Terrell Owens defenders???

[Hostile]

Hos,

I dont think Sanders always put the Lions in a difficult situations.....I agree he had alot of negative yards....but he also gave you alot of yards when there wasnt anything there. He was a great threat....

I guess you would also like to have a QB that drives the bus instead of one like Farve....or even Romo that do make alot of mistakes....but also throw for alot of TD's

Go back and look at the punting stats for the Barry Sanders years. They punted all the time. Far too often for a team with a Back that good. If you can find the game stats from those years you will also see that if you look at the play by play that if you took away Barry's longest run of the game he often barely averaged 2.5 yards per carry. But he'd mix in a 60+ yard run and it would look like 4.5 yards per carry.

Barry was a drive killer and a jow dropper at the same time.

No, I'd much rather have an accurate QB who is a bit of a gambler, but the QB isn't usually going to be gambling 4 or 5 yards behind the LOS, he's going to be gambling down the field. That's the difference.

This is an irrefutable fact, Barry Sanders had more carries for negative yards than any RB in History. If he had played with more heart he might have had a shorter career, but his stats would have been out of this world. I just don't respect his style of game. Amazing player that I am grateful never wore a star.

Side fact to the one above. I once read that Marcus Allen never had a negative run in his entire career. He was dropped for no gain many times, but never dropped for a negative gain. I have no idea if it is true or not, but if it is that is the most impressive stat I believe I have ever heard.

 

[JonJon]

Man, make it easy for me.

Barry Sanders last year with the Lions they were 5-11. The year he left them high and dry they improved to 8-8.

Look it up.

Oooooh....8-8...thats a huge difference...

But since you are talking Lion's records after Sanders, why not take it further? The following season, the Lions improved on their previous record by one game, finishing with a 9-7 record. The following year, the Lions won 2 games finishing 2-14. Next? 3-13. After that? 5-11....Boy those Lions sure did a great job without Sanders... not.

As a matter of fact, since that's what we talking about here....facts...The last time the Lions made made the playoffs was the year before Sanders retired. The Lions played a total of 6 playoff games with Sanders on the roster, advancing to the conference championship in 1991 with a victory of the Cowboys.

So to imply that the Lions "improved without Barry Sanders" is a bit of an overstatement, wouldn't you think?

I looked real close and I don't see where I said the Lions cut Barry Sanders. Perhaps you could point that out for me. I will be amazed if I actually said it because the thought has never once entered my mind that they waived him.

What I believe I actually said is that sometimes raw talent is not enough. Barry was raw talent. Perhaps no one ever was better for pure talent. But he was never a winner while Emmitt Smith was. Why? Because Emmitt was not afraid to get the hard yard. Emmitt did what it took to help the team win. Barry was removed near the goal line by every coach he had for a reason. No heart. If football was purely about talent, Barry Sanders would have been a Champion. Terrell Owens would be a Champion. Neither are and neither ever will be. That is what I mean when I say "learn the game."

I am serious, I think some people do not understand the game of football. It isn't meant as an insult. It is meant as advice to study more. There are nuances to this game that go way beyond what you see on a TV screen sitting on your couch.

And there lies the biggest problem that I have with that statement. You don't know me. You don't know anything about me except that I am a Dallas Cowboys fan and there are certain opinions that I express on this board about the team. You don't know if I've ever played the game; you don't know if I have any coaching experience; it is safe to assume that you think I just sit at home and watch the game on my coach." The problem is, you would be wrong to assume that. Just because I am an 'Owens apologist' and think that the Cowboys stand a better chance winning with him than without him doesn't, or at least shouldn't, mean that I don't know the game. If that's the case, someone in the Bills organization has some studying to do.

Now I could be wrong. It may not be the last, but darn sure will be the first:.

And I am hoping that I am, because even though I think Owens was done wrong by the organization, he is no longer a part of the organization and my ultimate desire is for the Cowboys to win whatever the circumstances may be.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I support Owens just for the fact that when he was here I really don't believe he was a problem and that he was partially done in by 'hack journalism' by Mr. Blue Suit and others. Seriously, read any of the articles by Galloway and JFE and they have ZERO professionalism. And the Mr. Blue Suit article quoted one anonymous source 'who regularly speaks with Owens' teammates.' Which could translate into the assistant pro at the Valley Ranch golf course. Also, Owens has still yet to publically trash Romo or Witten or the Cowboys, something he did at his previous spots and I'm just of the belief that a leopard is not going to change his spots that much. Meaning, I think the Mr. Blue Suit article was beyong hogwash.

