Because if someone is arguing that rings is a barometer on how good a player is or was then all.bets are off and anything is possible.
Valid point. And to be fair, it's become obvious that coolstanley is a lot younger than I am and didn't actually watch football in the 1970's. Why he is participating in a thread on a topic about which he knows nothing is the mystery.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Because if someone is arguing that rings is a barometer on how good a player is or was then all.bets are off and anything is possible.
Valid point. And to be fair, it's become obvious that coolstanley is a lot younger than I am and didn't actually watch football in the 1970's. Why he is participating in a thread on a topic about which he knows nothing is the mystery.
I was wondering myself if you actually watched any Steelers games. Seems you did not. I've been watching them since the 70's.
First, you never once saw Swann drop a pass. Then, you'd never heard of Mel Gray. Now you want me to believe you've been watching Steelers games since the 70's. Throw in Todd's admonition and there's absolutely nowhere for me to go from here. The Ignore button is there for a reason; well past time I used it.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@dallasactuary said:
First, you never once saw Swann drop a pass. Then, you'd never heard of Mel Gray. Now you want me to believe you've been watching Steelers games since the 70's. Throw in Todd's admonition and there's absolutely nowhere for me to go from here. The Ignore button is there for a reason; well past time I used it.
Way ahead of you on that one buddy! :-)
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@dallasactuary said:
First, you never once saw Swann drop a pass. Then, you'd never heard of Mel Gray. Now you want me to believe you've been watching Steelers games since the 70's. Throw in Todd's admonition and there's absolutely nowhere for me to go from here. The Ignore button is there for a reason; well past time I used it.
As always, you're wrong again. Where did I say I never heard of Mel Gray? You Steelers haters are hilarious.
@perkdog said:
There are two Mel Gray's to be fair. One was mainly a return specialist while the other was the WR, one born in 48 while the other in 61
To be fair, why would anyone think I was talking about the return specialist rather than the WR when I was comparing him to Lynn Swann? Anyone who had heard of Mel Gray (the WR ) wouldn't have done that. And anyone who has never heard of Mel Gray has no business opining on football in the 1970's. Mel Gray wasn't a nobody; he was better than Lynn Swann for goodness sake.
Because if someone is arguing that rings is a barometer on how good a player is or was then all.bets are off and anything is possible.
Of course the rings dont mean everything. They're only part of the story. Whenever I see a Lebron vs Jordan debate, I always see people mention how many rings the players have. Same with NFL players. In Lynn Swann's case, they do matter in my opinion because he was a main contributor to his team, just the same as all the other HOF players on those teams.
@perkdog said:
There are two Mel Gray's to be fair. One was mainly a return specialist while the other was the WR, one born in 48 while the other in 61
To be fair, why would anyone think I was talking about the return specialist rather than the WR when I was comparing him to Lynn Swann? Anyone who had heard of Mel Gray (the WR ) wouldn't have done that. And anyone who has never heard of Mel Gray has no business opining on football in the 1970's. Mel Gray wasn't a nobody; he was better than Lynn Swann for goodness sake.
Because if someone is arguing that rings is a barometer on how good a player is or was then all.bets are off and anything is possible.
Of course the rings dont mean everything. They're only part of the story. Whenever I see a Lebron vs Jordan debate, I always see people mention how many rings the players have. Same with NFL players. In Lynn Swann's case, they do matter in my opinion because he was a main contributor to his team, just the same as all the other HOF players on those teams.
The Media believes in rings and always pushes that point further than they should but that's what they do.
Now don't get me wrong in certain areas of the debate it's appropriate to bring it up if the player played a role in securing a title but really its not all that defining, that being said I would bet every penny I have that without Brady the Patriots don't have 6 rings, and I don't care what anyone says about it, or the fact that that I believe he is the GOAT either
If your a Swann guy then by all means stand by your guy, I get it
@perkdog said:
The Media believes in rings and always pushes that point further than they should but that's what they do.
