (especially judging by this thread). I think that's a pretty interesting career arc.
(And I wouldn't even consider him a personal favorite of mine by any stretch of the imagination. He's simply a good subject for this type of discussion.)
Last edited:
Blunt said:
Don't change your argument now. That is not all you said. You said that Johnson deserved to considered an equal of Irvin. This is much more than saying his is a hall of famer. All hall of fame players are not created equally. Johnson may not even get in and he probably won't be a first ballot entry.
Blunt said:
Well then...why this irrelevant prereq below presupposing team quality?
Blunt said:
Blunt said:
How many times do I need to say this. STATS ARE BUT ONE CRITERIA. I never said stats were not to be considered and that stats do not play their part. However, stats do not equate greatest as a sole criteria. If they do, then Emmitt Smith is the best running back of all time since he dominates the most important stat-lines. However, no one, not even Smith, would argue that.
My point was that there are other criteria that are used besides stats when stacking players up. You are making a fallacy of extension.
Blunt said:
Blunt. That might work on other posters, but you need to try much harder than that with me. That smoke-screen shit does not work with me. No one told you to forget the stats and even on stats, Irvin was Johnson's superior..he had 6 seasons better than Johnson's best..and that was on a run first offense that had multiple receiving options as well.
Blunt said:
Impact is NOT only shaped by wins and losses but is correlates. For instance, Michael Jordan had an impact on basketball that went beyond just sheer wins and losses. He changed the game completely.. he changed the notion that you needed a dominant big man to win titles.
Blunt said:
Maybe you are struggling with reading comprehension on this point. I gave you the 2001 already clearly. However, it does not change the fact he had 1 TD is his best receiving season and you had to go back almost 7 years to get a strong season. Which means that for Half of his career, Johnson has NOT even been the #1 receiver on his own damn team.
That cant be said for any receiver that I have named.
Blunt said:
Catching TD's was not his game. You readily admit that. You want to place him next to the all-time greats yet you readily admit he is not a touchdown passer.Ok.fine. Also, he was also not a go-to receiver either. So what does that bring us back to.. what Johnson has always been characterized as.. a great "possession" receiver that isn't necessary going to move the sticks and definitely doesnt open up the field and beat you long. He gets yardage and it willing to get up the middle....exactly what a great possessive receiver does.
I had season ticket to the Lions for several seasons so I have probably seen Moss, Carter, Johnson, and Irvin play live more than most so lack of watching this players is not an issue.
When you said that Johnson was a receiver that was consistent and productive you best qualified him there...going any further is a disservice to the players you must group him with to put him on the next level.
Blunt said:
Aikman, the Moose, Smith, Irvin,etc all received the rewards on playing on one of the best offensives the league has ever had. No one can deny that. However, taking the dynamics of that team away. If you ask cornerbacks from that era.. from Primetime all the way down..who were the most difficult to cover.. they all say Rice and Irvin. It is no coincidence. And even without all-pro support... Irvin was the type of receiver that consistently caused offensive problems...he changed the way defensive coordinators aligned their defenses. That can never be said for Johnson. Johnson was/is a great possession receiver.. but you don't modify your defensive scheme to account for him.
Blunt said:
You must have mistaken than I don't have respect for Keyshawn. Keyshawn is a great receiver. Let me give you an example. Saying that Kevin McHale is a tier above Spencer Haywood does not mean I don't appreciate Spencer Haywood. Haywood would still be considered one of the greatest power forward of all time. However, he was not complete of a player as McHale or even Malone for that matter.
Blunt said:
It doesn't and Carter still put up great numbers with Moss there. I am not penalize Keyshawn until you say he is an equal of Irvin.
You make the point with Moss and Carter..two players with two different skill sets.it is hard to compare them.
