|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | Chef Green wrote: | Not #1, but I loved Marshall Faulk. Great moves, great hands, underrated pass blocker.
Best guy I've ever seen play was Walter Payton. |
Faulk was the greatest all around back ever:
Great Runner
Great Blocker
Great Receiver |
With all due respect to roger craig, thurman thomas, ladanian thomas, and marcus allen, not to mention payton (who was a better runner and blocker, and could easily have ammassed the receiving yards if he played in a system that threw him the ball)
BTW, Payton played QB one game, when the Bears were ravaged by injuries. |
Naw, dawg...the difference when Faulk lined up at WR...CORNERBACKS used to say he's basically a widout with a RB number on his jersey. None of those cats you mentioned ran routes as crisp as Faulk did. It was amazing watching him lineup as a WR and LOOK EXACTLY LIKE A WR as he ran his routes. Faulk could've played WR in the NFL as his MAIN position. |
Really? You think guys with great hands, speed, and the quick, precise footwork necessary to be great running backs would have a problem running routes?
And yeah, that's why Faulk added up all the receiving yards. He often was a receiver in that offense. |
Running a route and running the rock are different. The cuts, change os pace/speed are different as well. Route running isn't an easy thing to pick up. The thing what set faulk apart from those other RBs you mentioned is that he ran routes like a WR, so it would seem that a transition to WR would be much easier for him than it would Roger Craig or even Larry centers, a helluva receiving RB in his own right. |
Like I said, watch some Marcus Allen or Roger Craig, or even Thurman Thomas. Easily Faulk's equal, and Allen was a better runners to boot.
Marcus Allen may be the most underrated back of all time... |
I've seen all of them play, and not one of them lines up at WR and runs routes better than Faulk. Marcus was probably the better thrower between Faulk and he, but Faulk would own him at the WR spot. |
Might be because none of them played in offensive systems that had them do that. MA revolutionized the idea of the RB as a pass receiver (at least more than the typical relief valve in the flat or screen pass recipient), and Craig carried on that legacy (Faulk benefitted greatly from this). It's a ridiculous notion that either couldn't line up at wide receiver and be a star. They didn't because they were RB's which is the harder of the two positions to be. I suspect most RB's with good hands could play WR, but very few WR's could be successful running backs.
Faulk just benefitted from advances in the game, advances pioneered by the other guys. Today, there's a ton of backs that are hybridized with the WR position in certain formations and plays. It wasn't that he had a unique and heretofore unseen skill set. |
System or not, If your eye isn't trained to be able to see how each player runs routes, out of the backfield or out of the X, Y or Z, then you're not gonna be able to notice the nuances of route running, therefore, you aren't gonna notice the differences in how those RBs run routes. Those of us that can do that - DBs especially - notice that Faulk's ability easily translates into WR. This isn't about who advanced the game, this is about who's the best RB that can line up at WR. That answer is Faulk. |
 I was a free safety. Try a new argument! |
And that means your eye is as good as Lawyer Milloy's? Try a MUCH better argument! |
I've seen Lawyer Malloy, and you're no Lawyer Malloy...
(OK, I just wanted to use that line)
Malloy din't say anything about Faulk vs. Allen, or Craig, or Thomas, did he? So it could be true that if they lined up against him, he'd say the same thing, now couldn't it? Basic rules of evidence councilor... |
And I never said Milloy said anything, I was just showing you that your eye for WRs isn't nearly as sharp as a pro's eye. What I DO know, is that Faulk got high praise from DBs about his WR skills, and I'm gonna take their word over the "Al Bundy of LG"!  |
It would seem you were implying that Malloy praised Faulk, or else you'd be saying that neither of us can argue this, since neither of us are pros, and thus your theories are as moot as mine...
As for unnamed db's, I'm sure they praised Faulk, but that is the same logical fallacy. If they never played the other guys, it's hardly a comparison, kind of like a guy now saying Kobe's a beast to guard. Doesn't mean MJ wasn't, but that's your argument. Faulk was great at it, no question, and as such he would receive respect from defenders. But that's not a useful comparative tool in and of itself.
Even if a guy played both, praising one isn't a comparison either, unless he qualifies it as "he's the best I've faced", or "no one else could do this as well", or "he's better than the other guy". If somebody on LG says I'm a stubborn SOB, that doesn't mean they don't think you are as well...
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mike_dee23
Franchise Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 11703
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ladainian Tomlinson should be in the conversation. He's No. 14 on the all-time rushing list, but he is probably the best pass receiving back of this generation... better than Faulk.
Here are some of his accomplishments, via Wikipedia:
| Quote: | * Holds the all-time NFL record for single season touchdowns (31). (The previous record was 28, it was set in 2005 by Shaun Alexander.[19])
* Holds the all-time NFL record for single season rushing touchdowns (28). (The previous record was 27, in 2003 by Priest Holmes and in 2005 by Shaun Alexander.[20])
* Holds the all-time NFL record for the most points scored in a single season (186). (The previous record was 176. It was set in 1960 by Paul Hornung.[21])
* Holds the all-time NFL record for most consecutive games with a rushing touchdown (18). (The Previous record was 13, it was set in 1983 by John Riggins)
* Holds the NFL record for most consecutive multi-touchdown games (8). (The previous record was 7, it was set in 1983 by John Riggins.[22])
* Tied the record for most consecutive games with a touchdown score with Hall of Fame fullback Lenny Moore (18).
* Tied for third place for most career 200-yard (180 m) rushing games with several other players (4).
* Holds the all-time San Diego Chargers record for most career rushing yards (11,760). (The previous record was 4,972, it was set in 1968 by Paul Lowe.)
* Holds the all-time San Diego Chargers record for most career touchdowns (141). (The previous record was 83, it was set in 1970 by Lance Alworth.)
* Holds the all-time NFL record for fewest games needed to achieve 100 touchdowns, with his 100th career touchdown (90 rushing, 10 receiving) in his 89th game (breaking the previous record of achieving the mark in the 93rd game of a career, which was done by both Jim Brown and Emmitt Smith).
* Second place on the list of NFL all-time rushing touchdown leaders—behind Emmitt Smith.
* In 2006 Tomlinson became the second player in NFL history to score 4 touchdowns in 2 straight games (Marshall Faulk is the other).
* Holds the record for most touchdowns scored in a five game span with 16 TDs (14 rushing, 2 receiving), breaking his own record of 15 that he had set two weeks earlier. Prior to that, the record was held by Jim Brown with 14.
* Became the only player in NFL history to rush for 1,000 yards (910 m) and receive 100 passes in a single season.
* Second player in NFL history with 1,800 rushing yards and 500 receiving yards in one season.
