NFL Network's 100 Great Players Starts Tonight 10pm i think.

[pigskincardboard]

[quote="pigskincardboard":25hn4kcj][quote="BU54CB":25hn4kcj][quote="pigskincardboard":25hn4kcj]
The player that reminds me most of Payton is Clinton Portis. Personally, I think Clinton Portis is/was every bit the back that Walter Payton was with one major difference: health.

I think the days of 300+ carries for 12-13 years are absolutely done. Almost every HOF quality back will follow the LT career path: 6-8 years and then splitting duties. Evaluating career stats is going to be a chore and I can see the HOF screwing up bigtime.

Clinton Portis?!? First I'd say health is a huge problem for Portis, but even without that, IMO Portis is one of the last backs I'd compare to Payton. Have you ever watched film of Walter Payton? I watched him play his whole career, and I've seen quite a few of Portis' games, can't hold a candle to Payton.

Who are your others in the 5-10 backs that are currently better than Walter Payton?

What about Portis' game doesn't compare? When healthy, he was right up their with Payton in terms of every skill. I never said he was better, but he's certainly similar.

Payton and Emmitt both just got the rock a lot and stayed healthy. I have no clue if that's a skill but I have serious problems rating it as the most important skill.

Like I said, you must not have watched Walter Payton play. Portis doesn't run or catch as well as Payton did, Portis isn't even close to the blocker Payton was. Walter Payton was a complete back, he could do everything and do it well. Clinton Portis is a good back, but please, better than Walter Payton, I don't think so.

Sure Payton and Emmitt got the rock, so does every other running back that's any good. Chris Johnson gets the rock, so does Adrian Peterson and Frank Gore. That's what you do if you have a good player, you get them the ball. Walter Payton really didn't have much help at the other skill positions, so he was the focus of the offense. Emmitt Smith had HOFers at QB and WR, yet he's still got the most rushing attempts in NFL history. The only similarity between Clinton Portis and Walter Payton is that they play(ed) in the NFL IMO.

You said there are 5-10 backs that currently play today that are better than Walter Payton. The only back you put out there is Portis and then you say he's similar than Payton, not better. I guess I don't understand how you can make a statement like that and not list your 5-10 backs with a supporting argument.

I don't need to make a case for Walter Payton, his place in NFL history and the respect his career receives from anyone in and around the game speaks for itself.

Are you talking about my assertion of modernity? You can go ahead and pick the five best, ten best, backs in the NFL and they're all better. Of course, that's why we compare players to their competition rather than across eras.

With that said, when you listed Chris Johnson(2 years), Adrian Peterson(3 years) and Frank Gore(5 years), they have a combined 10 years in the NFL. Prior to this year, Gore's averaged 233 rushes per year. Walter Payton had 10-years of over 300 carries.

Over the past 10-20 years, the NFL has become drastically more specialized. A byproduct of this has been a lesser workload for runningbacks. Teams would still rely on workhorse backs long after they'd lost it. They'd also have no qualms about running him 300+ times a year for 10 years. Now, teams have become far more cautious with their superstars.

Anyways, Clinton Portis is a terrific blocker with above average hands and an uncanny ability to get to the second level. His rushing ability has declined massively due to injuries, unfortunately. Everyone seems to undervalue the guy because he broke out under Denver, but he was a terrific all-around back.

You keep telling me to pick the backs, why should I? I'm not the one saying there are 5-10 backs playing today that are better than Walter Payton. Since you can't pick them, I'll assume you feel your statement is erroneous.

Are you saying that the only reason Walter Payton was any good was because he got the ball 300+ times a season? The reason I referred to Johnson, Peterson, and Gore was to assert that when you have a good RB or player for that matter, you get them the ball. Had nothing to do with workload or carries.

I'm not sure what Clinton Portis you watch, but I saw him every game when he played with Denver and many with the Redskins. Never was he a terrific blocker, average at best and still is. There are a ton of backs in the league with above average hands and that can get to the second level. If Portis is such a great back, why does he lack any sort of recognition except for 2 Pro Bowls?[/quote:25hn4kcj]

Do you understand the concept of modernity in sports? The closer to genuine athletics, the better chance that era matters.

Here's a graph of the men's 100M dash:

Was Carl Lewis a great sprinter? Of course. Are there 10 guys out there right now that are better sprinters? Yes. Football, especially runningback, is very contingent on athletic abilities. It's not baseball where arguments against modernity would hold weight.

I don't understand why you're having such an issue with this concept.[/quote:25hn4kcj]

Wow, you're a real treat aren't you?

You fail to answer a majority of my questions, resort to insults, and then throw up a spiffy sprinting chart to try to show just how smart you are.

Bravo, I hope you feel better about yourself and your argument, which doesn't pass the sniff test in my book.[/quote:25hn4kcj]

I don't understand why you're so fixated on names -- just go to the fantasy football rankings and pick 10. I honestly couldn't care about the names as I'm dealing in theory.

Here:
Jackson, Gore, Peterson, Johnson, Turner, Williams..

The names really don't matter.

Here's the thing though, I don't care if it passes the sniff test in your books. You were confused by a rather simple graph show that people simply got faster. The graph wasn't to prove my intelligence, I know I'm smart. The graph was to show a point.

I hope you didn't get too upset by the name calling, I wouldn't want you angrily colouring outside of the lines while your doing book learnin'.

 

[dfr52]

[quote="BU54CB":auz0ejg9][quote="pigskincardboard":auz0ejg9]
The player that reminds me most of Payton is Clinton Portis. Personally, I think Clinton Portis is/was every bit the back that Walter Payton was with one major difference: health.

I think the days of 300+ carries for 12-13 years are absolutely done. Almost every HOF quality back will follow the LT career path: 6-8 years and then splitting duties. Evaluating career stats is going to be a chore and I can see the HOF screwing up bigtime.

