This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Holmes would have been the consensus #1 all along if not for the injury concerns. If those concerns are put to rest, I'd take Holmes over LT and Williams.Faulk is kind of in the same boat as Holmes, although with more mileage on him. When healthy, he's everything you could ask for.
I dunno - he may have been the concensus top pick - but how many years in a row can a guy be the #1?IMO even IF Holmes was healthy he's due for a big dropoff in performance. As for Faulk - come on, we all know he'll play 10-12 games and finish in the top 5-8 but never be the #1 performer again.
Payton doesn't really help your argument. Remember, RB stats from those years aren't the same as RB stats from now--it takes a lot more to be considered a top two or three RB. However, let's look at Payton's best years
ayton only had two truly dominant years (by today's FF standards)1977 - 22.01 FP/G1979 - 18.02 FP/GIn his best year ('77), Chicago was fourth in the league in total yards. Granted a lot of that was due to Payton, but he made the Bears a great offense.The following year, 1978, on a Bears team that was in the 20s offesnively, he wasn't nearly as impressive (just under 16 FP/G).79? Payton had a fantastic year, and the Bears were awful offensively. 1980? The 9th best year of his career, and he was held to just seven total touchdowns. In 1984, he had a great year (although he ranked fourth), but was on a bad offensive team. In 1985, he ranked fourth again--BUT, the Bears were a much better offensive team. They were second in points scored, sixth in yards. In '86, Payton dropped to under 15 PPG as the Bears offense fell off a little bit.I think you helped prove my point here--it's surely possible for a RB to have a great year on a bad offensive team--although it takes a great RB and some luck. However, it's not very easy to do it again.So as I said earlier, it was probably more of a fluke that Williams was able to do that. I think Ricky's a tremendous RB, he showed me quite a bit last year--but if the Miami offense stays mediocre AT BEST, he will NOT be the top RB in FF.
Faulk is going to post big numbers this season. Rams have a much better OL. But they do need Pace to get in camp. So, all the hype considering the #1; lets talk about this after 8 games.could be anyone of theRB's that where mention. Faulk has not been what is listed a 'home run' guy. It is the type of offense. GO RAMS 
Nice post
First, the Denver defense only allowed 3.9 yards per carry against them last year while the KC defense allowed a mighty 4.8 yards per carry. So that might have had some impact on the "skillz" that they each showed.And when looking at a RB's playoff schedule, I usually put more weight on who that RB is going against in weeks 14 and 15 rather than week 16. There's no point in looking at who they're going against in your championship game if you don't get there first. In week 14 LT has the Lions and in week 15 LT has the Packers in SD. I'll take those matchups.
With all the comparisons to Emmitt, Aikman, and the Cowboys offense, I figured some actual stats should be brought in. Aikman was not a great quarterback (by FF standards, at least). Aikman was a good quarterback with excellent decision making and leadership ability. I don't really see how anyone could be really scared by the Dallas passing game when Aikman was at the helm. Aikman NEVER passed for more than 3500 yards. In fact, his best season was in 1992 where he got 3445 yards and 23 td's. That was also the ONLY season where Aikman threw for 20 or more touchdowns. In Brees' first year starting, he threw for nearly 3300 yards, 17tds, and 16 ints. In Aikmans first full year, he threw for 2600 yards, 11 tds, and 18 ints. San Diego also had more total offense than Dallas in Aikmans first full year. The total offensive numbers are also in SD's favor:
2002 SD: |---------- PASSING -----------||----- RUSHING -----| TOTAL CMP ATT YD YPA TD INT ATT YD YPA TD YD 324 538 3368 6.26 17 16 466 2137 4.59 19 55051990 Dallas: |---------- PASSING -----------||----- RUSHING -----| TOTAL CMP ATT YD YPA TD INT ATT YD YPA TD YD 254 475 2898 6.10 12 24 393 1500 3.82 13 43981991 Dallas: |---------- PASSING -----------||----- RUSHING -----| TOTAL CMP ATT YD YPA TD INT ATT YD YPA TD YD 305 500 3663 7.33 16 12 433 1711 3.95 15 5374The flaw in this argument is so glaring I have to put SUNGLASSES on to read it.
You're basing your ranking of Portis among NFL RBs based on one game against the Chiefs' defense of 2002???? Last year's KC defense was about the closest thing to a non-contact drill you could find in the regular season. The Broncos' D, on the other hand, was really tough against the run, holding rushers like Ricky to under 50 yards.Second, if you need 34 points from your RB to win your championship, then you don't deserve to be in the championship in the first place. Last year Tomlinson only got me 12 points in my championship game, but I still won because I don't depend on any one single player to win.
Those are interesting points, but skewed. Your talking about the Dal. offense pre Super Bowl yrs. when they mearly had training wheels on. If you guys think its comical to say LT shouldn't be considered at #1. I say its more comical to say that the SD offense is better than that Dal. one which won 3 Superbowls. :rotflmao:
That isn't AT ALL what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that when you compare Brees' first year of starting to Aikman's first year of starting, Brees has better numbers. When you compare LT's second year starting to Emmitt's, LT's numbers are better. When you compare the building years of the Cowboys (1990-1991) and last year of the Chargers (obviously a building year) and take into account the similarities between them (i.e. the fact that Aikman and Emmitt were drafted so closely together by a team on the upswing) that the Chargers numbers are better than those of the Cowboys. Even if you look at the 1992 and 1993 Super Bowl champion Cowboys, their total offense was only about 200 yards better than the 2002 Chargers.
1992 Cowboys |---------- PASSING -----------||----- RUSHING -----| TOTAL CMP ATT YD YPA TD INT ATT YD YPA TD YD 314 491 3597 7.33 23 15 500 2121 4.24 20 5718 1993 Cowboys |---------- PASSING -----------||----- RUSHING -----| TOTAL CMP ATT YD YPA TD INT ATT YD YPA TD YD 317 475 3617 7.61 18 6 490 2161 4.41 20 5778Don't forget Norv Turner's offense (as run by Cam Cameron in SD) and Hudson Houck's offensive line (as run by Hudson Houck in SD).
is that you, rocko???gllll peace???
Couldn't agree more.
I see your point now that you have clarified it evilhomer. But when comparing those numbers it would be better to compare realative to their peers (or NFL rank) like stuart has done. I'm not tryin to down your statement, as SD could very well gell this year into a powerful scoring team. I just say lets wait n see. They still have many questions: will Boston even be able to play, O-line issues, and Brees many have sim. #s to Aikman, but is certainly not the same quality of QB.That one game was just an example. I have NFL Sunday Ticket and my buddy is a Denver fan. Pittsburgh always plays early games and then I watch West Coast games or late games of other teams including Denver. Lets just say I've seen enough to know I think he is the best in the league. I don't need your defensive stats to tell me that there is a flaw in my OPIONION. If you wanna bring up stats, just look at YPC. I'm sure you will find a way to twist that stat around so nevermind.A last note: Who are you to tell me I don't deserve to make the championship game. I didn't need all 34 to win it, but I can appreciate a nice cushion, HOMER.
