Namecalling.
:Tsk:
Must be a sign of surrender.
Originally Posted by Rambro Creed
No name calling..... just asking you to be open minded and not myopic..... Appologies if you felt I was taking a shot at you, as I was not......
Dude, if you're going to use the 'great teammates' argument, then you've got a lot of historical rewriting to do. You'll practically run out of asterisks. Not just football, but all team sports. Great TEAMS win championships. If they didn't, all you'd have a lot of ambiguous champions in every sport. Bird, Magic, Montana, Rice, Bart Starr, Bradshaw, all had hall of famer teammates.
Originally Posted by Rambro Creed
Here you go! I actually like the fact that you brought this up...... you are right..... and wrong a bit...... but you have a lot of very good points here........ Football much moreso than baseball is much more of a TEAM sport.... .in baseball, when it comes to the statistical catagories (most anyway) you are essentially on an island where you and you alone are the generator of your own statistics (again for the most part that is)...... Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio, etc.... have their statistical acomplishments that are derived from 98% of what they did soley by themselves.... having great teamates aided in winning championships, but had a MUCH smaller impact on what they did as individuals....... Football is just different in that matter...... I will present you first with Terry Bradshaw...... Winner of 4 Superbowls and is a Hall of Fame QB....... but in his early days he was nearly run out of town because of his terrible play and thoughts of him being an idiot..... but you throw a Hall of fame offensive line, RB and 2 HoF WRs and all of the sudden he is a hall of famer....... a place where a good QB looks great, but I'm sure we can all argue that if you put Archie Mannining in that situation you could probably easily keep those 4 superbowl victories and argue another 1 or 2 right? (that is NOT a direct parallel to the Emmitt argument, just some food for thought)
Those like you seem to go way out of your way to lessen the accomplishments of Emmitt. In the process of doing this, you're degrading and undermining what it takes to become a champion in a team sport.
Originally Posted by Rambro Creed
I will never argue that Emmitt is a champion and will choke your ass out to win, and is without question the very definition of what it takes to be a champion...... but.......How in the world did I ever lessen his accomplishments?!?! Because I won't call him the "Greatest of all Time"?!? I have been touting how great he was this entire thread.....
Emmitt was a GREAT back! No denying it. To find a guy who was just fucking solid across the board as he was is hard to find (Running, catching the ball out of the backfield and one of the best blockers ever from a superstar position) and the fact that he had a Gehrig type career of fucking lacing them up and tottin the rock 25+ times a game says he was a tough fucker......
Originally Posted by Jusanotherdude
Emmitt was a great Running back on an all time great team..... If you want to tell me how valuable he was to that team, I will absolutely agree with you (see the year he held out), and he was beat to hell because he carried the ball 300 times a year, and at some point he was getting tackled by big dudes... Great RB But IMHO not the greatest of all time by a bit......
Originally Posted by Jusanotherdude
And all that is from a guy who DOES NOT LIKE EMMITT!! But I am a rational guy who has eyes..... and to call him anything other than great is just wrong........ but I hold steadfast on my OPINION that his is not the greatest of all time..... Just like I don't think Brett Favre is the greatest QB of all time just because he holds all of the records........ There is more than that.....
Since he's not the greatest, tell me what DOES it take to be the greatest?
Originally Posted by Rambro Creed
There in lies the great debate about sports! It is so highly subjective that everyone has their very own definitions of this........ Watching some of these other backs and what they did with who they did it says alot to me..... Was Emmitt
better than Barry, or did he simply outlast him? If the rolls were reversed,
would Barry have played longer? And if Emmitt had to play for the shitty Lions would he have stayed around as many years? Lets be honest.... playing for a winner is MUCH easier than playing for a loser, and Emmitt played for winners much more than he did losers, and the opposite is true for Barry....... I go back to my earlier statement that in MY OPINION there is nobody better than Jim Brown, and the gap is so vast between him and everyone else its not even funny......
These arguments against Emmitt Smith are so hollow it's not even funny.
This shit gets boring.
Originally Posted by Rambro Creed
Its funny how you say that..... but I don't think you have the ability to look past anyone who argues against Emmitt, yet you never directly address each argument, and the one time you did you were wrong......... I emplore you to re-read some of these posts and rationally, and logically read and try to understand the arguments and you will see that there is doubt..... doesn't mean you are wrong in what you believe...... but it doesn't mean we are all wrong either........ we can agree to disagree..... you can say Emmitt, and I will continue to respectfully disagree but I understand how you would feel that way....... all I'm asking is that you open your mind enough to see and aknowledge the other side....... I'm all for Rational debates (obviously) but if you're not gonna bring anything tangable to argue the other side then its not really a debate is it?
JaD