OT: NFL Football Sunday

[squirt1]

Nothing is ever going to change in Cincinnati as long as owner,president and general manager are the same inept person that has run this franchise in the hole for years. Prog this city needs to stop attending and opening their wallets to this circus and file a class action for impersonating a Pro football team. NFL step in. If McDonalds had a franchise making people this sick they would find a clause somewhere. The players here most likely want out, are aging and stuck in contracts . Good players will not want to have their career bungleized ! I know the injuries,but the talent on the line is so lacking that Carson is easy prey.

[skinsguy]

You guys need to just come over to the Redskins' side! We're the up and coming next best thing!

Seriously, still a long season left to go, but for the most part, I'm really enjoying watching football this year! Although, today had just about given me a heart attack, but I'm used to that anyway....lol!

[Ehwmatt]

You guys need to just come over to the Redskins' side! We're the up and coming next best thing!

Seriously, still a long season left to go, but for the most part, I'm really enjoying watching football this year! Although, today had just about given me a heart attack, but I'm used to that anyway....lol!

One heart attack for you..... about 20 for me, one for each shitty Derek Anderson pass and decision. Sweet jesus i knew it was a mistake for us to sign that fucker back in the off-season. The only thing he's good for is the occasional flashy long pass. He has a strong arm and not much else. A great QB must have great field sense, and you can't teach that.

[YoungJRNY]

The only reason why Dallas was noted America's team was simply because they had a KILLER franchise in the 90's (dynasty) and they had flawless and respectful players to follow and succeed like Troy Aikman, Moose Johnson, and Emmit Smith.

Come on my young Pittsburgh friend. You have to do better than this. I know this is going to shock you, but the NFL was around LONG before the 90's! A couple of points here...While the Cowboys had some very good players in the 90's, they weren't all choirboys. They had several players who had issues with the law (Irvin and Lett come to mind). Aikman was a below average QB. Emmitt was a very good player, and a good dude. Those 90's team won because they had the best offensive line, ever assembled. Believe me when I tell you...If Barry Sanders ran behind the offensive line that Emmitt ran behind, he would have EVERY record ever set by an NFL running back!


Now, onto the idiotic (as smart guys like Rick admit to) moniker of "America's Team". The idiotic fans (Sorry Rick) and the Cowboys themselves, gave themselves the name, which is what makes it so moronic! The Cowboys aren't "America's Team", and neither is any other team! I can assure you that the Cowboys have far more people who despise them (think Yankees) than who call them "America's Team". It's the most arrogant name I've EVER heard of for a team, and I would be personally embarrassed if any team I were a fan of referred to themselves as "America's Team"!


John from Boston

I understand that Dallas made its marking as Americas Team in the 70's. In fact, that's how my brother became a die-hard Dallas fan, it all started when he was a child. Kind of like today's "dynasty" in N.E having an impact on kids today.

I was mainly talking about the recent dynasty in the 90's when talking about the Cowboys. "America's Team" was at least led by superstars that didn't have their face between the bars, even though they did have scum like Lett and Irvin (still a H.O.F inductee.) Aikman and Smith were the prototype of the NFL then and were guys that kids could look up to at the time.. and it helped they were NFL's dynasty making the "America's Team" more presentable.

I hate Dallas possibly more than any other football team in the NFL or sports. But I must say, Troy Aikman was NO where NEAR a below average Quarterback.

Another thing, I don't think Sanders would of even needed an offensive line like the Cowboys. Just give him an AVERAGE offensive line and he would of held every NFL record set by a running back.

[Maui Tom]

I feel better about my Niners after watching the Seahawks tonight....

[Enigma869]

Troy Aikman was NO where NEAR a below average Quarterback.

