LT talks 'NFL Top Ten RB' on Irvin Show - 6/12/08

[starfrombirth]

My public service announcement.... This back and forth enmity has to stop guys and gals. I've loved this board since I found it 4 years ago. Some of the most intelligent and resourceful fans anywhere post on this board and it has come to be the most popular Cowboys board because of it. But it's not fun anymore. Every (many) threads that I enter end up being attacks on people intelligence, discourse on semantics, and overall bashing on individual posters. This is supposed to be a place where we can have differing opinions about our team and players on it without fear of embarrassment, ridicule, or attack. Can we please go back to that? Adam is phenomenal when it comes to stats. DCfanatic has great links, and many others have thoughtful and informative posts. I, for one, am tired of this war of words. I am honestly thinking about finding another place to frequent. I wonder how many more have peeked here and left or found their patience running out before mine. Lets talk some Cowboys and have fun... OK? eace:

 

[BAZ]

Yeah, so, um, LT's picks were interesting..........guys? HAI GAISSSSSSSSSS!

 

[jobberone]

Except he never did it even one time back then. His longest TD run was 61 yards.

He might go that far on returns or even catches, but he wouldn't have 80-yard TD runs on a regular basis.




I'm sure a lot of people here would put Earl Campbell on their list.

You're not old enough to have seen Sayers. Why couldn't he run hypothetical 80 yd runs today assuming he didn't age? I do doubt he could give us an 80 yd run at his age now though although if anyone could do it, Sayers could.

There's no telling what Sayers could have accomplished had he stayed healthy or benefited from modern orthopedics. Sayers was one of the most gifted runners I've ever seen.

 

[BehindEnemyLinez]

Damn, what was this thread about again?! :laugh2:

 

[WoodysGirl]

Damn, what was this thread about again?! :laugh2:

Something about the top 10 running backs in NFL history...but I could be wrong.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Simple.

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2111223&postcount=53

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2116469&postcount=10

Is it your contention that these two links represent the sum total of every time DCFanatic has opened him mouth?

Wow.

Quiet guy.

If that's your standard, then there are billions of people who ignore him every time he opens his mouth.

American Heritage Dictionary
ig·nore
To refuse to pay attention to; disregard.

So, now you're saying that "billions of people" refuse to pay attention to DCFanatic every time he opens his mouth? I don't know about you, but I'm greatly impressed that "billions of people" are even aware of DCFanatic's existence. After all, billions of people can't refuse something from another person without first being aware that they've been offered something from that person.

Adam, in all likelihood, you will never be able to prove this statement (or the prior one) literally. But very few people here would expect you to do so because they know you're engaging in hyperbole and they realize the utter ridiculousness of subjecting a hyberbolic statement to such literalist scrutiny when it was never meant to be taken literally.

Adam, you're an intelligent, knowledgeable, and insightful poster, and virtually everyone here respects your opinion even when they're diametrically opposed to it.

However, you, like everyone else here, engages in hyperbole. So, rather than holding other posters accountable for the literal meanings of statements that were never meant to be taken literally, why don't you engage them in discussion and try to gain a better understanding of their argument?

You're a smart person, Adam. You don't need to rely on such tactics to score points in a debate.

 

[Rackat]

Just out of curiosity, how are those that don't know much history on Sayers supposed to know it was hyperbole?

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Just out of curiosity, how are those that don't know much history on Sayers supposed to know it was hyperbole?

In precisely the same way they would know that billions of people don't really ignore DCFanatic every time he opens his mouth.

It's an obvious exaggeration.

Anyone who watches football regularly (which would likely constitute the vast majority of people who visit this board) knows that a single player does not often make 80 yard runs throughout the course of his career.

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

Hey DCfanatic, thanks for sharing your opinion. Adam is quite insightful with the stats, but he can sometimes oversaturate.

 

[jterrell]

1. Jim Brown. Guy was a Pro Bowler every season of his career and 1st team All Pro all but one. His fewest rushing TDs in a season was 7. He averaged over 100 yards per game rushing for his career.

2. Emmitt Smith. Amazingly durable and tough. Off the charts career totals with 165 rushing TDs, over 18K rushing yards and over 21K yards from scrimmage. Was the main cog of dominant offense. 8 Pro Bowls, 4 1st team All-Pros. 3 Super Bowl Trophies.

3. Payton. 9 time Pro Bowler and 5 time 1st team All Pro. Another amazingly productive and tough back.

4. Marshall Faulk. 7 Pro Bowls, 3 All-Pros. Amazingly effective out of backfield. Had long career for a guy his size and whose strength was agility and quickness. Over a career, the very best of the scat back types.

5. OJ Simpson. 2000 yard season in a 14 game season. Amazingly productive through 6 or 7 years. Was the greatest back of his era.

6. Earl Campbell. Numbers do not do justice to the effect he had on games and on his teams. He was their entire offense. Not sure any RB in history had more asked of them. His company makes a great sausage as well.

