Emmitt Smith is probably the most durable RB in the sport's history, but I don't see a 4.2 YPC, behind THAT line for THAT many years, as all that great. There have been quite a few better runners than Emmitt Smith, and that doesn't take away anything from what he accomplished.
<< <i>I just think its pretty funny that someone that has never seen Jim Brown play is so dead set on the fact that he is head and shoulders above the rest and nobody else should even be in the conversation.....lol. I'm pretty sure it has already been mentioned in this thread, but everyone looks good in highlights....lol. These debates are 100% based on what ifs so if you can't accept that then maybe debates like this one aren't really your specialty. I understand that a lot of people that saw Brown play insist that he is the best and I take their opinions into consideration. I put him in my top 5 based on the knowledge of others, but I have seen Peterson, Emmitt, and Barry Sanders play multiple times and they all easily pass the eye test plus they have awesome stats as well. This might be a off topic for this particular conversation, but in regards to your funny statement about Ruth and Stan Javier, I do think that baseball star players from 50-60 years ago would fair better in todays game than football star players from the same era. Most of the non-star players from both baseball and football would probably not be good enough to be in the league. Just my opinion >>
I just think its pretty funny that someone that has never seen Jim Brown play could be so dead set on the fact that he isn't head and shoulders above the rest...
Hey. Here's a tip for you. It's my OPINION that he's the best ever.
I never said that "no one else can be in the conversation". Do you want me to explain to you what opinions are and why we are here on this message board about sports and trading cards?
And trust me. You don't have to explain to me that you use a TIME MACHINE to form your opinions. lol >>
Its painfully obvious you are one of the most ignorant posters here, you can add all the "LOL"s and keep cracking yourself up with your BS but in all honesty you are a toolbag
<< <i>I just think its pretty funny that someone that has never seen Jim Brown play is so dead set on the fact that he is head and shoulders above the rest and nobody else should even be in the conversation.....lol. I'm pretty sure it has already been mentioned in this thread, but everyone looks good in highlights....lol. These debates are 100% based on what ifs so if you can't accept that then maybe debates like this one aren't really your specialty. I understand that a lot of people that saw Brown play insist that he is the best and I take their opinions into consideration. I put him in my top 5 based on the knowledge of others, but I have seen Peterson, Emmitt, and Barry Sanders play multiple times and they all easily pass the eye test plus they have awesome stats as well. This might be a off topic for this particular conversation, but in regards to your funny statement about Ruth and Stan Javier, I do think that baseball star players from 50-60 years ago would fair better in todays game than football star players from the same era. Most of the non-star players from both baseball and football would probably not be good enough to be in the league. Just my opinion >>
I just think its pretty funny that someone that has never seen Jim Brown play could be so dead set on the fact that he isn't head and shoulders above the rest...
Hey. Here's a tip for you. It's my OPINION that he's the best ever.
I never said that "no one else can be in the conversation". Do you want me to explain to you what opinions are and why we are here on this message board about sports and trading cards?
And trust me. You don't have to explain to me that you use a TIME MACHINE to form your opinions. lol >>
Its painfully obvious you are one of the most ignorant posters here, you can add all the "LOL"s and keep cracking yourself up with your BS but in all honesty you are a toolbag >>
Thanks for basically saying nothing about the topic at-hand. You can personally attack me all you want. It's you who looks the fool for doing it.
<< <i>I just think its pretty funny that someone that has never seen Jim Brown play is so dead set on the fact that he is head and shoulders above the rest and nobody else should even be in the conversation.....lol. I'm pretty sure it has already been mentioned in this thread, but everyone looks good in highlights....lol. These debates are 100% based on what ifs so if you can't accept that then maybe debates like this one aren't really your specialty. I understand that a lot of people that saw Brown play insist that he is the best and I take their opinions into consideration. I put him in my top 5 based on the knowledge of others, but I have seen Peterson, Emmitt, and Barry Sanders play multiple times and they all easily pass the eye test plus they have awesome stats as well. This might be a off topic for this particular conversation, but in regards to your funny statement about Ruth and Stan Javier, I do think that baseball star players from 50-60 years ago would fair better in todays game than football star players from the same era. Most of the non-star players from both baseball and football would probably not be good enough to be in the league. Just my opinion >>
I just think its pretty funny that someone that has never seen Jim Brown play could be so dead set on the fact that he isn't head and shoulders above the rest...
