Team of the Nineties
Bryan Kautzman
hearing about all of these teams of the century (or millemium). Why isn't
anyone composing any teams of the decade, which I believe is more
appropriate.
I'm going to start with offense, which is easier to do. I tend to be more
objective on offense because the defense doesn't have any statistics to
compare. Here goes
QB- this was perhaps the most difficult position to do because I really,
really, really, really, really wanted to pick Steve Young. He has the
numbers. But look at the competition he's up against: Bret Farve, John
Elway, Troy Aikman. A friend of mine even suggested Jim Kelly (lol). I
tried and tried to narrow it down. Aikman was the first to be eliminated
because of his lack of mobility, but look at his rings.
Here is the reason I finally had to pick Steve Young. He was the most
effective of all of the above quarterbacks in carrying his team. Young
doesn't have many come from behind victories to his credit, but most of
those come from behind wins are because of his ability to run the ball when
he is under pressure. Elway and Farve have both had success doing that, but
not nearly as much as Young.
Attention Cowboy fans, Aikman was second by a very close margin.
RB-Of the half backs, there is only one name that needs to be mentioned, and
that is Barry Sanders. Just to be fair, though, I did consider Terrell
Davis, Emmitt Smith, and even Thurman Thomas. None were as dominant over as
long of a period of time.
In the fullback position, there are many discrepancies. I feel the most
important facets of a fullback's game is blocking. It is difficult to judge
blocking effectively, but the best I ever saw was Moose Johnston of the
Cowboys. I have had some people argue William Floyd of the Niners/Panthers,
but Johnston always seemed to be able to make a play when all of the big
guys were covered. He was a key to the success of the Cowboys in the early
nineties.
OL: is just gets too tedious to try to name individual linemen, even if
just breaking it down into tackles, guards, and centers. So I'll pick a
team. The Cowboys offensive line was dominant over most of the decade. All
of these guys deserve a medal. A note has to be made for Denver's oline of
the past two years. That was only two years, though.
WR: Um. . . . I'm a Niner fan, so this should be obvious. Jerry Rice.
But to be fair, I'm going to pick two wide outs. The second one is
difficult to pick, because the talent level drops off significantly after
Rice (that was intended for Sam). Antonio Freeman dropped too many passes.
Andre Rison was a loser. Ed McCaffrey is just coming into his own. After
perusing the teams for a good number two reciever, my list came down to four
names. Chris Carter, Andre Reed, Tim Brown, and Michael Irvin.
I think I'm going to take Carter on this one, but I'd like to hear some
feedback.
TE: this is another difficult position because, again, it is almost
impossible to evaluate blocking.
There have been Brent Jones, Ben Coates, Shannon Sharpe, Jay Novacek, and
Mark Chmura. These were my finalists. Wesley Walls hasn't been playing
long enough. It's kind of strange how almost everyone I asked in this area
picked Jones, even though I would be more prone to pick Coates or Novacek.
Again, to be fair, I'm going to pick two tight ends, with Coates being #1.
He is a big blocker who gained big yardage receiving. Brent Jones would be
my number two tight end, also because he was a big blocker who gained big
yardage receiving. The only pass that I ever remember him dropping (I'm
sure there were otheres) was the one where he bit his toungue off. I don't
blame him for dropping that one.
I'd appreciate any feedback
Jason Tcheng
: RB-Of the half backs, there is only one name that needs to be mentioned, and
: that is Barry Sanders. Just to be fair, though, I did consider Terrell
: Davis, Emmitt Smith, and even Thurman Thomas. None were as dominant over as
: long of a period of time.
I dunno. Sanders is amazing, but I think I'll hand it to Smith. He's
still tearing it up, and though he's no longer what he once was, last
week's performance was the epitome of courage and toughness. And it's not
the first time that Smith has done this sort of thing, either.
It's really darn close however. It's almost a coin toss.
: WR: Um. . . . I'm a Niner fan, so this should be obvious. Jerry Rice.
: But to be fair, I'm going to pick two wide outs. The second one is
: difficult to pick, because the talent level drops off significantly after
: Rice (that was intended for Sam). Antonio Freeman dropped too many passes.
: Andre Rison was a loser. Ed McCaffrey is just coming into his own. After
: perusing the teams for a good number two reciever, my list came down to four
: names. Chris Carter, Andre Reed, Tim Brown, and Michael Irvin.
: I think I'm going to take Carter on this one, but I'd like to hear some
: feedback.
It's actually Cris Carter, but he's the best choice; next I would put
Brown and then Irvin. Reed has never been the head banana and has been
plagued by injuries for the past year. Rice, Carter, Brown and Irvin have
been outstanding throughout the decade.
: TE: this is another difficult position because, again, it is almost
: impossible to evaluate blocking.
: There have been Brent Jones, Ben Coates, Shannon Sharpe, Jay Novacek, and
: Mark Chmura. These were my finalists.
I note that all these guys are more recievers than blockers. With the
exception of Coates, who I haven't seen much, all these guys are fairly
poor blockers.
My gut feeling tells me Coates, who is much better all-around than Sharpe,
and who has been more productive and durable than Chmura. Finally, most
of these guys haven't played the whole decade (as have your QBs, WRs or
RBs).
You want a blocking stud? Try Eric Green.
Jason
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Tcheng <jgtc...@unixg.ubc.ca>
-= UBC Chemical Engineering =-
A friend is someone who knows your faults but likes you anyways.
Jeff Heidman
> Okay, the purpose of this post is to solicate responses. I'm sick of
> hearing about all of these teams of the century (or millemium). Why isn't
> anyone composing any teams of the decade, which I believe is more
> appropriate.
>
> I'm going to start with offense, which is easier to do. I tend to be more
> objective on offense because the defense doesn't have any statistics to
> compare. Here goes
>
> QB- this was perhaps the most difficult position to do
No it isn't. It is the 2nd easiest, after WR.
> because I really,
> really, really, really, really wanted to pick Steve Young. He has the
> numbers. But look at the competition he's up against: Bret Farve, John
> Elway, Troy Aikman. A friend of mine even suggested Jim Kelly (lol). I
> tried and tried to narrow it down. Aikman was the first to be eliminated
> because of his lack of mobility, but look at his rings.
>
>
> Attention Cowboy fans, Aikman was second by a very close margin.
Young is far and away the best QB of the 90s. It really is not close.
I like Aikman, and thing he should eventually get into the HOF jst because he
led an outstanding team, even if theyw ere a bunch of thugs. But he is not even
the 2nd best QB of his generation.
I would rank them
1. Young
2. Elway
3. Favre
4. Aikman (maybe).
> RB-Of the half backs, there is only one name that needs to be mentioned, and
> that is Barry Sanders. Just to be fair, though, I did consider Terrell
> Davis, Emmitt Smith, and even Thurman Thomas. None were as dominant over as
> long of a period of time.
Barry Sanders? The guy who leads the NFL all time in negative rushing yards? The
guy whose team is better without him?
Is this a joke?
Emmit every day of the week, and twice on Sundays. He is much, much, much more
valuable than Sanders. Sanders is talented, but having him run the ball is like
a pass. You might get a big play, but you might get nothing at all, or a loss.
If you want those results, jsut throw it in the first palce. I guy like Emmit is
the pen-ultimate RB - at the top of his game, he ALWAYS got you those extra few
yards that often mean the difference bettwen 1st down and punting.
> In the fullback position, there are many discrepancies. I feel the most
> important facets of a fullback's game is blocking. It is difficult to judge
> blocking effectively, but the best I ever saw was Moose Johnston of the
> Cowboys. I have had some people argue William Floyd of the Niners/Panthers,
> but Johnston always seemed to be able to make a play when all of the big
> guys were covered. He was a key to the success of the Cowboys in the early
> nineties.
Agreed.
> OL: is just gets too tedious to try to name individual linemen, even if
> just breaking it down into tackles, guards, and centers. So I'll pick a
> team. The Cowboys offensive line was dominant over most of the decade. All
> of these guys deserve a medal. A note has to be made for Denver's oline of
> the past two years. That was only two years, though.
Agreed. Between the OL, Emmit, and Moose, it is obvious why the Cowboys were so
good for so long.
> WR: Um. . . . I'm a Niner fan, so this should be obvious. Jerry Rice.
Yeha, this is a no-brainer. Anyone who would put ANYONE in the 90s up against
Rice is a moron.
>
> But to be fair, I'm going to pick two wide outs. The second one is
> difficult to pick, because the talent level drops off significantly after
> Rice (that was intended for Sam). Antonio Freeman dropped too many passes.
> Andre Rison was a loser. Ed McCaffrey is just coming into his own. After
> perusing the teams for a good number two reciever, my list came down to four
> names. Chris Carter, Andre Reed, Tim Brown, and Michael Irvin.
>
> I think I'm going to take Carter on this one, but I'd like to hear some
> feedback.
Hmmm, thats a tough one. I might go with Irvin for #2. Maybe Reed.
> TE: this is another difficult position because, again, it is almost
> impossible to evaluate blocking.
No it isn't. This is easy.