* LaDainian joins Emmitt Smith, Priest Holmes, Shaun Alexander, and Marshall Faulk as the only running backs to record consecutive seasons of 20 or more touchdowns
|
He might not ever get to the top or even in the top 10 of the all-time rushing list, but he's definitely one of the best ever. If he didn't get overworked like he did, he'd be still going strong today.
_________________
MTFBWYA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuxuryBrown
Franchise Player
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 17429
Location: Mackadocious, Ca.
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | It would seem you were implying that Malloy praised Faulk, or else you'd be saying that neither of us can argue this, since neither of us are pros, and thus your theories are as moot as mine...
As for unnamed db's, I'm sure they praised Faulk, but that is the same logical fallacy. If they never played the other guys, it's hardly a comparison, kind of like a guy now saying Kobe's a beast to guard. Doesn't mean MJ wasn't, but that's your argument. Faulk was great at it, no question, and as such he would receive respect from defenders. But that's not a useful comparative tool in and of itself.
Even if a guy played both, praising one isn't a comparison either, unless he qualifies it as "he's the best I've faced", or "no one else could do this as well", or "he's better than the other guy". If somebody on LG says I'm a stubborn SOB, that doesn't mean they don't think you are as well... |
The bottomline is this - I'm gonna take the experiences and praises from pro DBs (especially one of my best friends who actually went up against Faulk in both college and pros) about Faulk's ability as a WR over anyone else, as well as my experiences in playing and watching the game, and my assessment of Faulk when he lines up as a WR. Now, when I read or hear about DBs saying the same things about Craig, Allen, and those others you mentioned, then I will consider it. Thing is, I know that won't happen because I would've either read or heard about it by now. Faulk remains the best receiving RB - WR skill-wise - that's ever played.
_________________
| Quote: | Smooth, but I move like an army / Bulletproof down in case brothas try to bomb me / Puttin' brothas to rest like Elliot Ness / Cuz I don't like stress
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuxuryBrown
Franchise Player
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 17429
Location: Mackadocious, Ca.
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Ladainian Tomlinson should be in the conversation. He's No. 14 on the all-time rushing list, but he is probably the best pass receiving back of this generation... better than Faulk. |
Nope. LT doesn't run routes as well as Faulk, nor was he ever feared as a WR like Faulk was. You guys really need to peep the Rams games from 1998 to about 2003 and see how this dude ran routes, caught, and RACed.
| Quote: | In 1998, however, Faulk was dazzlingly successful as he gained a total of 2,227 yards (1,319 rushing, and 908 receiving), the sixth-best total in NFL history.
|
| Quote: | | In 1999, when Faulk’s team, the St Louis Rams, won the Super Bowl, he rushed for 1,381 yards and seven touchdowns. He also caught 87 passes for 1,048 yards and 5 touchdowns. |
| Quote: | | During the 2000 season, Faulk continued his torrid pace. He scored twenty-six touchdowns to set a new NFL record for most touchdowns in a season, bettering Emmitt Smith 's 1995 mark by one. He also led the NFC with most yards combined (1,359 rushing and 830 receiving). |
| Quote: | | St. Louis Rams running back Marshall Faulk is speedy, powerful, and elusive, making him a nearly unstoppable scoring machine. Faulk can catch passes, rush for yardage, block, and evade tackles. He's a complete package—and, as Football Digest noted, the most complete all-around player in the NFL today. When Faulk has the ball, he flattens opponents like a bulldozer, or dashes past defenders like a bullet train. With his skills, Faulk pours on the points. In 2000, he set a new NFL record for most touchdowns in a season (26). He's also the only player in NFL history to produce four straight 2,000-yard seasons (1998-2001). There's just no telling what he'll be able to accomplish over the long haul. As O.J. Simpson told Sports Illustrated, "You don't exaggerate when you say a guy like that comes along once in a lifetime." |
| Quote: | Delivered Rams to the Super Bowl
Before the start of the next season, the Colts traded Faulk to the St. Louis Rams, then the laughingstock of the NFL. But with Faulk in the lineup, the Rams' offense came alive. That season, Faulk gained more than 1,000 yards rushing and more than 1,000 yards receiving, making him the second player in NFL history to complete that feat. The 2,429 yards (1,381 rushing and 1,048 receiving) set a new NFL single-season record for most yards from scrimmage. More important, Faulk delivered the Rams to the Super Bowl. In the game, Faulk pulled down five passes to gain ninety yards as the Rams defeated the Tennessee Titans 23-16. |
| Quote: | Called 'Best Weapon' in NFL
Faulk remains an engaging player because his skills run across the board. In his first nine seasons in the NFL, he rushed for more than 1,000 yards all but two seasons. Besides rushing, Faulk has made a mark catching passes. During his first nine seasons, he pulled down 628 passes for 5,984 yards, or an average of 9.5 per catch. Moreover, Faulk has sticky hands—when he has the ball, he's unlikely to drop it. In his first nine seasons, Faulk handled the ball 2,995 times rushing and receiving passes, yet fumbled it only thirty-two times.
Because he is a threat as both a rusher and a receiver, the 5-foot-10, 211-pound Faulk keeps his opponents on guard. "It's just a guessing game of where he's going," the Atlanta Falcons' Patrick Kerney told Sports Illustrated for Kids. "He's the best weapon in the NFL right now." |
| Quote: | | One of only a handful of NFL players to exceed 10,000 yards rushing and 5,000 yards receiving, Faulk retired in 2007 after a 12-year career with the Indianapolis Colts and St. Louis Rams. Faulk, currently an analyst for the NFL network, is the only player in NFL history with more than 100 rushing touchdowns and 30 receiving touchdowns. |
_________________
| Quote: | Smooth, but I move like an army / Bulletproof down in case brothas try to bomb me / Puttin' brothas to rest like Elliot Ness / Cuz I don't like stress
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuxuryBrown
Franchise Player
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 17429
Location: Mackadocious, Ca.
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
If I'm building a team, my RBs would be:
Marshall
Barry
_________________
| Quote: | Smooth, but I move like an army / Bulletproof down in case brothas try to bomb me / Puttin' brothas to rest like Elliot Ness / Cuz I don't like stress
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LuxuryBrown wrote: | | Quote: | It would seem you were implying that Malloy praised Faulk, or else you'd be saying that neither of us can argue this, since neither of us are pros, and thus your theories are as moot as mine...
As for unnamed db's, I'm sure they praised Faulk, but that is the same logical fallacy. If they never played the other guys, it's hardly a comparison, kind of like a guy now saying Kobe's a beast to guard. Doesn't mean MJ wasn't, but that's your argument. Faulk was great at it, no question, and as such he would receive respect from defenders. But that's not a useful comparative tool in and of itself.
