|
Post by cityofchamps on Nov 18, 2014 22:47:26 GMT -5
Who cares. Bo is probably the greatest single athlete to ever play in professional sports. Sure, he only played 4 NFL seasons, but he displayed a Hall of Fame talent in those 4 seasons. bears75 has also put players ahead of others based on how "effective" they were in less playing time rather than their total amount of stats. Bo should be on there. His talent is undeniable and made his mark in NFL lore despite the small amount of time he played. As great as he was he couldn't stay healthy, to me that detracts from a players greatness. Bo Jackson = Ronnie Brown in my eyes, Brown was one of the most talented RBs in the league when healthy, do you know what the problem was and why he won't be remember? He never stayed healthy. Bo would be forgotten IMO if he didn't go on to have a great Baseball career. Bo was FAR more talented than Ronnie Brown ever was. Brown could have been a perennial Top 10 RB if healthy I grant you, but Bo had Hall of Fame talent. Like once in a generation, Michael Jordan/LeBron James-level talent (to use a cross-sport reference). There was a reason he is widely considered the greatest athlete in professional sports history, and the only man to be an All Star in two different sports. And Bo wouldn't have been forgotten (Techmo Bowl).
|
|
|
Post by bears75 on Nov 18, 2014 22:49:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by cityofchamps on Nov 18, 2014 23:34:13 GMT -5
This is a travesty. Why even bother with Rich Gannon or Jim Plunkett. Then bench three of the greatest players of all time for inferior players just beacuse they played for the Raiders slightly longer or have one better stat that you twist around. Biletnikoff is probably a top 5 WR all time, Casper at his position as well, and Guy is the GOAT as far as punters are concerned. I don't know that much about other raiders, so I can't fault most of your other choices, but it seems like you completely flubbed the only people who matter on this list. When I get the time to do so, I will remake these. Tim Brown: 1070 receptions, 14734 yards, 99 TD, 9 pro bowls Fred Biletnikoff: 589 receptions, 8974 yards, 76 TD, 6 pro bowls
C'mon man!!!
I'd rank Brown 6th all time, Biletnikoff maybe 25th
Stats don't mean anything. You cannot compare stats from two different players in two different eras and say the one with the better stats is the better player. In Biletnikoff's era (from 65-78), Quarterbacks were barely throwing for over 3,000 yards. Sure you had the occasional 4,000 yard passer, but it was rare. In the 1971 season, Bilentnikoff's Quarterback threw 1,717 yards for 16 Touchdowns. Biletikoff caught 929 of them and had 9 Touchdowns. That was just one example. Conversely, when Tim Brown played (from 1988 onwards), Quarterbacks around the league (even towards the bottom) were averaging close to or over 3000 yards a season. In Tim Brown's best season (1997), he caught 1,400 yards. That year, Jeff George threw for 3,917 Yards. In Biletnikoff's best year (1968), he caught 1,037 Yards. That year, his Quarterback threw for 3,245 Yards (2nd in the NFL in Passing that year). The game improved and schemes evolved to get more guys involved. You cannot look at stats from two different eras like those two and look at it in black and white.
|
|
|
Post by cantonhall34 on Nov 19, 2014 0:14:53 GMT -5
- I think Jerry Porter would be the other WR instead of Powell, but that's a personal choice I suppose. - Dave Casper would be the starting TE instead. - Neither of the KRs should even be on the team. Clarence Davis was a good returner as well as George Atkinson (also saves a roster spot) - Ray Guy is the backup? No. Only Punter in the HOF, and with reason. For as good as Lechler is, Ray Guy is nobody's backup. - Vann McElroy (FS) and Mike Davis (SS) could also be on this team. They were for a time the starting Safeties for one of the best secondaries in the league, along with KC, SF, and Seattle. - Mickey Marvin (Guard) could also be on the team. - Reggie Kinlaw (NG) is also missing. He was a very good NG when they were running a 3-4. - LOVE Rod Martin. One of my all time favorites. Don't know if he's HOF worthy, but always making plays. Very under-rated player. - Jim Plunkett should get at least a third-team mention here. Won 2 SBs, and played well in those games. He wasn't just along for the ride, and even won a SB MVP (SB15). Overall, one bad ass team. The All-Time Raiders could line up with any team out there and do well. Ghost over Christensen? Really? He was a 5 time pro bowler for them and had three 1000 yard seasons and another of 987 yards. Casper never had more than 852 yards in any given season and scored 35 touchdowns compared to 41 for Todd Christensen.
Actually I've heard Lechler's name mentioned in HOF discussions. Let's compare
Ray Guy: 1049 punts, 42.4 AVG Shane Lechler: 1014 punts, 47.5 AVG
You can have Guy, I'll take the extra 5 yards of field position.
McElroy vs Anderson is a pick em IMO 118 tackles in 1991 is impressive and a 53 to 48 AV advantage for Anderson so I gave him the nod.
Mike Davis wasn't a bad player, average maybe slight above at his best. Certainly not in the class if Dave Grayson or Atkinson for that matter.
Mickey Marvin/George Buehler. Another pick em. Similar longevity, similar production.
