- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Consider Paul Hornung and Gale Sayers
Posted on 12/11/09 at 11:19 pm to Amadeo
Posted on 12/11/09 at 11:19 pm to Amadeo
Good lord the OP is a retard.
I guess nobody that played football before 1980 should be in the Hall. I mean look at those awful stats compared to today's players!
I mean Jim Thorpe and Red Grange were nothing compared to Brian Westbrook and Larry Johnson!!!
I guess nobody that played football before 1980 should be in the Hall. I mean look at those awful stats compared to today's players!
I mean Jim Thorpe and Red Grange were nothing compared to Brian Westbrook and Larry Johnson!!!
1
Posted on 12/11/09 at 11:47 pm to Amadeo
(no message)
This post was edited on 12/11/09 at 11:51 pm
Posted on 12/11/09 at 11:52 pm to Volmanac
quote:
I mean Jim Thorpe and Red Grange were nothing compared to Brian Westbrook and Larry Johnson!!!
OK! Here are Red Grange Career PRO Stats
346 Passing Yards
569 Rushing Yards
288 Receiving Yards
So go ahead and tell me why Red Grange should be compared to todays players
Was there something different about the "era" that I just don't understand.
Did you see him play personally and therefore can better enlightment me about how he is equal to today players.
Did you here is name once in a newsreel and therefore more qualified to lecture me about him or do you simply not know what the hell you are talking about.
Come on man! Give me more than an emoticon.
Posted on 12/11/09 at 11:52 pm to Amadeo
quote:Amadeao, did you ever see Gale Sayers play? Are you hold enough to have seen him in his prime?
Context is the age-old bullshite argument for people who got nothing else.
Point out any of Sayers all-time numbers that even sniff the top 25. There isn't a starting RB in the NFL today that propably want finish with more career rushing yds and receiving yds.
Yeah, I get it. "Promising career cut short", "he has to be judged in the context of his era". As if today they play flag football in the NFL.
The history of the NFL is loaded with those types of players who will never be inducted. And no! Caring for a dying Brian Piccolo doesn't count in Sayers favor either
It's contradictory to throw out the phrase context of his era and then talk about all-purpose yds to justify your claim.
In the "context" of Sayer's era most every team in the NFL used their best player as KO and Punt Returners. There's a reason why the word return SPECIALIST is a recently coined term. Is that any reason to keep Ricky Watters whose numbers dwarf that of Sayers from the HOF.
The argument I used against Sayers being in the HOF was solely based on career stats and even though he doesn't rank in any significant catagory (not even close), is still open to reasonable opposing arguments. Instead I get the hiding behind "different era" bullshite used by overly romanticized old men, unknowlegeable sports talk show host and H-town Tiger.
.....Something to consider next time you lecture me about context.
But while we are on the subject of context, I would rather be chased by "Crazy Nuts" O'Hallahan than say, Ray Lewis. Different era my arse.
Posted on 12/11/09 at 11:54 pm to Amadeo
quote:
Context is the age-old bullshite argument for people who got nothing else.
If I told you that I shot a 74 last weekend, would it matter whether I played a the local muni or at Augusta?
Posted on 12/12/09 at 12:11 am to L.A.
quote:
Amadeao, did you ever see Gale Sayers play? Are you hold enough to have seen him in his prime?
No! Judging by the structures of your post I'm roughly your age. 46 (Don't try to understand. 20 years of government training)
I was only trying (perhaps clumsily) to engage in counter arguments of why exactly is Sayers is in the Hall. Since there are maybe only a handfull of people on this board that actually did see him play, most of the responces I got were from people who all they know about Gale Sayers is from watching Brians Song.
Posted on 12/12/09 at 12:17 am to Amadeo
quote:
most of the responces I got were from people who all they know about Gale Sayers is from watching Brians Song.
Ever heard of NFL films?
Posted on 12/12/09 at 12:33 am to tigers
quote:
Ever heard of NFL films?
NFL Films is structured to showcase exemplary plays, therefore is about as useless as a ventriliquist on the radio as to judging someones true talent.
quote:
If I told you that I shot a 74 last weekend, would it matter whether I played a the local muni or at Augusta?
I know nothing of golf and therefore cannot speak on such matter.....A practice you should employ yourself.
Posted on 12/12/09 at 12:41 am to Amadeo
quote:
I know nothing of golf and therefore cannot speak on such matter.....A practice you should employ yourself.
You're quite the condescending jackass aren't you? I'm sorry you don't have the intellectual depth to understand something as basic as context.
Posted on 12/12/09 at 12:47 am to L.A.
quote:
Amadeao, did you ever see Gale Sayers play? Are you hold enough to have seen him in his prime?
I sure hope he hasn't... although Ignorance is only slightly more tolerable than Stupidity.
Sayers is on NFL Networks Top 10 "most elusive of all time"... I'm going to find a link.
Posted on 12/12/09 at 12:49 am to Amadeo
quote:
NFL Films is structured to showcase exemplary plays, therefore is about as useless as a ventriliquist on the radio as to judging someones true talent.
This is a terrible analogy (let me guess 20 years of government training).
While NFL films is no substitute for watching full games, it's more relevant than Brian's song. If you were to watch a few NFL films specials, you would also get some of the commentary about how dominant (statistically and otherwise) he was during his prime.
For anyone who is interested..... Gayle Sayers
This post was edited on 12/12/09 at 12:52 am
Posted on 12/12/09 at 12:58 am to yurintroubl
Good stuff.
So it's just a grand conspiracy by the players, cameras, media and fans to overstate Gayle Sayer's talent and career?