Clinton Portis?!? First I'd say health is a huge problem for Portis, but even without that, IMO Portis is one of the last backs I'd compare to Payton. Have you ever watched film of Walter Payton? I watched him play his whole career, and I've seen quite a few of Portis' games, can't hold a candle to Payton.

Who are your others in the 5-10 backs that are currently better than Walter Payton?

What about Portis' game doesn't compare? When healthy, he was right up their with Payton in terms of every skill. I never said he was better, but he's certainly similar.

Payton and Emmitt both just got the rock a lot and stayed healthy. I have no clue if that's a skill but I have serious problems rating it as the most important skill.

Like I said, you must not have watched Walter Payton play. Portis doesn't run or catch as well as Payton did, Portis isn't even close to the blocker Payton was. Walter Payton was a complete back, he could do everything and do it well. Clinton Portis is a good back, but please, better than Walter Payton, I don't think so.

Sure Payton and Emmitt got the rock, so does every other running back that's any good. Chris Johnson gets the rock, so does Adrian Peterson and Frank Gore. That's what you do if you have a good player, you get them the ball. Walter Payton really didn't have much help at the other skill positions, so he was the focus of the offense. Emmitt Smith had HOFers at QB and WR, yet he's still got the most rushing attempts in NFL history. The only similarity between Clinton Portis and Walter Payton is that they play(ed) in the NFL IMO.

You said there are 5-10 backs that currently play today that are better than Walter Payton. The only back you put out there is Portis and then you say he's similar than Payton, not better. I guess I don't understand how you can make a statement like that and not list your 5-10 backs with a supporting argument.

I don't need to make a case for Walter Payton, his place in NFL history and the respect his career receives from anyone in and around the game speaks for itself.

Are you talking about my assertion of modernity? You can go ahead and pick the five best, ten best, backs in the NFL and they're all better. Of course, that's why we compare players to their competition rather than across eras.

With that said, when you listed Chris Johnson(2 years), Adrian Peterson(3 years) and Frank Gore(5 years), they have a combined 10 years in the NFL. Prior to this year, Gore's averaged 233 rushes per year. Walter Payton had 10-years of over 300 carries.

Over the past 10-20 years, the NFL has become drastically more specialized. A byproduct of this has been a lesser workload for runningbacks. Teams would still rely on workhorse backs long after they'd lost it. They'd also have no qualms about running him 300+ times a year for 10 years. Now, teams have become far more cautious with their superstars.

Anyways, Clinton Portis is a terrific blocker with above average hands and an uncanny ability to get to the second level. His rushing ability has declined massively due to injuries, unfortunately. Everyone seems to undervalue the guy because he broke out under Denver, but he was a terrific all-around back.

You keep telling me to pick the backs, why should I? I'm not the one saying there are 5-10 backs playing today that are better than Walter Payton. Since you can't pick them, I'll assume you feel your statement is erroneous.

Are you saying that the only reason Walter Payton was any good was because he got the ball 300+ times a season? The reason I referred to Johnson, Peterson, and Gore was to assert that when you have a good RB or player for that matter, you get them the ball. Had nothing to do with workload or carries.

I'm not sure what Clinton Portis you watch, but I saw him every game when he played with Denver and many with the Redskins. Never was he a terrific blocker, average at best and still is. There are a ton of backs in the league with above average hands and that can get to the second level. If Portis is such a great back, why does he lack any sort of recognition except for 2 Pro Bowls?[/quote:auz0ejg9]

Do you understand the concept of modernity in sports? The closer to genuine athletics, the better chance that era matters.

Here's a graph of the men's 100M dash:

Was Carl Lewis a great sprinter? Of course. Are there 10 guys out there right now that are better sprinters? Yes. Football, especially runningback, is very contingent on athletic abilities. It's not baseball where arguments against modernity would hold weight.

I don't understand why you're having such an issue with this concept.[/quote:auz0ejg9]

Football isn't just as simple as who is the fastest, biggest, or strongest through.

In terms of 40 yard speed guys like Sanders and Bo Jackson were in the 4.1 range years ago and overall most positions are still w/in the same time range as those 20-30 years ago (if not more).

And why wouldn't Payton be just as successful today? He had good speed, size, power, and was very durable.

 

[dfr52]

[quote="BU54CB":ntb5hms7][quote="pigskincardboard":ntb5hms7][quote="BU54CB":ntb5hms7][quote="pigskincardboard":ntb5hms7]
The player that reminds me most of Payton is Clinton Portis. Personally, I think Clinton Portis is/was every bit the back that Walter Payton was with one major difference: health.

I think the days of 300+ carries for 12-13 years are absolutely done. Almost every HOF quality back will follow the LT career path: 6-8 years and then splitting duties. Evaluating career stats is going to be a chore and I can see the HOF screwing up bigtime.

Clinton Portis?!? First I'd say health is a huge problem for Portis, but even without that, IMO Portis is one of the last backs I'd compare to Payton. Have you ever watched film of Walter Payton? I watched him play his whole career, and I've seen quite a few of Portis' games, can't hold a candle to Payton.

Who are your others in the 5-10 backs that are currently better than Walter Payton?

What about Portis' game doesn't compare? When healthy, he was right up their with Payton in terms of every skill. I never said he was better, but he's certainly similar.

Payton and Emmitt both just got the rock a lot and stayed healthy. I have no clue if that's a skill but I have serious problems rating it as the most important skill.

Like I said, you must not have watched Walter Payton play. Portis doesn't run or catch as well as Payton did, Portis isn't even close to the blocker Payton was. Walter Payton was a complete back, he could do everything and do it well. Clinton Portis is a good back, but please, better than Walter Payton, I don't think so.