> There have been Brent Jones, Ben Coates, Shannon Sharpe, Jay Novacek, and
> Mark Chmura. These were my finalists. Wesley Walls hasn't been playing
> long enough. It's kind of strange how almost everyone I asked in this area
> picked Jones, even though I would be more prone to pick Coates or Novacek.
> Again, to be fair, I'm going to pick two tight ends, with Coates being #1.
> He is a big blocker who gained big yardage receiving. Brent Jones would be
> my number two tight end, also because he was a big blocker who gained big
> yardage receiving. The only pass that I ever remember him dropping (I'm
> sure there were otheres) was the one where he bit his toungue off. I don't
> blame him for dropping that one.
Sharpe #1, Coates #2.
Jeff Heidman
Arjun Rau
Spike wrote in message ...
>On Tue, 23 Nov 1999 14:03:58 -0600, "Bryan Kautzman"
><bkau...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>>RB-Of the half backs, there is only one name that needs to be mentioned,
and
>>that is Barry Sanders.
>
>
>Just to be fair, though, I did consider Terrell
>>Davis, Emmitt Smith, and even Thurman Thomas. None were as dominant over
as
>>long of a period of time.
>
>want to win, you want Emmitt on your team over Barry Sanders...
Considering overall talent around the running back is what determines
whether a team wins, I'd say that Emmitt Smith won far more than Sanders
because he was on a far better team.
Sanders did more, with less.
Cheers,
Arjun
Jeff Heidman
Nope. Sanders did less with less. He did not contribute materially to Detroit's
record.
I believe Detroit would have had a higher winning percentage without Barry
Sanders than they did with him. Granted, they would still suck, but they would
be better. Sanders kept decent RBs from the team, and forced Detroit to play a
game that just does not work in the NFL today.
He did not block very well, nor was he a good pass receiver. Barry was
overrated. A perfect example of a huge amount of talent that was just not
applicable to the NFL. He would have been better off using those moves as a WR,
assuming he could run a route or catch.
Emmit did everything you could have possibly asked of him. Seriously, if you
want to take away from Emmit's accomplishment because he had a good team around
him, then most HOFers would ahem to be also similarly downgraded. Having a
great team does not make you a great back. Emmit was a great back. He would
ahem been a great back on ANY team in the NFL. Being a great back on a very
good team just meant that he got to pick up 3 rings.
All that being said, Dallas is still a stinking cesspool of human waste. It is
sad that a player as classy and talented as Smith had to associate himself with
a bunch of thugs like Irvin, Lett and Jones.
Jeff Heidman
49erboy
Bryan Kautzman wrote:
> Okay, the purpose of this post is to solicate responses. I'm sick of
> hearing about all of these teams of the century (or millemium).
I'm sick of people that call others "idiot" when they can't spell to save their
life.
You sir, are an idiot (not idot).
> I'd appreciate any feedback
Lonely dumbasses like you crave feedback. I hope I made your day.
Arjun Rau
Jeff Heidman wrote in message <383B2739...@webfxREMOVETHIS2k.com>...
>Arjun Rau wrote:
>
>> Sanders did more, with less.
>
>Nope. Sanders did less with less. He did not contribute materially to
Detroit's
>record.
>
>I believe Detroit would have had a higher winning percentage without Barry
>Sanders than they did with him. Granted, they would still suck, but they
would
>be better. Sanders kept decent RBs from the team, and forced Detroit to
play a
>game that just does not work in the NFL today.
I guess we'll have to disagree. I don't buy the theory that the Lions are
better without Barry Sanders. Granted, they have a surprisingly good record
this year, but that isn't because they finally have a decent running back.
It's because the league is significantly weaker this year, and teams that
are relatively solid defensively, and stable offensively (as the Lions are)
are able to compete in every game. I think they'd be an even better team
with such a dynamic talent to go with their soilid play.
>He did not block very well, nor was he a good pass receiver. Barry was
>overrated. A perfect example of a huge amount of talent that was just not
>applicable to the NFL. He would have been better off using those moves as a
WR,
>assuming he could run a route or catch.
Not applicable? He was quite possibly the most talented pure running back in
the history of football. Only Gale Sayers was close. His elusiveness, in my
opinion, is the single greatest weapon any running back has ever had.
>Emmit did everything you could have possibly asked of him.
True, in that he was more of a blocker. I disagree that he was a
considerably better receiver out of the backfield. However, when running the
ball, he did it less effectively, despite having the best offensive line and
blocking fullback of the '90s. His per-rush average is far lower. Yes, he
got thrown for less losses, but I don't think Sanders would have been thrown
for nearly as many losses, either, if he had been behind Dallas' offensive
line.
>Seriously, if you
>want to take away from Emmit's accomplishment because he had a good team
around
>him, then most HOFers would ahem to be also similarly downgraded.
I'm not taking away from his *accomplishments* based on the team around him.
I'm takinga way from his "winning edge" based on the team around him. I've
never believed that Super Bowls or winning percentage is an accurate
indicator of greatness. How much you win is *greatly* dependant upon the
team around you. Put Sanders on the Cowboys, and I guarantee you that he
wins at least as much as Smith.
>Having a
>great team does not make you a great back.
True, but I never contended that.
>Emmit was a great back. He would
>ahem been a great back on ANY team in the NFL. Being a great back on a very
>good team just meant that he got to pick up 3 rings.
Which brings us back to wins, which you admit is dependant on his being on a
good team. If you look at personal accomplishments, Barry Sanders achieved
more, with far less.
>All that being said, Dallas is still a stinking cesspool of human waste. It
is
>sad that a player as classy and talented as Smith had to associate himself
with
>a bunch of thugs like Irvin, Lett and Jones.
Personally, I think Aikman is the better example of class, *and* I've always
thought he was the best of the "triplets."
Cheers,
Arjun
bozak
Spike wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Nov 1999 16:46:01 -0700, Jeff Heidman
> <je...@webfxREMOVETHIS2k.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Sanders is nice to watch, but niceties don't win ball games. If you
> >> >want to win, you want Emmitt on your team over Barry Sanders...
> >>
> >> Considering overall talent around the running back is what determines
> >> whether a team wins, I'd say that Emmitt Smith won far more than Sanders
> >> because he was on a far better team.
> >>
> >> Sanders did more, with less.
> >
> >Nope. Sanders did less with less. He did not contribute materially to Detroit's
> >record.
> >
> >I believe Detroit would have had a higher winning percentage without Barry
> >Sanders than they did with him. Granted, they would still suck, but they would
> >be better. Sanders kept decent RBs from the team, and forced Detroit to play a
> >game that just does not work in the NFL today.
>
> I agree. I said it when he "retired"... Lions would go 5-11 with him
> or without him, no major difference. I underestimated the effect his
> retirement would have, though. The Lions are BETTER without him.
come on spike you can say it... it wont hurt...
not that we didnt know it...
Jason Tcheng
: Bryan Kautzman (bkau...@prodigy.net) wrote:
: : names. Chris Carter, Andre Reed, Tim Brown, and Michael Irvin.
: It's actually Cris Carter, but he's the best choice; next I would put
: Brown and then Irvin. Reed has never been the head banana and has been
: plagued by injuries for the past year. Rice, Carter, Brown and Irvin have
: been outstanding throughout the decade.
Ooops. I thought he meant JAKE Reed (all those Vike recievers). Andre
Reed hass been solid, but IMO, hasn't done much in the past couple of
years.
Adam J. Cook
> I believe Detroit would have had a higher winning percentage without Barry
> Sanders than they did with him. Granted, they would still suck, but they would
> be better. Sanders kept decent RBs from the team, and forced Detroit to play a
> game that just does not work in the NFL today.
You're absolutely right. That had nothing to do with the steady as a
rock QB play of Scott Mitchell.
Adam
Bryan Kautzman
If anyone is wondering, I picked Smith as the #2 half back of the nineties.
The dropoff after Smith was considerable, but Sanders was the best, no
question. If only the coaching staff in Detroit would have known how to use
him effectively.
.
Bryan Kautzman
>that defenses will put 8 in the box against 4 WRs and a RB. They'll
>usually go with a nickel package in that situation.
Unless you're trying to stop Barry Sanders, in which case you will routinely
get burned.
.
Bryan Kautzman
>> Okay, the purpose of this post is to solicate responses. I'm sick of
>> hearing about all of these teams of the century (or millemium).
>I'm sick of people that call others "idiot" >when they can't spell to save
their
>life.
word, because only imbeciles tend to be that degrading.
>You sir, are an idiot (not idot).
>> I'd appreciate any feedback
>Lonely dumbasses like you crave feedback. I hope I made your day.
so we could talk about football. The previous responses all made my day.
Your response, well, I'm sure it made your day.
.
Bryan Kautzman
of a running back depends largely on a good blocking offensinve line,
something Sanders never had.
As far as tight ends go, I tried to find players who were good receivers and
blockers. The best of the best, so to speak. Coates and Jones were (are)
both pretty good blockers. There receiving numbers speak for themselves.
.