However, it is not hard to compare Irvin and Johnson. They are very similar players..however, there is a reason that Johnson has always been called " the poor man's Irvin" because besides blocking.. Irvin did everything Johnson did and did it much better. He had better hands.. he was a FAR better route runner... he went through the middle with the same abandon as Johnson, but he also had better after the catch ability...and he also was a TD catching receiver that you could get the ball to on 3 and goal.. he wouldn't have a season like Johnson and put up 1200 yards and only have 1 TD..that within itself shows a player that doens't make big plays and can't get the separation needed in goal line situations to be a major impact when you need him.
Blunt said:
And this is the distinction that separates Irvin, Rice, etc from the likes of Johnson..in that they were game changing receivers as well as everything else they did.
Blunt said:
This is where you have it twisted.big time. I am from Detroit.. I hate the fucking Cowboys
.. Alexw will tell you that. I can't stand that team or it's players..but it doesn't make me biased. Blunt said:
Stats are ONE thing used. If you hold true to your stance. You consider Jim Brown the greatest Running Back to play the game. Actually, you consider him the GOAT. I remember you distinctly saying this repeatedly in a thread about running back here.
However, Jim Brown, DOES not hold the most important NFL rushing stats. He does not hold all the records like Rice does in receiving. Stats are but one part of the equation. Just like Marino hold all the stat records.. but he would not be considered the GOAT.
and get the hell out of here with that predisposed stuff. Blunt, you have a problem with respecting people that have an opposing opinion to yours.. a serious problem.
.
Blunt said:
Funny you say this because I just mentioned this..because Jim Brown does not own the most important rushing stats.
Also, again what the stats don't account for is the fact that many of Brown's talents don't transfer over to this era. He was the GOAT in my opinion..however, he would not have the same impact during this era just because of his impact because of his size and talent level would be completely neutralized in today's era.. very much similar to Wilt during his era..who ironically was held in check against the only formidable talent during his 9 team era (Russell) But this is another argument altogether.
AND GET THE FUCK OUTTA HERE WITH THAT..DONT BRUSH OFF THE STATS BECAUSE THEY ARE INCONVENIENT..
You are fucking living in a world of illusion. Even the stats support my claim. Irvin had 6 seasons better than Johnson's 2001 season
And again..if you have problems with reading comprehension, i will say it one more time. I never said STATS were not important or to be disregarded. Why do you keep saying that shit..trying to extend that fallacious bullshit to my argument
I said they are but ONE criteria. You sound like a fucking robot that uses the same argumentative style over and over again. It does not serve your purpose in this argument. Blunt said:
Thanks for making my point..that he is a great blocker and possession receiver. I said that shit 3 posts ago. Yes..he has had 11 years of consistent productive play..however so have other great receivers like Art Monk who have not been inducted into the hall of fame.
Blunt said:
I think you said it best when you said he has had 11 years of consistent and productive play.
You are reaching with this DOMINANT shit. How can you be a dominant player when you were not even a #1 receiver for majority of your career and only been to been to the pro bowl 3 times. Keyshawn hasn't been to the pro bowl since 2001.
Blunt said:
I'm not knocking you for giving him Props. He is a great possession receiver. He is great as what he does. However, players like Rice and Irvin do everything that he does..and then all things he can't... catch TD passes in the redzone.. break open games with long plays...and consistently beat the best cornerbacks in the like Deon Sanders. Again, I give him his props.. but there is a limit on it.
Anyway.. I gotta get back to work.. we can argue this shit all night.. but the reality of the matter..is that once you get beyond stats..it becomes very subjective in nature anyway...anyway.. a good argument is always good to get the juices flowing..but i gotta get back to work..
peace
Last edited:
eewwll said:
a bit off topic, but i'm curious. who's at #5 on your RB list?
you named Brown, Sanders, & Sayers (i'd call that a stretch, but i understand). i assume Payton is in there too.
who's #5?
OJ?
Hell, Id put Brown, Barry, Sweetness, The Juice, Dickerson, before Emmit.
Hell, Id say Marcus Allen, was a better all around back than Emmit.
Just my .02
Hell, Id say Marcus Allen, was a better all around back than Emmit.
Just my .02