NFL Off Topic

[Boltman]

Quote: Originally Posted by steelerfan

The question for me is "was Lynch something so special that his numbers don't have to be the best?". For me, the answer is "no".

I get kinda confused when it's worded like that. So you're saying it's a no for Lynch in your eyes?

[steelerfan]

Quote: Originally Posted by Boltman

I get kinda confused when it's worded like that. So you're saying it's a no for Lynch in your eyes?

Correct. He's a "no" for me.

Very good player who left some very memorable moments but not the body of work that is necessary for me.

[ImTellinTim]

Campbell also had over 750 carries in college, which certainly shortened his career. Campbell's first 4 years in the league were insane, topping off in his 3rd year where he ran for over 1900 yards in 15 games and also led the league in both carries and yards per carry. The next highest total that year was Walter Payton at 1460. He also lost half a season in his prime due to the strike. Lynch hasn't had a run like Earl did.

[slickdtc]

Lynch wasn't the same in Buffalo either. Always was a tough runner but didn't have nearly the success as he did in SEA. This was over 3.5 years of work, too. He got to Seattle at the right time too, IMO. The Seahawks benefited from his running style and he benefited from Carroll and Wilson (once he came in) and the defense.

Not everyone can be a HOF'er because they were good for a period of time. Nothing wrong with having that run, picking up a ring, and leaving it at that. He'll be remembered, but he shouldn't be enshrined.

Another few years and I think he would have a case. As it stands, nope.

[kaletore11]

Quote: Originally Posted by slickdtc

Not everyone can be a HOF'er because they were good for a period of time. Nothing wrong with having that run, picking up a ring, and leaving it at that. He'll be remembered, but he shouldn't be enshrined.

I agree with this.

I definitely won't forget him and he was a great player, but I wouldn't put him in the HOF.

[SPTO]

If Lynch was closer to the kind of player that he became as "Beast Mode" while he was in Buffalo he'd definitely have a case but this is a situation where he needed 2-3 more years of great production to get in IMO.

[ggsimmonds]

Quote: Originally Posted by TheShizNo1

Trust the box scores rather than your eyes? Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Its not just box scores dude. One of the most important considerations for me is number of all pro selections.

But its not just my eyes. If someone my age (31) tells me that Campbell passed the eye test I'm not going to trust that.

[TheShizNo1]

So what else will you consider?

I'm 29 and can watch old Broncos game of Elway and clearly see that the teams he was on had no business being as "good" as they were, showing that Elway carried them. No idea how many all pro selections he's had.

I can watch old games of Dan Marino and see not only was his release lightning quick, but also his ability to anticipate where the defense and his WRs would be even before he released it. How he beat the Bears is a blueprint many teams use today to combat heavy pressure.

I can watch film (what's available of it) and see that Jim Brown was a man amongst boys in his day.

I will say football is probably the most complicated sport to justify player A is this great or that great or better than player B because all of the variables involved.

Manning was named all pro 5 more times than Brady. Is he that much better?

Gronk has been named all pro only one more time than Witten. Is Witten that close to him as far as talent?

Patrick Peterson and Charles Woodson (#GoBlue) have the same amount of selections.

You're basically telling me that I can't trust my own knowledge of football combined with what I'm seeing to make an accurate judgement within the context of the game; but you can trust the AP to tell you who was good or better than whom.



Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk