Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'After Hours Lounge (Off Topic)' started by Patrick Sun, Aug 12, 2007.
Thanks Brandon. Now we know why Sal conveniently left out overall grass stats.
Ok, guess I am not done. Before Barry, the Lions reached the playoffs 3 times in the previous 34 years. After they drafted him the got to the playoffs 5 times, including the only win since Fords ownership. I didn't like how he retired, but it was his choice, and he was as sick of losing as anyone.
Nice stats work, Brandon. While. like you, I didn't like how Barry retired just before the season started, as time went by I understood and accepted the reasons. He was tired of losing, and there was no hope in sight for things to get any better. Gee, nothing's changed since then.
I didn't like it either. I kept hoping Carolina would get him (why Carolina...I have no idea, I must have read that in a news article). I just wanted to see the guy play. It was that simple. We watch these games/events because we like to marvel at athleticism and greatness. No one in the 90's provided that like Barry. I didn't like how he left, but once he explained his reasons (later, long after the sting had gone out) I understood them. He could have been nasty about it, but he wasn't. He could have handled it a bit better. But he did the best he could. In short, the Lions management screwed the fans out of about 2-3 more years of Sanders football. That should tick off everyone Brandon (and the radio weenie) said it best...if I have to explain it, you don't watch football.
Originally Posted by Mike Williams
He is now 423 touchdowns to a remarkable 277 interceptions. He throws less than 2 touchdowns for every interception. Those are horrific numbers.
I know you already qualified your comments, so I don't mean this as "piling on." Just wanted to show Favre's TD/Int ratio compared to some other Hall of Famers...
TD Int Ratio
Wow, Trey, those are really remarkable numbers. I was honestly not aware of those, and it definitely puts the Favre numbers in proper perspective. I'm curious how many of the Aikman interceptions occurred in his rookie season. I am also very surprised Aikman has as few touchdown passes as he does, but I suppose a lot of that is due to having Emmitt Smith as his running back. Man, I am really shocked by those numbers.
Aikman had 18 picks in each of his first 2 seasons. Two things I didn't know until looking at his stats: '92 was the only season he threw 20 or more TD's, and that four times ('89, '90, '96, '00) he finished a season with more Ints than TD's. Farve has had 12(!) seasons of over 20 TD passes (8 of those he threw more than 30!), and his Int total only surpassed his TD total 3 times...
Considering I went to a number of Dallas games in Aikman's first two season, I am surprised he only threw 18 interceptions those two seasons (although that is certainly a lot). If you recall in 1989, Aikman spent most of his time on the ground and he was the first quarterback to wear the flack jacket that most QB's wear today.
Aikman never put up great numbers, so Trey' s stats are not that surprising to me. He was a good game manager, and benefitted from playing for a very talented team most of his career. He was not, however, a QB who could carry a team, ala Favre or Marino, IMO.
My dad and I have always thought that if Barry Sanders had the O-line that Emmitt had in Dallas, Barry would be far and away the all time leader in rushing yards. I saw Barry live once and on TV many times and I haven't seen a player like him since. I saw him in person one time. It was at the Michigan High School Marching Band State Finals at the Silverdome. While we were waiting outside to go in, the players were coming out after getting their stuff from the locker room. I remember seeing Scott Mitchell and couldn't believe how tall and big he was and then seeing Barry and couldn't believe how short and small he was. Sure it was crummy of Barry to retire the way he did, but I suppose I would do the same thing if I was told that I was the franchise's meal ticket.
Scott, you may be right in your analysis of the '90s Dallas Cowboys, but Troy Aikman is every bit as big a reason for their three superbowls as Michael Irvin, Emmitt Smith, Jay Novachek, Bill Bates, Daryl Johnston, Nate Newton, Ken Norton, Jr., and many, many others. They're called the Triplets because it took all three.
Aikman was an excellent game manager, unselfish and smart. He was not a game-changer by himself, though. He never really had to be. A major reason that Emmitt racked his yards is that Aikman had the Cowboys in a position to grind in the late 3rd/4th quarters, and with that monstrous line Dallas possessed in the 90's, Emmitt just chewed up yards. He WAS a gamechanger before that, but those late game racks really helped. I argued with my Steelers buddy that the 90's Cowboys were the most dominant dynasty ever. They won with Switzer as a head coach!!! You think the Pats could do that?? Or the 49ers Switzer was a joke.
Switzer with the Dallas Cowboys, much as he was with the Sooners, was always more of a manager than a coach. With the Cowboys, Switzer was smart enought to realize he was inherting a great team and a perfect situation and knew when to leave well enough alone. I find him to be particularly candid and self-effacing each week on NFL Sunday on Fox during the Grumpy Old Coaches segment with Jimmy Johnson. He is always acknowledging that he inherited Jimmy's players and won with Jimmy's players. The first week he also pointed out that when Jimmy went from Oklahoma State to Miami, he inherited a team that had won the National Championship the year before. You can say what you want about Switzer in the NFL. In college, he's still the king.
Besides, it's not that easy to "run with a good thing" look at how many people screw it up Ask San Diego how that's all working out..
That's true, Chris. In fact, Barry pointed out to Jimmy Johnson, "Yeah, I won with your players. I could've lost with your players too."
Chuck, Even I wouldn't agree with you there.
Yeah, I don't know if they were the most dominant dynasty ever. But they definitely rank among the tops. Only Dallas and New England have won three SuperBowls in four years, so it's pretty much hard to argue with that. You can argue that the Patriots were the greater accomplishment in this era of salary caps and free agency, but the Dallas Cowboys of the '90s were pretty darn good -- mostly thanks to Herschel Walker.
Yes, that has to be the best/worst trade in NFL history. It took the Vikings years to recover from that deal, and Dallas added a lot of pieces to their championship team. Personally, I do not like trying to compare different "dynasties". It's so difficult to do, since the game has evolved so much since the Super Bowl era began. However, if you throw out issues such as salary caps, rules changes, etc., I think the '70's Steelers teams were the most impressive I've ever seen. Those teams were filled with great players in every area, and they won 4 titles in 6 years.
I'm with Scott, I don't like to compare dynasties either. However, it is worth considering if you are going to do such a thing the level of competition. The 70's Steelers for example were facing teams like the 70's Dolphins and 70's Raiders who were no easy outs.
Week 6 Picks Tampa Bay over Tennessee Chicago over Minnesota Houston over Jacksonville Cleveland over Miami Baltimore over St. Louis Green Bay over Washington Cincinnati over Kansas City Philadelphia over Jets Arizona over Carolina San Diego over Oakland New England over Dallas New Orleans over Seattle Giants over Atlanta Last Week 10-4 Overall 38-38