Hey. Here's a tip for you. It's my OPINION that he's the best ever.
I never said that "no one else can be in the conversation". Do you want me to explain to you what opinions are and why we are here on this message board about sports and trading cards?
And trust me. You don't have to explain to me that you use a TIME MACHINE to form your opinions. lol >>
Its painfully obvious you are one of the most ignorant posters here, you can add all the "LOL"s and keep cracking yourself up with your BS but in all honesty you are a toolbag >>
Thanks for basically saying nothing about the topic at-hand. You can personally attack me all you want. It's you who looks the fool for doing it. >>
Thats the thing, your too ignorant to discuss this topic.
The fact that you say its childish to mention that comparing different eras basically makes you look like the ignorant fool you really are.
<< <i>I just think its pretty funny that someone that has never seen Jim Brown play is so dead set on the fact that he is head and shoulders above the rest and nobody else should even be in the conversation.....lol. I'm pretty sure it has already been mentioned in this thread, but everyone looks good in highlights....lol. These debates are 100% based on what ifs so if you can't accept that then maybe debates like this one aren't really your specialty. I understand that a lot of people that saw Brown play insist that he is the best and I take their opinions into consideration. I put him in my top 5 based on the knowledge of others, but I have seen Peterson, Emmitt, and Barry Sanders play multiple times and they all easily pass the eye test plus they have awesome stats as well. This might be a off topic for this particular conversation, but in regards to your funny statement about Ruth and Stan Javier, I do think that baseball star players from 50-60 years ago would fair better in todays game than football star players from the same era. Most of the non-star players from both baseball and football would probably not be good enough to be in the league. Just my opinion >>
I just think its pretty funny that someone that has never seen Jim Brown play could be so dead set on the fact that he isn't head and shoulders above the rest...
Hey. Here's a tip for you. It's my OPINION that he's the best ever.
I never said that "no one else can be in the conversation". Do you want me to explain to you what opinions are and why we are here on this message board about sports and trading cards?
And trust me. You don't have to explain to me that you use a TIME MACHINE to form your opinions. lol >>
Its painfully obvious you are one of the most ignorant posters here, you can add all the "LOL"s and keep cracking yourself up with your BS but in all honesty you are a toolbag >>
Thanks for basically saying nothing about the topic at-hand. You can personally attack me all you want. It's you who looks the fool for doing it. >>
Thats the thing, your too ignorant to discuss this topic.
The fact that you say its childish to mention that comparing different eras basically makes you look like the ignorant fool you really are. >>
Blah blah blah. Keep up the needless verbal attacks and I'll continue not giving a crap. As if anything you say means a damn thing to me in any way, shape or form. You are the one exposing yourself as a MAJOR a-hole, so as I said, keep it coming, friend. lol
for what it's worth, Paul is one of the most respected and well-liked members here. Definitely NOT an major Auction House. Really not even a minor one.
For a Pats fan, Paul is A-Ok in my book, too, LOL..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>for what it's worth, Paul is one of the most respected and well-liked members here. Definitely NOT an major Auction House. Really not even a minor one. >>
Swell guys don't start verbally attacking someone they don't know over a minor difference in opinion about sports. Seems like a real hot-headed a-hole to me.
<< <i>for what it's worth, Paul is one of the most respected and well-liked members here. Definitely NOT an major Auction House. Really not even a minor one. >>
Swell guys don't start verbally attacking someone they don't know over a minor difference in opinion about sports. Seems like a real hot-headed a-hole to me. >>
Bradd, you're too stinkin' obtuse to realize that every time you butt heads with someone here a simple look in a mirror would reveal the verbal attacker/hot head. It's been a consistent theme - when you choose to engage people here you have trouble playing nicely with them, and when you inevitably come across a dissenting opinion or catch flack you lash out at them like a petulant child.