We'll agree to disagree. I saw Aikman's entire career, and from a talent standpoint, the guy was below average, in my opinion. I'll always compliment the guy for winning and believe that he belongs in the Hall of Fame, just because he was a part of so many winning teams. That said, he and Terry Bradshaw might be the two least talented QB's in the HOF. If you look at Aikman's career numbers, they really aren't impressive (and I'm talking pure QB statistics, here). In 12 seasons, the guy passed for at least 20 TD's only once! 8 of his 12 seasons, he passed for 15 or fewer TD's in a season. Those are DREADFUL numbers, for a hall of fame QB! Just for some perspective on that, Jon Kitna has played for 12 NFL seasons. Only 7 of those seasons has he been a starter (most of the other seasons, he didn't even start 5 games, so I'm not counting those seasons). He never once passed for fewer than 15 TD's in a season and passed for over 20 TD's in 3 of the 7 seasons he was a starter. The point I'm making is that Jon Kitna SUCKS, and has better stats (in both yards and TD's) than Aikman had!


John from Boston

[Don]

Troy Aikman was NO where NEAR a below average Quarterback.

We'll agree to disagree. I saw Aikman's entire career, and from a talent standpoint, the guy was below average, in my opinion. I'll always compliment the guy for winning and believe that he belongs in the Hall of Fame, just because he was a part of so many winning teams. That said, he and Terry Bradshaw might be the two least talented QB's in the HOF. If you look at Aikman's career numbers, they really aren't impressive (and I'm talking pure QB statistics, here). In 12 seasons, the guy passed for at least 20 TD's only once! 8 of his 12 seasons, he passed for 15 or fewer TD's in a season. Those are DREADFUL numbers, for a hall of fame QB! Just for some perspective on that, Jon Kitna has played for 12 NFL seasons. Only 7 of those seasons has he been a starter (most of the other seasons, he didn't even start 5 games, so I'm not counting those seasons). He never once passed for fewer than 15 TD's in a season and passed for over 20 TD's in 3 of the 7 seasons he was a starter. The point I'm making is that Jon Kitna SUCKS, and has better stats (in both yards and TD's) than Aikman had!


John from Boston

Reminds me of Lynn Swann, another guy who, based on his regular season stats would be very debatable as a HOF selection. He got in the hall for making a handful of great catches in the playoffs.

[YoungJRNY]

Troy Aikman was NO where NEAR a below average Quarterback.

We'll agree to disagree. I saw Aikman's entire career, and from a talent standpoint, the guy was below average, in my opinion. I'll always compliment the guy for winning and believe that he belongs in the Hall of Fame, just because he was a part of so many winning teams. That said, he and Terry Bradshaw might be the two least talented QB's in the HOF. If you look at Aikman's career numbers, they really aren't impressive (and I'm talking pure QB statistics, here). In 12 seasons, the guy passed for at least 20 TD's only once! 8 of his 12 seasons, he passed for 15 or fewer TD's in a season. Those are DREADFUL numbers, for a hall of fame QB! Just for some perspective on that, Jon Kitna has played for 12 NFL seasons. Only 7 of those seasons has he been a starter (most of the other seasons, he didn't even start 5 games, so I'm not counting those seasons). He never once passed for fewer than 15 TD's in a season and passed for over 20 TD's in 3 of the 7 seasons he was a starter. The point I'm making is that Jon Kitna SUCKS, and has better stats (in both yards and TD's) than Aikman had!


John from Boston

Reminds me of Lynn Swann, another guy who, based on his regular season stats would be very debatable as a HOF selection. He got in the hall for making a handful of great catches in the playoffs.

Being in the H.O.F doesn't strictly come from stats itself. It stems off of the big picture and that is the all around football player and talent..at YOUR position. If stats were the case, guys like Jon Kitna (like John mentioned) would be a first ballot nominee and such talent like Michael Vick would automatically put you in the Hall. It doesn't work like that. It's how you approach the game rather than the game approaching you and how your talent alone at your position made the different maker of 53 men around you.

