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!
For three years Terrell Davis put up GREAT stats. Based on the continued excellence of the Denver running game no matter who you put at RB, it is dependent on the eye of the beholder whether Davis was great. IMO Terrell is not in Sayers league.
I have to say I'm surprised at this post coming from Joe. I thought this was a fishing trip when I found the thread tonight, but having read it, I gather it is not. I have posted on Sayers vs. Davis before:
Now, as to the thread question:1. Would the Texans be happy with Sayers' career totals if they draft Bush #1? No, of course not, and they shouldn't be. But if he produced those career totals today, those numbers would be disappointing, whereas they were outstanding in Sayers' day. This is indeed apples and oranges without framing the numbers in their proper context.
Two totally different styles between Sayers and TD and even though Sayers looked spectacular, TD got the job done and basically carried the team to two Super Bowl wins. I absolutely believe TD was great for those three years. The backs that have played for Denver get very little credit since it's supposedly the system that creates them. Does the system help? Of course, just like it helped Emmitt, Priest, Alexander and many others. However, two RB's (Portis and Droughns) have switched teams and stayed at nearly the same level, just dropping off in YPA. Terrell Davis would have been a HOF RB anywhere he played had he stayed healthy, just as Portis will if he does.
Great post which I agree with. The Texans wouldn't be happy with Bush simply duplicating Sayers' stats (though I don't see any star RB returning 25 kicks a year these days). On the other hand they'd be getting an incredible return on every dime they pay Bush if he's All-Pro for the next 5 seasons. Between free agency and the average career length of a running back, I don't know that any team expects more than 5 years from their draft picks. It's interesting that Sayers' Bears had two of the greatest players of all time (Sayers and Butkus) but never made the postseason.
Kind of hard to tell but it appears that you ranked these in order of Fantasy Points so I think my point about looking at someones career through a Fantasy Football slant is valid.
Nope, they are ranked by rushing + Receiving yards (the last number)
Fair questions - Although you are choosing the context which isn't fair and also I would strongly disagree that historians would say Sayers career was better than anyone other than Jim Brown....For lack of a better way to put it, I don't think people understand the value of players real well, most especially the people who vote on the HOF. This is true in other sports as well. I do not know who voted people in back then, but writers used to have a huge say and no offense to any writers, but they usually don't get it. For crying out loud talk show hosts that are extremely popular don't get what it takes to win in some pro sports.In terms of not understanding value the best way I can relate is to compare what happens in fantasy football when someone says that it s critical I get a QB because they score 25 points a game and I am less worried about a RB because he only scores 20 a game. My analogy would be that the HOF writers would vote the QB in (for fantasy) rather than the RB who has a much higher differential and is harder to come by, etc...
Funny you should use that analogy as I was thinking of using it. I didn't because Sayers, from the stats, was not dominating, in fact other guys outperformed him. Koufax was not outperformed. SK was #1 in ERA, wins, strikeouts and IP. Leading ERA and IP is the dominant.
Chase you are reaching again. All of a sudden you raise the bar above 600 so Bo Jackson doesn't get in? Not good Chase, not good at all
Hi jw,How are you defining total yards there?
Hi jw,Follow up question.
Thanks jw,That's what I thought.
I think all this focus on numbers and number of seasons is losing the proper perspective for Sayers.We are not talking about 5 great seasons.
Well, when you say I'm not fine with three great seasons, I assume you are referring to my statements about Davis. I don't think Davis should be in the HOF, and I do think Sayers should be. For HOF consideration, I think 3 great years is not enough, but if they are great enough, I think 5 can be enough (very rare, Sayers qualifies).In terms of this question, I think 5 All Pro seasons is a nobrainer. I also think 4 All Pro seasons is a nobrainer. This is largely because I believe it is less likely than most believe, especially at this time of year, for a highly graded prospect to do all of the following:
OK. I should not have brought up numbers, because, as Koya said, they don't do Sayers justice.That said, I think it is probably reasonable to focus on his first 5 season, in which he played a total of 64 games, and ignore his last 2 seasons, in which he played a total of 4 games and was clearly not the same player.
Hi koya,With all due respect, I'd expect an "immortal" RB to average better than 73 yards a game rushing for an extremely short career.
Thanks jw,That's sort of what I was looking for as to where you put your line on how many seasons. Thanks.
It wasn't just 73 yards (which was a lot back then -- tops in the league a couple times); it was 73 yards on 14-15 carries, which is a lot more valuable than 73 yards on 20 carries.
One might make a case that way but it's pretty weak. You're saying returning punts and kickoffs actually hurt his rushing numbers? Because he was tired or couldn't handle the mental work of adding return duties? I guess you could argue that but I don't think it's anywhere like even on both sides.J
For sure, MT. But that's what I'm saying. Maybe I reserve "immortal" for too rare a situation but tops in the league a couple of times isn't one.J
Yeah, he wasn't immortal. He was just really good -- a lot better than a glance at his stats would indiciate, but obviously mortal.
That's an interesting question 3.I like to look at stuff like this. And on the other side of the coin, what would a with Bush's skill do against a defense from the mid 60's?