Me thinks your memory of Kinlaw may be slightly flawed. He was average at best and injury plagued. Only started 52 games in 6 seasons for them.
Plunkett wasn't bad but he only started 57 games for them. If I added a 3rd QB it would be Gannon. As it was the choice for the final roster spot came down to Gannon or Don Mosebar and I went with Mosebar for the fact he was a career Raider and played 173 games with them.
- Casper was doing his thing with Biletnikoff and Branch on the field with him, in an era when running the ball was still the first option for offenses and mid to upper 20's TD passes could lead the league in any given season. Even the Raiders ran the ball more than they passed, and they were known as a great passing team with Stabler and the boys. As a matter of fact, in the mid-70s, during the Raiders run as one of the best teams in the league, they ran the ball more than they threw it. From 72 - 78 Oakland was a TOP TEN team in rushing attempts in the league nearly every year, finishing first twice and third once (five of those seasons they were top five). Only one of those years did they rank the even close in rush attempts and passing attempts, finishing 13th in both in 1978. In 79 they were 7th in pass attempts and 22nd in rush attempts, and at the end of that season was when they realized they needed to rebuild the team. In both 78 and 79 they missed the the playoffs after making them 10 of the previous 11 seasons. Maybe it was a Madden thing that led them to run the ball more, maybe it was the era (or both) but it certainly wasn't the lack of players to throw to. 1972 - 5th in Rush Att, 13th in Pass Att 1973 - 4th in Rush Att, 11th in Pass Att 1974 - 3rd in Rush Att, 23rd in Pass Att 1975 - 1st in Rush Att, 21st in Pass Att 1976 - 8th in Rush Att, 16th in Pass Att (SB 11 Champs) 1977 - 1st in Rush Att, 19th in Pass Att 1978 - 13th in Rush Att, 13th in Pass Att 1979 - 22nd in Rush Att, 7th in Pass Att - Christensen's rise was at the tail end of Branch's career and was the only reliable option for the team when he played, during a time in the league when PASSING was becoming the main attack. This was with a guy like Marc Wilson throwing the ball, a guy that routinely threw more INTs than TDs (and one of the reasons the Raiders didn't win another SB). Yes, he had a four year run in the mid-80's that was as good as any TE has ever had, but when you're the only passing option in the offense you're gonna get extra looks. This is another case of looking at the stats and believing they tell the whole story without looking into the HOW and/or WHY they look as they do. - Guy IS in the HOF and is currently the only full time punter to be there. While some people's numbers "may" appear to be better, there is a reason no other Punter is there. Until the time comes that another one is in the Hall, he is, by any definition, the best Punter, and since that is the case he deserves the RIGHT to be the Punter on any team, and certainly the Raiders all time team. - Reggie Kinlaw was not an average player. You don't have a great 3-4 defense without a very good/great NG. Everyone knows that. He deserves a spot on the team. - Plunkett may not have had all the individual accolades that Gannon did, but he was a big reason for the team winning TWO SBs in four seasons. Gannon's only SB appearance was disastrous. I am enjoying the debate on the teams, however. MOST of the guys are either/or.
|
|
|
Post by bears75 on Nov 19, 2014 0:16:42 GMT -5
Tim Brown: 1070 receptions, 14734 yards, 99 TD, 9 pro bowls Fred Biletnikoff: 589 receptions, 8974 yards, 76 TD, 6 pro bowls
C'mon man!!!
I'd rank Brown 6th all time, Biletnikoff maybe 25th
Stats don't mean anything. You cannot compare stats from two different players in two different eras and say the one with the better stats is the better player. In Biletnikoff's era (from 65-78), Quarterbacks were barely throwing for over 3,000 yards. Sure you had the occasional 4,000 yard passer, but it was rare. In the 1971 season, Bilentnikoff's Quarterback threw 1,717 yards for 16 Touchdowns. Biletikoff caught 929 of them and had 9 Touchdowns. That was just one example. Conversely, when Tim Brown played (from 1988 onwards), Quarterbacks around the league (even towards the bottom) were averaging close to or over 3000 yards a season. In Tim Brown's best season (1997), he caught 1,400 yards. That year, Jeff George threw for 3,917 Yards. In Biletnikoff's best year (1968), he caught 1,037 Yards. That year, his Quarterback threw for 3,245 Yards (2nd in the NFL in Passing that year). The game improved and schemes evolved to get more guys involved. You cannot look at stats from two different eras like those two and look at it in black and white. Right but at the same time offenses were totally different. A lot more wishbone, 2 WR sets verses 4 & sometimes 5 WR (run & shoot) formations. The more the ball is spread around the fewer % of receptions/yards available. The fact that Brown caught 1070 balls in his era is a tribute to him. It's not a negative and the eras equalize themselves.
|
|
|
Post by cantonhall34 on Nov 19, 2014 0:17:33 GMT -5
I been waiting for this... No Bo Jackson. - who cares if his career was shortened. He was one of the best RB's of all time. No Mike Haynes No Sean Jones No Lyle Alzado No Bill Romanowski No John Matuszak No Anthony Smith Other than that.....Good list. I wouldn't add Mike Haynes (he's a NE Patriot) or Romanowski to the team. Romo would make a different team, but he was only with the Raiders for two seasons.
