Printable View
When someone has a good season or year, maybe even two. They are annointed possible greatest player of our era, maybe of all time. I Say this in the wake of LT and how everyone seems to think he is the greatest of all time now, just a few years ago you heard the same rumbles about Marshall Faulk.
I just was wondering what all of you all think.
I do like LT and beleive he is the best running back since Barry Sanders. I wouldn't put him in Walter Payton status just yet but he is the best in the NFL in IMO and the best we have seen in the 21st Century.
just in case you have been living under a rock LT has been lighting it up and remained very consistent ever since he entered the league.
Just look at his numbers
NFL
Absolutely, you cant annoint someone as the greatest of all time or something great without giving it some time first. Greatness is everyones minds only hold up to a test of time. As far as great running backs go, there have only been 3 in the last 20-30 years. Those are Payton, Sanders, and Smith. All of the rest pale in comparison until their careers end and we at least have 5 years to reflect on their careers before induction into the hall of fame. Many players are on their way and there have been some no brainers that were hall of famers while still playing like Jerry Rice. I do believe that LT will end up in the hall of fame but we need a full body of work before we can make that judgement.
A great question would be if Tiki Barber makes the HOF. Is his body of work incomplete. Gayle Sayers played 6 years and was inducted but is Barber really in Sayers league, probably not. We shall see what happens.
Its not only players, its teams. USC was the greatest of all time before they even finished their season against Texas with a loss. Mainstream media has tarnished the games by trying to compare who/what is the GOAT. Its nice water cooler debate but the media has an obligation to the past to respect previous accomplishments. I dont believe they do this. In the end, I think they take alot away from the past by erronously placing too much emphasis on the present. As a result, the present becomes discredited also. I guess its fun to compare the present to the past, however when you have 24 hour sports networks, youd think they could have more factual reporting, more positive stories, more real analysis, and more focus on every team instead of individuals, negative stories, and opinion. Who really cares about Lee Corso or Kirk Herbstreet's predictions, they mean nothing, they arent really experts, and in most cases their opinions are less than yours or mine. I enjoy the Ron Jaworski NFL matchup type shows where they breakdown film, thats the way ESPN used to be. The films dont lie, thats how you determine greatness. Not from some sap that plays fantasy football and follows espn gametracker while hes at work on sunday.
I guess you do not remember how "dominate" Faulk was either. Running and catching passes. He didint fumbles in some gawdy amount of touches either. Its just funny to see how he "fell off" or just got "old" in a year or two after he was debated as the ultimate weapon.
yeah but faulk was palgued with injuries and so far LT has not had one to my knowledge
Greatest of all time is tough to examine. I think LT may end up being that, but so far, not yet. The evolution or changing of the position makes it tough to just compare apples to apples, to often we're stuck with a few oranges that make accurate comparisions difficult.
One of the most annoying to me with regards to GOAT is baseball. As much as I was not a fan, a player like Goose Gossage should be in the Hall of Fame. Maybe people need to look at it as greatest of the players time instead of all time. Someone who great up watching Jim Brown or Walter Payton is going to have different views watching LT or Shaun Alexander. The game is different and specialized. Backs are used more in schemes, catching the ball, etc. I think it should be viewed at the end of their career was 'insert player name here' viewed as the best or one of the very best at their position or in the game.
Its a shame to watch players like Dale Murphy, who for close to 10 years was one of, if not the best players in baseball. I think his numbers were compariable to Mike Schmidt in the 80s if I read right the other day. He has no chance because his numbers aren't as impressive viewed to the later steroid era. Jim Rice is another. For 10+ years there was nobody or almost nobody who was more feared than him. Were they among the greatest of their time? Absolutely. I think if you go into a 8 year window of being either the best or among the best, you have proven yourself. Now comparing Dale Murphy to Willie Mays or whomever? Its not the same. The game is/was different. Specialization is where you have to realize differences and try to compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.
Yep its an unfair argument to everyone involved. As a result, players like Murphy and Rice get discredited. Mark Twain always said, there are lies, dam lies and statistics. Theres too much emphasis on things that arent important. Rice and Murphy were winnners in every respect. Gossage or Blyleven may not have pitched every single day like Hoffman but he is going to win you the game, thats good enough for me. Mariano Rivera may be the greatest of all time but its a disservice to all those that arent in the hall before him because he is used differently than them yet those players get measured only in stats in comparison to Rivera and Hoffman which is completely unfair.
Same thing goes for Bonds, hes the best of his era, its a no brainer for the most part. If hes left out of the hall then no player from his era should be in the hall of fame. Bonds shouldnt be compared to Aaron or Ruth, he should be compared to the players he played with and against.
I agree with that last statement 100% Way to difficult to debate era' things change, players, stadiums, equipment, player training. I think greatest player of Era's rather than of all time. Very few transcend, maybe a Bob Gibson or a Sandy Kofax (sp) in baseball regards.
I agree with the Dale Murphy statement 100%, he was one of my idols growing up. His career AVG (.265) wasn't great but he hit 398 home runs on some terrible teams I might add, won 2 League MVP's, went to 7 All-Star games, and won 5 consecutive Gold Gloves, awesome accomplishments in his day on terrible teams.
And I can tell you one thing Dale Murphy was never on steriods. [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] You can tell that by his awesome physique (sp?)
He's not the greatest ever...why you ask?
Barry Sanders is. Barry may have retired before breaking paytons record, but he was well ahead of Smith. Barry also played on some horrible teams and done everything by himself.
dude you are doing exactly what we just discussed, this isnt a GOAT thread.
Barry Sanders was the best running back of all-time. Put him in the same situation as Emmitt Smith, and Sanders runs for 25 000 yards.