7. Barry Sanders. Unbelievable talent who was built for SportsCenter era. Running style got himself into and out of trouble better than anyone but seemingly had more negative runs than any other "greats. 41 fumbles over 9 years is high but he was a horrid fumbler as a rookie.

8. Gale Sayers. Very much like Barry Sanders but injuries robbed him of longevity. With only 39 total rushing TDs can not push him higher than this.

9. LaDainian Tomlinson. Have to include the current best HB. Already has 3 All-Pros, 5 Pro Bowls and 115 rushing TDs(16 more than Sanders had) to his credit. Team was built around him and has been winning though has not managed to win a championship. With some longevity and a Super Bowl he moves up the list.

10. Eric Dickerson. 6 time Pro Bowler, 5 time All-Pro. Only player in league history to average over 90 yards rushing per game for more than a 10 season span. Sanders was only other guy to do so for 10 seasons.

Curtis Martin and some others are certainly worthy of consideration here and at some point you just hit preferences.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

I should have been clear and said the subject matter of a *thread* rather than a given *post.* Hyperbole as it pertains to the subject matter of a thread drives the discussion into a ditch and can and should be avoided. It's the difference between 'So-and-so can't tackle' and 'you're always annoying.' We should care if and why someone can't tackle. We're less interested in other aspects of a thread, such as why one poster finds another annoying.

I know what hyperbole is, and I know it's not to be taken literally. You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Exaggeration, intentional or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of a thread isn't often helpful and is often intentionally inflammatory. If a poster chooses to engage in it, they should be prepared to answer for it. That's not highly formal or academic, and it's not ludicrous.

In my experience, hyperbole only "drives the discussion into a ditch" when certain posters become strict literalists about it. Furthermore, I don't see how hyperbolic personal attacks against fellow posters would be any less detrimental to the discussion than hyperbolic criticisms against certain football players. In fact, if your primary concern with hyperbole is that it hinders and/or redirects the discusion, you should probably have more concern for hyperbolic personal attacks because their potential for derailing a discussion is much higher.

I'm not trying to disuade anyone from challenging the opinions of posters who make hyperbolic statements such as "so-and-so can't tackle." I'm only pointing out the ridiculousness of treating such a comment as the sum total of a person's argument when it was obviously not meant literally. If, over the course of discussion, you discover that hyperbole is their only recourse, you should consider admonishing them.

However, in this particular instance, hyperbole was not DCFanatic's only recourse. He was simply emphasizing the explosiveness of Gale Sayers.

I have no problem with hyperbole in general. It's when it's used to distract from an interesting discussion that you'll hear me complain.

We've covered that not all hyperbole is the same and why we shouldn't pretend it is. DCFs posts are no different from anyone else's in this regard. I agree that the 80 yard run comment was completely innocuous. I also appreciated the context Adam provided re: how rare 80 yard runs from scrimmage actually are.

I'm not pretending that all hyperbole is the same. I'm simply commenting on the inevitability of it.

Hyperbole is, in many ways, the fuel of Internet message board discussion. Expecting posters to refrain from hyperbole is indeed ludicrous when it is such a common and pervasive part of informal communication. Make no mistake, this board is completely informal and colloquial. And unless we intend to start reprimanding or giving failing grades to those who use hyperbole, I suggest you simply get used to it.

 

[Rackat]

And while DCF's post re: Sayers was (to most) an obvious hyperbolic statement, there are those that even though they visit this message board would not have known it was hyperbole since it was the only one the list that was made as a statement. Regardless, both DCF and Adam are forum members that contribute value to this site.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

See, I just don't think Faulk was even nearly that good. He never impressed me to the point where I said, "Wow, that's one of the best who ever lived" like a Payton or a Sanders or a Dickerson.

And Adam gets attacked a lot when he shows that facts disprove someone's opinion. But that shouldn't make anyone mad at the guy.

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

See, I just don't think Faulk was even nearly that good. He never impressed me to the point where I said, "Wow, that's one of the best who ever lived" like a Payton or a Sanders or a Dickerson.

And Adam gets attacked a lot when he shows that facts disprove someone's opinion. But that shouldn't make anyone mad at the guy.

I personally don't feel that my comment was an attack on Adam rather than a general statement made from years of making daily visits to this forum and forming an opinion of the approach of these two posters. DCFanatic tends to throw out hyperbole in his comments. It is not intended to annoy anyone, it is simply part of the way he expresses himself here.

On the flip-side, DC should know by now that Adam is going to review the stats as stats and therefore DC is potentially setting himself up for a "posted spanking" each time he throws it out there.

Listen, It isn't like Adam and DC are noobs. They have both been around for quite a long time and have both contributed enough that each member here should email them a sincere expression of gratitude. Taking a second to consider the viewers of this board and/or the source of the statements prior to hitting that "Submit" button isn't unreasonable for them or anyone else.

 

[starfrombirth]

See, I just don't think Faulk was even nearly that good. He never impressed me to the point where I said, "Wow, that's one of the best who ever lived" like a Payton or a Sanders or a Dickerson.