Sure Payton and Emmitt got the rock, so does every other running back that's any good. Chris Johnson gets the rock, so does Adrian Peterson and Frank Gore. That's what you do if you have a good player, you get them the ball. Walter Payton really didn't have much help at the other skill positions, so he was the focus of the offense. Emmitt Smith had HOFers at QB and WR, yet he's still got the most rushing attempts in NFL history. The only similarity between Clinton Portis and Walter Payton is that they play(ed) in the NFL IMO.

You said there are 5-10 backs that currently play today that are better than Walter Payton. The only back you put out there is Portis and then you say he's similar than Payton, not better. I guess I don't understand how you can make a statement like that and not list your 5-10 backs with a supporting argument.

I don't need to make a case for Walter Payton, his place in NFL history and the respect his career receives from anyone in and around the game speaks for itself.

Are you talking about my assertion of modernity? You can go ahead and pick the five best, ten best, backs in the NFL and they're all better. Of course, that's why we compare players to their competition rather than across eras.

With that said, when you listed Chris Johnson(2 years), Adrian Peterson(3 years) and Frank Gore(5 years), they have a combined 10 years in the NFL. Prior to this year, Gore's averaged 233 rushes per year. Walter Payton had 10-years of over 300 carries.

Over the past 10-20 years, the NFL has become drastically more specialized. A byproduct of this has been a lesser workload for runningbacks. Teams would still rely on workhorse backs long after they'd lost it. They'd also have no qualms about running him 300+ times a year for 10 years. Now, teams have become far more cautious with their superstars.

Anyways, Clinton Portis is a terrific blocker with above average hands and an uncanny ability to get to the second level. His rushing ability has declined massively due to injuries, unfortunately. Everyone seems to undervalue the guy because he broke out under Denver, but he was a terrific all-around back.

You keep telling me to pick the backs, why should I? I'm not the one saying there are 5-10 backs playing today that are better than Walter Payton. Since you can't pick them, I'll assume you feel your statement is erroneous.

Are you saying that the only reason Walter Payton was any good was because he got the ball 300+ times a season? The reason I referred to Johnson, Peterson, and Gore was to assert that when you have a good RB or player for that matter, you get them the ball. Had nothing to do with workload or carries.

I'm not sure what Clinton Portis you watch, but I saw him every game when he played with Denver and many with the Redskins. Never was he a terrific blocker, average at best and still is. There are a ton of backs in the league with above average hands and that can get to the second level. If Portis is such a great back, why does he lack any sort of recognition except for 2 Pro Bowls?[/quote:ntb5hms7]

Do you understand the concept of modernity in sports? The closer to genuine athletics, the better chance that era matters.

Here's a graph of the men's 100M dash:

Was Carl Lewis a great sprinter? Of course. Are there 10 guys out there right now that are better sprinters? Yes. Football, especially runningback, is very contingent on athletic abilities. It's not baseball where arguments against modernity would hold weight.

I don't understand why you're having such an issue with this concept.[/quote:ntb5hms7]

Wow, you're a real treat aren't you?

You fail to answer a majority of my questions, resort to insults, and then throw up a spiffy sprinting chart to try to show just how smart you are.

Bravo, I hope you feel better about yourself and your argument, which doesn't pass the sniff test in my book.[/quote:ntb5hms7]

I don't understand why you're so fixated on names -- just go to the fantasy football rankings and pick 10. I honestly couldn't care about the names as I'm dealing in theory.

Here:
Jackson, Gore, Peterson, Johnson, Turner, Williams..

The names really don't matter.

Here's the thing though, I don't care if it passes the sniff test in your books. You were confused by a rather simple graph show that people simply got faster. The graph wasn't to prove my intelligence, I know I'm smart. The graph was to show a point.

I hope you didn't get too upset by the name calling, I wouldn't want you angrily colouring outside of the lines while your doing book learnin'.[/quote:ntb5hms7]

I think your premise that modern football players are better than older ones in inaccurate. IMO its too general of an assumption that ignores a players actual production on the field. Just b/c a player has better measureables doesn't always make them a better football player, just look at Rice and Moss. Moss tests off the chart but Rice was clearly the better player.

 

[dfr52]

The player that reminds me most of Payton is Clinton Portis. Personally, I think Clinton Portis is/was every bit the back that Walter Payton was with one major difference: health.

I think the days of 300+ carries for 12-13 years are absolutely done. Almost every HOF quality back will follow the LT career path: 6-8 years and then splitting duties. Evaluating career stats is going to be a chore and I can see the HOF screwing up bigtime.

Clinton Portis?!? First I'd say health is a huge problem for Portis, but even without that, IMO Portis is one of the last backs I'd compare to Payton. Have you ever watched film of Walter Payton? I watched him play his whole career, and I've seen quite a few of Portis' games, can't hold a candle to Payton.

Who are your others in the 5-10 backs that are currently better than Walter Payton?

What about Portis' game doesn't compare? When healthy, he was right up their with Payton in terms of every skill. I never said he was better, but he's certainly similar.

Payton and Emmitt both just got the rock a lot and stayed healthy. I have no clue if that's a skill but I have serious problems rating it as the most important skill.

IMO durablity is a physical gift like speed or strength. Durability might be the most important quality b/c if a player can't stay healthy what good are they?

 

[BU54CB]

[quote="BU54CB":2ftoipqs][quote="pigskincardboard":2ftoipqs][quote="BU54CB":2ftoipqs][quote="pigskincardboard":2ftoipqs]
The player that reminds me most of Payton is Clinton Portis. Personally, I think Clinton Portis is/was every bit the back that Walter Payton was with one major difference: health.

I think the days of 300+ carries for 12-13 years are absolutely done. Almost every HOF quality back will follow the LT career path: 6-8 years and then splitting duties. Evaluating career stats is going to be a chore and I can see the HOF screwing up bigtime.