49erboy
Bryan Kautzman wrote:
> >Bryan Kautzman wrote:
>
> >> Okay, the purpose of this post is to solicate responses. I'm sick of
>
> >> hearing about all of these teams of the century (or millemium).
>
> >I'm sick of people that call others "idiot" >when they can't spell to save
>
> their
>
> >life.
>
> Okay, where in my post did you find the word idiot? I try not to use that
>
> word, because only imbeciles tend to be that degrading.
Well then, you better look up your past history, imbecile.
Mike
Bryan Kautzman <bkau...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:81g0o8$5fs6$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com...
> >> (or millemium).
>
LOL!
Panther Pride!
Mike
Bryan Kautzman
So you're telling me that Detroit's o line was just as good as Dallas' o
line during the nineties.
.
bongo
Spike@Emmitt's.Ranch (Spike) wrote:
> >I'm not going to try to defend my pick for running back because
> >the success of a running back depends largely on a good blocking
> >offensinve line, something Sanders never had.
>
> I guess Lomas Brown and Kevin Glover are chopped liver.
Don't know much about the Detroit line, but I've never thought
that the run and shoot, in any of it's forms, was all that sound
a strategy in the NFL.
One of the reasons Sanders would have done better on the Cowboys
is that the Cowboys used more pro set, with a fullback and tight
end. A five man o-line is inherently weaker, even with good players.
I'm not going to opine which runner was better. I do agree with the
original poster that there is a substantial drop after these two.
cheers,
--bongo
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Arjun Rau
Bryan Kautzman wrote in message
<81es81$497a$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>Okay, the purpose of this post is to solicate responses. I'm sick of
>anyone composing any teams of the decade, which I believe is more
>appropriate.
>
>I'm going to start with offense, which is easier to do. I tend to be more
>objective on offense because the defense doesn't have any statistics to
>compare. Here goes
I generally agreed with your picks. Since you didn't, I'll take a stab at
defense.
Cornerbacks - Without a doubt, the premier cornerback on the '90s has been
Deion Sanders. That's automatic. The other spot is a little harder, but not
very. Rod Woodson must be considered the other top cornerback of the 1990s.
He's one of the greatest of all-time, even if he has tailed off after his
knee injury.
Safeties - This is quite a bit more competitive. Finally, though, I ended up
on two players who play the same safety position. Not ideal, I suppose, but
the two best safeties of the '90s, in my opinion, are both strong safeties.
Tim McDonald and Darren Woodson have been the steadiest excellent safeties
in the league. Carnell Lake is definitely a candidate, Merton Hanks, among
others. However Hanks wasn't excellent for enough years in the '90s, and, in
a judgement call, Lake wasn't as good as McDonald and Woodson, over as long
a period.
Linebackers - The only player as obviously dominant at his position, for the
'90s, as Deion Sanders would have to be Junior Seau. There can be no doubt
at all that he is the premier linebacker of the decade. The other two
linebacking positions are tougher to call. Derrick Thomas hasn't been
generating quite the damage that he did a few years ago, but he's still
accomplished so much, I'd have to add him to the All-90's team. The last
linebacking position was the hardest position on this team, for me. I
finally decided on Kevin Greene, despite the fact that his best years are
a-ways past him. However, through the early- and mid-90's, he was a
pass-rushing terror. For the Rams and the Steelers, he was absolutely
devastating. So, I'll give him the nod. I didn't really consider Lawrence
Taylor, despite his having played some years in the '90s, since he really
made his mark in the '80s.
Defensive ends - Two of the greatest defensive ends in NFL history happened
to play and dominate in the '90s. Bruce Smith and Reggie White. Now, White
may be a dope off the field, but he's one of the finest defensive ends to
play the game. I don't know how to pick between Smith and White, but,
fortunately, I don't have to. Impossible to argue with these two bookends.
Charles Haley was certainly someone to consider, one of the best
pass-rushing forces of the '90s, but he wasn't as good as Smith and White.
Defensive tackles - I think the two best defensive tackles of the 1990s are
Bryant Young and Leon Lett. Now, Leon Lett hasn't really been able to prove
it, much, the last couple years, due to drug suspensions, but the years he
played when not suspended proved him to be a great force up the middle.
Bryant Young rather swiftly established himself as one of the, if not *the*,
best defensive tackle in the game. He even made his teammates better, as
evidenced by Dana Stubblefield. His horrific injury could have ended this
still young career, but he's come back strong, and doesn't look to have lost
much, if anything.
Comments welcome.
Cheers,
Arjun
Bryan Kautzman
Actually, Arjun, I was going to save the defense picks for a later date.
Since you have done it for me, I will comment
>Cornerbacks - Without a doubt, the premier cornerback on the '90s has been
>Deion Sanders. Rod Woodson must be considered the other top cornerback of
the >1990s.
Couldn't agree with you more on this one, even though I have always hated
Sanders (even when he was a Niner)
>Safeties -
>Tim McDonald and Darren Woodson have been the steadiest excellent safeties
>in the league. Carnell Lake is definitely a candidate, Merton Hanks, among
>others.
Again, I agree. Unfortunately, I gotta go with different positions, though.
I'll pick McDonald and Lake. I was never much of a Hanks fan, but I have to
admit he was a key contributer to the Niner teams of the mid nineties. The
reason he doesn't get the nod is because I keep thinking of the regular
season Packer game last year.
>Linebackers - The only player as obviously dominant at his position, for
the
>'90s, as Deion Sanders would have to be Junior Seau. Derrick Thomas hasn't
been
>generating quite the damage that he did a few years ago, but he's still
>accomplished so much, I'd have to add him to the All-90's team. . I
>finally decided on Kevin Greene
Kevin Greene? How about Ken Norton? I guess I just may be prejudiced.
>I didn't really consider Lawrence
>Taylor, despite his having played some years in the '90s, since he really
>made his mark in the '80s.
If you'd have included Taylor, you could just have well have included
Ronnine Lott, too.
>Defensive ends -. Bruce Smith and Reggie White.
Definitely White and Smith
>Defensive tackles - I think the two best defensive tackles of the 1990s are
>Bryant Young and Leon Lett.
Okay, this is a long shot, but I'm going to have to take Phil Hanson and
Leon Lett. Young has had some explosive years, but hasn't excelled for long
enough. Maybe I just like Hanson because he's from North Dakota, but he has
had more consistant play over a longer period of time. Lett has had off the
field problems, but that doesn't diminish what he's done on the field.
Pippa McKenna
>effective of all of the above quarterbacks in carrying his team. Young
>doesn't have many come from behind victories to his credit, but most of
>those come from behind wins are because of his ability to run the ball when
>he is under pressure. Elway and Farve have both had success doing that, but
>not nearly as much as Young.
QB of the 90's: I lean toward Elway, and as a Raider fan, I despise the
Broncos... No way in hell do I take Q-Bert.
>RB-Of the half backs, there is only one name that needs to be mentioned, and
>that is Barry Sanders. Just to be fair, though, I did consider Terrell
>Davis, Emmitt Smith, and even Thurman Thomas. None were as dominant over as
>long of a period of time.
As much of a Barry Sanders fan I am, I take Emmitt over Barry..
>In the fullback position, there are many discrepancies. I feel the most
>important facets of a fullback's game is blocking. It is difficult to judge
>blocking effectively, but the best I ever saw was Moose Johnston of the
>Cowboys. I have had some people argue William Floyd of the Niners/Panthers,
>but Johnston always seemed to be able to make a play when all of the big
>guys were covered. He was a key to the success of the Cowboys in the early
>nineties.
Agreed.
>OL: is just gets too tedious to try to name individual linemen, even if
>just breaking it down into tackles, guards, and centers. So I'll pick a
>team. The Cowboys offensive line was dominant over most of the decade. All
>of these guys deserve a medal. A note has to be made for Denver's oline of
>the past two years. That was only two years, though.
Again, agreed.
>WR: Um. . . . I'm a Niner fan, so this should be obvious. Jerry Rice.
>But to be fair, I'm going to pick two wide outs. The second one is
>difficult to pick, because the talent level drops off significantly after
>Rice (that was intended for Sam). Antonio Freeman dropped too many passes.
>Andre Rison was a loser. Ed McCaffrey is just coming into his own. After
>perusing the teams for a good number two reciever, my list came down to four
>names. Chris Carter, Andre Reed, Tim Brown, and Michael Irvin.
WR: Carter, Brown, Reed.. I won't take the overrated Lice.
>I think I'm going to take Carter on this one, but I'd like to hear some
>feedback.
>
>TE: this is another difficult position because, again, it is almost
>impossible to evaluate blocking.
>
>There have been Brent Jones, Ben Coates, Shannon Sharpe, Jay Novacek, and
>Mark Chmura. These were my finalists. Wesley Walls hasn't been playing
>long enough. It's kind of strange how almost everyone I asked in this area
>picked Jones, even though I would be more prone to pick Coates or Novacek.
Give me Coates and Sharpe.
>Again, to be fair, I'm going to pick two tight ends, with Coates being #1.
>He is a big blocker who gained big yardage receiving. Brent Jones would be
>my number two tight end, also because he was a big blocker who gained big
>yardage receiving.