Now don't get me wrong in certain areas of the debate it's appropriate to bring it up if the player played a role in securing a title but really its not all that defining, that being said I would bet every penny I have that without Brady the Patriots don't have 6 rings, and I don't care what anyone says about it, or the fact that that I believe he is the GOAT either
I don't disagree, but I have a different perspective. Tom Brady was/is a great QB, and teams with great QBs will, all else equal, be better than teams with bad QBs. The Patriots had a great QB, a lot of other great players, and they won a lot of games, including Super Bowls. But Brady was Brady, no matter who he was playing and no matter what week of the season it happened to be. The fact that the Patriots won hundreds of games, including six games at the end of seasons, provides evidence that Brady was great. The evidence that he was great if you take away those six end-of-season games is 99% as strong. I might think differently if Brady got better as the games increased in significance, becoming SuperQB in the Super Bowl. But he didn't; he was great in Super Bowls, no doubt, but he was just as great in playoff games, and he was just as great in the regular season.
I would think Brady was a great QB, and a GOAT candidate, had the Patriots defense choked in absolutely every Super Bowl, and the Patriots had never won a single one. Brady fans would think he was not as great if that had happened, and that will never make sense to me.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@perkdog said:
The Media believes in rings and always pushes that point further than they should but that's what they do.
Now don't get me wrong in certain areas of the debate it's appropriate to bring it up if the player played a role in securing a title but really its not all that defining, that being said I would bet every penny I have that without Brady the Patriots don't have 6 rings, and I don't care what anyone says about it, or the fact that that I believe he is the GOAT either
I don't disagree, but I have a different perspective. Tom Brady was/is a great QB, and teams with great QBs will, all else equal, be better than teams with bad QBs. The Patriots had a great QB, a lot of other great players, and they won a lot of games, including Super Bowls. But Brady was Brady, no matter who he was playing and no matter what week of the season it happened to be. The fact that the Patriots won hundreds of games, including six games at the end of seasons, provides evidence that Brady was great. The evidence that he was great if you take away those six end-of-season games is 99% as strong. I might think differently if Brady got better as the games increased in significance, becoming SuperQB in the Super Bowl. But he didn't; he was great in Super Bowls, no doubt, but he was just as great in playoff games, and he was just as great in the regular season.
I would think Brady was a great QB, and a GOAT candidate, had the Patriots defense choked in absolutely every Super Bowl, and the Patriots had never won a single one. Brady fans would think he was not as great if that had happened, and that will never make sense to me.
Looking at it from that perspective I know for a fact that he would be labeled a choke artist by millions of Pats fans had the Pats gone 0-6 in Super Bowls, and he would probably would be known as the new Bill Buckner of New England..
It's funny because once he started wearing ring number 4 or 5 some people then started saying "There is no doubt now" in reference to being better than Joe Montana
Either way I totally get where your coming from, we have disagreed on some things but overall I get the big picture with your take on tbings
Looking at it from that perspective I know for a fact that he would be labeled a choke artist by millions of Pats fans had the Pats gone 0-6 in Super Bowls, and he would probably would be known as the new Bill Buckner of New England..
I think you're probably right. At the root of this, of course, is that people give WAAAYYY too much credit or blame to the QB when a team wins or loses. To the point that the QB can even get blamed for a bad defense, or in Jim Kelly's case, for a missed FG.
QBs can be great and lose, and they can be terrible and win. That's the obvious fact that gets lost in the "rings" argument, and why that argument fails so spectacularly.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
speaking of Cardinals who got lost in the shuffle because the team was subpar, how about Ottis Anderson? dude was really good on some bad STL squads. went bananas his rookie year. over 13k yards from scrimmage & 86 house calls for his career. 2x Pro Bowl, first-team All-Pro in 79, second-team All-Pro in 80, 2 mf rings, and an SB MVP.
i wonder how long it has been since his name was mentioned on this forum? has it ever been?
#LetsGoSwitzerlandThe Man Who Does Not Read Has No Advantage Over the Man Who Cannot Read. The biggest obstacle to progress is a habit of “buying what we want and begging for what we need.”You get the Freedom you fight for and get the Oppression you deserve.
@galaxy27 said:
speaking of Cardinals who got lost in the shuffle because the team was subpar, how about Ottis Anderson? dude was really good on some bad STL squads. went bananas his rookie year. over 13k yards from scrimmage & 86 house calls for his career. 2x Pro Bowl, first-team All-Pro in 79, second-team All-Pro in 80, 2 mf rings, and an SB MVP.
i wonder how long it has been since his name was mentioned on this forum? has it ever been?
no one loves you Ottis, but I do.