Clinton Portis?!? First I'd say health is a huge problem for Portis, but even without that, IMO Portis is one of the last backs I'd compare to Payton. Have you ever watched film of Walter Payton? I watched him play his whole career, and I've seen quite a few of Portis' games, can't hold a candle to Payton.

Who are your others in the 5-10 backs that are currently better than Walter Payton?

What about Portis' game doesn't compare? When healthy, he was right up their with Payton in terms of every skill. I never said he was better, but he's certainly similar.

Payton and Emmitt both just got the rock a lot and stayed healthy. I have no clue if that's a skill but I have serious problems rating it as the most important skill.

Like I said, you must not have watched Walter Payton play. Portis doesn't run or catch as well as Payton did, Portis isn't even close to the blocker Payton was. Walter Payton was a complete back, he could do everything and do it well. Clinton Portis is a good back, but please, better than Walter Payton, I don't think so.

Sure Payton and Emmitt got the rock, so does every other running back that's any good. Chris Johnson gets the rock, so does Adrian Peterson and Frank Gore. That's what you do if you have a good player, you get them the ball. Walter Payton really didn't have much help at the other skill positions, so he was the focus of the offense. Emmitt Smith had HOFers at QB and WR, yet he's still got the most rushing attempts in NFL history. The only similarity between Clinton Portis and Walter Payton is that they play(ed) in the NFL IMO.

You said there are 5-10 backs that currently play today that are better than Walter Payton. The only back you put out there is Portis and then you say he's similar than Payton, not better. I guess I don't understand how you can make a statement like that and not list your 5-10 backs with a supporting argument.

I don't need to make a case for Walter Payton, his place in NFL history and the respect his career receives from anyone in and around the game speaks for itself.

Are you talking about my assertion of modernity? You can go ahead and pick the five best, ten best, backs in the NFL and they're all better. Of course, that's why we compare players to their competition rather than across eras.

With that said, when you listed Chris Johnson(2 years), Adrian Peterson(3 years) and Frank Gore(5 years), they have a combined 10 years in the NFL. Prior to this year, Gore's averaged 233 rushes per year. Walter Payton had 10-years of over 300 carries.

Over the past 10-20 years, the NFL has become drastically more specialized. A byproduct of this has been a lesser workload for runningbacks. Teams would still rely on workhorse backs long after they'd lost it. They'd also have no qualms about running him 300+ times a year for 10 years. Now, teams have become far more cautious with their superstars.

Anyways, Clinton Portis is a terrific blocker with above average hands and an uncanny ability to get to the second level. His rushing ability has declined massively due to injuries, unfortunately. Everyone seems to undervalue the guy because he broke out under Denver, but he was a terrific all-around back.

You keep telling me to pick the backs, why should I? I'm not the one saying there are 5-10 backs playing today that are better than Walter Payton. Since you can't pick them, I'll assume you feel your statement is erroneous.

Are you saying that the only reason Walter Payton was any good was because he got the ball 300+ times a season? The reason I referred to Johnson, Peterson, and Gore was to assert that when you have a good RB or player for that matter, you get them the ball. Had nothing to do with workload or carries.

I'm not sure what Clinton Portis you watch, but I saw him every game when he played with Denver and many with the Redskins. Never was he a terrific blocker, average at best and still is. There are a ton of backs in the league with above average hands and that can get to the second level. If Portis is such a great back, why does he lack any sort of recognition except for 2 Pro Bowls?[/quote:2ftoipqs]

Do you understand the concept of modernity in sports? The closer to genuine athletics, the better chance that era matters.

Here's a graph of the men's 100M dash:

Was Carl Lewis a great sprinter? Of course. Are there 10 guys out there right now that are better sprinters? Yes. Football, especially runningback, is very contingent on athletic abilities. It's not baseball where arguments against modernity would hold weight.

I don't understand why you're having such an issue with this concept.[/quote:2ftoipqs]

Wow, you're a real treat aren't you?

You fail to answer a majority of my questions, resort to insults, and then throw up a spiffy sprinting chart to try to show just how smart you are.

Bravo, I hope you feel better about yourself and your argument, which doesn't pass the sniff test in my book.[/quote:2ftoipqs]

I don't understand why you're so fixated on names -- just go to the fantasy football rankings and pick 10. I honestly couldn't care about the names as I'm dealing in theory.

Here:
Jackson, Gore, Peterson, Johnson, Turner, Williams..

The names really don't matter.

Here's the thing though, I don't care if it passes the sniff test in your books. You were confused by a rather simple graph show that people simply got faster. The graph wasn't to prove my intelligence, I know I'm smart. The graph was to show a point.

I hope you didn't get too upset by the name calling, I wouldn't want you angrily colouring outside of the lines while your doing book learnin'.[/quote:2ftoipqs]

You and your chart haven't proven a thing except that sprinters times in the 100M dash have gone down over time. You are making the assumption that better 100M times = better athlete. There are too many other factors to take into consideration, making assumptions is a shortcut. If you can run faster than me, does that make you the better runner or better athlete?

Just because some of the RB's of today may be bigger, stronger, or faster than those of previous eras doesn't make them better RB's or athletes.

I have yet to see your proof that Jackson, Gore, Peterson, Johnson, Turner, Williams, or any other RB of today is better than Walter Payton. All I've seen are some assumptions based on your concept of "modernity in sports."

Are there RB's today that are faster than Payton or that may catch the ball better, sure. There isn't a RB today IMO that is a more complete RB and athlete than Walter Payton.

Here's what I don't understand, why someone as smart as you claim to be needs to resort to childish antics to make themselves feel superior during a debate about opinions?