Brent Jones is one of the worst blocking TE's I've ever seen.. You're joking,
right?
>The only pass that I ever remember him dropping (I'm
>sure there were otheres) was the one where he bit his toungue off. I don't
>blame him for dropping that one.
Of course not, never blame a Whiner.
>I'd appreciate any feedback
*flush*
"Wrack off, you daggy head-banging veggie brain!" - Pippa McKenna, 1988
Pippa
Member - The OFFICIAL Exposers of jordon's Foolishness
Mayor - City of Austin, Sherrie
Coming soon - The ULTIMATE exposure of jordon's foolishness....
msniner
Pippa McKenna <sherr...@aol.com> wrote > Of course not, never blame a
Whiner.
>
> >I'd appreciate any feedback
>
> *flush*
getting old there pippa.
I know flush.
Pippa McKenna
>very. Rod Woodson must be considered the other top cornerback of the 1990s.
>He's one of the greatest of all-time, even if he has tailed off after his
>knee injury.
Woodson would be one of my corners. I'd probably take Dale Carter at the other.
Big eared, hog-dogging, high-stepping, arrogant, overrated cornerbacks need not
apply.
>Safeties - This is quite a bit more competitive. Finally, though, I ended up
>on two players who play the same safety position. Not ideal, I suppose, but
>the two best safeties of the '90s, in my opinion, are both strong safeties.
>Tim McDonald and Darren Woodson have been the steadiest excellent safeties
>in the league. Carnell Lake is definitely a candidate, Merton Hanks, among
>others. However Hanks wasn't excellent for enough years in the '90s, and, in
>a judgement call, Lake wasn't as good as McDonald and Woodson, over as long
>a period.
Carnell Lake and Steve Atwater, with LeRoy Butler in a close second at SS.
McDonald is no Atwater, and Merton "Chicken" Hanks is a joke.
>Linebackers - The only player as obviously dominant at his position, for the
>'90s, as Deion Sanders would have to be Junior Seau. There can be no doubt
>at all that he is the premier linebacker of the decade. The other two
>linebacking positions are tougher to call. Derrick Thomas hasn't been
>generating quite the damage that he did a few years ago, but he's still
>accomplished so much, I'd have to add him to the All-90's team. The last
>linebacking position was the hardest position on this team, for me. I
>finally decided on Kevin Greene, despite the fact that his best years are
>a-ways past him. However, through the early- and mid-90's, he was a
>pass-rushing terror. For the Rams and the Steelers, he was absolutely
>devastating. So, I'll give him the nod. I didn't really consider Lawrence
>Taylor, despite his having played some years in the '90s, since he really
>made his mark in the '80s.
I'll actually agree on those three, though I hate naming Greene because of the
blemish of playing one season in blood and tarnish... Would name Zack Thomas if
he had been playing longer, and quite honestly, was tempted to name Dennis Byrd
because of the tragic end of his career, and the courage and heart he showed in
walking once again..
>Defensive ends - Two of the greatest defensive ends in NFL history happened
>to play and dominate in the '90s. Bruce Smith and Reggie White. Now, White
>may be a dope off the field, but he's one of the finest defensive ends to
>play the game. I don't know how to pick between Smith and White, but,
>fortunately, I don't have to. Impossible to argue with these two bookends.
>Charles Haley was certainly someone to consider, one of the best
>pass-rushing forces of the '90s, but he wasn't as good as Smith and White.
White and Smith. Haley isn't even close to those two.
>Defensive tackles - I think the two best defensive tackles of the 1990s are
>Bryant Young and Leon Lett. Now, Leon Lett hasn't really been able to prove
>it, much, the last couple years, due to drug suspensions, but the years he
>played when not suspended proved him to be a great force up the middle.
>Bryant Young rather swiftly established himself as one of the, if not *the*,
>best defensive tackle in the game. He even made his teammates better, as
>evidenced by Dana Stubblefield. His horrific injury could have ended this
>still young career, but he's come back strong, and doesn't look to have lost
>much, if anything.
Bryant Young? Hahahaha...
I'd personally go with Phil Hansen and John Randle.. Bryant Q-Bert II Young is
about a step ahead of Refrigerator Perry......
philip_s
> I have no issue with Young being the QB of the 1990s, mostly because he's one of
> the few options considering his career spanned the whole decade. The big issue I
> have with Young was his propensity for losing home playoff games after putting
> up such great regular season records. You cannot deny his ridiculous drop-off
> from the regular season to the post season.
>
> Young was responsible for the 1990 NFCCG loss.
Oh, not this again...
> Montana went out, and Young got
> the Niners exactly ONE first down the rest of the game.
Important note: by "the rest of the game", you mean the last few minutes of the 4th
quarter, which is when Montana was out. And Montana hadn't exactly been tearing it
up either--he'd managed to put up all of 13 points. Young came in totally cold off
the bench, and did nothing to lose the game.
> He had no ability to put
> the game away for the 49ers.
No, Roger Craig fumbled the ball. Period. This is absurd.
> He lost the NFCCG in 1992 at home, a divisional
> playoff game at home in 1995, another NFCCG in 1997 and should have lost the
> 1998 divisional playoff as well.
Perhaps, but he was brilliant on that final drive against the Packers. He should
bear no responsibility for a blown call by the officials. He made the throws he had
to make.
> His loss of almost 20% production from regular
> season to postseason is inexcuseable. When push came to shove, Young more often
> than not choked big-time.
>
> Sad thing is, who else do you pick? Aikman has a better playoff record and more
> SBs, Elway could be an option, as could Favre. I really don't see any other
> choices. So...
>
> Regular season QB of the 1990s: Steve Young.
> Postseason QB of the 1990s: Troy Aikman.
Believe it or not, I agree with this. Just get over your idiotic fixation on the
1990 Championship Game already.
Richard Lucido
> Young was responsible for the 1990 NFCCG loss. Montana went out, and Young
got
> the Niners exactly ONE first down the rest of the game. He had no ability
to put
> the game away for the 49ers. He lost the NFCCG in 1992 at home, a
divisional
> playoff game at home in 1995, another NFCCG in 1997 and should have lost
the
> 1998 divisional playoff as well. His loss of almost 20% production from
regular
> season to postseason is inexcuseable. When push came to shove, Young more
often
> than not choked big-time.
The 90 game is a bit unfair to say that. It isn't like he got first string
reps during the week or anything like that. I appreciate a backup having to
be ready at a moments notice, but against extremely good defenses their is
almost always going to be a dropoff. BTW does your 20% dropoff numbers
include his performance in the Superbowl?
> Smith, on the basis his career spanned the whole decade. No other backs
above
> can say that, save Thurman. And Thomas deserve no mention here.
I am interested to hear your reasoning for not believing that Thomas
deserves no mention. I agree that Smith is the main RB of the nineties and
Sanders in second, but Thomas really was the best all around back during the
time.
> Rice has gone off the radar towards the end of the decade. While he still
may
> have an edge, it'd be hard to separate Rice, Irvin, Brown, Reed and
Carter.
No offense Sam, but this is where your NHS bias really kicks in. Rice
between 90-96 + 98 was really far and away the biggest performer of the
group.
From the 90 season,
Carter had 4 80+ catch season, Irvin had 3, Reed - 2, Brown - 6, Rice had 8.
Rice will not get 80 catches this season, but still no one will catch him.
That is also missing 97, and being a shell of himself in 99.
Carter had 4 10 TD rec season, Irvin - 1, Reed - 1, Brown - 1, Rice - 6.
Again Rice will still have the most, though Carter will have 5 so it will
only be a 1 year advantage.
Carter had 2 1200+ yd seasons, Irvin had 5, Reed - 1, Brown - 3, Rice - 7.
Again Rice will eclipse everyone in this category. BTW I chose 1200 simply
because 1000 is too low a number IMHO. Irvin may have more 1k seasons than
Rice.
It is also a tad difficult to judge all these guys. Brown didn't start a
full season until like 92. Carter's first three years with the Vikes were
very average. Irvin had only 400 yards in 90, played in only 11 in 96, and
4 this season. He also played in an offense that featured Emmit Smith, not
Aikman and Irvin so his numbers are that much more remarkable. Reed was
never a focus of his offense either and had 1k yards only 3 times throughout
the 90s.
Simply put no reciever came even close to what Rice had accomplished during
the 90s. Irvin was really the second best but as always that is personal
opinion. Irvin like Rice could light up nearly any CB in the game on sheer
talent alone. They are the two that really stand out in my very humble
opinion. But Rice throughout the 90s even minus 97 was the best overall.
p.s. yeah I know you were saying already that he had the "edge" but it was
much more than a mere edge over all those guys barring only Irvin.
Sam Fleischer
Bryan Kautzman wrote:
> QB- this was perhaps the most difficult position to do because I really,
> really, really, really, really wanted to pick Steve Young. He has the
> numbers. But look at the competition he's up against: Bret Farve, John
> Elway, Troy Aikman. A friend of mine even suggested Jim Kelly (lol). I
> tried and tried to narrow it down. Aikman was the first to be eliminated
> because of his lack of mobility, but look at his rings.