Guys like Aikman and Swann had some vicious play makers around them,

(Aikman had All-Pros handling his offensive line and a Hall of Fame Running back behind him, and a Hall of Fame reciever on the outside but STILL was a standout.. Swann had John Stallworth on the other side of the field with a Hall of fame Quarterback and Running back in the same operations and STILL made mad production even with another hall of fame receiver over the top of him..PLUS keep in mind this was an era where passing was secondary. THAT speaks wonders.)

and when you have a team that was built that way, it's a little harder to make a statement at a certain position. That's why football is THEE ULTIMATE team game. Guys like Aikman and Swann stood out on amazing teams not only to the guys around them, but also around the league, NFL community, and fans. Stats help sugar coat things but when it comes down to it is how you managed your position and just plain old winning baby. THAT'S what makes a Hall of Fame Player.

[skinsguy]

You guys need to just come over to the Redskins' side! We're the up and coming next best thing!

Seriously, still a long season left to go, but for the most part, I'm really enjoying watching football this year! Although, today had just about given me a heart attack, but I'm used to that anyway....lol!

One heart attack for you..... about 20 for me, one for each shitty Derek Anderson pass and decision. Sweet jesus i knew it was a mistake for us to sign that fucker back in the off-season. The only thing he's good for is the occasional flashy long pass. He has a strong arm and not much else. A great QB must have great field sense, and you can't teach that.

Anderson got better in the fourth quarter though. And, because the game was still tight, at least he had his best quarter of the game when it counted. In all fairness though, the Redskins should've beat the Browns by about 30 points considering how much the 'Skins dominated the entire game.

I'm looking to see Brady Quinn starting in a week or two for the Browns. I mean, their season is pretty much over at this point anyway.

[skinsguy]

Being in the H.O.F doesn't strictly come from stats itself. It stems off of the big picture and that is the all around football player and talent..at YOUR position. If stats were the case, guys like Jon Kitna (like John mentioned) would be a first ballot nominee and such talent like Michael Vick would automatically put you in the Hall. It doesn't work like that. It's how you approach the game rather than the game approaching you and how your talent alone at your position made the different maker of 53 men around you.

I think the definition of what makes a player a HOF player changes depending on who the HOF panel likes personally. For instance, if it was an argument of stats, Art Monk had the stats to qualify as a HOF WR. Still, he got snubbed for years. Then, if the argument was that the player needed to play on championship teams, then Art Monk had that. Still, he got snubbed for years. If the argument was that the WR needed to be a well rounded player, and a role model in his community, well, Art Monk had that. Still, he was snubbed for years. At least the HOF panel finally wised up and saw that Monk was more than deserving to be in the Hall. The guy never complained, never was a media whore. He just went out and did his job and was one of the best to do it. Maybe the only "logical" reason to have not let him into the HOF was that he was more of a possession receiver rather than the explosive deep threat. But, when the game was on the line and you've gotta make that pass to keep the chains rolling, Monk was the guy.

In my opinion, what makes a player a HoF player largely depends on name recognition and how good you're in with the HOF judging panel.

[Fourt9rkim]

I'm not complaining really cuz I had tix to Niner games in the glory years so I realize it will never be that good again...

But damn these guys are hard to watch....

No kidding! Between Nolan having the befuddled look on his face (when he's not adjusting his suit), and seeing O'Sullivan making bad reads..... times are tough in Niner land.

[conversationpc]

I think the definition of what makes a player a HOF player changes depending on who the HOF panel likes personally. For instance, if it was an argument of stats, Art Monk had the stats to qualify as a HOF WR. Still, he got snubbed for years. Then, if the argument was that the player needed to play on championship teams, then Art Monk had that. Still, he got snubbed for years. If the argument was that the WR needed to be a well rounded player, and a role model in his community, well, Art Monk had that. Still, he was snubbed for years. At least the HOF panel finally wised up and saw that Monk was more than deserving to be in the Hall. The guy never complained, never was a media whore. He just went out and did his job and was one of the best to do it. Maybe the only "logical" reason to have not let him into the HOF was that he was more of a possession receiver rather than the explosive deep threat. But, when the game was on the line and you've gotta make that pass to keep the chains rolling, Monk was the guy.