The thing is that I really *wish* that I felt Owens was the problem. I wish I could say 'well, they cut Owens and now we can get a team that will gel together and make a Super Bowl run.'

Unfortunately, I don't see it that way. And I'm telling you right now, sometime down the road Roy E. Williams is going to be a major headache.

And be careful what you wish for. If Dallas starts losing because the offense is stalling, I'm willing to be that there will be some players who resent Romo thinking he ran Owens out of town (I don't agree with that, but I think that's what some players feel) and especially Jason Garrett.

I really hope I'm wrong since I'm sick and tired of going through this stuff and I would love to see the Cowboys win.



YAKUZA

 

[Hostile]

Oooooh....8-8...thats a huge difference...

But since you are talking Lion's records after Sanders, why not take it further? The following season, the Lions improved on their previous record by one game, finishing with a 9-7 record. The following year, the Lions won 2 games finishing 2-14. Next? 3-13. After that? 5-11....Boy those Lions sure did a great job without Sanders... not.

Oh let's get real here shall we? Guess who arrived for the 9-7 year and decided to shake up the team so that they landed at 2-14 and never pulled them out of the hole he dug? Matt Millen. No Barry and pre-Matt Millen they were an 8-8 and 9-7 team.

If you doubt his impact crater effect please look at a Lions roster in 2000 (9-7) and 2001 (2-14).

If you look directly at the Lions stats from Barry's last year (1998)and the 2 years that followed where they actually won more games despite less talent with his absence you will see one very telling stat.

Look at 3rd down conversion %. It backs up my point. They converted better. Sustained more drives and scored a little bit more. But the big difference was that their Defense wasn't so tired from all the 3 and outs and they allowed fewer points. That translates to more wins.

It's all inter connected in football. Like a mosaic picture. You look at one little tile, it just doesn't tell the whole picture.

As a matter of fact, since that's what we talking about here....facts...The last time the Lions made made the playoffs was the year before Sanders retired. The Lions played a total of 6 playoff games with Sanders on the roster, advancing to the conference championship in 1991 with a victory of the Cowboys.

Wow, 6 whole playoff games with him. He was sure the world beater huh?

I'll keep saying it until it sinks in. Matt Millen. Arrived in 2000, put his stamp on the team that off season and they cratered. Why be blind to the truth? I just don't get that.

So to imply that the Lions "improved without Barry Sanders" is a bit of an overstatement, wouldn't you think?

No sir. I think if you look right at what I said about teams being stuck 2nd & Long and then 3rd & Long you will see similar results for any team. It is a handicap. He was an asset and a liability.

I do not care who disagrees. I will never change my mind. I do not respect the way he played football. I have explained why. It is either crystal clear or it isn't. I really don't care. The stats and the results back me up.

And there lies the biggest problem that I have with that statement. You don't know me. You don't know anything about me except that I am a Dallas Cowboys fan and there are certain opinions that I express on this board about the team. You don't know if I've ever played the game; you don't know if I have any coaching experience; it is safe to assume that you think I just sit at home and watch the game on my coach." The problem is, you would be wrong to assume that. Just because I am an 'Owens apologist' and think that the Cowboys stand a better chance winning with him than without him doesn't, or at least shouldn't, mean that I don't know the game. If that's the case, someone in the Bills organization has some studying to do.

Let's get real again shall we? I didn't bring up the "learn the game" stuff in response to you. I said it in post #6 answering someone else. You're the one assuming for some reason that I meant you. I have no idea why since to that point in the thread you had not posted.

If it is simply the statement itself which sticks in your craw, oh well.

So unwad your undies about the learn the game stuff because I did not point a finger at you or accuse you of anything. Either get over it, or go on feeling guilty and needing to tell me your resume.

Now I could be wrong. It may not be the last, but darn sure will be the first:.

And I am hoping that I am, because even though I think Owens was done wrong by the organization, he is no longer a part of the organization and my ultimate desire is for the Cowboys to win whatever the circumstances may be.

Got no problem with this. First time wrong? I doubt that very highly. We're all wrong all the time. Some just hate to admit it.

 

[Mash]

For some reason you are not grasping my reason for saying this about Barry. I have no idea why. I will try one more time.

1st down...hand off to Barry. He dances around and loses 2 yards.

2nd & long...team has been handicapped and now due to Barry's dance around style has limited itself on options. An incomplete pass or another ineffective Barry run leaves you 3rd & long.