Even if a guy played both, praising one isn't a comparison either, unless he qualifies it as "he's the best I've faced", or "no one else could do this as well", or "he's better than the other guy". If somebody on LG says I'm a stubborn SOB, that doesn't mean they don't think you are as well... |
The bottomline is this - I'm gonna take the experiences and praises from pro DBs (especially one of my best friends who actually went up against Faulk in both college and pros) about Faulk's ability as a WR over anyone else, as well as my experiences in playing and watching the game, and my assessment of Faulk when he lines up as a WR. Now, when I read or hear about DBs saying the same things about Craig, Allen, and those others you mentioned, then I will consider it. Thing is, I know that won't happen because I would've either read or heard about it by now. Faulk remains the best receiving RB - WR skill-wise - that's ever played. |
You hadn't heard that Worthy played some 4 early in his career, so I wouldn't get carried away with the "it didn't happen if I didn't hear about it". BTW, you have any links to any of those quotes?
And if you think MA, and RC weren't feared by DB's as pass catchers, then I can't really debate this with you. Look at the numbers they put up, without being slotted out there as receivers. Defenses had to change their whole game plans to deal with them. That's all the respect you need.
As for your friend, good for him, but since he didn't play the others, he can't really give you a real comparison. I now a guy who played DB in the league (with NE), that had to cover TO in his prime, as well as a few others. He didn't get the "joy" of covering Largent, but that doesn't mean Steve couldn't catch at an elite level.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuxuryBrown
Franchise Player
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 17429
Location: Mackadocious, Ca.
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | Quote: | It would seem you were implying that Malloy praised Faulk, or else you'd be saying that neither of us can argue this, since neither of us are pros, and thus your theories are as moot as mine...
As for unnamed db's, I'm sure they praised Faulk, but that is the same logical fallacy. If they never played the other guys, it's hardly a comparison, kind of like a guy now saying Kobe's a beast to guard. Doesn't mean MJ wasn't, but that's your argument. Faulk was great at it, no question, and as such he would receive respect from defenders. But that's not a useful comparative tool in and of itself.
Even if a guy played both, praising one isn't a comparison either, unless he qualifies it as "he's the best I've faced", or "no one else could do this as well", or "he's better than the other guy". If somebody on LG says I'm a stubborn SOB, that doesn't mean they don't think you are as well... |
The bottomline is this - I'm gonna take the experiences and praises from pro DBs (especially one of my best friends who actually went up against Faulk in both college and pros) about Faulk's ability as a WR over anyone else, as well as my experiences in playing and watching the game, and my assessment of Faulk when he lines up as a WR. Now, when I read or hear about DBs saying the same things about Craig, Allen, and those others you mentioned, then I will consider it. Thing is, I know that won't happen because I would've either read or heard about it by now. Faulk remains the best receiving RB - WR skill-wise - that's ever played. |
You hadn't heard that Worthy played some 4 early in his career, so I wouldn't get carried away with the "it didn't happen if I didn't hear about it". BTW, you have any links to any of those quotes?
And if you think MA, and RC weren't feared by DB's as pass catchers, then I can't really debate this with you. Look at the numbers they put up, without being slotted out there as receivers. Defenses had to change their whole game plans to deal with them. That's all the respect you need.
As for your friend, good for him, but since he didn't play the others, he can't really give you a real comparison. I now a guy who played DB in the league (with NE), that had to cover TO in his prime, as well as a few others. He didn't get the "joy" of covering Largent, but that doesn't mean Steve couldn't catch at an elite level. |
The thing is, I didn't say I agreed with the columnist in your link about calling Worthy a 4, I just said I wanted proof ANYONE listed him as a 4, and I just thanked you for providing the link. Whether the columnist is correct is another thing, so remember that. I already told you my stance on how he was probably "considered" a 4 due to the small lineups they went with but that doesn't deem him a "legit 4" by no means. But if you wanna continue that debate, do so in that thread, don't try and sidetrack this thread with that topic.
And when did I say "Marcus Allen and Roger Craig were never feared by DBs"? Stop making things up. The debate isn't about that. The debate is who was the best receiving RB, and so far you've presented very little to back up your argument while I've certainly have. The ball's in your court now. If you can't provide any proof, then cool, you've conceded, and this debate is done.
And why does my homie have to play the others to give his opinion on how tight of a receiver Faulk was? As the nickel CB, he went up against Faulk, therefore, that automatically qualifies him to be able to give a sound opinion on Faulk's abilities, especially better than you and myself, and anyone else here that hasn't gone up against Faulk.
Here are your links:
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/feb/18/1s18faulk222115-rb-faulk-heisman-snub-fueled-fire-/
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3407900177.html
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/17724-the-five-best-running-backs-ive-ever-seen
_________________
| Quote: | Smooth, but I move like an army / Bulletproof down in case brothas try to bomb me / Puttin' brothas to rest like Elliot Ness / Cuz I don't like stress
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | Quote: | It would seem you were implying that Malloy praised Faulk, or else you'd be saying that neither of us can argue this, since neither of us are pros, and thus your theories are as moot as mine...
As for unnamed db's, I'm sure they praised Faulk, but that is the same logical fallacy. If they never played the other guys, it's hardly a comparison, kind of like a guy now saying Kobe's a beast to guard. Doesn't mean MJ wasn't, but that's your argument. Faulk was great at it, no question, and as such he would receive respect from defenders. But that's not a useful comparative tool in and of itself.
Even if a guy played both, praising one isn't a comparison either, unless he qualifies it as "he's the best I've faced", or "no one else could do this as well", or "he's better than the other guy". If somebody on LG says I'm a stubborn SOB, that doesn't mean they don't think you are as well... |
The bottomline is this - I'm gonna take the experiences and praises from pro DBs (especially one of my best friends who actually went up against Faulk in both college and pros) about Faulk's ability as a WR over anyone else, as well as my experiences in playing and watching the game, and my assessment of Faulk when he lines up as a WR. Now, when I read or hear about DBs saying the same things about Craig, Allen, and those others you mentioned, then I will consider it. Thing is, I know that won't happen because I would've either read or heard about it by now. Faulk remains the best receiving RB - WR skill-wise - that's ever played. |
You hadn't heard that Worthy played some 4 early in his career, so I wouldn't get carried away with the "it didn't happen if I didn't hear about it". BTW, you have any links to any of those quotes?
And if you think MA, and RC weren't feared by DB's as pass catchers, then I can't really debate this with you. Look at the numbers they put up, without being slotted out there as receivers. Defenses had to change their whole game plans to deal with them. That's all the respect you need.
As for your friend, good for him, but since he didn't play the others, he can't really give you a real comparison. I now a guy who played DB in the league (with NE), that had to cover TO in his prime, as well as a few others. He didn't get the "joy" of covering Largent, but that doesn't mean Steve couldn't catch at an elite level. |
The thing is, I didn't say I agreed with the columnist in your link about calling Worthy a 4, I just said I wanted proof ANYONE listed him as a 4, and I just thanked you for providing the link. Whether the columnist is correct is another thing, so remember that. I already told you my stance on how he was probably "considered" a 4 due to the small lineups they went with but that doesn't deem him a "legit 4" by no means. But if you wanna continue that debate, do so in that thread, don't try and sidetrack this thread with that topic.
And when did I say "Marcus Allen and Roger Craig were never feared by DBs"? Stop making things up. The debate isn't about that. The debate is who was the best receiving RB, and so far you've presented very little to back up your argument while I've certainly have. The ball's in your court now. If you can't provide any proof, then cool, this debate is done.
And why does my homie have to play the others to give his opinion on how tight of a receiver Faulk was? As the nickel CB, he went up against Faulk, therefore, that automatically qualifies him to be able to give a sound opinion on Faulk's abilities, especially better than you and myself, and anyone else here that hasn't gone up against Faulk.
Here are your links:
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/feb/18/1s18faulk222115-rb-faulk-heisman-snub-fueled-fire-/
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3407900177.html
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/17724-the-five-best-running-backs-ive-ever-seen |
OK, I'll give you a brief lesson in logic and debate:
In another thread you claimed Worthy was never a 4. You cited the fact that you'd never seen or heard anyone call him a 4. I provided you with a link where someone did exactly that.
In this debate, you again supported your position (this time that Faulk had the best WR skills of any RB) by claiming you've never heard anyone say identical or similar things about anyone that you've heard said about Faulk.
I referred to the earlier thread as an illustration that because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it didn't happen.
This is an example of using a logical inference from a previous time you've made a similar argument to the one you are now making. It has nothing to do with rehashing the previous argument at all. You claiming it does is an example of illogical misdirection and deflection.
OK, moving on:
Your buddy (giving you the benefit of the doubt that he's not just a figment of your imagination) defending Faulk would give him credibility on stating that Faulk was a tough cover, and I agree such testimony would possibly, without any other factors considered, carry more weight than yours or mine, although it is possible to be able to observe something analytically at a higher level than that of any particular participant.
But again, no one is disputing the claim that Faulk was really, really good as a receiver. And yes, it is fair to say that your buddy commenting on Faulk doesn't necessarily mean he's better than someone your buddy has neither covered, nor is actually even trying to compare. If your buddy told you how great Peyton Manning is, would that mean that we can't argue Montana was better? Or that your buddy is even implying that Manning is better than Montana was? Or that he's the be-all-end-all source on the subject, because he played against one of them?
So what exactly is this irrefutable proof that Faulk had better receiving skills than the others? You don't think just saying so, and then pointing to some people saying he was really good (which we already know) is actually proof of anything other than that he was really really good, do you?
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuxuryBrown
Franchise Player
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 17429
Location: Mackadocious, Ca.
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Your buddy (giving you the benefit of the doubt that he's not just a figment of your imagination) |
See, there you go again...resorting to these little, weak, cheap-shot, disrespectful tactics once you've realized you've been beaten in a debate. Truly bush league and you know it, and you should be ashamed for even resorting to such nonsense. C'mon, dawg...don't go out like that. Man up and keep it civil next time. We're done here.
_________________
| Quote: | Smooth, but I move like an army / Bulletproof down in case brothas try to bomb me / Puttin' brothas to rest like Elliot Ness / Cuz I don't like stress
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LuxuryBrown wrote: | | Quote: | | Your buddy (giving you the benefit of the doubt that he's not just a figment of your imagination) |
See, there you go again...resorting to these little, weak, cheap-shot, disrespectful tactics once you've realized you've been beaten in a debate. Truly bush league and you know it, and you should be ashamed for even resorting to such nonsense. C'mon, dawg...don't go out like that. Man up and keep it civil next time. We're done here. |
Not a cheap shot at all. I'm merely stipulating that the evidence you are alluding to is being taken as valid, despite no actual proof of its existence (this is something you see lawyers do all the time, not out of cheapness, disrespect, or because they are "losing", but merely because the evidence in question is not particularly damaging, and can actually be destroyed with greater ease and efficiency than it would take to fight about its veracity). You didn't name your friend, so I have no way of knowing if he's real or not. If I was being cheap and disrespectful, I would have said flat out he doesn't exist, and discounted what you say he said as evidence, as opposed to merely pointing out that your primary evidence comes from a source I have to take your word on, both in terms of existence, and what he said, and in what context, and that I am quite willing to do so for the sake of the argument. And then of course, I completely and objectively destroyed that evidence as being no more than slightly valuable, and not really proving anything you say it does. Which of course is the real problem you have with my line of reasoning. You can't rebut it.
Seems every time you find yourself in a logical hole, after digging it deeper for a while, you start looking for something, anything, to get sensitive about and run away, while pretending you flee the battle on victorious terms. Hardly the conditions from which to be giving advice about manning up...
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chef Green
Starting Rotation
Joined: 23 Apr 2007
Posts: 769
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LarryCoon wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | Chef Green wrote: | Not #1, but I loved Marshall Faulk. Great moves, great hands, underrated pass blocker.
Best guy I've ever seen play was Walter Payton. |
Befitting a chef, you recognize quality of ingredients over flashy presentation... |
I've eaten his cooking. Don't let him kid you, he's ALL about flashy presentation. |
HEY! That was the best fried chicken you'll ever eat, and you know it!
_________________
I play with knives and fire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chef Green
Starting Rotation
Joined: 23 Apr 2007
Posts: 769
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As for Faulk - I'm a Rams fan so I'm biased, but I watched most of the guys being mentioned in this debate, and there's only a couple I'd pick for my team before Faulk. Sweetness and Sanders.
As for who might have been a better receiver than Faulk - to this point, not one RB, ever. Could other guys have done it? Who knows? They didn't have the chance. But now your arguing in fantasy land. Faulk had the chance, and he actually did it. No disrespect to Thurman Thomas or Roger Craig (actually, I'm a Rams fan, so Roger Craig can eat a d---), but those guys didn't do what Faulk did.
_________________
I play with knives and fire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chef Green wrote: | As for Faulk - I'm a Rams fan so I'm biased, but I watched most of the guys being mentioned in this debate, and there's only a couple I'd pick for my team before Faulk. Sweetness and Sanders.
As for who might have been a better receiver than Faulk - to this point, not one RB, ever. Could other guys have done it? Who knows? They didn't have the chance. But now your arguing in fantasy land. Faulk had the chance, and he actually did it. No disrespect to Thurman Thomas or Roger Craig (actually, I'm a Rams fan, so Roger Craig can eat a d---), but those guys didn't do what Faulk did. |
By what standard? Craig had the first thousand yard rushing, thousand yard receiving season. Allen caught a ton of passes, at a higher yards-per-catch than Faulk, BTW. Larry Centers and LT have both caught 100 passes in a season, something Faulk never did. Then there's guys like Westbrook, who also has had the chance to hybridize his role.
So yes, Faulk played a lot of wideout in that scheme, and racked up a ton of catches. All time great IMO. Just easy to see that there were other guys who were every bit the pass catcher he was, skills wise.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuxuryBrown
Franchise Player
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 17429
Location: Mackadocious, Ca.
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chef Green wrote: | As for Faulk - I'm a Rams fan so I'm biased, but I watched most of the guys being mentioned in this debate, and there's only a couple I'd pick for my team before Faulk. Sweetness and Sanders.
As for who might have been a better receiver than Faulk - to this point, not one RB, ever. Could other guys have done it? Who knows? They didn't have the chance. But now your arguing in fantasy land. Faulk had the chance, and he actually did it. No disrespect to Thurman Thomas or Roger Craig (actually, I'm a Rams fan, so Roger Craig can eat a d---), but those guys didn't do what Faulk did. |
And that's the whole point: if Faulk COULDN'T do it, they wouldn't have used him as a WR. Simple as that. That's why he was the best receiving RB.
_________________
| Quote: | Smooth, but I move like an army / Bulletproof down in case brothas try to bomb me / Puttin' brothas to rest like Elliot Ness / Cuz I don't like stress
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LuxuryBrown wrote: | | Chef Green wrote: | As for Faulk - I'm a Rams fan so I'm biased, but I watched most of the guys being mentioned in this debate, and there's only a couple I'd pick for my team before Faulk. Sweetness and Sanders.
As for who might have been a better receiver than Faulk - to this point, not one RB, ever. Could other guys have done it? Who knows? They didn't have the chance. But now your arguing in fantasy land. Faulk had the chance, and he actually did it. No disrespect to Thurman Thomas or Roger Craig (actually, I'm a Rams fan, so Roger Craig can eat a d---), but those guys didn't do what Faulk did. |
And that's the whole point: if Faulk COULDN'T do it, they wouldn't have used him as a WR. Simple as that. That's why he was the best receiving RB. |
Good point, except the argument never was that he wasn't good enough, because any fool can see that he was. It's just context.
Ditka used William Perry as a fullback. Does that automatically mean he automatically had the best running and blocking skills of any DT, penalizing any DT who never got used in such a way?
Craig and MA really started the trend of RB's being used as more than outlet, screen, and occasional receivers. Faulk's coach continued that trend by actually slotting him out there at times. Now you see a plethora of hybrids doing this, and some of them will pass Faulk's yards. Won't necessarily make them better than Faulk...
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuxuryBrown
Franchise Player
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 17429
Location: Mackadocious, Ca.
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | Chef Green wrote: | As for Faulk - I'm a Rams fan so I'm biased, but I watched most of the guys being mentioned in this debate, and there's only a couple I'd pick for my team before Faulk. Sweetness and Sanders.
As for who might have been a better receiver than Faulk - to this point, not one RB, ever. Could other guys have done it? Who knows? They didn't have the chance. But now your arguing in fantasy land. Faulk had the chance, and he actually did it. No disrespect to Thurman Thomas or Roger Craig (actually, I'm a Rams fan, so Roger Craig can eat a d---), but those guys didn't do what Faulk did. |
And that's the whole point: if Faulk COULDN'T do it, they wouldn't have used him as a WR. Simple as that. That's why he was the best receiving RB. |
Good point, except the argument never was that he wasn't good enough, because any fool can see that he was. It's just context.
Ditka used William Perry as a fullback. Does that automatically mean he automatically had the best running and blocking skills of any DT, penalizing any DT who never got used in such a way?
Craig and MA really started the trend of RB's being used as more than outlet, screen, and occasional receivers. Faulk's coach continued that trend by actually slotting him out there at times. Now you see a plethora of hybrids doing this, and some of them will pass Faulk's yards. Won't necessarily make them better than Faulk... |
Again, you changed the argument because you couldn't counter. How hard is it to stick to the argument? This wasn't ever about "Who started the trend with RB's being receivers". No one here is disputing that, so why you keep bringing that up is truly ridiculous and evasive. This is about who the best RB at receiving is. Hands down it's Faulk. You haven't presented anything to dispute that. At all.
And think about it - if Fridge COULDN'T be effective at FB, would Ditka use him? No. It's the same point for Faulk. Think.
_________________
| Quote: | Smooth, but I move like an army / Bulletproof down in case brothas try to bomb me / Puttin' brothas to rest like Elliot Ness / Cuz I don't like stress
|
Last edited by LuxuryBrown on Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:40 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | Chef Green wrote: | As for Faulk - I'm a Rams fan so I'm biased, but I watched most of the guys being mentioned in this debate, and there's only a couple I'd pick for my team before Faulk. Sweetness and Sanders.
As for who might have been a better receiver than Faulk - to this point, not one RB, ever. Could other guys have done it? Who knows? They didn't have the chance. But now your arguing in fantasy land. Faulk had the chance, and he actually did it. No disrespect to Thurman Thomas or Roger Craig (actually, I'm a Rams fan, so Roger Craig can eat a d---), but those guys didn't do what Faulk did. |
And that's the whole point: if Faulk COULDN'T do it, they wouldn't have used him as a WR. Simple as that. That's why he was the best receiving RB. |
Good point, except the argument never was that he wasn't good enough, because any fool can see that he was. It's just context.
Ditka used William Perry as a fullback. Does that automatically mean he automatically had the best running and blocking skills of any DT, penalizing any DT who never got used in such a way?
Craig and MA really started the trend of RB's being used as more than outlet, screen, and occasional receivers. Faulk's coach continued that trend by actually slotting him out there at times. Now you see a plethora of hybrids doing this, and some of them will pass Faulk's yards. Won't necessarily make them better than Faulk... |
Again, you changed the argument because you couldn't counter. How hard is it to stick to the argument? This wasn't ever about "Who started the trend with RB's being receivers". No one here is disputing that, so why you keep bringing that up is truly ridiculous and evasive. This is about who the best RB at receiving is. Hands down it's Faulk. You haven't presented anything to dispute that. At all. |
How so? What definable thing makes him the best? The fact that MA had more yards per catch, or that Craig caught for 1000 yards first, or that LT and Centers both caught 100 passes in a year, all without the benefit of lining up at receiver?
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuxuryBrown
Franchise Player
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 17429
Location: Mackadocious, Ca.
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | Chef Green wrote: | As for Faulk - I'm a Rams fan so I'm biased, but I watched most of the guys being mentioned in this debate, and there's only a couple I'd pick for my team before Faulk. Sweetness and Sanders.