I'll wait for your inevitable complaint about how I troll you. That's a consistent theme as well - everyone else is a troll.
<< <i>for what it's worth, Paul is one of the most respected and well-liked members here. Definitely NOT an major Auction House. Really not even a minor one. >>
Swell guys don't start verbally attacking someone they don't know over a minor difference in opinion about sports. Seems like a real hot-headed a-hole to me. >>
Bradd, you're too stinkin' obtuse to realize that every time you butt heads with someone here a simple look in a mirror would reveal the verbal attacker/hot head. It's been a consistent theme - when you choose to engage people here you have trouble playing nicely with them, and when you inevitably come across a dissenting opinion or catch flack you lash out at them like a petulant child.
I'll wait for your inevitable complaint about how I troll you. That's a consistent theme as well - everyone else is a troll.
You may have the last word, sir. I'm out. >>
Nope. I have been having discussions all over the place in these threads and this guy came out of nowhere with the personal attacks that have nothing to do with the discussion. You are wrong again.
<< <i>for what it's worth, Paul is one of the most respected and well-liked members here. Definitely NOT an major Auction House. Really not even a minor one. >>
Swell guys don't start verbally attacking someone they don't know over a minor difference in opinion about sports. Seems like a real hot-headed a-hole to me. >>
Bradd, you're too stinkin' obtuse to realize that every time you butt heads with someone here a simple look in a mirror would reveal the verbal attacker/hot head. It's been a consistent theme - when you choose to engage people here you have trouble playing nicely with them, and when you inevitably come across a dissenting opinion or catch flack you lash out at them like a petulant child.
I'll wait for your inevitable complaint about how I troll you. That's a consistent theme as well - everyone else is a troll.
You may have the last word, sir. I'm out. >>
Nope. I have been having discussions all over the place in these threads and this guy came out of nowhere with the personal attacks that have nothing to do with the discussion. You are wrong again. >>
Umm No You are the one who immediately discounts other peoples opinions and throw out ridiculas statements and belittling other people, if your head is full of rocks and you dont realize it then take a minute to re-read your posts and hopefully it will get through your skull that ITS YOU who is 100% ignorant- not just in this thread but other ones where you act the same way. And as far as me being "hot headed" how do you tell? I throw my opinion out there and call it the way I see it and you think Im enraged? Im not at all upset, we are on a message board and we cant handle this any other way except type away, Im surely not angry at you I just think your an ignorant poster.
Im not going to respond again to this nonsense again however you 100% have the right to respond so feel free to quote me and that will end it, no need to continue to go back and forth.
<< <i>for what it's worth, Paul is one of the most respected and well-liked members here. Definitely NOT an major Auction House. Really not even a minor one. >>
Swell guys don't start verbally attacking someone they don't know over a minor difference in opinion about sports. Seems like a real hot-headed a-hole to me. >>
Bradd, you're too stinkin' obtuse to realize that every time you butt heads with someone here a simple look in a mirror would reveal the verbal attacker/hot head. It's been a consistent theme - when you choose to engage people here you have trouble playing nicely with them, and when you inevitably come across a dissenting opinion or catch flack you lash out at them like a petulant child.
I'll wait for your inevitable complaint about how I troll you. That's a consistent theme as well - everyone else is a troll.
You may have the last word, sir. I'm out. >>
Nope. I have been having discussions all over the place in these threads and this guy came out of nowhere with the personal attacks that have nothing to do with the discussion. You are wrong again. >>
Umm No You are the one who immediately discounts other peoples opinions and throw out ridiculas statements and belittling other people, if your head is full of rocks and you dont realize it then take a minute to re-read your posts and hopefully it will get through your skull that ITS YOU who is 100% ignorant- not just in this thread but other ones where you act the same way. And as far as me being "hot headed" how do you tell? I throw my opinion out there and call it the way I see it and you think Im enraged? Im not at all upset, we are on a message board and we cant handle this any other way except type away, Im surely not angry at you I just think your an ignorant poster.