>
> Here is the reason I finally had to pick Steve Young. He was the most
> effective of all of the above quarterbacks in carrying his team. Young
> doesn't have many come from behind victories to his credit, but most of
> those come from behind wins are because of his ability to run the ball when
> he is under pressure. Elway and Farve have both had success doing that, but
> not nearly as much as Young.
>
> Attention Cowboy fans, Aikman was second by a very close margin.
I have no issue with Young being the QB of the 1990s, mostly because he's one of
the few options considering his career spanned the whole decade. The big issue I
have with Young was his propensity for losing home playoff games after putting
up such great regular season records. You cannot deny his ridiculous drop-off
from the regular season to the post season.
Young was responsible for the 1990 NFCCG loss. Montana went out, and Young got
the Niners exactly ONE first down the rest of the game. He had no ability to put
the game away for the 49ers. He lost the NFCCG in 1992 at home, a divisional
playoff game at home in 1995, another NFCCG in 1997 and should have lost the
1998 divisional playoff as well. His loss of almost 20% production from regular
season to postseason is inexcuseable. When push came to shove, Young more often
than not choked big-time.
Sad thing is, who else do you pick? Aikman has a better playoff record and more
SBs, Elway could be an option, as could Favre. I really don't see any other
choices. So...
Regular season QB of the 1990s: Steve Young.
Postseason QB of the 1990s: Troy Aikman.
> RB-Of the half backs, there is only one name that needs to be mentioned, and
> that is Barry Sanders. Just to be fair, though, I did consider Terrell
> Davis, Emmitt Smith, and even Thurman Thomas. None were as dominant over as
> long of a period of time.
Smith, on the basis his career spanned the whole decade. No other backs above
can say that, save Thurman. And Thomas deserve no mention here.
> In the fullback position, there are many discrepancies. I feel the most
> important facets of a fullback's game is blocking. It is difficult to judge
> blocking effectively, but the best I ever saw was Moose Johnston of the
> Cowboys. I have had some people argue William Floyd of the Niners/Panthers,
> but Johnston always seemed to be able to make a play when all of the big
> guys were covered. He was a key to the success of the Cowboys in the early
> nineties.
Please - Floyd showed up in 1994, has been injured since and shouldn't even be
mentioned in the same breath as Moose.
> OL: is just gets too tedious to try to name individual linemen, even if
> just breaking it down into tackles, guards, and centers. So I'll pick a
> team. The Cowboys offensive line was dominant over most of the decade. All
> of these guys deserve a medal. A note has to be made for Denver's oline of
> the past two years. That was only two years, though.
Erik Williams. Dermontti Dawson. Will Wolford. Kevin Gogan. Oh, I give up.
> WR: Um. . . . I'm a Niner fan, so this should be obvious. Jerry Rice.
> But to be fair, I'm going to pick two wide outs. The second one is
> difficult to pick, because the talent level drops off significantly after
> Rice (that was intended for Sam). Antonio Freeman dropped too many passes.
> Andre Rison was a loser. Ed McCaffrey is just coming into his own. After
> perusing the teams for a good number two reciever, my list came down to four
> names. Chris Carter, Andre Reed, Tim Brown, and Michael Irvin.
Rice has gone off the radar towards the end of the decade. While he still may
have an edge, it'd be hard to separate Rice, Irvin, Brown, Reed and Carter.
> TE: this is another difficult position because, again, it is almost
> impossible to evaluate blocking.
>
> There have been Brent Jones, Ben Coates, Shannon Sharpe, Jay Novacek, and
> Mark Chmura. These were my finalists. Wesley Walls hasn't been playing
> long enough. It's kind of strange how almost everyone I asked in this area
> picked Jones, even though I would be more prone to pick Coates or Novacek.
> Again, to be fair, I'm going to pick two tight ends, with Coates being #1.
> He is a big blocker who gained big yardage receiving. Brent Jones would be
> my number two tight end, also because he was a big blocker who gained big
> yardage receiving. The only pass that I ever remember him dropping (I'm
> sure there were otheres) was the one where he bit his toungue off. I don't
> blame him for dropping that one.
Coates and Sharpe. No question.
Bryan Kautzman
>I have no issue with Young being the QB of the 1990s, mostly because he's
one of
>the few options considering his career spanned the whole decade. The big
issue I
>have with Young was his propensity for losing home playoff games after
putting
>up such great regular season records. You cannot deny his ridiculous
drop-off
>from the regular season to the post season.
I do not deny his drop off in production in post season situations. In
fact, it was why I had so much trouble deciding to pick him. If he would
have played better in play off games, he would have been a lock.
Unfortunately, one man does not make the whole team (cliche). Young's poor
play in key games were only partially his fault. Plus, his ability to win
key games with his mobility factored into my decision. When great players
play poorly, they adjust their style of play to still benefit the team.
Young did that better than any football player I have ever seen.
>Regular season QB of the 1990s: Steve Young.
>Postseason QB of the 1990s: Troy Aikman.
I would tend to agree, but you don't get to the post season without winning
the regular season games. Young is first, Aikman a close second.
>Smith, on the basis his career spanned the whole decade. No other backs
above
>can say that, save Thurman. And Thomas deserve no mention here.
I have to stick with my pick, Barry Sanders. I don't believe in all the
bullshit about how that style of runner is detrimental to the team. Anyone
who can put 2,000 yards on the board can win a championship. If anything,
he draws the defense away so that there are other openings. It's not his
fault the Lions didn't know how to use him.
>Please - Floyd showed up in 1994, has been injured since and shouldn't even
be
>mentioned in the same breath as Moose.
I agree wholeheartedly. I was just commenting on how many people I have
heard argue for Floyd.
>Erik Williams. Dermontti Dawson. Will Wolford. Kevin Gogan. Oh, I give up.
Poor linemen. Never getting any recognition.
>>Tight End:
>Coates and Sharpe. No question.
I would be more inclined to pick Sharpe, but I hate him so much. Even if I
liked him, I would still probably have to go with a blocker instead of him.
Arjun Rau
that you automatically disqualify every Niner, just because you hate them.
Fortunately, Niner-haters are never reasonable, so it is very easy to write
their opinions off.
Cheers,
Arjun
Pippa McKenna wrote in message
<19991127152205...@ng-fx1.aol.com>...
>>Here is the reason I finally had to pick Steve Young. He was the most
>>effective of all of the above quarterbacks in carrying his team. Young
>>doesn't have many come from behind victories to his credit, but most of
>>those come from behind wins are because of his ability to run the ball
when
>>he is under pressure. Elway and Farve have both had success doing that,
but
>>not nearly as much as Young.
>
>QB of the 90's: I lean toward Elway, and as a Raider fan, I despise the
>Broncos... No way in hell do I take Q-Bert.
>
>>RB-Of the half backs, there is only one name that needs to be mentioned,
and
>>that is Barry Sanders. Just to be fair, though, I did consider Terrell
>>Davis, Emmitt Smith, and even Thurman Thomas. None were as dominant over
as
>>long of a period of time.
>
>As much of a Barry Sanders fan I am, I take Emmitt over Barry..
>
>>In the fullback position, there are many discrepancies. I feel the most
>>important facets of a fullback's game is blocking. It is difficult to
judge
>>blocking effectively, but the best I ever saw was Moose Johnston of the
>>Cowboys. I have had some people argue William Floyd of the
Niners/Panthers,
>>but Johnston always seemed to be able to make a play when all of the big
>>guys were covered. He was a key to the success of the Cowboys in the
early
>>nineties.
>
>Agreed.
>
>>OL: is just gets too tedious to try to name individual linemen, even if
>>just breaking it down into tackles, guards, and centers. So I'll pick a
>>team. The Cowboys offensive line was dominant over most of the decade.
All
>>of these guys deserve a medal. A note has to be made for Denver's oline
of
>>the past two years. That was only two years, though.
>
>Again, agreed.
>
>>WR: Um. . . . I'm a Niner fan, so this should be obvious. Jerry Rice.
>>But to be fair, I'm going to pick two wide outs. The second one is
>>difficult to pick, because the talent level drops off significantly after
>>Rice (that was intended for Sam). Antonio Freeman dropped too many
passes.
>>Andre Rison was a loser. Ed McCaffrey is just coming into his own. After
>>perusing the teams for a good number two reciever, my list came down to
four
>>names. Chris Carter, Andre Reed, Tim Brown, and Michael Irvin.
>
>WR: Carter, Brown, Reed.. I won't take the overrated Lice.
>
>>I think I'm going to take Carter on this one, but I'd like to hear some
>>feedback.
>>
>>TE: this is another difficult position because, again, it is almost
>>impossible to evaluate blocking.
>>
>>There have been Brent Jones, Ben Coates, Shannon Sharpe, Jay Novacek, and
>>Mark Chmura. These were my finalists. Wesley Walls hasn't been playing
>>long enough. It's kind of strange how almost everyone I asked in this
area
>>picked Jones, even though I would be more prone to pick Coates or Novacek.