As for who might have been a better receiver than Faulk - to this point, not one RB, ever. Could other guys have done it? Who knows? They didn't have the chance. But now your arguing in fantasy land. Faulk had the chance, and he actually did it. No disrespect to Thurman Thomas or Roger Craig (actually, I'm a Rams fan, so Roger Craig can eat a d---), but those guys didn't do what Faulk did. |
And that's the whole point: if Faulk COULDN'T do it, they wouldn't have used him as a WR. Simple as that. That's why he was the best receiving RB. |
Good point, except the argument never was that he wasn't good enough, because any fool can see that he was. It's just context.
Ditka used William Perry as a fullback. Does that automatically mean he automatically had the best running and blocking skills of any DT, penalizing any DT who never got used in such a way?
Craig and MA really started the trend of RB's being used as more than outlet, screen, and occasional receivers. Faulk's coach continued that trend by actually slotting him out there at times. Now you see a plethora of hybrids doing this, and some of them will pass Faulk's yards. Won't necessarily make them better than Faulk... |
Again, you changed the argument because you couldn't counter. How hard is it to stick to the argument? This wasn't ever about "Who started the trend with RB's being receivers". No one here is disputing that, so why you keep bringing that up is truly ridiculous and evasive. This is about who the best RB at receiving is. Hands down it's Faulk. You haven't presented anything to dispute that. At all. |
How so? What definable thing makes him the best? The fact that MA had more yards per catch, or that Craig caught for 1000 yards first, or that LT and Centers both caught 100 passes in a year, all without the benefit of lining up at receiver? |
What? It's the stats, his output, his ability and skillset, and the comments from DBs and coaches about his receiving skills. Again, prove he isn't, since you you're so adamant that he isn't. Present your case other than "MA and Craig started the trend" which doesn't prove anything.
_________________
| Quote: | Smooth, but I move like an army / Bulletproof down in case brothas try to bomb me / Puttin' brothas to rest like Elliot Ness / Cuz I don't like stress
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | Chef Green wrote: | As for Faulk - I'm a Rams fan so I'm biased, but I watched most of the guys being mentioned in this debate, and there's only a couple I'd pick for my team before Faulk. Sweetness and Sanders.
As for who might have been a better receiver than Faulk - to this point, not one RB, ever. Could other guys have done it? Who knows? They didn't have the chance. But now your arguing in fantasy land. Faulk had the chance, and he actually did it. No disrespect to Thurman Thomas or Roger Craig (actually, I'm a Rams fan, so Roger Craig can eat a d---), but those guys didn't do what Faulk did. |
And that's the whole point: if Faulk COULDN'T do it, they wouldn't have used him as a WR. Simple as that. That's why he was the best receiving RB. |
Good point, except the argument never was that he wasn't good enough, because any fool can see that he was. It's just context.
Ditka used William Perry as a fullback. Does that automatically mean he automatically had the best running and blocking skills of any DT, penalizing any DT who never got used in such a way?
Craig and MA really started the trend of RB's being used as more than outlet, screen, and occasional receivers. Faulk's coach continued that trend by actually slotting him out there at times. Now you see a plethora of hybrids doing this, and some of them will pass Faulk's yards. Won't necessarily make them better than Faulk... |
Again, you changed the argument because you couldn't counter. How hard is it to stick to the argument? This wasn't ever about "Who started the trend with RB's being receivers". No one here is disputing that, so why you keep bringing that up is truly ridiculous and evasive. This is about who the best RB at receiving is. Hands down it's Faulk. You haven't presented anything to dispute that. At all. |
How so? What definable thing makes him the best? The fact that MA had more yards per catch, or that Craig caught for 1000 yards first, or that LT and Centers both caught 100 passes in a year, all without the benefit of lining up at receiver? |
What? It's the stats, his output, his ability and skillset, and the comments from DBs and coaches about his receiving skills. Again, prove he isn't, since you you're so adamant that he isn't. Present your case other than "MA and Craig started the trend" which doesn't prove anything. |
Ah, so now I have to prove the negative. I thought the burden of proof lay with the one making the claim.
Look, I don't dispute he was great, both as a runner and receiver. First ballot HOF, IMO. I've just seen a lot of RB's with serious pass catching skills. This is not some mysterious thing that only Faulk could do at a high level, as evidenced by the fact that a ton of backs these days are splitting out and being used as part time WR's. It's just the evolution of the game. I don't take one guy who played in a certain system that used him at WR and automatically discount the others who played at a time when that wasn't done.
For the record, I don't get how opportunity equals more skill. I don't necessarily think Kordell Stewart was a more versatile athlete than Mike Vick, just because they used him at a bunch of positions. More about scheme and personnel than skills.
Also, Faulk averaged 9 yards per catch. Hardly the average of even a real good, much less great WR...
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuxuryBrown
Franchise Player
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 17429
Location: Mackadocious, Ca.
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | Chef Green wrote: | As for Faulk - I'm a Rams fan so I'm biased, but I watched most of the guys being mentioned in this debate, and there's only a couple I'd pick for my team before Faulk. Sweetness and Sanders.
As for who might have been a better receiver than Faulk - to this point, not one RB, ever. Could other guys have done it? Who knows? They didn't have the chance. But now your arguing in fantasy land. Faulk had the chance, and he actually did it. No disrespect to Thurman Thomas or Roger Craig (actually, I'm a Rams fan, so Roger Craig can eat a d---), but those guys didn't do what Faulk did. |
And that's the whole point: if Faulk COULDN'T do it, they wouldn't have used him as a WR. Simple as that. That's why he was the best receiving RB. |
Good point, except the argument never was that he wasn't good enough, because any fool can see that he was. It's just context.
Ditka used William Perry as a fullback. Does that automatically mean he automatically had the best running and blocking skills of any DT, penalizing any DT who never got used in such a way?
Craig and MA really started the trend of RB's being used as more than outlet, screen, and occasional receivers. Faulk's coach continued that trend by actually slotting him out there at times. Now you see a plethora of hybrids doing this, and some of them will pass Faulk's yards. Won't necessarily make them better than Faulk... |
Again, you changed the argument because you couldn't counter. How hard is it to stick to the argument? This wasn't ever about "Who started the trend with RB's being receivers". No one here is disputing that, so why you keep bringing that up is truly ridiculous and evasive. This is about who the best RB at receiving is. Hands down it's Faulk. You haven't presented anything to dispute that. At all. |
How so? What definable thing makes him the best? The fact that MA had more yards per catch, or that Craig caught for 1000 yards first, or that LT and Centers both caught 100 passes in a year, all without the benefit of lining up at receiver? |
What? It's the stats, his output, his ability and skillset, and the comments from DBs and coaches about his receiving skills. Again, prove he isn't, since you you're so adamant that he isn't. Present your case other than "MA and Craig started the trend" which doesn't prove anything. |
Ah, so now I have to prove the negative. I thought the burden of proof lay with the one making the claim.