So it's just a grand conspiracy by the players, cameras, media and fans to overstate Gayle Sayer's talent and career?
Posted on 12/12/09 at 1:19 am to Amadeo
quote:Fascinating. And you are correct, although I'm a bit older than you. What was the government training that allowed you to do that?
Judging by the structures of your post I'm roughly your age. 46
I saw Sayers play some when I was a young teenager. He was an incredible player. I'm not so sure he would have been as great today because the players are so much faster today. That fact, along with the situational substitution of today, would have negated some of his speed. But in his day, which is the only way we can measure a player in any sport, he was truly something to behold.
Horning's prime was before my time, but I think he was clearly inferior to Sayers as a RB. He was very versatile, though; an excellent receiver out of the backfield. I seem to remember he even kicked field golas some for the Packers.
Again, IMO had he played for a team other than the Packers he might not be in the HOF.
This post was edited on 12/12/09 at 1:30 am
Posted on 12/12/09 at 2:39 am to Amadeo
Comparing Sayer's numbers to Deuce and Westbrook to prove a point, LOL.
This guy clearly doesn't understand the concept of different eras and comparing players to other players at there position in the era they played.
Holy shite, this entire thread is pure gold!!!!
This guy clearly doesn't understand the concept of different eras and comparing players to other players at there position in the era they played.
Holy shite, this entire thread is pure gold!!!!
Posted on 12/12/09 at 7:09 am to yurintroubl
Oh cool! A Paul Hornung video.
You would think that a HOF RB would have more career rushing yards than Archie Manning?
I got it.....Context!
You would think that a HOF RB would have more career rushing yards than Archie Manning?
I got it.....Context!
Posted on 12/12/09 at 7:42 am to Amadeo
quote:
most of the responces I got were from people who all they know about Gale Sayers is from watching Brians Song.
WOW!! You are an idiot.
Posted on 12/12/09 at 9:07 am to Amadeo
Without getting into a pure statistical argument with you I watched games from the mid 1960's to today. I attended all Saints home games from 1967-69. The game I see today is no where near the same game as the game of the 1960's. Rules have been implemented to boost offensive performance because that is what sells tickets. Offensive linemen of the sixties could not extend their arms to block but had to tuck them in to their chests like chicken wings. I have watched the modern college and pro games allow mugging by the offensive lineman. Quarterbacks from the old era were hit on almost every passing play as the defensive linemen were not expected to stop in mid stride and avoid hitting him. Receivers were bumped off the line of scrimmage all the way down the field and the defensive backs could hit them without fear of penalty to break up the pass. In fact, the main role of safeties was to punish receivers going over the middle. To even try to compare the touch game of today with the rough and tumble game of the 1960's by using comparable stats is not fair to players like Hornung and Sayers. They were among the best of their time. Voters of the hall of fame saw them play. They voted them in long before they saw the players of today. If you did not see how the game was played back then you cannot possibly know why Sayers or Hornung has stats not much better than average players of today. They were stars of their time. They were judged as among the elite of their time up to that point in time. That is all one needs to know.
Lawrence
Lawrence
Posted on 12/12/09 at 10:29 am to Amadeo
quote:
Context is the age-old bullshite argument for people who got nothing else.
You can't compare things without context dude. Numbers are meaningless with out context. This applies to anything, not just sports. I can't help you if you don't understand this simple concept. You can still think Sayers doesn't deserve to be in the Hall, but to compare his stats to Deuce McAllister when Sayers played in 68 games with Deuce played in 97 is unfair.
quote:
Point out any of Sayers all-time numbers that even sniff the top 25
He retired in 1971 and was inducted in the Hall of Fame in 1977. Of the top 25 as of 2008, there are only 2 guys that played during/before Sayers time (Jim Brown, Joe Perry). Now I'm not sure exactly where Sayers ranked when he retired, if some one wants to figure it out, here's the list. There are guys from his era ahead of him that are not in the Hall.
LINK
So unless you think the Hall of Fame voters should be Nostradamus , you don't have a valid point is saying he is not in the top 25, since he probably was when he retired.
quote:
s that any reason to keep Ricky Watters whose numbers dwarf that of Sayers from the HOF.
Watters has a good case, but he also played in 144 career games so his raw totals should be much higher. There is a better stat that favors Watters but you don't like context.
quote:
I would rather be chased by "Crazy Nuts" O'Hallahan than say, Ray Lewis
40-50 years from now there may be a bigger, faster stronger badass than Ray Lewis. I love how people always think their era is not only much better than the past, but will never be topped. It always is, that's why you have to judge players based on the context of their era and against the players they played against. They are talking about expanding the current 16 game schedule to 17 or 18 game. If they do that, guys in the future will bury a lot of the current guys you are arguing for.
Posted on 12/12/09 at 11:56 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
40-50 years from now there may be a bigger, faster stronger badass than Ray Lewis. I love how people always think their era is not only much better than the past, but will never be topped. It always is, that's why you have to judge players based on the context of their era and against the players they played against. They are talking about expanding the current 16 game schedule to 17 or 18 game. If they do that, guys in the future will bury a lot of the current guys you are arguing for.
Fair point.
I think the weakness of my argument is not my lack of understanding of context, but more an obsessive belief, for good or ill, in the superiorty of todays players.
My nature has always been to celebrate the evolution of the athlete. Greatness to me was never in anecdotes, books or newsreels, but playing tomorrow in stadiums across America.
Honestly H-town, which of these two would you rather see coming on a blitz.
On Sayers, wasn't he once a candidate for LSU AD,or did I dream that.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News