Im not going to respond again to this nonsense again however you 100% have the right to respond so feel free to quote me and that will end it, no need to continue to go back and forth. >>
Oh give me a break you baby. Just because I counter other people's points with points of my own doesn't mean I'm personally attacking them like you are doing to me. I'm having a discussion and getting my points across in a manner I see fit. You are just verbally attacking me personally for no reason other than the fact you are an a-hole.
That's right, you should run away from this stupid internet slap fight that you needlessly started.
[Its painfully obvious you are one of the most ignorant posters here, you can add all the "LOL"s and keep cracking yourself up with your BS but in all honesty you are a toolbag]
I agree .........Sportcardstheory basically called me an idiot for looking up Joe Perry's career stats on nfl.com even though the stats I posted were correct.
Back on topic, these past few weeks all the Football talk was about Adrian Peterson breaking Dickerson's single season rushing mark. The problem I have with the NFL records is with the increase in the amount of games being played over the decades, that of course the 'record' will be held by a modern player who played in a 16 game season.
The NFL single season records should be changed to average per game, with of course a minimum amount of games played per year to quality for the per game average titles.
So really, the all-time record is still OJ Simpson's in my opinion because he averaged 143 yards per game over a 14 game schedule. For his record to be broken over a 16 game season, a player would have to run for 2290 yards. Dickerson, in setting the modern one season 'total' mark, avg. 131.6 per game. A full 12 yards LESS per game than OJ.
Think of this, in 1973 when OJ ran for 2003 yards, the AFC runner up in rushing was HOFer Larry Csonka who rushed for exactly 1000 less yards than Simpson did that year. So Csonka averaged 72 per game and OJ averaged 143!
The top five all-time rushing yards per game leaders are:
Rank Player (age), Y/G Year Teams 1. O.J. Simpson+ (26) 143.1 1973 BUF 2. Jim Brown+ (27) 133.1 1963 CLE 3. Walter Payton+ (23) 132.3 1977 CHI 4. Eric Dickerson+ (24) 131.6 1984 RAM 5. Adrian Peterson (27) 131.1 2012 MIN
Back on topic, these past few weeks all the Football talk was about Adrian Peterson breaking Dickerson's single season rushing mark. The problem I have with the NFL records is with the increase in the amount of games being played over the decades, that of course the 'record' will be held by a modern player who played in a 16 game season.
The NFL single season records should be changed to average per game, with of course a minimum amount of games played per year to quality for the per game average titles.
So really, the all-time record is still OJ Simpson's in my opinion because he averaged 143 yards per game over a 14 game schedule. For his record to be broken over a 16 game season, a player would have to run for 2290 yards. Dickerson, in setting the modern one season 'total' mark, avg. 131.6 per game. A full 12 yards LESS per game than OJ.
Think of this, in 1973 when OJ ran for 2003 yards, the AFC runner up in rushing was HOFer Larry Csonka who rushed for exactly 1000 less yards than Simpson did that year. So Csonka averaged 72 per game and OJ averaged 143!
The top five all-time rushing yards per game leaders are:
Rank Player (age), Y/G Year Teams 1. O.J. Simpson+ (26) 143.1 1973 BUF 2. Jim Brown+ (27) 133.1 1963 CLE 3. Walter Payton+ (23) 132.3 1977 CHI 4. Eric Dickerson+ (24) 131.6 1984 RAM 5. Adrian Peterson (27) 131.1 2012 MIN >>
Forget YPG, YPC is an even better indicator of greatness. Per-game statistics can be greatly affected by a player leaving a game early due to injury. YPC is pretty much it.