 

[wheeler281]

1 name for everyone and do not need a graph

RASHARD MENDENHALL

Enough said

Are we really comparing fattie to sweetness

 

[pigskincardboard]

[quote="pigskincardboard":1z8t6pfd][quote="BU54CB":1z8t6pfd][quote="pigskincardboard":1z8t6pfd][quote="BU54CB":1z8t6pfd][quote="pigskincardboard":1z8t6pfd]
The player that reminds me most of Payton is Clinton Portis. Personally, I think Clinton Portis is/was every bit the back that Walter Payton was with one major difference: health.

I think the days of 300+ carries for 12-13 years are absolutely done. Almost every HOF quality back will follow the LT career path: 6-8 years and then splitting duties. Evaluating career stats is going to be a chore and I can see the HOF screwing up bigtime.

Clinton Portis?!? First I'd say health is a huge problem for Portis, but even without that, IMO Portis is one of the last backs I'd compare to Payton. Have you ever watched film of Walter Payton? I watched him play his whole career, and I've seen quite a few of Portis' games, can't hold a candle to Payton.

Who are your others in the 5-10 backs that are currently better than Walter Payton?

What about Portis' game doesn't compare? When healthy, he was right up their with Payton in terms of every skill. I never said he was better, but he's certainly similar.

Payton and Emmitt both just got the rock a lot and stayed healthy. I have no clue if that's a skill but I have serious problems rating it as the most important skill.

Like I said, you must not have watched Walter Payton play. Portis doesn't run or catch as well as Payton did, Portis isn't even close to the blocker Payton was. Walter Payton was a complete back, he could do everything and do it well. Clinton Portis is a good back, but please, better than Walter Payton, I don't think so.

Sure Payton and Emmitt got the rock, so does every other running back that's any good. Chris Johnson gets the rock, so does Adrian Peterson and Frank Gore. That's what you do if you have a good player, you get them the ball. Walter Payton really didn't have much help at the other skill positions, so he was the focus of the offense. Emmitt Smith had HOFers at QB and WR, yet he's still got the most rushing attempts in NFL history. The only similarity between Clinton Portis and Walter Payton is that they play(ed) in the NFL IMO.

You said there are 5-10 backs that currently play today that are better than Walter Payton. The only back you put out there is Portis and then you say he's similar than Payton, not better. I guess I don't understand how you can make a statement like that and not list your 5-10 backs with a supporting argument.

I don't need to make a case for Walter Payton, his place in NFL history and the respect his career receives from anyone in and around the game speaks for itself.

Are you talking about my assertion of modernity? You can go ahead and pick the five best, ten best, backs in the NFL and they're all better. Of course, that's why we compare players to their competition rather than across eras.

With that said, when you listed Chris Johnson(2 years), Adrian Peterson(3 years) and Frank Gore(5 years), they have a combined 10 years in the NFL. Prior to this year, Gore's averaged 233 rushes per year. Walter Payton had 10-years of over 300 carries.

Over the past 10-20 years, the NFL has become drastically more specialized. A byproduct of this has been a lesser workload for runningbacks. Teams would still rely on workhorse backs long after they'd lost it. They'd also have no qualms about running him 300+ times a year for 10 years. Now, teams have become far more cautious with their superstars.

Anyways, Clinton Portis is a terrific blocker with above average hands and an uncanny ability to get to the second level. His rushing ability has declined massively due to injuries, unfortunately. Everyone seems to undervalue the guy because he broke out under Denver, but he was a terrific all-around back.

You keep telling me to pick the backs, why should I? I'm not the one saying there are 5-10 backs playing today that are better than Walter Payton. Since you can't pick them, I'll assume you feel your statement is erroneous.

Are you saying that the only reason Walter Payton was any good was because he got the ball 300+ times a season? The reason I referred to Johnson, Peterson, and Gore was to assert that when you have a good RB or player for that matter, you get them the ball. Had nothing to do with workload or carries.

I'm not sure what Clinton Portis you watch, but I saw him every game when he played with Denver and many with the Redskins. Never was he a terrific blocker, average at best and still is. There are a ton of backs in the league with above average hands and that can get to the second level. If Portis is such a great back, why does he lack any sort of recognition except for 2 Pro Bowls?[/quote:1z8t6pfd]

Do you understand the concept of modernity in sports? The closer to genuine athletics, the better chance that era matters.

Here's a graph of the men's 100M dash:

Was Carl Lewis a great sprinter? Of course. Are there 10 guys out there right now that are better sprinters? Yes. Football, especially runningback, is very contingent on athletic abilities. It's not baseball where arguments against modernity would hold weight.

I don't understand why you're having such an issue with this concept.[/quote:1z8t6pfd]

Wow, you're a real treat aren't you?

You fail to answer a majority of my questions, resort to insults, and then throw up a spiffy sprinting chart to try to show just how smart you are.

Bravo, I hope you feel better about yourself and your argument, which doesn't pass the sniff test in my book.[/quote:1z8t6pfd]

I don't understand why you're so fixated on names -- just go to the fantasy football rankings and pick 10. I honestly couldn't care about the names as I'm dealing in theory.

Here:
Jackson, Gore, Peterson, Johnson, Turner, Williams..

The names really don't matter.

Here's the thing though, I don't care if it passes the sniff test in your books. You were confused by a rather simple graph show that people simply got faster. The graph wasn't to prove my intelligence, I know I'm smart. The graph was to show a point.

I hope you didn't get too upset by the name calling, I wouldn't want you angrily colouring outside of the lines while your doing book learnin'.[/quote:1z8t6pfd]

You and your chart haven't proven a thing except that sprinters times in the 100M dash have gone down over time. You are making the assumption that better 100M times = better athlete. There are too many other factors to take into consideration, making assumptions is a shortcut. If you can run faster than me, does that make you the better runner or better athlete?