Look, I don't dispute he was great, both as a runner and receiver. First ballot HOF, IMO. I've just seen a lot of RB's with serious pass catching skills. This is not some mysterious thing that only Faulk could do at a high level, as evidenced by the fact that a ton of backs these days are splitting out and being used as part time WR's. It's just the evolution of the game. I don't take one guy who played in a certain system that used him at WR and automatically discount the others who played at a time when that wasn't done.
For the record, I don't get how opportunity equals more skill. I don't necessarily think Kordell Stewart was a more versatile athlete than Mike Vick, just because they used him at a bunch of positions. More about scheme and personnel than skills.
Also, Faulk averaged 9 yards per catch. Hardly the average of even a real good, much less great WR... |
No, again - this is a debate. You just don't sit there and let one side prove their argument and you do absolutely nothing, you DO have to participate . Now, since I've dropped MY proof, it's now time for YOU to drop YOUR proof.
Ok, then name those "ton of backs" that have done it at the success level and skill that Faulk has. THAT'S what this is about. No one is saying "Faulk is the ONLY RB to ever line up at WR". This also isn't about "Has the game of football evolved?". Again, stop trying to change the topic.
And again, you can't play in a system if you don't FIT into a system. The system was successful LARGELY due to the fact that Faulk was GREAT enough to play within that system.
And neither you nor I know if the opportunities for the RBs you were there. Maybe they were, and those RBs couldn't adapt to that system, so they 86'd it. Who knows? What we DO know is that Faulk was able to play in that system, and if he wasn't, they wouldn't have had him in there and/or they wouldn't have ran that system. In that case, we can't say Shaq was better than Mikan because Mikan never played in the systems Shaq has played and flourished in, therefore, Mikan didn't have those same opportunities...but we can tell by watching the 2 players that Shaq was superior than Mikan.
And this isn't JUST about how many YPC Faulk had, this is about his COMPLETE ABILITY at playing the WR spot.
_________________
| Quote: | Smooth, but I move like an army / Bulletproof down in case brothas try to bomb me / Puttin' brothas to rest like Elliot Ness / Cuz I don't like stress
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | Chef Green wrote: | As for Faulk - I'm a Rams fan so I'm biased, but I watched most of the guys being mentioned in this debate, and there's only a couple I'd pick for my team before Faulk. Sweetness and Sanders.
As for who might have been a better receiver than Faulk - to this point, not one RB, ever. Could other guys have done it? Who knows? They didn't have the chance. But now your arguing in fantasy land. Faulk had the chance, and he actually did it. No disrespect to Thurman Thomas or Roger Craig (actually, I'm a Rams fan, so Roger Craig can eat a d---), but those guys didn't do what Faulk did. |
And that's the whole point: if Faulk COULDN'T do it, they wouldn't have used him as a WR. Simple as that. That's why he was the best receiving RB. |
Good point, except the argument never was that he wasn't good enough, because any fool can see that he was. It's just context.
Ditka used William Perry as a fullback. Does that automatically mean he automatically had the best running and blocking skills of any DT, penalizing any DT who never got used in such a way?
Craig and MA really started the trend of RB's being used as more than outlet, screen, and occasional receivers. Faulk's coach continued that trend by actually slotting him out there at times. Now you see a plethora of hybrids doing this, and some of them will pass Faulk's yards. Won't necessarily make them better than Faulk... |
Again, you changed the argument because you couldn't counter. How hard is it to stick to the argument? This wasn't ever about "Who started the trend with RB's being receivers". No one here is disputing that, so why you keep bringing that up is truly ridiculous and evasive. This is about who the best RB at receiving is. Hands down it's Faulk. You haven't presented anything to dispute that. At all. |
How so? What definable thing makes him the best? The fact that MA had more yards per catch, or that Craig caught for 1000 yards first, or that LT and Centers both caught 100 passes in a year, all without the benefit of lining up at receiver? |
What? It's the stats, his output, his ability and skillset, and the comments from DBs and coaches about his receiving skills. Again, prove he isn't, since you you're so adamant that he isn't. Present your case other than "MA and Craig started the trend" which doesn't prove anything. |
Ah, so now I have to prove the negative. I thought the burden of proof lay with the one making the claim.
Look, I don't dispute he was great, both as a runner and receiver. First ballot HOF, IMO. I've just seen a lot of RB's with serious pass catching skills. This is not some mysterious thing that only Faulk could do at a high level, as evidenced by the fact that a ton of backs these days are splitting out and being used as part time WR's. It's just the evolution of the game. I don't take one guy who played in a certain system that used him at WR and automatically discount the others who played at a time when that wasn't done.
For the record, I don't get how opportunity equals more skill. I don't necessarily think Kordell Stewart was a more versatile athlete than Mike Vick, just because they used him at a bunch of positions. More about scheme and personnel than skills.
Also, Faulk averaged 9 yards per catch. Hardly the average of even a real good, much less great WR... |
No, again - this is a debate. You just don't sit there and let one side prove their argument and you do absolutely nothing, you DO have to participate . Now, since I've dropped MY proof, it's now time for YOU to drop YOUR proof.
Ok, then name those "ton of backs" that have done it at the success level and skill that Faulk has. THAT'S what this is about. No one is saying "Faulk is the ONLY RB to ever line up at WR". This also isn't about "Has the game of football evolved?". Again, stop trying to change the topic.
And again, you can't play in a system if you don't FIT into a system. The system was successful LARGELY due to the fact that Faulk was GREAT enough to play within that system.
And neither you nor I know if the opportunities for the RBs you were there. Maybe they were, and those RBs couldn't adapt to that system, so they 86'd it. Who knows? What we DO know is that Faulk was able to play in that system, and if he wasn't, they wouldn't have had him in there and/or they wouldn't have ran that system. In that case, we can't say Shaq was better than Mikan because Mikan never played in the systems Shaq has played and flourished in, therefore, Mikan didn't have those same opportunities...but we can tell by watching the 2 players that Shaq was superior than Mikan.
And this isn't JUST about how many YPC Faulk had, this is about his COMPLETE ABILITY at playing the WR spot. |
Again, if he had the complete ability to play WR, why the 9 yards per catch? That's certainly a sign of ability. MA had 9.2 catching out of the backfield...
So we come back to the basic question, what skills did he demonstrate at a higher level than the others. Any good running back with decent hands could play WR, many at a high level. Often they have at the lower level, until their running skills (which are more valuable) moved them to the RB spot. It's easier to make a RB a WR than the other way around.
I'd bet money that MA, Craig, Thomas, etc., could have been pro-bowl quality RB's.
The yards per catch actually tells me that Faulk didn't really do much at WR, other than line up there. He still mostly caught RB-type passes, in the flat, small slants, outs, etc. If he had been running typical WR patterns, he'd have more YPC.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuxuryBrown
Franchise Player
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 17429
Location: Mackadocious, Ca.