3rd & long...the other team is coming. Bet on it. Your odds of converting on 3rd & long are significantly less than say 3rd & two assuming 2 Emmitt runs would have gained 8 yards.

That is what I am saying. Because Barry did not run between the Tackles he left his team in awkward circumstances far too often to truly be successful. They had to give him the football. He was simply too explosive not to. But it hurt them too many times for them to ever truly be successful.

It does not matter who the rest of the team is. If you are getting stuck 2nd & long and then 3rd & long too many times in a given game you will not succeed as much as you will if you have to convert from 3rd & two. You win this game by moving the chains, avoiding punting, and hopefully getting in the endzone.

IMO, Barry left the Lions handicapped by his amazing talents because he simply would not run the ball on every play. He was content to dance around behind the LOS and hope to break a long one.

Long ones are exciting, but moving forward on every play is more condusive to winning football.

Barry doesn't even crack my top 20 RBs I would want to build a team around. It is my opinion and I know it is not a popular one, but I'll stand by it, and I would say it to Barry's face. I'd be respectful, but I would be critical. His style was directly proportional to the Lions losing.

Hos,

What do you think of Walter Payton? If I remember correctly...Barry Sanders may have been #1 in yards lost by a RB....but Payton was second....and the difference between the two was 2.5 yrds per game in yards lost per game.

And considering the OL the Lions had with Barry Sanders .....thats not bad at all......also Barry fumbled the ball at a very low rate per carry.....0.27 per game.

btw...I think the pathetic coaching....mangement and lack of talent was directly proportional to the lions losing

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Barry's O-line was not great, but it was not the sieve that many people claim it to be. It featured two multi-time pro bowlers in Kevin Glover and Lomas Brown, and performed competently most of the time.

In my opinion, the inadequacy of Detroit's O-line is the biggest myth perpetuated by stalwart defenders of Barry Sanders, and one of many inaccuracies that is erroneously assumed to be true.

 

[Hostile]

Hos,

What do you think of Walter Payton? If I remember correctly...Barry Sanders may have been #1 in yards lost by a RB....but Payton was second....and the difference between the two was 2.5 yrds per game in yards lost per game.

And considering the OL the Lions had with Barry Sanders .....thats not bad at all......also Barry fumbled the ball at a very low rate per carry.....0.27 per game.

btw...I think the pathetic coaching....mangement and lack of talent was directly proportional to the lions losing

I think Payton is one of the top 2 RBs who ever played. It's him and Jim Brown.

Barry's O-line had 2 Pro Bowlers on it for 3 or 4 straight years.

I don't consider Herman Moore, Brett Perriman, Lomas Brown, and others in Detroit were not lacking in talent.

With a RB with some heart they might have won some important games.

 

[Rampage]

I think Payton is one of the top 2 RBs who ever played. It's him and Jim Brown.

Barry's O-line had 2 Pro Bowlers on it for 3 or 4 straight years.

I don't consider Herman Moore, Brett Perriman, Lomas Brown, and others in Detroit were not lacking in talent.

With a RB with some heart they might have won some important games.

so where do you rank Emmitt?

 

[jterrell]

I am with Hos 100% here.

Sanders took voluntary penalties.

Walter Payton may have had lost yardage on sweeps and whatnot but he didnt spend 45 seconds behind the line running back and forth a handful of times each game. Anyone who has ever coached football tells the running back that there are 2 simple rules to prevent his benching. 1) Do not fumble. 2) Do not run sideways much less backwards.

Sanders was so revered he was allowed to play in that style. Then when a coach did decide he was gonna bring ion a bigger, straight-ahead guy for short yardage Sanders got all huffy and retired.

oh and:
1) Jim Brown
2) Sweetness
3) Emmitt

 

[Hostile]

so where do you rank Emmitt?

I agree 100% with what JT wrote below.

I am with Hos 100% here.

Sanders took voluntary penalties.

Walter Payton may have had lost yardage on sweeps and whatnot but he didnt spend 45 seconds behind the line running back and forth a handful of times each game. Anyone who has ever coached football tells the running back that there are 2 simple rules to prevent his benching. 1) Do not fumble. 2) Do not run sideways much less backwards.

Sanders was so revered he was allowed to play in that style. Then when a coach did decide he was gonna bring ion a bigger, straight-ahead guy for short yardage Sanders got all huffy and retired.

oh and:
1) Jim Brown
2) Sweetness
3) Emmitt

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

Jim Brown= Wilt Chamberlain

Just years ahead of his time in terms of size and speed.