Just because some of the RB's of today may be bigger, stronger, or faster than those of previous eras doesn't make them better RB's or athletes.

I have yet to see your proof that Jackson, Gore, Peterson, Johnson, Turner, Williams, or any other RB of today is better than Walter Payton. All I've seen are some assumptions based on your concept of "modernity in sports."

Are there RB's today that are faster than Payton or that may catch the ball better, sure. There isn't a RB today IMO that is a more complete RB and athlete than Walter Payton.

Here's what I don't understand, why someone as smart as you claim to be needs to resort to childish antics to make themselves feel superior during a debate about opinions?[/quote:1z8t6pfd]

Because I didn't resort to childish tactics until you started getting all childish, I simply stated that my amazement at the difficulty that you were having digesting such a simple concept.

What other factors come into play when comparing 100M times? The equipment? hardly. These athletes simply have better, more advanced, training methods. They are bigger, stronger, and faster. Also, with the player pool and scouting budgets growing infinitely, the level of play and the athlete are just greater.

Large Pool + Better Training Methods = Current Pro Athletes are Better than Previous Athletes.

If you took any professional athlete from 2010 and stuck him in 1970-1980, he would dominate. It wouldn't be close. Stephen Jackson would run for 3000 yards per year.

It's nice to see that you're trying to digest relatively easy concepts, but an A for effort means squat in my books.

 

[pigskincardboard]

1 name for everyone and do not need a graph

RASHARD MENDENHALL

Enough said

Are we really comparing fattie to sweetness

Rashard Mendenhall went to Illinois and thus, sucks.

He's starting to toughen up though, which is cool. His first couple years he was pretty soft and fit right into that Pittsburgh line-up.

 

[BU54CB]

Because I didn't resort to childish tactics until you started getting all childish, I simply stated that my amazement at the difficulty that you were having digesting such a simple concept.

What other factors come into play when comparing 100M times? The equipment? hardly. These athletes simply have better, more advanced, training methods. They are bigger, stronger, and faster. Also, with the player pool and scouting budgets growing infinitely, the level of play and the athlete are just greater.

Large Pool + Better Training Methods = Current Pro Athletes are Better than Previous Athletes.

If you took any professional athlete from 2010 and stuck him in 1970-1980, he would dominate. It wouldn't be close. Stephen Jackson would run for 3000 yards per year.

It's nice to see that you're trying to digest relatively easy concepts, but an A for effort means squat in my books.

HAHAHAHAHAHA, Steven Jackson would have 3000 yards in 1970-1980, I haven't heard something that funny in a long time. I guess if Walter Payton played today, he'd be a backup according in your world. Thanks for the good laugh !!

The 100 greatest players makes a great topic for debate, and actually respected some of your thoughts until you felt the need to resort to insults and a condescending attitude. That's where I lost my respect for you and your thoughts, so I'm done with you now.

 

[wheeler281]

ftr Stephen Jackson is a punk roundballer

That being said Steven Jackson would not have 3000 yards if we teleported him to circa 1985. That is pretty crazy

 

[pigskincardboard]

ftr Stephen Jackson is a punk roundballer

That being said Steven Jackson would not have 3000 yards if we teleported him to circa 1985. That is pretty crazy

Well, 3000 yards is over the top. Stick him in Oakland, average him about 5.7-5.8 yards per carry and call it a day. Jackson would rush for about 2300 yards.

 

[dfr52]

[quote="BU54CB":38b7agqy][quote="pigskincardboard":38b7agqy][quote="BU54CB":38b7agqy][quote="pigskincardboard":38b7agqy][quote="BU54CB":38b7agqy][quote="pigskincardboard":38b7agqy]
The player that reminds me most of Payton is Clinton Portis. Personally, I think Clinton Portis is/was every bit the back that Walter Payton was with one major difference: health.

I think the days of 300+ carries for 12-13 years are absolutely done. Almost every HOF quality back will follow the LT career path: 6-8 years and then splitting duties. Evaluating career stats is going to be a chore and I can see the HOF screwing up bigtime.

Clinton Portis?!? First I'd say health is a huge problem for Portis, but even without that, IMO Portis is one of the last backs I'd compare to Payton. Have you ever watched film of Walter Payton? I watched him play his whole career, and I've seen quite a few of Portis' games, can't hold a candle to Payton.

Who are your others in the 5-10 backs that are currently better than Walter Payton?

What about Portis' game doesn't compare? When healthy, he was right up their with Payton in terms of every skill. I never said he was better, but he's certainly similar.

Payton and Emmitt both just got the rock a lot and stayed healthy. I have no clue if that's a skill but I have serious problems rating it as the most important skill.

Like I said, you must not have watched Walter Payton play. Portis doesn't run or catch as well as Payton did, Portis isn't even close to the blocker Payton was. Walter Payton was a complete back, he could do everything and do it well. Clinton Portis is a good back, but please, better than Walter Payton, I don't think so.

Sure Payton and Emmitt got the rock, so does every other running back that's any good. Chris Johnson gets the rock, so does Adrian Peterson and Frank Gore. That's what you do if you have a good player, you get them the ball. Walter Payton really didn't have much help at the other skill positions, so he was the focus of the offense. Emmitt Smith had HOFers at QB and WR, yet he's still got the most rushing attempts in NFL history. The only similarity between Clinton Portis and Walter Payton is that they play(ed) in the NFL IMO.

You said there are 5-10 backs that currently play today that are better than Walter Payton. The only back you put out there is Portis and then you say he's similar than Payton, not better. I guess I don't understand how you can make a statement like that and not list your 5-10 backs with a supporting argument.

I don't need to make a case for Walter Payton, his place in NFL history and the respect his career receives from anyone in and around the game speaks for itself.

