Re: NFL Regular Season Thread
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=35654.msg1004632#msg1004632 date=1259788288]
[quote author=Whaddapie link=topic=35654.msg1004614#msg1004614 date=1259786904]
Oh, and any Detroit Lions team, ever and the phrase "most devastating... in history" is a little bit of a stretch, no..? Poetic lisense, I think.
[/quote]
Ok, so going by stats, name me a few more WR trios that had numbers comparable to what I listed from the '96 Lions.
In fact, give me 10 since it's obviously something that you're saying isn't impressive considering how Barry Sanders was "all his team had".
That running behind one of the greatest OLs in history, as opposed to a bunch of nobodies would not have benefitted one of the games greatest natural talent is nonsense. It's like saying "we'd rather have a shite goalie than a great one because our defenders make great last gasp tackles, and the shite goalie would force them to do that more often".
It's a wee bit different ... Let's look at it this way - Do you think Barry Sanders and Emmit Smith were similar runners? If not, what was different about them and what made Barry better and what made Emmit better? If an offense is geared towards a specific type of attac (say for example, power running like the Giants last year, or the Saints and their spread passing, or the 49ers and the west coast), it's not going to be as successful in my opinion if a player who's talents require it to do otherwise.
Finally ...
I don't think it's too much of an argument to say that, had Kenny been playing for , say, Aston Villa, as their only real weapon for his entire career, he'd not have enjoyed the same success that he went on to achieve at Anfield, surrounded by some of the greats that ever played the game, do you?
So is Bryan Robson better than Kenny Daglish? Why not? I mean had the roles been reversed, Kenny would have done far less ("Emmitt would still be a HOFer, but Barry'd be so far ahead with his stats, it'd be ridiculous.", so Kenny would have been great but Robson would have been far ahead of him" ... even though your sentence is most likely false considering the Lions offense on the 5 yard and closer was to go with a different back, the name escapes me now) etc ...
[/quote]
I'm not really sure what you're asking me to do regarding those receiving numbers from the '96 & '98 seasons... The Lions were ranked 18th and 19th in receiving yards for those respective years, below the NFL team average each time.
Do you honestly think that a player so explosive and athletic that he could put up all time numbers behind a line that couldn't open a tin of beans with an electric opener would not have been able to take advantage of holes that you could drive a tank through? Seriously, mate, that doesn't make any sense...
Now, for the Dalglish / Robson comparison, that's tough to use, 'cos they played in a different position... Let's try Messi and Ronaldo instead. Very comparable interms of ability and currently always the first two names mentioned when discussing the world's best . Now, if Messi played for Sunderland while Ronaldo played for united, and his numbers were still always comparable or better, despite the fact that he played for a far, far inferior team, isn't it fair to say that he'd probably have fared better had HE played for united instead
I mean, do you think Rushie would have scored all those goals if he'd never left Chester? Of course not - He'd still have had the ability in him, but it's rubbish to say that playing beside Kenny and Souness week in and week out didn't benefit him... Players of that calibre (or any calibre) cannot but be helped by having better players around them.