I liked Ottis, but by the time he came the team had fallen apart and other than that one bogus strike season appearance the Cardinals never made the playoffs. Plus, St. Louis had soured on the team primarily due to its jerk of an owner and they hardly ever sold out, so they were rarely even televised. But, still, a great RB and I'm glad he got to play for a real team and experience winning before his career was over.
For a truly forgotten Cardinal, how about Roger Wehrli? I don't think anyone (except me) has ever mentioned him here. but he was a phenomenal CB playing alongside, shall we say, less than phenomenal teammates. Every bit as good as Mel Blount (2 more Pro Bowls, 1 more First Team), but ZERO rings so he gets forgotten (although he did eventually get in the HOF).
Honor system applies: who here could have named a single player on the Cardinals defense from 1975? The Cardinals were 11-3 that year and won the NFC East, but they did it with offense. Offense and Roger Wehrli. For NFL fan legend status, who could name someone besides Roger Wehrli?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Honor system applies: who here could have named a single player on the Cardinals defense from 1975? The Cardinals were 11-3 that year and won the NFC East, but they did it with offense. Offense and Roger Wehrli. For NFL fan legend status, who could name someone besides Roger Wehrli?
i can't. i was just a tyke in '75, but when '79 rolled around (the year i became enamored with football and cards), i became familiar with Wehrli. but he's the only name i can spit out on defense.
the offense is a different story. based on everything i've gleaned over the years, the Cardinals had arguably the best offensive line in NFL history back in '75. i went to college with Bob Young's son, so i heard a lot of great anecdotes. i doubt there was anyone in the league who was stronger than Bob at the time. then you also had Dan Dierdorf and Conrad Dobler protecting Jim Hart, who was playing pitch-n-catch with Mel Gray. i slam into a wall at 5 on the offensive side of the ball.
The big name you're missing is Jackie Smith (and Jim Bakken - whose daughter was smoking hot! - if you count kickers as big names). If you were in St. Louis, Jim Otis and Terry Metcalf counted as big names as the RBs, but I'm not sure how well-known they were nationally.
1975 was the year Hart got sacked 6 times in the entire season. Hart was 32 that year (and led the league in sack% again at 33 and 34), and rushed for 207 yards in his 201 game career. He was immobile as a young QB, and a statue in this thirties, but to sack him you had to get past that offensive line, which was, IMO, the GOAT.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Comments
Valid point. And to be fair, it's become obvious that coolstanley is a lot younger than I am and didn't actually watch football in the 1970's. Why he is participating in a thread on a topic about which he knows nothing is the mystery.
You guys know there are ways to disagree with someone and not actually speak badly of them, right? Please try to employ them here.
I was wondering myself if you actually watched any Steelers games. Seems you did not. I've been watching them since the 70's.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
First, you never once saw Swann drop a pass. Then, you'd never heard of Mel Gray. Now you want me to believe you've been watching Steelers games since the 70's. Throw in Todd's admonition and there's absolutely nowhere for me to go from here. The Ignore button is there for a reason; well past time I used it.
Way ahead of you on that one buddy! :-)
As always, you're wrong again. Where did I say I never heard of Mel Gray? You Steelers haters are hilarious.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Of course the rings dont mean everything. They're only part of the story. Whenever I see a Lebron vs Jordan debate, I always see people mention how many rings the players have. Same with NFL players. In Lynn Swann's case, they do matter in my opinion because he was a main contributor to his team, just the same as all the other HOF players on those teams.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
The Media believes in rings and always pushes that point further than they should but that's what they do.
