re: When watching Barry Sanders' highlights, how does one justify a better RB than him?

quote:

---

are you trying to prove something with this?

---

That all of you "best of" opinions are based on Wikipedia and PFR. You never saw these guys play yet you'll argue to the death over who was better.

quote:

---

couldn't imagine what Sanders would have done with a good o-line

---

And no Scott Mitchell

quote:

---

Sorry... wrong... that would be Jerry Rice....

---

Rice is close, So is LT (Taylor and Tomlinson), Rod Woodson etc But Walter Payton is a notch above

quote:

---

But stats and all that is irrefutable evidence

---

Stats can also be very misleading. Statistically, Blake Bortles was a very good QB in 2015. In reality, he racked up a whole lot of garbage time stats when the Jags were down by several touchdowns. Stat nerds hate this but the eye test matters too.

ETA: For example, if you needed one AFC QB to go on the road to beat New England, who would you take? The easy answer is Roethlisberger. My choice is Flacco. Statistically, he hasn't had a great career but that guy elevates his game by about 3 levels in the playoffs and I've seen him go on the road and beat juggernauts in the playoffs. He's beaten Brady, Manning, and Big Ben on the road in playoff games and played excellent in all three of those games.

ETA2: That Ravens/Broncos playoff game should be near the top of any list of best NFL games of all time.

quote:

---

Especially in football, where so much of your success is dependent on other people

---

There isn't a better example of this than Brees. He's been awesome the last three years and New Orleans hasn't won more than 7 games in any of them.

I also watch the games and the stats sites provide box scores to provide that context into games so I'm not simply relying on the naked stats solely.

Dude I look at ALL the stats i.e. Everything to submit my conclusion I don't simply look at one, that's the misconception y'all have about me bc y'all think I don't look at context which I've disproven with my selections.

Yeah that's my point: the box scores and context as well as watching games which I have admitted to. Look at the 1962 Packers and what they did that season against the teams they played, hell I could argue they're the greatest team in the history of football but I already contended that the 1991 Redskins were so I won't contradict myself. But they're up there, look at what they did with that TEAM that season and tell me they're not among the greatest teams ever.

quote:

---

But stats and all that is irrefutable evidence! And I include context and I have admitted I watch NFL clips, what have I done to incur the wrath of people here?

---

Who has the better highlights does not make who is the best overall back. There's a lot that backs used to have to do in the 80's and 90's - blocking - Niners totally counted on the backs to act as an extra lineman as they pulled their O further east and west. Catch out of the backfield - shite Marcus Allen was like a real receiver going 30 yards downfield over the middle - none of this swing pass shite.

I have no problem with people calling Barry the best, he was electric...

But there is a very valid argument against that - when you are watching him year in and year out and Lions fans just want to win...they don't care about who jukes the best.

You're not debating players - you are debating strato-matic, fantasy, highlights and sports-reference.com #s.

I'm not one for the "you had to be there" philosophy or arrogance.

But you kinda sort of have to have had to watch like full games with these players you love - and in the context of the time.

I've said it for years, you can only compare contemporaries because only the people who lived and died with these players on a weekly basis during their career really know what the hell they are talking about.

Sports doesn't exist in numbers or a bubble - yeah, you had to have been there to understand context, context and MOST IMPORTANTLY contemporary opinions and perceptions...because that's all that matters. Not retrospective analysis's.

Definition of greatest-of an extent, amount or intensity considerably above the normal or average
Best definition-of the most excellent, desirable, or effective type of quality

There's no question today's pro players are exponentially better than the pro players of the past because the game and conditioning has evolved immensely.

However, when it comes to greatest, that qualification is based off of how much did you dominate the curve present at your context i.e. You're only as good as your time and your peers and how much better were you than the mean. That's why I contended Don Hutson was the greatest WR, that's why I contended the 1991 Redskins were the greatest team, that's why I contended the 1991 Eagles were the greatest defense and that's why I contend that Bart Starr is a top 6 QB of all-time. Hopefully this is comprehensible to everyone.