And Adam gets attacked a lot when he shows that facts disprove someone's opinion. But that shouldn't make anyone mad at the guy.

I'm of the opposite opinion. He was not only a great receiver out of the backfield, he could find the holes and accelerate thru them as good as any "pure" running back ever could. All in all, I think he was the best receiving rb and probably top 5 running rb. Injuries finally got the best of him tho and that is what limited his ranking in my book. Longevity always needs to be considered in cases where "all time" are used.

 

[Idgit]

In my experience, hyperbole only "drives the discussion into a ditch" when certain posters become strict literalists about it. Furthermore, I don't see how hyperbolic personal attacks against fellow posters would be any less detrimental to the discussion than hyperbolic criticisms against certain football players. In fact, if your primary concern with hyperbole is that it hinders and/or redirects the discusion, you should probably have more concern for hyperbolic personal attacks because their potential for derailing a discussion is much higher.

The issue there isn't the hyperbole, it's the personal attack. And there are already rules in place governing personal attacks.

I'm not trying to disuade anyone from challenging the opinions of posters who make hyperbolic statements such as "so-and-so can't tackle." I'm only pointing out the ridiculousness of treating such a comment as the sum total of a person's argument when it was obviously not meant literally. If, over the course of discussion, you discover that hyperbole is their only recourse, you should consider admonishing them.

However, in this particular instance, hyperbole was not DCFanatic's only recourse. He was simply emphasizing the explosiveness of Gale Sayers.

In many cases, the hyperbole is the sum total of the argument. Or else it's impossible to distinguish the real argument because 'so and so can't tackle' is patently false on the surface and there's not enough other data in the statement to make any reasonable basis for a discussion.

You'll get no argument from me re: DFC's comment re: Sayers. I've already made that clear above. This debate was a carry-over from a RW thread where the attack on a different intentional exaggeration was relevant.

I'm not pretending that all hyperbole is the same. I'm simply commenting on the inevitability of it.

Hyperbole is, in many ways, the fuel of Internet message board discussion. Expecting posters to refrain from hyperbole is indeed ludicrous when it is such a common and pervasive part of informal communication. Make no mistake, this board is completely informal and colloquial. And unless we intend to start reprimanding or giving failing grades to those who use hyperbole, I suggest you simply get used to it.

Exaggeration is inevitable. I'm not clear why you think I expect anyone to refrain from it, b/c I keep saying the opposite. Intentionally exaggerating a point for emphasis with someone who disagrees with both the point and the exaggeration is going to get called on a discussion board. Informal or formal has nothing to do with it.

I use the 'ignore' button as a failing grade, and my banned list is full of posters who don't contribute information and only contribute unsupported opinions. The many other posters here who bring thoughtful posts or who amuse me, or both, get high marks from me regardless of how often and how much they exaggerate.

 

[Idgit]

See, I just don't think Faulk was even nearly that good. He never impressed me to the point where I said, "Wow, that's one of the best who ever lived" like a Payton or a Sanders or a Dickerson.

And Adam gets attacked a lot when he shows that facts disprove someone's opinion. But that shouldn't make anyone mad at the guy.

I'm with you on this one, CL. Faulk was a great RB for his time, but not one of the all-time greats. He was also a bit of a malcontent, and he's a bit of a mincing prima dona, too, on NFL network. I was listening to him today say he'd be very comfortable running behind Jonathan Ogden in his day. Really, Marshall? That's awfully big of you! He bugs me a little bit, and I think he was (slightly) overrated.

Re: Adam and DCF, I wish DCF would get in the habit of ignoring or simply saying 'thanks for the clarification, Adam' and moving on. At least, that's what I would do in his place.

Separately, Adam's such an asset to this board. His manner is upfront. So what? This place would be a lot less interesting if he were to stop posting here. The level of disrespect he gets right now from some posters (not naming anybody in particular) is personal and unsupported. It'd be a shame to trade his contribution for a handful of sand.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

I'm with you on this one, CL. Faulk was a great RB for his time, but not one of the all-time greats.

That's it in a nutshell for me. One of the best of his day? Sure. One of the best of all-time? No way.

 

[CATCH17]

Right, because anyone who knows anything about the NFL must be a nerd who leads a boring life.

Got any more completely off-base cliches you'd like to throw out there, Rampage and bbgun? I'm sure someone might find them funny.

Adam take it as a compliment.

Your so freaking amazing at what you do people just want to know "who the heck this guy is".

Its insane sometimes.

It pisses me off beyond belief every now and again when you use a stat as the end all be all but with out a doubt your posting is beyond incredible.

 

[Rampage]

Adam take it as a compliment.

Your so freaking amazing at what you do people just want to know "who the heck this guy is".

Its insane sometimes.

It pisses me off beyond belief every now and again when you use a stat as the end all be all but with out a doubt your posting is beyond incredible.

i already figured out who he is. this is Adam