|
|
|
Post by cantonhall34 on Nov 19, 2014 0:20:49 GMT -5
When comparing punters I don't go by average yards kicked. Take Scifres for instance. He doesn't average that long but nails the ball inside the ten more often than not. I remember Guy used to piss me off with his coffin corner kicks. You had no chance to return it. Just last week Scifres had nine punts. All of them were field position changers. My all time Raider roster Jamarcus Russel. That's all. Edit. Oh yeah and there were rumors that Guy filled the ball with helium due to how high it went. Ray Guy was great at that. Hang time on the punts was amazing.
|
|
|
Post by cityofchamps on Nov 19, 2014 0:29:46 GMT -5
Stats don't mean anything. You cannot compare stats from two different players in two different eras and say the one with the better stats is the better player. In Biletnikoff's era (from 65-78), Quarterbacks were barely throwing for over 3,000 yards. Sure you had the occasional 4,000 yard passer, but it was rare. In the 1971 season, Bilentnikoff's Quarterback threw 1,717 yards for 16 Touchdowns. Biletikoff caught 929 of them and had 9 Touchdowns. That was just one example. Conversely, when Tim Brown played (from 1988 onwards), Quarterbacks around the league (even towards the bottom) were averaging close to or over 3000 yards a season. In Tim Brown's best season (1997), he caught 1,400 yards. That year, Jeff George threw for 3,917 Yards. In Biletnikoff's best year (1968), he caught 1,037 Yards. That year, his Quarterback threw for 3,245 Yards (2nd in the NFL in Passing that year). The game improved and schemes evolved to get more guys involved. You cannot look at stats from two different eras like those two and look at it in black and white. Right but at the same time offenses were totally different. A lot more wishbone, 2 WR sets verses 4 & sometimes 5 WR (run & shoot) formations. The more the ball is spread around the fewer % of receptions/yards available. The fact that Brown caught 1070 balls in his era is a tribute to him. It's not a negative and the eras equalize themselves. Not really. It just inflates the stats more. More passing means more chances to get the ball out. Back in the 60s, Rushing the football was still relevant. That is why Biletnikoff didn't even make a Pro Bowl in his best season. Running the ball was still looked at as the primary way to take the ball down the field. The fact that Biletnikoff was able to do what he did with the wishobone/2 WR sets is more impressive than when you have more guys out there to free you up. It was harder to play WR back then than it is now. They also didn't have the rule where you couldn't jam WRs past the 5 yard mark until Biletnikoff's final season.
|
|
|
Post by cantonhall34 on Nov 19, 2014 0:42:13 GMT -5
Right but at the same time offenses were totally different. A lot more wishbone, 2 WR sets verses 4 & sometimes 5 WR (run & shoot) formations. The more the ball is spread around the fewer % of receptions/yards available. The fact that Brown caught 1070 balls in his era is a tribute to him. It's not a negative and the eras equalize themselves. Not really. It just inflates the stats more. More passing means more chances to get the ball out. Back in the 60s, Rushing the football was still relevant. That is why Biletnikoff didn't even make a Pro Bowl in his best season. Running the ball was still looked at as the primary way to take the ball down the field. The fact that Biletnikoff was able to do what he did with the wishobone/2 WR sets is more impressive than when you have more guys out there to free you up. It was harder to play WR back then than it is now. They also didn't have the rule where you couldn't jam WRs past the 5 yard mark until Biletnikoff's final season. Freddie is gonna suffer stat wise like Casper does. If you have more options on your team (again, in an era where running the ball was more prevalent) then you're not gonna feature ONE guy. That's pretty simple. Of all the other guys that were listed here as his contemporaries, Freddie was the only one that had other HOF pass catchers around him. Only one football to go around. He was also the only one of those guys that wasn't a legit home-run threat whenever he had the ball, hence his lower Yards Per Reception.
|
|
|
Post by cityofchamps on Nov 19, 2014 1:10:07 GMT -5
Not really. It just inflates the stats more. More passing means more chances to get the ball out. Back in the 60s, Rushing the football was still relevant. That is why Biletnikoff didn't even make a Pro Bowl in his best season. Running the ball was still looked at as the primary way to take the ball down the field. The fact that Biletnikoff was able to do what he did with the wishobone/2 WR sets is more impressive than when you have more guys out there to free you up. It was harder to play WR back then than it is now. They also didn't have the rule where you couldn't jam WRs past the 5 yard mark until Biletnikoff's final season. Freddie is gonna suffer stat wise like Casper does. If you have more options on your team (again, in an era where running the ball was more prevalent) then you're not gonna feature ONE guy. That's pretty simple. Of all the other guys that were listed here as his contemporaries, Freddie was the only one that had other HOF pass catchers around him. Only one football to go around. He was also the only one of those guys that wasn't a legit home-run threat whenever he had the ball, hence his lower Yards Per Reception. Wait..so are you for my argument or against it?
|
|