LaDainian Tomlinson is a better back.

 

[Mash]

I think Payton is one of the top 2 RBs who ever played. It's him and Jim Brown.

Barry's O-line had 2 Pro Bowlers on it for 3 or 4 straight years.

I don't consider Herman Moore, Brett Perriman, Lomas Brown, and others in Detroit were not lacking in talent.

With a RB with some heart they might have won some important games.

But having heart wasnt the discussion......your reasoning was that Barry danced behind the line of scrimmage too much and put the team in long distance situations too often.....and thats why he wouldnt of won a SB with a team like the Cowboys.

Yet...Payton was almost as bad.......but thats ok... because he had heart.....

 

[Mash]

I agree with JT in ranking backs.....I would rank Emmitt above Sanders....but this discussion wasnt about who is the better back....who had more heart...etc.

Hos stated that Barry was a liability because he danced behind the line too much and didnt run between the tackles and he wouldnt of won a SB with a team like the Cowboys...

But Payton was almost just as bad with yards lost behind scrimmage....does 2.5 yards a game make that much of a difference?

Hos,

I wouldnt have a problem if you stated that it was his lack of heart...leadership.... poor pass blocking...etc that would have prevented a team like the SB team Cowboys to win....but you never did

 

[Hostile]

But having heart wasnt the discussion......your reasoning was that Barry danced behind the line of scrimmage too much and put the team in long distance situations too often.....and thats why he wouldnt of won a SB with a team like the Cowboys.

Yet...Payton was almost as bad.......but thats ok... because he had heart.....

I don't agree that Payton was almost as bad. It isn't even close. Payton was in an Offense that ran a lot of sweeps. Payton ran between the Tackles. He was one of the most physical RBs to ever play the game. I think it is a horrible comparison.

 

[Hostile]

I agree with JT in ranking backs.....I would rank Emmitt above Sanders....but this discussion wasnt about who is the better back....who had more heart...etc.

Hos stated that Barry was a liability because he danced behind the line too much and didnt run between the tackles and he wouldnt of won a SB with a team like the Cowboys...

But Payton was almost just as bad with yards lost behind scrimmage....does 2.5 yards a game make that much of a difference?

Hos,

I wouldnt have a problem if you stated that it was his lack of heart...leadership.... poor pass blocking...etc that would have prevented a team like the SB team Cowboys to win....but you never did

To me that is all part of the same thing. A guy with no heart won't block. A guy with no heart is not a leader. A guy with no heart will not run between the Tackles. A guy with no heart will not get you the hard yard.

2nd & long + 3rd & long = losing combination

 

[Mash]

Hos,

Your stated this...as a example...

"1st down...hand off to Barry. He dances around and loses 2 yards.

2nd & long...team has been handicapped and now due to Barry's dance around style has limited itself on options. An incomplete pass or another ineffective Barry run leaves you 3rd & long.

3rd & long...the other team is coming. Bet on it. Your odds of converting on 3rd & long are significantly less than say 3rd & two assuming 2 Emmitt runs would have gained 8 yards."

I then showed you that Payton averaged less then 2.5 yrds loss per game then Barry......

How come that scenerio doesnt apply to Payton? We are talking about 2.5 yards per game in yards lost.

Then you stated Barry didnt run between the tackles yet....your reasoning behind Payton yards lost were because "they ran alot of sweeps"?

Im in no means questioning Payton skills and he may be my favorite RB of all time.....and I would take Payton over Sanders any day of the week....but...we are not discussing heart...blocking..etc here.......

Your reasoning here that Sanders couldnt win a SuperBowl was because "he danced" and didnt run between the tackles........

I didnt agree with that statement....because I think Sanders was a great talent and he would of not prevented a team like the 90 cowboys from winning a SB.....not a team with that much talent...and not on a team that had a very good FB too...

btw...running between the tackles...doesnt = leadership....doesnt=better pass blocking...

And yes....Sanders wasnt the player that could get you that "hard yard" ...I agree with that...

 

[jterrell]

Jim Brown= Wilt Chamberlain

Just years ahead of his time in terms of size and speed.

LaDainian Tomlinson is a better back.

That is the general perception about Jim Brown and it is somewhat true but not entirely.