In my opinion, what makes a player a HoF player largely depends on name recognition and how good you're in with the HOF judging panel.

That Monk wasn't a first ballot Hall of Famer is an embarrassment, especially considering Lynn Swann is in there.

[Enigma869]

I think the definition of what makes a player a HOF player changes depending on who the HOF panel likes personally. For instance, if it was an argument of stats, Art Monk had the stats to qualify as a HOF WR. Still, he got snubbed for years. Then, if the argument was that the player needed to play on championship teams, then Art Monk had that. Still, he got snubbed for years. If the argument was that the WR needed to be a well rounded player, and a role model in his community, well, Art Monk had that. Still, he was snubbed for years. At least the HOF panel finally wised up and saw that Monk was more than deserving to be in the Hall. The guy never complained, never was a media whore. He just went out and did his job and was one of the best to do it. Maybe the only "logical" reason to have not let him into the HOF was that he was more of a possession receiver rather than the explosive deep threat. But, when the game was on the line and you've gotta make that pass to keep the chains rolling, Monk was the guy.

In my opinion, what makes a player a HoF player largely depends on name recognition and how good you're in with the HOF judging panel.

All halls of fame are VERY subjective. Tony Perez is in the baseball Hall of Fame and Jim Rice isn't. Rice has better numbers than Perez in almost every statistical category, and played 7 fewer seasons to get those numbers! It's a complete joke! I couldn't agree with you more on Art Monk. The guy was always a first ballot hall of famer, in my opinion. I was genuinely suprised when it took him so long to get in. Just to play devil's advocate, these decisions aren't always easy ones. Sometimes it comes down to what your eyes tell you. I've never believed that Jim Thome was a hall of fame baseball player (he was VERY one dimensional), but if you look at the guy's career numbers, it's going to be tough to keep him out of the HOF.

Back to my Dallas argument...If Aikman had won just one championship, he wouldn't have even been considered for enshrinement. His three championships were something that simply couldn't be overlooked, in spite of his VERY mediocre passing statistics.


John from Boston

[conversationpc]

All halls of fame are VERY subjective. Tony Perez is in the baseball Hall of Fame and Jim Rice isn't. Rice has better numbers than Perez in almost every statistical category, and played 7 fewer seasons to get those numbers! It's a complete joke!

Yes...Rice is my all-time favorite player and he was the most dominant all-around offensive player for about a ten year stretch from the mid 70s through the mid 80s. In '78, dude had over 400 total bases, something that is still difficult to achieve and players weren't 'roided up back then and hitting 50+ homers every year.

[Enigma869]

talent like Michael Vick would automatically put you in the Hall.

Dopey statement, dude! Vick isn't in any HOF, even if he doesn't decide to mutilate Lassie! In my experience, Michael Vick fans are CLUELESS about football. If you look at Vick's numbers, he's never done anything. The guy can run fast, and that's about it. His decision making always sucked. His accuracy sucked (his career completion percentage is around 52%), and he never had a big arm. He only passed for at least 2500 once in his career, and never passed for 3000. Vick was always a media creation, whose "talent" never approached what many of his supporters would have you believe!

Guys like Aikman and Swann had some play makers around them,

Agreed. They both played on great all around teams. That said, Lynn Swann has NEVER belonged in the HOF. His numbers are 1000 times more embarrassing than Aikman's. I'll at least buy Aikman belonging in the HOF, because he was the leader of VERY successful teams. Swann played 9 seasons, and only caught more than 10 TD passes twice (11 on both occassions). The guy's "career" receiving year resulted in a "whopping" 880 yards (which is dreadful) receiving. For his 9 year career, he didn't even average 50 yards per game (which is also dreadul). Nobody will ever convince me that Swann belongs in the HOF. I believe that the Hall completely dropped the ball when they selected him. While I understand that he was a member of the most successful football team, EVER, you still have to look at the guy's numbers. Being a member of the team isn't good enough. Hell, if that's the criteria, then just elect every member of those teams!