Now don't get me wrong in certain areas of the debate it's appropriate to bring it up if the player played a role in securing a title but really its not all that defining, that being said I would bet every penny I have that without Brady the Patriots don't have 6 rings, and I don't care what anyone says about it, or the fact that that I believe he is the GOAT either
If your a Swann guy then by all means stand by your guy, I get it
I don't disagree, but I have a different perspective. Tom Brady was/is a great QB, and teams with great QBs will, all else equal, be better than teams with bad QBs. The Patriots had a great QB, a lot of other great players, and they won a lot of games, including Super Bowls. But Brady was Brady, no matter who he was playing and no matter what week of the season it happened to be. The fact that the Patriots won hundreds of games, including six games at the end of seasons, provides evidence that Brady was great. The evidence that he was great if you take away those six end-of-season games is 99% as strong. I might think differently if Brady got better as the games increased in significance, becoming SuperQB in the Super Bowl. But he didn't; he was great in Super Bowls, no doubt, but he was just as great in playoff games, and he was just as great in the regular season.
I would think Brady was a great QB, and a GOAT candidate, had the Patriots defense choked in absolutely every Super Bowl, and the Patriots had never won a single one. Brady fans would think he was not as great if that had happened, and that will never make sense to me.
Looking at it from that perspective I know for a fact that he would be labeled a choke artist by millions of Pats fans had the Pats gone 0-6 in Super Bowls, and he would probably would be known as the new Bill Buckner of New England..
It's funny because once he started wearing ring number 4 or 5 some people then started saying "There is no doubt now" in reference to being better than Joe Montana
Either way I totally get where your coming from, we have disagreed on some things but overall I get the big picture with your take on tbings
I think you're probably right. At the root of this, of course, is that people give WAAAYYY too much credit or blame to the QB when a team wins or loses. To the point that the QB can even get blamed for a bad defense, or in Jim Kelly's case, for a missed FG.
QBs can be great and lose, and they can be terrible and win. That's the obvious fact that gets lost in the "rings" argument, and why that argument fails so spectacularly.
speaking of Cardinals who got lost in the shuffle because the team was subpar, how about Ottis Anderson? dude was really good on some bad STL squads. went bananas his rookie year. over 13k yards from scrimmage & 86 house calls for his career. 2x Pro Bowl, first-team All-Pro in 79, second-team All-Pro in 80, 2 mf rings, and an SB MVP.
i wonder how long it has been since his name was mentioned on this forum? has it ever been?
no one loves you Ottis, but I do.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
I liked Ottis, but by the time he came the team had fallen apart and other than that one bogus strike season appearance the Cardinals never made the playoffs. Plus, St. Louis had soured on the team primarily due to its jerk of an owner and they hardly ever sold out, so they were rarely even televised. But, still, a great RB and I'm glad he got to play for a real team and experience winning before his career was over.
For a truly forgotten Cardinal, how about Roger Wehrli? I don't think anyone (except me) has ever mentioned him here. but he was a phenomenal CB playing alongside, shall we say, less than phenomenal teammates. Every bit as good as Mel Blount (2 more Pro Bowls, 1 more First Team), but ZERO rings so he gets forgotten (although he did eventually get in the HOF).
Honor system applies: who here could have named a single player on the Cardinals defense from 1975? The Cardinals were 11-3 that year and won the NFC East, but they did it with offense. Offense and Roger Wehrli. For NFL fan legend status, who could name someone besides Roger Wehrli?
i can't. i was just a tyke in '75, but when '79 rolled around (the year i became enamored with football and cards), i became familiar with Wehrli. but he's the only name i can spit out on defense.
the offense is a different story. based on everything i've gleaned over the years, the Cardinals had arguably the best offensive line in NFL history back in '75. i went to college with Bob Young's son, so i heard a lot of great anecdotes. i doubt there was anyone in the league who was stronger than Bob at the time. then you also had Dan Dierdorf and Conrad Dobler protecting Jim Hart, who was playing pitch-n-catch with Mel Gray. i slam into a wall at 5 on the offensive side of the ball.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
The big name you're missing is Jackie Smith (and Jim Bakken - whose daughter was smoking hot! - if you count kickers as big names). If you were in St. Louis, Jim Otis and Terry Metcalf counted as big names as the RBs, but I'm not sure how well-known they were nationally.
1975 was the year Hart got sacked 6 times in the entire season. Hart was 32 that year (and led the league in sack% again at 33 and 34), and rushed for 207 yards in his 201 game career. He was immobile as a young QB, and a statue in this thirties, but to sack him you had to get past that offensive line, which was, IMO, the GOAT.