So I guess we can rule out "zero".
That is the point I made before. If you are OK with a short career then where do you draw the line?
Pure hyperbole. I just took seasons from his era and showed you better or at least comparable seasons from 4 guys not named Brown. 200 carries in a year is NOT "utterly amazing, groundbreaking, never been seen before never been seen again" seasons, unless you are averaging 7 yards a carry for those 200.Everyone I have talked to said that Sayers ran smoother than they had ever seen (that time) and he seemed to be able to toy with guys when running. However, they ALL said that he was not used that much to keep him fresh. When his carries went up his injuries mounted. On a much higher level it is the backup RB having such a high YPC until he becomes the man getting carries one after another including when he is tired. I don't know, maybe Sayers was fragile, maybe he had poor endurance, or maybe his coaches felt he couldn't stand the punishment or be as effective with more carries, but for whatever reason his carries/touches were lower compared to many of the other elite RB's of his era. Because of this you simply can't say he had once in a lifetime seasons...the proof is in the pudding. He was out gained by guys of his era, in terms of rushing receiving and TD's scored.
We went through this already and the comparison falls flat. Koufax was # 1 in ERA and IP for 3 straight years. Wins as well, but in baseball run support is a big part of that. There was nobody close to Koufax during those years. If you took all the pitchers from the Koufax era and lined them up the way I did for Sayers, Koufax would be in 1st and Sayers came out 5th (would have been 6th if I put OJ in there.
Yeah, but is it better than 20 carries for 90 yards with a higher TD rate? This is what 4-5 other guys did (again Jim Brown is not even in this). Sayers special team playing really gives him a boost, but he simply does not stand out against the other players on a rushing and receiving line as he just didn't get involved enough.
Actually, I agree that playing on special teams would wear you out some. It has to tire you out a little. However, because Sayers didn't carry a significant load (14-15 times a game) it isn't a factor. If he were carrying the rock 20 times a game (a 33% increase), it probabaly would.I agree, this seems to be a very weak argument to try and make. I don't see how any player could possibly be hurt, stat wise, by getting the ball in the open field several times a game.
Good stats (campbell was a beast) but your comment about it being tougher to play "back in the day" I just don't buy. All the players are so much better now. I don't know for sure, but I would be money that Reggie Bush is faster than Gayle Sayers and stronger and could do what Sayers did back then. Remember that the quality and depth of players was not nearly as high as today. However, that isn't relevant because almost any athlete now is more finely honed and this should not be a knock on Sayers.
Once again, you are looking to stats to tell you something that stats can not shed light upon.Gale Sayers was to HB as Koufax was to pitching for their short respective peaks. If you don't wish to accept this, I implore you to read more about Sayers, find some gamefilm - something so that you can see what all those who voted for him for All NFL and for the HoF saw with their own eyes.
The proof is in what pudding? Stats that are without context and lack a great deal of meaning? I guess we will have to disagree. I will be on the side of those who UNANIMOUSLY voted him in for the HoF, in spite of too short a career. You can look at stats and say all those people who actually lived through it, saw the career, witnessed first hand are all wrong.
Joe, do you care to answer this? Suppose in addition to Reggie Bush, another RB is available in this draft that is guaranteed to give you this performance for 5 years and then retire:1544 rushing & receiving yards every season
Feel free to get in the last word because you simply can't understand that I agree that WHEN HE TOUCHED THE BALL HE WAS GREAT, but 14 carries with 73 yards rushing and less than 2 receptions for 19 yards receiving per game simply is not a large enough part of the game to be this dominant. When Koufax pitched during those years, he was without question the best pitcher AND is almost 50% of the games outcome... the comparison is not even closeThe proof is in what pudding? Stats that are without context and lack a great deal of meaning? I guess we will have to disagree. I will be on the side of those who UNANIMOUSLY voted him in for the HoF, in spite of too short a career. You can look at stats and say all those people who actually lived through it, saw the career, witnessed first hand are all wrong.
To the question at hand - 5 All Pro seasons as one of the best weapons in the history of the game? I think the Texans would take that.
Joe can answer for himself, but did Sayers get 3-4 TD's a year from Special teams? Were the special teams that poor and did other teams score frequently on them as well?In terms of 1544 rushing and receiving yards, this 1544 immortal total yard performance was bested by TEN guys this year alone. 3 of them had more than a 25% increase as well. 1544 rush and receiving yards is above average now. The special teams is a nice bonus and if he had 3-4 returns for TD's a year that would make for a very productive player...BUT NOT IMMORTAL.
I posted this on another thread, but I don't see Houston finishing the draft with Bush and others in tact. they have 2 strengths, a great return guy and a solid RB. Bush doesn't help this team unless they trade him away for a lot or at least get rid of DD
You are forgetting the pool of players is 100 time greater now than back then. I have seen quotes that it is 500x greater, but that seems like a stretch. Back then kids were not "groomed from birth" to play pro football; the money was just not there for the risk of getting beat up. You are not going to get much support for the feeling that depth was better back then. Back then the dream was not to play pro football It was universally known that there were many roster spots that were filled with "you and me."