Stats help sugar coat things but when it comes down to it is how you managed your position and just plain old winning baby. THAT'S what makes a Hall of Fame Player.

As I said, I don't agree with this. Stats matter, and matter a lot, when it comes to be inducted into the HOF. The HOF is supposed to be reserved for those players who were the best at their position, during their era. A guy like Swann doesn't come close! If it were all about winning, the Patriots long-snapper Lonnie Paxton should be a hall of famer, because he has three super bowl rings with the Patriots!


John from Boston

[belar]

Clearly, the Rams will win the next 10 Superbowls.

[YoungJRNY]

talent like Michael Vick would automatically put you in the Hall.

Dopey statement, dude! Vick isn't in any HOF, even if he doesn't decide to mutilate Lassie! In my experience, Michael Vick fans are CLUELESS about football. If you look at Vick's numbers, he's never done anything. The guy can run fast, and that's about it. His decision making always sucked. His accuracy sucked (his career completion percentage is around 52%), and he never had a big arm. He only passed for at least 2500 once in his career, and never passed for 3000. Vick was always a media creation, whose "talent" never approached what many of his supporters would have you believe!

Guys like Aikman and Swann had some play makers around them,

Agreed. They both played on great all around teams. That said, Lynn Swann has NEVER belonged in the HOF. His numbers are 1000 times more embarrassing than Aikman's. I'll at least buy Aikman belonging in the HOF, because he was the leader of VERY successful teams. Swann played 9 seasons, and only caught more than 10 TD passes twice (11 on both occassions). The guy's "career" receiving year resulted in a "whopping" 880 yards (which is dreadful) receiving. For his 9 year career, he didn't even average 50 yards per game (which is also dreadul). Nobody will ever convince me that Swann belongs in the HOF. I believe that the Hall completely dropped the ball when they selected him. While I understand that he was a member of the most successful football team, EVER, you still have to look at the guy's numbers. Being a member of the team isn't good enough. Hell, if that's the criteria, then just elect every member of those teams!

Stats help sugar coat things but when it comes down to it is how you managed your position and just plain old winning baby. THAT'S what makes a Hall of Fame Player.

As I said, I don't agree with this. Stats matter, and matter a lot, when it comes to be inducted into the HOF. The HOF is supposed to be reserved for those players who were the best at their position, during their era. A guy like Swann doesn't come close! If it were all about winning, the Patriots long-snapper Lonnie Paxton should be a hall of famer, because he has three super bowl rings with the Patriots!


John from Boston

Dopey statement, dude! Vick isn't in any HOF, even if he doesn't decide to mutilate Lassie! In my experience, Michael Vick fans are CLUELESS about football. If you look at Vick's numbers, he's never done anything. The guy can run fast, and that's about it. His decision making always sucked. His accuracy sucked (his career completion percentage is around 52%), and he never had a big arm. He only passed for at least 2500 once in his career, and never passed for 3000. Vick was always a media creation, whose "talent" never approached what many of his supporters would have you believe!

That's exactly what I'm saying. I basically said your point by saying this "If stats were the case, guys like Jon Kitna (like John mentioned) would be a first ballot nominee and such talent like Michael Vick would automatically put you in the Hall. It doesn't work like that."

Vick was handsomely the most flashy, and best talented athlete in the NFL. It never escaped the fact that he wasn't a good FOOTBALL PLAYER, and an even worse Quarterback. I agree with your Vick assessment 110%.

As for Swann. One could always argue an opinion, but the fact remains fact. He was selected in the Hall of Fame by a grand jury of people who reward football players by the way the game is supposed to be played, and Swann was one of them.