Are you talking about my assertion of modernity? You can go ahead and pick the five best, ten best, backs in the NFL and they're all better. Of course, that's why we compare players to their competition rather than across eras.

With that said, when you listed Chris Johnson(2 years), Adrian Peterson(3 years) and Frank Gore(5 years), they have a combined 10 years in the NFL. Prior to this year, Gore's averaged 233 rushes per year. Walter Payton had 10-years of over 300 carries.

Over the past 10-20 years, the NFL has become drastically more specialized. A byproduct of this has been a lesser workload for runningbacks. Teams would still rely on workhorse backs long after they'd lost it. They'd also have no qualms about running him 300+ times a year for 10 years. Now, teams have become far more cautious with their superstars.

Anyways, Clinton Portis is a terrific blocker with above average hands and an uncanny ability to get to the second level. His rushing ability has declined massively due to injuries, unfortunately. Everyone seems to undervalue the guy because he broke out under Denver, but he was a terrific all-around back.

You keep telling me to pick the backs, why should I? I'm not the one saying there are 5-10 backs playing today that are better than Walter Payton. Since you can't pick them, I'll assume you feel your statement is erroneous.

Are you saying that the only reason Walter Payton was any good was because he got the ball 300+ times a season? The reason I referred to Johnson, Peterson, and Gore was to assert that when you have a good RB or player for that matter, you get them the ball. Had nothing to do with workload or carries.

I'm not sure what Clinton Portis you watch, but I saw him every game when he played with Denver and many with the Redskins. Never was he a terrific blocker, average at best and still is. There are a ton of backs in the league with above average hands and that can get to the second level. If Portis is such a great back, why does he lack any sort of recognition except for 2 Pro Bowls?[/quote:38b7agqy]

Do you understand the concept of modernity in sports? The closer to genuine athletics, the better chance that era matters.

Here's a graph of the men's 100M dash:

Was Carl Lewis a great sprinter? Of course. Are there 10 guys out there right now that are better sprinters? Yes. Football, especially runningback, is very contingent on athletic abilities. It's not baseball where arguments against modernity would hold weight.

I don't understand why you're having such an issue with this concept.[/quote:38b7agqy]

Wow, you're a real treat aren't you?

You fail to answer a majority of my questions, resort to insults, and then throw up a spiffy sprinting chart to try to show just how smart you are.

Bravo, I hope you feel better about yourself and your argument, which doesn't pass the sniff test in my book.[/quote:38b7agqy]

I don't understand why you're so fixated on names -- just go to the fantasy football rankings and pick 10. I honestly couldn't care about the names as I'm dealing in theory.

Here:
Jackson, Gore, Peterson, Johnson, Turner, Williams..

The names really don't matter.

Here's the thing though, I don't care if it passes the sniff test in your books. You were confused by a rather simple graph show that people simply got faster. The graph wasn't to prove my intelligence, I know I'm smart. The graph was to show a point.

I hope you didn't get too upset by the name calling, I wouldn't want you angrily colouring outside of the lines while your doing book learnin'.[/quote:38b7agqy]

You and your chart haven't proven a thing except that sprinters times in the 100M dash have gone down over time. You are making the assumption that better 100M times = better athlete. There are too many other factors to take into consideration, making assumptions is a shortcut. If you can run faster than me, does that make you the better runner or better athlete?

Just because some of the RB's of today may be bigger, stronger, or faster than those of previous eras doesn't make them better RB's or athletes.

I have yet to see your proof that Jackson, Gore, Peterson, Johnson, Turner, Williams, or any other RB of today is better than Walter Payton. All I've seen are some assumptions based on your concept of "modernity in sports."

Are there RB's today that are faster than Payton or that may catch the ball better, sure. There isn't a RB today IMO that is a more complete RB and athlete than Walter Payton.

Here's what I don't understand, why someone as smart as you claim to be needs to resort to childish antics to make themselves feel superior during a debate about opinions?[/quote:38b7agqy]

Because I didn't resort to childish tactics until you started getting all childish, I simply stated that my amazement at the difficulty that you were having digesting such a simple concept.

What other factors come into play when comparing 100M times? The equipment? hardly. These athletes simply have better, more advanced, training methods. They are bigger, stronger, and faster. Also, with the player pool and scouting budgets growing infinitely, the level of play and the athlete are just greater.

Large Pool + Better Training Methods = Current Pro Athletes are Better than Previous Athletes.

If you took any professional athlete from 2010 and stuck him in 1970-1980, he would dominate. It wouldn't be close. Stephen Jackson would run for 3000 yards per year.

It's nice to see that you're trying to digest relatively easy concepts, but an A for effort means squat in my books.[/quote:38b7agqy]

A bigger, faster, and stronger athlete doesn't necessarily translate into a better football player. There are still other criteria like skill level, intelligence, durability, and the ability to be coached (as examples) that need to be considered. IMO its a huge leap to assume that today's players are naturally better than former ones based only on measureables. I also don't know if every player today is actually stronger or faster than those who played years ago. The biggest changes are along the lines where guys have gotten heavier. Besides that most positions are very similar from the 60's to today.

How would Jackson go for any where near 3,000 yards? There were plenty of bigger backs w/ speed in the 70's and they didn't post that kind of yardage. Harris, Campbell, Simpson were all good sized backs that could really move and the best any of them did was 2,000 yards. Also how long would Jackson last getting blasted by guys like Lanier who would use their helmet to knock guys out.

 

[gt2590]

This weeks' list.

