Nors said:
Stop trying to welch on your Swann post - you said it. Big, Big Lie - Swann - Sham he's in HOF.
http://www.profootball-reference.com/players/SwanLy00.htm
Let's analyze what I said shall we, not what you claim I said. Oh, I realize you won't even read all of this much less try to comprehend it, but I'm really just doing this to humor those who already know how full of it you are.
Hostile said:
Swann and Namath had a bigger impact on the game.
I defy you to show me the word "deserving" or any sysnonym of it in that sentence. I defy you to show me the words "Hall of Fame" or any inference to it (the HOF) in that sentence.
You see Skippy, what you are claiming I said, wasn't said. There isn't even a semblence of it there. The only player I have referenced to in this entire thread as it pertains to the Hall of Fame is Drew Bledsoe. Not Lynn Swann. Not Joe Namath. When I talked about those players I said they "impacted" the game in a way Drew had not. I realize you must be thoroughly confused now, so let me be helpful.
First of all it was a complete sentence so it should be easily understood. I'm sure most did. It was in English so that should have helped. Let's break the sentence down point by point and see if it helps you out.
1. Co-subjects being (Lynn) Swann and (Joe) Namath. Subjects are what the sentence is about. Also called nouns. In this case they are "proper" nouns because they are people.
2. The verb or action for that statement is "had." This is the past participle of "have." It means to possess. You might understand it better as "own." As in, I "own" you in these debates because you take stances that you can't defend.
3. The word "a" is an indirect obect. It means something is indistinct.
4. "Bigger" is an adjective that has to do with a quanitfiable comparison. A synonym would be "greater" or "larger."
5. "Impact" seems to be the word that has you totally confused. In this case "impact" is the object of the sentence. I am using it to mean "influence." I'll clear this up for you.
6. "On the game" is a prepositional phrase that ends with the object being "game." In this case we are talking about the game of football. This is the second area where you are apparently really confused. I'll clear that up as well.
I just translated my sentence for you. I broke it down word for word and gave you meanings and purpose for the use of those words. I did it in plain and proper English with complete phrases. There is nothing hidden with the possible sole exception of what the sentence is a part of. So, let's get that out of the way so nothing is left to question. It is a comparison to the subject of the thread meaning Drew Bledsoe and his candidacy for the Hall of Fame.
So, in a nutshell I said that 2 players from a bygone era had more influence on the game of football than Drew Bledsoe.
Now, where you are really confused seems to be the relationship between the game of football and the Hall of Fame. You see, I said "on the game" meaning football. Football could go on without the Hall of Fame. There would be no Hall of Fame without the game. They aren't even co-dependant. If you need me to explain co-dependency to you, just ask. I'm good at Teddy Bear analogies.
In other words, in this statement that you are hung up on I have not even mentioned the Hall of Fame, so it is impossible for me to have said anyone "deserves" to be in it. There's no relation. You made the leap, I didn't push you over the cliff.
You with me so far? Probably not, but we need to go on.
"Influence" on the game. I am maintaining that Lynn Swann and Joe Namath had a bigger "influence" on the game. Remember, the game is not the Hall of Fame. Influence, how can we define influence? Actually it isn't hard at all.
Let's start with Joe Namath because he played the same position as the "control." Oh sorry, you probably need that defined too. The control is the constant in the equation. Bledsoe is the control because he is being compared (by you incidently) to both Namath and Swann.
What did Namath do for the game of football? The answer is Super Bowl III which changed the face of American football forever. Now, is this "influence?" Yes, this is influence. Bigger impact on the game? Yes, it is a pretty big impact on the game. It directly affected the AFL - NFL merger. If you do not realize how big that was then you really do not know what you are talking about. Without what Namath did in that game the merger never happens. If the merger doesnt happen the Super Bowl would eventually cease to exist. I think it is safe to say the Super Bowl has "influence."
Remember I drew a comparison where you felt I made a definitive statement about worthiness and that we are talking about 2 different subjects. Me, the game of football, and you, the Hall of Fame.
So, on one comparison I showed greater "impact" at an equal position.
Now let's get to Mr. Swann. How to show that a WR had a bigger impact or greater influence than a QB. Impossible you say? Au contraire mon frere. It can be done.
First of all, Mr. Swann has won 4 Super Bowl rings. Influence, impact? Oh, at least that. You see, in the real world this does matter to most. Is it the be all proof? Nope. But it is bigger impact, which
is what I claimed.
But now, the coup de gras of this mock opera. The true way to judge impact or influence on the game. When legendary players who follow talk about how the players of the past impacted them.
Jerry Rice, the greatest WR of all time, on Lynn Swann.
Jerry Rice said:
Lynn Swann was an idol. It would amaze me how he could fly through the air and make those catches.
So, Lynn Swann impacted the life of the greatest WR to ever lace them up.
Uh, we call that "impact" in the real world.