1) Earl Campbell 2) Eric Dickerson 3) Barry Sanders 4) Bo Jackson 5) Walter Payton
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Comments
Barry Sanders
Walter Payton
Earl Campbell
Bo Jackson
Eric Dickerson
Jim Brown
O.J. Simpson (Strictly regarding Football)
Emmitt Smith
Barry Sanders
Walter Payton
The Zodiac Collection
My PC: The Zodiac Collection
<< <i>
<< <i>I just think its pretty funny that someone that has never seen Jim Brown play is so dead set on the fact that he is head and shoulders above the rest and nobody else should even be in the conversation.....lol. I'm pretty sure it has already been mentioned in this thread, but everyone looks good in highlights....lol. These debates are 100% based on what ifs so if you can't accept that then maybe debates like this one aren't really your specialty. I understand that a lot of people that saw Brown play insist that he is the best and I take their opinions into consideration. I put him in my top 5 based on the knowledge of others, but I have seen Peterson, Emmitt, and Barry Sanders play multiple times and they all easily pass the eye test plus they have awesome stats as well. This might be a off topic for this particular conversation, but in regards to your funny statement about Ruth and Stan Javier, I do think that baseball star players from 50-60 years ago would fair better in todays game than football star players from the same era. Most of the non-star players from both baseball and football would probably not be good enough to be in the league. Just my opinion >>
I just think its pretty funny that someone that has never seen Jim Brown play could be so dead set on the fact that he isn't head and shoulders above the rest...
Hey. Here's a tip for you. It's my OPINION that he's the best ever.
I never said that "no one else can be in the conversation". Do you want me to explain to you what opinions are and why we are here on this message board about sports and trading cards?
And trust me. You don't have to explain to me that you use a TIME MACHINE to form your opinions. lol >>
Its painfully obvious you are one of the most ignorant posters here, you can add all the "LOL"s and keep cracking yourself up with your BS but in all honesty you are a toolbag
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I just think its pretty funny that someone that has never seen Jim Brown play is so dead set on the fact that he is head and shoulders above the rest and nobody else should even be in the conversation.....lol. I'm pretty sure it has already been mentioned in this thread, but everyone looks good in highlights....lol. These debates are 100% based on what ifs so if you can't accept that then maybe debates like this one aren't really your specialty. I understand that a lot of people that saw Brown play insist that he is the best and I take their opinions into consideration. I put him in my top 5 based on the knowledge of others, but I have seen Peterson, Emmitt, and Barry Sanders play multiple times and they all easily pass the eye test plus they have awesome stats as well. This might be a off topic for this particular conversation, but in regards to your funny statement about Ruth and Stan Javier, I do think that baseball star players from 50-60 years ago would fair better in todays game than football star players from the same era. Most of the non-star players from both baseball and football would probably not be good enough to be in the league. Just my opinion >>
I just think its pretty funny that someone that has never seen Jim Brown play could be so dead set on the fact that he isn't head and shoulders above the rest...
Hey. Here's a tip for you. It's my OPINION that he's the best ever.
I never said that "no one else can be in the conversation". Do you want me to explain to you what opinions are and why we are here on this message board about sports and trading cards?
And trust me. You don't have to explain to me that you use a TIME MACHINE to form your opinions. lol >>
Its painfully obvious you are one of the most ignorant posters here, you can add all the "LOL"s and keep cracking yourself up with your BS but in all honesty you are a toolbag >>
Thanks for basically saying nothing about the topic at-hand. You can personally attack me all you want. It's you who looks the fool for doing it.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I just think its pretty funny that someone that has never seen Jim Brown play is so dead set on the fact that he is head and shoulders above the rest and nobody else should even be in the conversation.....lol. I'm pretty sure it has already been mentioned in this thread, but everyone looks good in highlights....lol. These debates are 100% based on what ifs so if you can't accept that then maybe debates like this one aren't really your specialty. I understand that a lot of people that saw Brown play insist that he is the best and I take their opinions into consideration. I put him in my top 5 based on the knowledge of others, but I have seen Peterson, Emmitt, and Barry Sanders play multiple times and they all easily pass the eye test plus they have awesome stats as well. This might be a off topic for this particular conversation, but in regards to your funny statement about Ruth and Stan Javier, I do think that baseball star players from 50-60 years ago would fair better in todays game than football star players from the same era. Most of the non-star players from both baseball and football would probably not be good enough to be in the league. Just my opinion >>
I just think its pretty funny that someone that has never seen Jim Brown play could be so dead set on the fact that he isn't head and shoulders above the rest...