>
>Give me Coates and Sharpe.
>
>>Again, to be fair, I'm going to pick two tight ends, with Coates being #1.
>>He is a big blocker who gained big yardage receiving. Brent Jones would
be
>>my number two tight end, also because he was a big blocker who gained big
>>yardage receiving.
>
>Brent Jones is one of the worst blocking TE's I've ever seen.. You're
joking,
>right?
>
>>The only pass that I ever remember him dropping (I'm
>>sure there were otheres) was the one where he bit his toungue off. I
don't
>>blame him for dropping that one.
>
>Of course not, never blame a Whiner.
>
>>I'd appreciate any feedback
>
>*flush*
>
Arjun Rau
Bryan Kautzman wrote in message
>
>Actually, Arjun, I was going to save the defense picks for a later date.
>Since you have done it for me, I will comment
>
>the >1990s.
>
>Couldn't agree with you more on this one, even though I have always hated
>Sanders (even when he was a Niner)
>
>>Safeties -
>>in the league. Carnell Lake is definitely a candidate, Merton Hanks, among
>>others.
>
though.
>I'll pick McDonald and Lake. I was never much of a Hanks fan, but I have
to
>admit he was a key contributer to the Niner teams of the mid nineties.
The
>reason he doesn't get the nod is because I keep thinking of the regular
>season Packer game last year.
>
>the
>been
>>generating quite the damage that he did a few years ago, but he's still
>>finally decided on Kevin Greene
>
>Kevin Greene? How about Ken Norton? I guess I just may be prejudiced.
Ken Norton has been steady and good, but not truly great, imho.
>>I didn't really consider Lawrence
>>Taylor, despite his having played some years in the '90s, since he really
>>made his mark in the '80s.
>
>If you'd have included Taylor, you could just have well have included
>Ronnine Lott, too.
Yep.
>>Defensive ends -. Bruce Smith and Reggie White.
>
>Definitely White and Smith
>
>>Defensive tackles - I think the two best defensive tackles of the 1990s
are
>>Bryant Young and Leon Lett.
>
>Okay, this is a long shot, but I'm going to have to take Phil Hanson and
>Leon Lett. Young has had some explosive years, but hasn't excelled for
long
>enough. Maybe I just like Hanson because he's from North Dakota, but he
has
>had more consistant play over a longer period of time. Lett has had off
the
>field problems, but that doesn't diminish what he's done on the field.
Well, Bryant Young has been playing six years now...that's a majority of the
'90s...and I definitely think he's been far better than Phil Hanson.
Arjun Rau
Sam Fleischer wrote in message <3841D820...@home.com>...
>
>
>Bryan Kautzman wrote:
>
>> QB- this was perhaps the most difficult position to do because I really,
>> really, really, really, really wanted to pick Steve Young. He has the
>> numbers. But look at the competition he's up against: Bret Farve, John
>> Elway, Troy Aikman. A friend of mine even suggested Jim Kelly (lol). I
>> tried and tried to narrow it down. Aikman was the first to be eliminated
>> because of his lack of mobility, but look at his rings.
>>
>> effective of all of the above quarterbacks in carrying his team. Young
>> doesn't have many come from behind victories to his credit, but most of
>> those come from behind wins are because of his ability to run the ball
when
>> he is under pressure. Elway and Farve have both had success doing that,
but
>> not nearly as much as Young.
>>
>
one of
>the few options considering his career spanned the whole decade. The big
issue I
>have with Young was his propensity for losing home playoff games after
putting
>up such great regular season records. You cannot deny his ridiculous
drop-off
>from the regular season to the post season.
>
got
>the Niners exactly ONE first down the rest of the game. He had no ability
to put
>the game away for the 49ers.
At first I thought you simply were ignorant about that game, so I excused
your incorrect notions about the "blown save." However, it's been pointed
out to you time and time again that the play-calling was intended *to run
time off the clock.* Young wasn't given the opportunity to "put the game
away." Since this has been pointed out to you, you obviously can't still be
ignorant of the fact, and it's clearly a poor attempt to degrade Young.
Incidentally, you also blame this loss on Rice. You've stated before that if
Rice were such a great play-maker, he'd have "stepped up" there and made a
play for his "inexperienced quarterback." Make up your mind as to who you
hate more and blame it on that person consistently, please.
>He lost the NFCCG in 1992 at home, a divisional
>playoff game at home in 1995, another NFCCG in 1997
Of course, the players around him had nothing to do with it. Nor did the
opposing team, right? He must've kept missing on his first serve and made a
huge amount of unforced errors on his forehand.
>and should have lost the 1998 divisional playoff as well.
Except that he won it with one of the great, clutch throws. Other than that,
he should have lost it, right?
>His loss of almost 20% production from regular
>season to postseason is inexcuseable. When push came to shove, Young more
often
>than not choked big-time.
Funny how a lot of quarterbacks choke when teams stack the pass defense with
six defensive backs.
>Sad thing is, who else do you pick? Aikman has a better playoff record and
more
>SBs, Elway could be an option, as could Favre. I really don't see any other
>choices. So...
All those could be options. However, Young was the best.
>QB of the 1990s: Steve Young.
Agreed.
>> RB-Of the half backs, there is only one name that needs to be mentioned,
and
>> that is Barry Sanders. Just to be fair, though, I did consider Terrell
>> Davis, Emmitt Smith, and even Thurman Thomas. None were as dominant over
as
>> long of a period of time.
>
>Smith, on the basis his career spanned the whole decade. No other backs
above
>can say that, save Thurman. And Thomas deserve no mention here.
So, despite being the most over-rated running back, and one of the most
over-rated players in history, according to you, he's the best, because he
played a season more in the '90s? Gotcha.
>> WR: Um. . . . I'm a Niner fan, so this should be obvious. Jerry
Rice.
>> But to be fair, I'm going to pick two wide outs. The second one is
>> difficult to pick, because the talent level drops off significantly after
>> Rice (that was intended for Sam). Antonio Freeman dropped too many
passes.
>> Andre Rison was a loser. Ed McCaffrey is just coming into his own.
After
>> perusing the teams for a good number two reciever, my list came down to
four
>> names. Chris Carter, Andre Reed, Tim Brown, and Michael Irvin.
>
>Rice has gone off the radar towards the end of the decade. While he still
may
>have an edge, it'd be hard to separate Rice, Irvin, Brown, Reed and Carter.
Only by you, my friend. Everyone else, including NFL players would all say
that Rice is without doubt the greatest of the '90s, and probably the
greatest in history.
Cheers,
Arjun
Dino Scoppettone
> Okay, this is a long shot, but I'm going to have to take Phil Hanson and
> Leon Lett. Young has had some explosive years, but hasn't excelled for long
> enough. Maybe I just like Hanson because he's from North Dakota, but he has
> had more consistant play over a longer period of time. Lett has had off the
> field problems, but that doesn't diminish what he's done on the field.
What about Cortez Kennedy? Named to NFL All-Pro teams five times, the 1992 NFL
Defensive Player of the Year (on a terrible Seattle team, no less), six-time Pro
Bowler, and even now having a great year for the Seahawks. He's been playing
the entire decade, as well. I'd take the Tez in a heartbeat over Lett and
Hanson, and I think he's as good as BY is.
Dino
Dino Scoppettone
> Sam Fleischer wrote in message <3841D820...@home.com>...
> >
> >and should have lost the 1998 divisional playoff as well.
>
> Except that he won it with one of the great, clutch throws. Other than that,
> he should have lost it, right?
I'm sure you understand that he's referring to the fact that if the Rice fumble
was called the CORRECT way, Young never would have had the chance to make the
throw, and therefore would have lost the game. So yes, he *should* have lost
it.
> >Rice has gone off the radar towards the end of the decade. While he still
> may
> >have an edge, it'd be hard to separate Rice, Irvin, Brown, Reed and Carter.
>
> Only by you, my friend. Everyone else, including NFL players would all say
> that Rice is without doubt the greatest of the '90s, and probably the
> greatest in history.
Yeah, you're right as usual -- "everyone else" would say, without a doubt, that
Rice is the greatest of the 90's, and that includes every single NFL player
you've spoken to. Care to substantiate that opinion? Have you talked to
"everyone else"?
By the way, here is one relevant comparison (totals from the 1990s only):
Rice: 836 rec., 11661 yards, 100 TDs
Cris Carter: 820 rec., 9991 yards, 93 TDs
Cris is still going strong, while Rice -- like Sam said -- has pretty much
fallen off the radar at this point. And Carter put these numbers together with
the likes of immortals Wade Wilson, Sean Salisbury, and Rich Gannon throwing to
him from 90-93. Now he's putting together a great season with another immortal,
Jeff George, calling signals.
But of course, those numbers, despite being pretty close, confirm that *without
a doubt*, Rice must be the greatest WR of the 90s. I'm glad to see your sense
of objectivity is still intact!
Dino
Sam Fleischer
> > >and should have lost the 1998 divisional playoff as well.
> >
> > Except that he won it with one of the great, clutch throws. Other than that,
> > he should have lost it, right?