Jim Brown has had some off-field issues and whatnot to reduce his status but the truth is the few taped games that float around detail not just just a big fast guy but a guy who followed blocks well and had great vision, he was able to run very low at times for a guy his size(especially getting through the hole), and he may have been the most agile RB ever at his size. He juked guys weighing 30 pounds less than him out of their jocks. He could run over people and he could bounce off people but he often ran past them or put moves on them. He was essentially Emmitt plus Marion Barber plus Felix Jones. I know that is extraordinary but watch some film on that guy and see if you do not agree. He was the most dominant player of his era regardless of position.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Jim Brown was a great player, without a doubt, and the stuff I've seen of him was fun to watch.

The only problem I have is that what I've seen it seems like he's as big, or bigger, than most the people he's running against and if you can't dominate with that kind of advantage, given the talent he had to go along with that advantage, you'd be a pretty piss poor athlete.

I think in today's game he'd certainly still be a very good back, maybe even a great one, but I don't know that I believe he'd still average 5 yards a carry or dominate the way he did back then.

It's impossible to really know that for sure, one way or another, but I do feel like with the God given talent he had, coupled with the fact that he was just bigger than most really made dominating the game a lot easier for the guy.


Plus, and I could be wrong on this as I'm not sure, but didn't a lot of defenders play both ways back in those days? I thought a lot of D-Lineman and such played both ways back then.

That would be just another advantage for a guy with his talent, and size, advantages when you've only got to play one side of the ball.

But again I could be wrong on that cause I'm not 100% certain on when players quit playing both ways.

 

[jterrell]

Mash,

Bro, the 2.5 yards this is both misleading and well weak. 2.5 per game is about the record for anyone other than Barry Sanders. So he is twice as bad on a per game basis as any running back with significant carries in his NFL career.

Not to blast you for it because I know you are just repeating it but apparently the number is 46 yards per year more lost than Walter Payton. Let that sink it. That's what 9 or 10 years? And how many of those yards for Payton occurred after he was 30?

But even beyond that the NFL record is 1114 yards lost over a career.

46 yards per season means 40% LESS on average per year.
Or look at it this way: In 5 additional seasons Payton only reached 850 negative yards for his career.

So yes, Mash, even 2 yards per game is HUGE.

You know how many drives have stalled out over the lack of a single yard?

That is what Hos is getting at here. Drives were stalled by Sanders just as often as they were created by him. You couldn't have that methodical Emmitt style drive because Sanders didn't have that great vision. He didn't see holes and hit them, instead he tried to put players where he wanted them with the most amazing moves ever. Impressive to watch but often less effective.

Barry Sanders is what we see today as Brian Westbrook. The difference is the Detroit offense tried to use him as its deep back and not get him as involved as a receiver type. The game simply hadn't evolved that far.

 

[jterrell]

Jim Brown was a great player, without a doubt, and the stuff I've seen of him was fun to watch.

The only problem I have is that what I've seen it seems like he's as big, or bigger, than most the people he's running against and if you can't dominate with that kind of advantage, given the talent he had to go along with that advantage, you'd be a pretty piss poor athlete.

I think in today's game he'd certainly still be a very good back, maybe even a great one, but I don't know that I believe he'd still average 5 yards a carry or dominate the way he did back then.

It's impossible to really know that for sure, one way or another, but I do feel like with the God given talent he had, coupled with the fact that he was just bigger than most really made dominating the game a lot easier for the guy.


Plus, and I could be wrong on this as I'm not sure, but didn't a lot of defenders play both ways back in those days? I thought a lot of D-Lineman and such played both ways back then.

That would be just another advantage for a guy with his talent, and size, advantages when you've only got to play one side of the ball.

But again I could be wrong on that cause I'm not 100% certain on when players quit playing both ways.

It cuts both ways bro.

If a 6'2" 232 pound guy in the 60's had a full off-season to work towards making millions what would Brown have been physically? If he was sucking down creatine and protein shakes and hitting world class gyms what would his 40 time have been today?

And again there were 170 pound DBs that Brown was flat juking to the ground. That wasn't just a size issue.

Brown at any size could of seen holes and hit them. He would have been able even today to absorb tackles because 232 pounds isn't far from Marion Barber.

But when we are comparing players of different eras part of that comparison has to rely on how dominant they were at their time. And no player is as dominant at the position as Brown was.

I'd argue Emmitt was always challenged by Thurman Thomas and Barry Sanders and Payton and vice versa. Brown had no real peers. the only guy who came along was Gale Sayers and Sayers career was both cut short and not as distinguished.