Hey. Here's a tip for you. It's my OPINION that he's the best ever.
I never said that "no one else can be in the conversation". Do you want me to explain to you what opinions are and why we are here on this message board about sports and trading cards?
And trust me. You don't have to explain to me that you use a TIME MACHINE to form your opinions. lol >>
Its painfully obvious you are one of the most ignorant posters here, you can add all the "LOL"s and keep cracking yourself up with your BS but in all honesty you are a toolbag >>
Thanks for basically saying nothing about the topic at-hand. You can personally attack me all you want. It's you who looks the fool for doing it. >>
Thats the thing, your too ignorant to discuss this topic.
The fact that you say its childish to mention that comparing different eras basically makes you look like the ignorant fool you really are.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I just think its pretty funny that someone that has never seen Jim Brown play is so dead set on the fact that he is head and shoulders above the rest and nobody else should even be in the conversation.....lol. I'm pretty sure it has already been mentioned in this thread, but everyone looks good in highlights....lol. These debates are 100% based on what ifs so if you can't accept that then maybe debates like this one aren't really your specialty. I understand that a lot of people that saw Brown play insist that he is the best and I take their opinions into consideration. I put him in my top 5 based on the knowledge of others, but I have seen Peterson, Emmitt, and Barry Sanders play multiple times and they all easily pass the eye test plus they have awesome stats as well. This might be a off topic for this particular conversation, but in regards to your funny statement about Ruth and Stan Javier, I do think that baseball star players from 50-60 years ago would fair better in todays game than football star players from the same era. Most of the non-star players from both baseball and football would probably not be good enough to be in the league. Just my opinion >>
I just think its pretty funny that someone that has never seen Jim Brown play could be so dead set on the fact that he isn't head and shoulders above the rest...
Hey. Here's a tip for you. It's my OPINION that he's the best ever.
I never said that "no one else can be in the conversation". Do you want me to explain to you what opinions are and why we are here on this message board about sports and trading cards?
And trust me. You don't have to explain to me that you use a TIME MACHINE to form your opinions. lol >>
Its painfully obvious you are one of the most ignorant posters here, you can add all the "LOL"s and keep cracking yourself up with your BS but in all honesty you are a toolbag >>
Thanks for basically saying nothing about the topic at-hand. You can personally attack me all you want. It's you who looks the fool for doing it. >>
Thats the thing, your too ignorant to discuss this topic.
The fact that you say its childish to mention that comparing different eras basically makes you look like the ignorant fool you really are. >>
Blah blah blah. Keep up the needless verbal attacks and I'll continue not giving a crap. As if anything you say means a damn thing to me in any way, shape or form. You are the one exposing yourself as a MAJOR a-hole, so as I said, keep it coming, friend. lol
lol
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>for what it's worth, Paul is one of the most respected and well-liked members here. Definitely NOT an major Auction House. Really not even a minor one. >>
Swell guys don't start verbally attacking someone they don't know over a minor difference in opinion about sports. Seems like a real hot-headed a-hole to me.
<< <i>
<< <i>for what it's worth, Paul is one of the most respected and well-liked members here. Definitely NOT an major Auction House. Really not even a minor one. >>
Swell guys don't start verbally attacking someone they don't know over a minor difference in opinion about sports. Seems like a real hot-headed a-hole to me. >>
Bradd, you're too stinkin' obtuse to realize that every time you butt heads with someone here a simple look in a mirror would reveal the verbal attacker/hot head. It's been a consistent theme - when you choose to engage people here you have trouble playing nicely with them, and when you inevitably come across a dissenting opinion or catch flack you lash out at them like a petulant child.