>
> I'm sure you understand that he's referring to the fact that if the Rice fumble
> was called the CORRECT way, Young never would have had the chance to make the
> throw, and therefore would have lost the game. So yes, he *should* have lost
> it.
He can't understand that. And if he does, it will be followed by a Don Beebe
comment.
Steve played well given the extra chance, and Rice's fumble had nothing to do with
Young. But fact is, the 49ers should have lost that game, and they were saved by
inept officiating. Giving Young "credit" for the win is not even 50% accurate.
> Yeah, you're right as usual -- "everyone else" would say, without a doubt, that
> Rice is the greatest of the 90's, and that includes every single NFL player
> you've spoken to. Care to substantiate that opinion? Have you talked to
> "everyone else"?
>
> By the way, here is one relevant comparison (totals from the 1990s only):
>
> Rice: 836 rec., 11661 yards, 100 TDs
> Cris Carter: 820 rec., 9991 yards, 93 TDs
>
> Cris is still going strong, while Rice -- like Sam said -- has pretty much
> fallen off the radar at this point. And Carter put these numbers together with
> the likes of immortals Wade Wilson, Sean Salisbury, and Rich Gannon throwing to
> him from 90-93. Now he's putting together a great season with another immortal,
> Jeff George, calling signals.
>
> But of course, those numbers, despite being pretty close, confirm that *without
> a doubt*, Rice must be the greatest WR of the 90s. I'm glad to see your sense
> of objectivity is still intact!
Well, Rice did miss an entire season. :-) But injuries happen. Trade Carter for
Rice in 1990, and Cris Carter would have plenty of TDs for the world to see.
Richard Lucido
> By the way, here is one relevant comparison (totals from the 1990s only):
>
> Rice: 836 rec., 11661 yards, 100 TDs
> Cris Carter: 820 rec., 9991 yards, 93 TDs
Very impressive numbers indeed. Let us not forget though that Rice posted
up more 10 TD seasons, more 1200 yard seasons, and more 80+ catch seasons.
Comparing these two is alot like comparing E. Smith to B. Sanders, both are
greats but the one with more success during the 90s is clearly Smith (if you
care to debate the point, contact Spike). To be completely honest, I dont
think that Carter was as the reciever Irvin was either during the better
portion of the 90s. I would agree with the statement though that Carter is
the best reciever in the league right now.
> Cris is still going strong, while Rice -- like Sam said -- has pretty much
> fallen off the radar at this point.
Rice also played basically 3 full years before Carter played a full season.
He is also 3 years older and missed for all intents and purposes a full
season in 97. Rice when he was playing 3 seasons (96) ago was catching 100+
receptions and that was with no one on the other side and Derrick Loville
running the football. IOW defenses were absolutely keyed into him.
Since 94 (ironically the same year Carter started to reappear or perhaps
better put, finally appear) Carter has also had the luxury of a 1000 yard
reciever on the other side of him to keep defenses honest. BTW make no
mistake Carter was always the first reciever just like Rice.
That Rice has finally fallen off the radar is not surprising. What is is
that it took till the age of 37 for it to finally happen, statistically at
least.
>And Carter put these numbers together with
> the likes of immortals Wade Wilson, Sean Salisbury, and Rich Gannon
throwing to
> him from 90-93. Now he's putting together a great season with another
immortal,
> Jeff George, calling signals.
He also got some pretty big numbers with the likes of Warren Moon (who put
up decent numbers 18 TDs in 94, and huge ones 33 TDs in 95), Brad Johnson
(17 TDs in 96, 20 in 98), and Randall Cunningham (35 TDs last year)during
his tenure with the Vikes. As for Jeff George it will constantly amaze me
how few people recognize his talent for putting up extrodinary numbers.
Granted he has the maturity of a 10 year old but god given talent is
something he is not lacking in. On a side note, sorry I don't remember who
was QBing the Vikings in 93 or the numbers put up. Carter's numbers were
pretty good 86 rec - 1071 yds - 9 TDs.
Granted the Vikings have had alot of turnover in their QBs, the numbers have
not been non-condusive to a WR putting up numbers either.
Also Rice while not seeing the turnover rate did see alot passes from guys
such as Bono and Grbac throughout much of the 90s. His numbers during those
years were still incredible. Now he is 37 (as opposed to say Carter who was
25-27) and getting receptions from two guys who as bad if not worse than the
QBs that of those early 90s QBs throwing to Carter. He has also in effect
missed a full season in 97 and yet his numbers from 98 and 99 (yards and
receptions wise at least) will essentially be in the ballpark as Carters
90-92 seasons with 14 fewer games. All that while being 10 years older, not
too bad all things considered. All in all Carter has had 10 full seasons to
put up the numbers that he did, Rice had 9 and still beat him in every major
category.
>I'm glad to see your sense
> of objectivity is still intact!
>
> Dino
Aren't you part of the NHS? Look I really don't care if you wan't to
ellevate Carter's achievements to those of Rice's, it is clear that you have
a bias yourself in this matter. I know mine is pro Rice being a Niner fan,
but logically speaking there was not a single more dominant reciever
throughout the 90s. Argue it up and down but that is the simple truth, the
only one who IMO came close was Irvin. I think Irvin is a first class
slimeball (I would venture to say even our most devout Cowboy fans have a
fairly low opinion of his personal life) but I can look at what I have seen
and still know better, that is objectivity. Not hating the Niners, then
hating Rice, then going I'm objective. If you are merely arguing with Aruan
to argue then let me know now and I'll drop it.
Richard Lucido
Carter for
> Rice in 1990, and Cris Carter would have plenty of TDs for the world to
see.
John Taylor puts up an even better season ;-). Man I miss watching that guy
run.
Sam Fleischer
Richard Lucido wrote:
> > By the way, here is one relevant comparison (totals from the 1990s only):
> >
> > Rice: 836 rec., 11661 yards, 100 TDs
> > Cris Carter: 820 rec., 9991 yards, 93 TDs
>
> Very impressive numbers indeed. Let us not forget though that Rice posted
> up more 10 TD seasons, more 1200 yard seasons, and more 80+ catch seasons.
> Comparing these two is alot like comparing E. Smith to B. Sanders, both are
> greats but the one with more success during the 90s is clearly Smith (if you
> care to debate the point, contact Spike). To be completely honest, I dont
> think that Carter was as the reciever Irvin was either during the better
> portion of the 90s. I would agree with the statement though that Carter is
> the best reciever in the league right now.
That's the point. Give Carter a QB with the regular season consistency of
Montana or Young, what kind of numbers would be put up?
Arjun Rau
Dino Scoppettone wrote in message <38444027...@yahoo.nospam.com>...
>>
>> Except that he won it with one of the great, clutch throws. Other than
that,
>> he should have lost it, right?
>
>I'm sure you understand that he's referring to the fact that if the Rice
fumble
>was called the CORRECT way, Young never would have had the chance to make
the
>throw, and therefore would have lost the game. So yes, he *should* have
lost
>it.
All you Niner-haters seem to forget the calls that have gone against the
Niners in the Niner-Packer games. So one goes for the Niners, and suddenly
they didn't earn their victory, but all the games the Pack won with
questionable calls were "earned?" Ok....
>> >Rice has gone off the radar towards the end of the decade. While he
still
>> may
>> >have an edge, it'd be hard to separate Rice, Irvin, Brown, Reed and
Carter.
>>
>> Only by you, my friend. Everyone else, including NFL players would all
say
>> that Rice is without doubt the greatest of the '90s, and probably the
>> greatest in history.
>
>Yeah, you're right as usual -- "everyone else" would say, without a doubt,
that
>Rice is the greatest of the 90's, and that includes every single NFL player
>you've spoken to. Care to substantiate that opinion? Have you talked to
>"everyone else"?
I've seen plenty of times when receivers like Cris Carter have said that
Rice was the best ever. I assume, then, that they also think he was the best
of this decade.
>By the way, here is one relevant comparison (totals from the 1990s only):
>
>Rice: 836 rec., 11661 yards, 100 TDs
>Cris Carter: 820 rec., 9991 yards, 93 TDs
>
>Cris is still going strong, while Rice -- like Sam said -- has pretty much
>fallen off the radar at this point. And Carter put these numbers together
with
>the likes of immortals Wade Wilson, Sean Salisbury, and Rich Gannon
throwing to
>him from 90-93. Now he's putting together a great season with another
immortal,
>Jeff George, calling signals.
>
>But of course, those numbers, despite being pretty close, confirm that
*without
>a doubt*, Rice must be the greatest WR of the 90s. I'm glad to see your
sense
>of objectivity is still intact!
Yes, I'm so biased, as are NFL wide receivers, corners, talent scouts, etc.
Right? Right.
Cheers,
Arjun
Richard Lucido
> Montana or Young, what kind of numbers would be put up?