40. OJ Simpson
39. Gino Marchetti
38. Lance Alworth
37. Jim Thorpe
36. Raymond Berry
35. Chuck Bednarik
34. Deion Sanders
33. Sid Luckman
32. Jim Parker
31. Bruce Smith

It's really getting harder to complain about any of them. I personally think Alworth was much better than Berry, but Berry was on better team and that always helps. And heaven help whoever has to tell Bednarik he finished behind "Primetime". He absolutely HATED him and would rip him as a player when he had the chance. He might deck whoever the poor soul is that has to give him that news. :lol:

And IMO, Bruce Smith and OJ probably should be higher. I always thought Smith was better than Reggie White but didn't get the recognition he deserved.

 

[dfr52]

This weeks' list.

40. OJ Simpson
39. Gino Marchetti
38. Lance Alworth
37. Jim Thorpe
36. Raymond Berry
35. Chuck Bednarik
34. Deion Sanders
33. Sid Luckman
32. Jim Parker
31. Bruce Smith

It's really getting harder to complain about any of them. I personally think Alworth was much better than Berry, but Berry was on better team and that always helps. And heaven help whoever has to tell Bednarik he finished behind "Primetime". He absolutely HATED him and would rip him as a player when he had the chance. He might deck whoever the poor soul is that has to give him that news. :lol:

And IMO, Bruce Smith and OJ probably should be higher. I always thought Smith was better than Reggie White but didn't get the recognition he deserved.

I was very surprised to see some of the names listed as #40-31. I really thought Simpson would have been ranked higher than Sayers who will probably be rated in the 20's or teens.

Great point on Alworth, I have never seen him rated lower than Berry so I don't know the reasoning behind that one. I always thought White and Smith were pretty even but for whatever reason Smith gets the shaft when they are compared.

I was surprised to see Bednarik and Thorpe in the 30's. I thought Bednarik would fall in the 20's and Thorpe possibly in the top 10.

 

[pigskincardboard]

This weeks' list.

40. OJ Simpson
39. Gino Marchetti
38. Lance Alworth
37. Jim Thorpe
36. Raymond Berry
35. Chuck Bednarik
34. Deion Sanders
33. Sid Luckman
32. Jim Parker
31. Bruce Smith

It's really getting harder to complain about any of them. I personally think Alworth was much better than Berry, but Berry was on better team and that always helps. And heaven help whoever has to tell Bednarik he finished behind "Primetime". He absolutely HATED him and would rip him as a player when he had the chance. He might deck whoever the poor soul is that has to give him that news. :lol:

And IMO, Bruce Smith and OJ probably should be higher. I always thought Smith was better than Reggie White but didn't get the recognition he deserved.

My personal love for O.J. aside, that's a pretty terrific list. For some reason, Bruce Smith never really got the recognition that Reggie White did. They were two completely different ends, playing two completely different positions, in two completely different schemes. With that said, their stats were uncannily similar.

Quite frankly, it would've been more enjoyable to see Reggie White with the Bills and Smith w/ the Eagles/Packers.

I think this list is very biased towards college careers, draft status, as well.

 

[dfr52]

This weeks' list.

40. OJ Simpson
39. Gino Marchetti
38. Lance Alworth
37. Jim Thorpe
36. Raymond Berry
35. Chuck Bednarik
34. Deion Sanders
33. Sid Luckman
32. Jim Parker
31. Bruce Smith

It's really getting harder to complain about any of them. I personally think Alworth was much better than Berry, but Berry was on better team and that always helps. And heaven help whoever has to tell Bednarik he finished behind "Primetime". He absolutely HATED him and would rip him as a player when he had the chance. He might deck whoever the poor soul is that has to give him that news. :lol:

And IMO, Bruce Smith and OJ probably should be higher. I always thought Smith was better than Reggie White but didn't get the recognition he deserved.

My personal love for O.J. aside, that's a pretty terrific list. For some reason, Bruce Smith never really got the recognition that Reggie White did. They were two completely different ends, playing two completely different positions, in two completely different schemes. With that said, their stats were uncannily similar.

Quite frankly, it would've been more enjoyable to see Reggie White with the Bills and Smith w/ the Eagles/Packers.

I think this list is very biased towards college careers, draft status, as well.

Its funny that Smith was a 3-4 end but played more like a 4-3 one lining up straight on the tackle or on his outside shoulder (especially on passong downs).

 

[dfr52]

30. Night Train Lane
29. Jack Lambert
28. Emmitt Smith
27. Merlin Olsen
26. Bob Lilly
25. Dan Marino
24. John Hannah
23. John Elway
22. Gale Sayers
21. Tom Brady

 

[dfr52]

Emmitt Smith at #28. :x

I've never seen a player's success contributed to the players around him like the way it is w/ Smith. Its forgotten that 4/5 Dallas' OL, Irvin, Novacek, and Aikman were all veterans and in the league before Smith arrived. Smith comes to the Cowboys and instantly has success yet he's only great b/c of those around him. ::facepalm:: J.Brown was surrounded w/ just as much talent (probably more on the OL) and its never mentioned.

IMO Smith is penalized b/c he lacked speed and highlight runs. W/ Smith it has always been about what he isn't or can't do rather than what he is or what he actually can do on the field.

I also don't understand why Brady and Sayers are so high.

 

[gt2590]

No way Brady is better than Marino or Elway, but I can't really argue with Sayers over Emmitt. Only 3 RBs left, if my count is correct. Can't really argue with that.

Really tough to make a distinction at this low of a player rating anyway.

 

[dfr52]

No way Brady is better than Marino or Elway, but I can't really argue with Sayers over Emmitt. Only 3 RBs left, if my count is correct. Can't really argue with that.

Really tough to make a distinction at this low of a player rating anyway.

My issue w/ Sayers is that his career was so brief that the 20's seems very high for him. Had Smith's career been over after the 1995 season due to injury would he get the "Gale Sayers treatment"? Probably, and Smith would be remembered more fondly since he would have been hurt during his prime. Sayers deserves a spot on the list but not over the league's most successful back.