I'll wait for your inevitable complaint about how I troll you. That's a consistent theme as well - everyone else is a troll.
You may have the last word, sir. I'm out.
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>for what it's worth, Paul is one of the most respected and well-liked members here. Definitely NOT an major Auction House. Really not even a minor one. >>
Swell guys don't start verbally attacking someone they don't know over a minor difference in opinion about sports. Seems like a real hot-headed a-hole to me. >>
Bradd, you're too stinkin' obtuse to realize that every time you butt heads with someone here a simple look in a mirror would reveal the verbal attacker/hot head. It's been a consistent theme - when you choose to engage people here you have trouble playing nicely with them, and when you inevitably come across a dissenting opinion or catch flack you lash out at them like a petulant child.
I'll wait for your inevitable complaint about how I troll you. That's a consistent theme as well - everyone else is a troll.
You may have the last word, sir. I'm out. >>
Nope. I have been having discussions all over the place in these threads and this guy came out of nowhere with the personal attacks that have nothing to do with the discussion. You are wrong again.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>for what it's worth, Paul is one of the most respected and well-liked members here. Definitely NOT an major Auction House. Really not even a minor one. >>
Swell guys don't start verbally attacking someone they don't know over a minor difference in opinion about sports. Seems like a real hot-headed a-hole to me. >>
Bradd, you're too stinkin' obtuse to realize that every time you butt heads with someone here a simple look in a mirror would reveal the verbal attacker/hot head. It's been a consistent theme - when you choose to engage people here you have trouble playing nicely with them, and when you inevitably come across a dissenting opinion or catch flack you lash out at them like a petulant child.
I'll wait for your inevitable complaint about how I troll you. That's a consistent theme as well - everyone else is a troll.
You may have the last word, sir. I'm out. >>
Nope. I have been having discussions all over the place in these threads and this guy came out of nowhere with the personal attacks that have nothing to do with the discussion. You are wrong again. >>
Umm No You are the one who immediately discounts other peoples opinions and throw out ridiculas statements and belittling other people, if your head is full of rocks and you dont realize it then take a minute to re-read your posts and hopefully it will get through your skull that ITS YOU who is 100% ignorant- not just in this thread but other ones where you act the same way. And as far as me being "hot headed" how do you tell? I throw my opinion out there and call it the way I see it and you think Im enraged? Im not at all upset, we are on a message board and we cant handle this any other way except type away, Im surely not angry at you I just think your an ignorant poster.
Im not going to respond again to this nonsense again however you 100% have the right to respond so feel free to quote me and that will end it, no need to continue to go back and forth.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>for what it's worth, Paul is one of the most respected and well-liked members here. Definitely NOT an major Auction House. Really not even a minor one. >>
Swell guys don't start verbally attacking someone they don't know over a minor difference in opinion about sports. Seems like a real hot-headed a-hole to me. >>
Bradd, you're too stinkin' obtuse to realize that every time you butt heads with someone here a simple look in a mirror would reveal the verbal attacker/hot head. It's been a consistent theme - when you choose to engage people here you have trouble playing nicely with them, and when you inevitably come across a dissenting opinion or catch flack you lash out at them like a petulant child.
I'll wait for your inevitable complaint about how I troll you. That's a consistent theme as well - everyone else is a troll.
You may have the last word, sir. I'm out. >>
Nope. I have been having discussions all over the place in these threads and this guy came out of nowhere with the personal attacks that have nothing to do with the discussion. You are wrong again. >>
Umm No You are the one who immediately discounts other peoples opinions and throw out ridiculas statements and belittling other people, if your head is full of rocks and you dont realize it then take a minute to re-read your posts and hopefully it will get through your skull that ITS YOU who is 100% ignorant- not just in this thread but other ones where you act the same way. And as far as me being "hot headed" how do you tell? I throw my opinion out there and call it the way I see it and you think Im enraged? Im not at all upset, we are on a message board and we cant handle this any other way except type away, Im surely not angry at you I just think your an ignorant poster.