Possibly, but during the years of 94-99 most of the seasons had a very
productive QB in the system and a fine wideout on the other side. You might
see better numbers but that is argueable. Twice he caught 122 receptions
and 5 times 10+ TDs when including this season. I am not really sure how
much his numbers could improve. He was never really the deep threat that
Rice or Irvin were and even now his career average stands at below 13
whereas the aforementioned are both over 15. He never had a 1400 yard
season even though the teams Qb passed for over 4000 yards a couple of
times. Rice and Irvin combined for 6 times, and that is excluding a 1396
season by Irvin. Those were the two that really stood apart over the
duration of the 90s as dominating recievers.
My goal is not to denigrate Carter, simply put I believe that he has been
the best reciever in the league as of this very moment and has been one of
the better ones since 94. Then again the best really changes from year to
year. When putting together a team of the 90's people tend to look at raw
numbers sometimes forgetting who were really the most dominating players.
Case in point I would take Jay Novacek over every other TE to play during
the decade even though his time and numbers were not as great. Why, when a
crucial 3rd down was needed he always seem to make them and that is
something that cannot be overestimated. Then there is the debate of the
leadership values that a player brings and so forth. It really depends on
how you as a person evaluate the criteria of the list.
philip_s
> Dino Scoppettone wrote:
>
> > I'm sure you understand that he's referring to the fact that if the Rice fumble
> > was called the CORRECT way, Young never would have had the chance to make the
> > throw, and therefore would have lost the game. So yes, he *should* have lost
> > it.
>
> He can't understand that. And if he does, it will be followed by a Don Beebe
> comment.
>
> Steve played well given the extra chance,
He made a perfect throw to Owens in a crowd with a couple of seconds left. C'mon, oh
magnanimous one, give him credit for something just this once.
> and Rice's fumble had nothing to do with
> Young. But fact is, the 49ers should have lost that game, and they were saved by
> inept officiating. Giving Young "credit" for the win is not even 50% accurate.
But the context of this particular discussion was how Young performs in the
playoffs--not faulty officiating. It is wrong to hold that bad call against Young, or
use it as further proof that he chokes in the postseason, since he had nothing to do
with the officiating. The fact is, he performed splendidly on that final drive. He did
his part.
philip_s
> Richard Lucido wrote:
>
> > > By the way, here is one relevant comparison (totals from the 1990s only):
> > >
> > > Rice: 836 rec., 11661 yards, 100 TDs
> > > Cris Carter: 820 rec., 9991 yards, 93 TDs
> >
> > Very impressive numbers indeed. Let us not forget though that Rice posted
> > up more 10 TD seasons, more 1200 yard seasons, and more 80+ catch seasons.
> > Comparing these two is alot like comparing E. Smith to B. Sanders, both are
> > greats but the one with more success during the 90s is clearly Smith (if you
> > care to debate the point, contact Spike). To be completely honest, I dont
> > think that Carter was as the reciever Irvin was either during the better
> > portion of the 90s. I would agree with the statement though that Carter is
> > the best reciever in the league right now.
>
> That's the point. Give Carter a QB with the regular season consistency of
> Montana or Young, what kind of numbers would be put up?
I dunno--give Dwight Clark, Freddie Solomon and John Taylor a quarterback like Joe
Montana throwing to them, and what kind of numbers would they put up?
philip_s
> Look at the teams, though. Rice was BY FAR the main receiving threat on the
> 49ers, with an All-Pro QB throwing to him. Carter was splitting the pass
> distribution with another 1000-yard WR in Jake Reed, no?
Rice was splitting the pass distribution for many years with John Taylor, a
Pro-Bowler. There was a reason Rice was the primary receiving threat, same as Carter
was over Reed--he was by far the best receiver on his team. You've gotta EARN the
distinction of primary receiver, you know. It isn't just arbitrarily bestowed.
> Imagine no Reed on that
> team - do you think maybe Carter sees more passes thrown his way and hence
> "better" receiving totals?
Hell, might as well imagine that there's only one receiver per team. Do you think
everybody's numbers go up? See above--you don't become the #1 receiver on your team
because of your looks.
Richard Lucido
> Look at the teams, though. Rice was BY FAR the main receiving threat on
the
> 49ers, with an All-Pro QB throwing to him. Carter was splitting the pass
on that
> team - do you think maybe Carter sees more passes thrown his way and hence
> "better" receiving totals?
That is true, but it is also a double edge sword. As I mentioned earlier
having Reed on the other side also opens him up to less double coverage.
Given how good some of the years that Moon, Cunningham, Johnson, and now
George, it is questionable how much better those numbers might have been.
Simply put there are limits to numbers, even Rice had his limits, they just
set records ; ).
> I have always thought of Carter as more of a possession receiver, but that
> doesn't make him any less important, valuable or successful.
I agree, but both Irvin and Rice at times and also played the role of deep
threat. The possesion reciever that always impressed the hell out of me was
Herman Moore. He will never be considered amongst the "best of the 90's"
but he was certainly one of the top receivers from 95-97.
> And to boot, think of Irvin in a passing offense, as opposed to a running
> offense. If he could up those numbers in Dallas' system, imagine what he
could
> do in a system where he saw 33% more passes thrown his way during the
season, a
> la Rice.
Boy now were really agreeing, course Dallas did its best by not throwing too
often ; ). Irvin's talent is undeniable, his personal life is his downfall.
> And Carter has always been a team player since arriving in Minnesota, no?
The
> ways he's helped Moss have been well noted,. but I am sure he was doing
the same
> things for Jake Reed a few years ago.
Yes, and Rice is also an acknowledged team leader during the Niners 3 SBs
that he played in and since and both Owens and Stokes have commented on how
much they have learned from Rice. As for Rice's outbursts, well Carter
hasn't really started hitting that decline yet and probably will not for
another couple years. Hopefully he realizes his role then with a little
more grace than Rice. Leadership is a common trait among great players and
both of these players have shown a ton of it during their years.
Sam Fleischer
Richard Lucido wrote:
> > That's the point. Give Carter a QB with the regular season consistency of
> > Montana or Young, what kind of numbers would be put up?
>
> Possibly, but during the years of 94-99 most of the seasons had a very
> productive QB in the system and a fine wideout on the other side. You might
> see better numbers but that is argueable. Twice he caught 122 receptions
> and 5 times 10+ TDs when including this season. I am not really sure how
> much his numbers could improve. He was never really the deep threat that
> Rice or Irvin were and even now his career average stands at below 13
> whereas the aforementioned are both over 15. He never had a 1400 yard
> season even though the teams Qb passed for over 4000 yards a couple of
> times. Rice and Irvin combined for 6 times, and that is excluding a 1396
> season by Irvin. Those were the two that really stood apart over the
> duration of the 90s as dominating recievers.
Look at the teams, though. Rice was BY FAR the main receiving threat on the
49ers, with an All-Pro QB throwing to him. Carter was splitting the pass
distribution with another 1000-yard WR in Jake Reed, no? Imagine no Reed on that
team - do you think maybe Carter sees more passes thrown his way and hence
"better" receiving totals?
I have always thought of Carter as more of a possession receiver, but that
doesn't make him any less important, valuable or successful.
And to boot, think of Irvin in a passing offense, as opposed to a running
offense. If he could up those numbers in Dallas' system, imagine what he could
do in a system where he saw 33% more passes thrown his way during the season, a
la Rice.
I'm not trying to rip Rice in this post; what I am trying to do is realistically
look at the systematic and team advantages and disadvantages each player
encountered during this time period in order to gain a more accurate sense of
worth.
> My goal is not to denigrate Carter, simply put I believe that he has been
> the best reciever in the league as of this very moment and has been one of
> the better ones since 94. Then again the best really changes from year to
> year. When putting together a team of the 90's people tend to look at raw
> numbers sometimes forgetting who were really the most dominating players.
> Case in point I would take Jay Novacek over every other TE to play during
> the decade even though his time and numbers were not as great. Why, when a
> crucial 3rd down was needed he always seem to make them and that is
> something that cannot be overestimated. Then there is the debate of the
> leadership values that a player brings and so forth. It really depends on
> how you as a person evaluate the criteria of the list.
And Carter has always been a team player since arriving in Minnesota, no? The
Bryan Kautzman
I guess in my attempt to become unbiased in naming this team, I became
stupid.
I'll take Kennedy and Hansen.
Ian Westcott
:>He lost the NFCCG in 1992 at home, a divisional
:>playoff game at home in 1995, another NFCCG in 1997
: Of course, the players around him had nothing to do with it. Nor did the
: opposing team, right? He must've kept missing on his first serve and made a
: huge amount of unforced errors on his forehand.
I seem to remember that at least in the '97 game (and perhaps the '95 game,
though my memory is growing rather fuzzy there), you couldn't blame the
offense for what happened. They put decent numbers against a very good team,
but the other team put up fantastic numbers because the 49ers defense,
which throughout the season looked pretty decent, just shut down.
:>Sad thing is, who else do you pick? Aikman has a better playoff record and
: more
:>SBs, Elway could be an option, as could Favre. I really don't see any other
:>choices. So...
I would have picked Favre over Aikman myself, but I think they're both good.
Maybe Aikman's just been better longer. Teams rarely magically turn it up
right at the beginning of the decade. };>
--
Ian Westcott Rakarra@IRC
rak...@pacbell.net