Im not going to respond again to this nonsense again however you 100% have the right to respond so feel free to quote me and that will end it, no need to continue to go back and forth. >>
Oh give me a break you baby. Just because I counter other people's points with points of my own doesn't mean I'm personally attacking them like you are doing to me. I'm having a discussion and getting my points across in a manner I see fit. You are just verbally attacking me personally for no reason other than the fact you are an a-hole.
That's right, you should run away from this stupid internet slap fight that you needlessly started.
I concur,your are very argumentative.
<< <i>So so sensitive. >>
I see you're still making friends on this Board... BZ Shipmate!
Back on topic, these past few weeks all the Football talk was about
Adrian Peterson breaking Dickerson's single season rushing mark. The
problem I have with the NFL records is with the increase in the amount of games
being played over the decades, that of course the 'record' will be held
by a modern player who played in a 16 game season.
The NFL single season records should be changed to average per game,
with of course a minimum amount of games played per year to quality
for the per game average titles.
So really, the all-time record is still OJ Simpson's in my opinion because
he averaged 143 yards per game over a 14 game schedule.
For his record to be broken over a 16 game season, a player would
have to run for 2290 yards. Dickerson, in setting the modern one
season 'total' mark, avg. 131.6 per game. A full 12 yards LESS per game
than OJ.
Think of this, in 1973 when OJ ran for 2003 yards, the AFC runner up
in rushing was HOFer Larry Csonka who rushed for exactly 1000 less yards
than Simpson did that year. So Csonka averaged 72 per game and OJ averaged 143!
The top five all-time rushing yards per game leaders are:
Rank Player (age), Y/G Year Teams
1. O.J. Simpson+ (26) 143.1 1973 BUF
2. Jim Brown+ (27) 133.1 1963 CLE
3. Walter Payton+ (23) 132.3 1977 CHI
4. Eric Dickerson+ (24) 131.6 1984 RAM
5. Adrian Peterson (27) 131.1 2012 MIN
Well.... actually, he's # BK4013970
<< <i>A good thread turned sour. Nice.
Back on topic, these past few weeks all the Football talk was about
Adrian Peterson breaking Dickerson's single season rushing mark. The
problem I have with the NFL records is with the increase in the amount of games
being played over the decades, that of course the 'record' will be held
by a modern player who played in a 16 game season.
The NFL single season records should be changed to average per game,
with of course a minimum amount of games played per year to quality
for the per game average titles.
So really, the all-time record is still OJ Simpson's in my opinion because
he averaged 143 yards per game over a 14 game schedule.
For his record to be broken over a 16 game season, a player would
have to run for 2290 yards. Dickerson, in setting the modern one
season 'total' mark, avg. 131.6 per game. A full 12 yards LESS per game
than OJ.
Think of this, in 1973 when OJ ran for 2003 yards, the AFC runner up
in rushing was HOFer Larry Csonka who rushed for exactly 1000 less yards
than Simpson did that year. So Csonka averaged 72 per game and OJ averaged 143!
The top five all-time rushing yards per game leaders are:
Rank Player (age), Y/G Year Teams
1. O.J. Simpson+ (26) 143.1 1973 BUF
2. Jim Brown+ (27) 133.1 1963 CLE
3. Walter Payton+ (23) 132.3 1977 CHI
4. Eric Dickerson+ (24) 131.6 1984 RAM
5. Adrian Peterson (27) 131.1 2012 MIN >>
Forget YPG, YPC is an even better indicator of greatness. Per-game statistics can be greatly affected by a player leaving a game early due to injury. YPC is pretty much it.
1) Earl Campbell
2) Eric Dickerson
3) Barry Sanders
4) Bo Jackson
5) Walter Payton