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | Chef Green wrote: | As for Faulk - I'm a Rams fan so I'm biased, but I watched most of the guys being mentioned in this debate, and there's only a couple I'd pick for my team before Faulk. Sweetness and Sanders.
As for who might have been a better receiver than Faulk - to this point, not one RB, ever. Could other guys have done it? Who knows? They didn't have the chance. But now your arguing in fantasy land. Faulk had the chance, and he actually did it. No disrespect to Thurman Thomas or Roger Craig (actually, I'm a Rams fan, so Roger Craig can eat a d---), but those guys didn't do what Faulk did. |
And that's the whole point: if Faulk COULDN'T do it, they wouldn't have used him as a WR. Simple as that. That's why he was the best receiving RB. |
Good point, except the argument never was that he wasn't good enough, because any fool can see that he was. It's just context.
Ditka used William Perry as a fullback. Does that automatically mean he automatically had the best running and blocking skills of any DT, penalizing any DT who never got used in such a way?
Craig and MA really started the trend of RB's being used as more than outlet, screen, and occasional receivers. Faulk's coach continued that trend by actually slotting him out there at times. Now you see a plethora of hybrids doing this, and some of them will pass Faulk's yards. Won't necessarily make them better than Faulk... |
Again, you changed the argument because you couldn't counter. How hard is it to stick to the argument? This wasn't ever about "Who started the trend with RB's being receivers". No one here is disputing that, so why you keep bringing that up is truly ridiculous and evasive. This is about who the best RB at receiving is. Hands down it's Faulk. You haven't presented anything to dispute that. At all. |
How so? What definable thing makes him the best? The fact that MA had more yards per catch, or that Craig caught for 1000 yards first, or that LT and Centers both caught 100 passes in a year, all without the benefit of lining up at receiver? |
What? It's the stats, his output, his ability and skillset, and the comments from DBs and coaches about his receiving skills. Again, prove he isn't, since you you're so adamant that he isn't. Present your case other than "MA and Craig started the trend" which doesn't prove anything. |
Ah, so now I have to prove the negative. I thought the burden of proof lay with the one making the claim.
Look, I don't dispute he was great, both as a runner and receiver. First ballot HOF, IMO. I've just seen a lot of RB's with serious pass catching skills. This is not some mysterious thing that only Faulk could do at a high level, as evidenced by the fact that a ton of backs these days are splitting out and being used as part time WR's. It's just the evolution of the game. I don't take one guy who played in a certain system that used him at WR and automatically discount the others who played at a time when that wasn't done.
For the record, I don't get how opportunity equals more skill. I don't necessarily think Kordell Stewart was a more versatile athlete than Mike Vick, just because they used him at a bunch of positions. More about scheme and personnel than skills.
Also, Faulk averaged 9 yards per catch. Hardly the average of even a real good, much less great WR... |
No, again - this is a debate. You just don't sit there and let one side prove their argument and you do absolutely nothing, you DO have to participate . Now, since I've dropped MY proof, it's now time for YOU to drop YOUR proof.
Ok, then name those "ton of backs" that have done it at the success level and skill that Faulk has. THAT'S what this is about. No one is saying "Faulk is the ONLY RB to ever line up at WR". This also isn't about "Has the game of football evolved?". Again, stop trying to change the topic.
And again, you can't play in a system if you don't FIT into a system. The system was successful LARGELY due to the fact that Faulk was GREAT enough to play within that system.
And neither you nor I know if the opportunities for the RBs you were there. Maybe they were, and those RBs couldn't adapt to that system, so they 86'd it. Who knows? What we DO know is that Faulk was able to play in that system, and if he wasn't, they wouldn't have had him in there and/or they wouldn't have ran that system. In that case, we can't say Shaq was better than Mikan because Mikan never played in the systems Shaq has played and flourished in, therefore, Mikan didn't have those same opportunities...but we can tell by watching the 2 players that Shaq was superior than Mikan.
And this isn't JUST about how many YPC Faulk had, this is about his COMPLETE ABILITY at playing the WR spot. |
Again, if he had the complete ability to play WR, why the 9 yards per catch? That's certainly a sign of ability. MA had 9.2 catching out of the backfield... |
Again - the YPC isn't the sole focus, but that's all you're gonna hold onto because that's all you really have. The other examples I presented you have yet to dispute because they're indisputable. As for the 9 YPC, that's about right for a guy that usually has 3 levels to go through than a WR would, since a lot of his catches happened from swing routes, wheel routes, and screens. A WR usually doesn't have to go through all 3 levels - it's usually 1, and 2 at most. In other words, a WR is down the field farther to catch a pass than an RB would.
_________________
| Quote: | Smooth, but I move like an army / Bulletproof down in case brothas try to bomb me / Puttin' brothas to rest like Elliot Ness / Cuz I don't like stress
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | Chef Green wrote: | As for Faulk - I'm a Rams fan so I'm biased, but I watched most of the guys being mentioned in this debate, and there's only a couple I'd pick for my team before Faulk. Sweetness and Sanders.
As for who might have been a better receiver than Faulk - to this point, not one RB, ever. Could other guys have done it? Who knows? They didn't have the chance. But now your arguing in fantasy land. Faulk had the chance, and he actually did it. No disrespect to Thurman Thomas or Roger Craig (actually, I'm a Rams fan, so Roger Craig can eat a d---), but those guys didn't do what Faulk did. |
And that's the whole point: if Faulk COULDN'T do it, they wouldn't have used him as a WR. Simple as that. That's why he was the best receiving RB. |
Good point, except the argument never was that he wasn't good enough, because any fool can see that he was. It's just context.
Ditka used William Perry as a fullback. Does that automatically mean he automatically had the best running and blocking skills of any DT, penalizing any DT who never got used in such a way?
Craig and MA really started the trend of RB's being used as more than outlet, screen, and occasional receivers. Faulk's coach continued that trend by actually slotting him out there at times. Now you see a plethora of hybrids doing this, and some of them will pass Faulk's yards. Won't necessarily make them better than Faulk... |
Again, you changed the argument because you couldn't counter. How hard is it to stick to the argument? This wasn't ever about "Who started the trend with RB's being receivers". No one here is disputing that, so why you keep bringing that up is truly ridiculous and evasive. This is about who the best RB at receiving is. Hands down it's Faulk. You haven't presented anything to dispute that. At all. |
How so? What definable thing makes him the best? The fact that MA had more yards per catch, or that Craig caught for 1000 yards first, or that LT and Centers both caught 100 passes in a year, all without the benefit of lining up at receiver? |
What? It's the stats, his output, his ability and skillset, and the comments from DBs and coaches about his receiving skills. Again, prove he isn't, since you you're so adamant that he isn't. Present your case other than "MA and Craig started the trend" which doesn't prove anything. |
Ah, so now I have to prove the negative. I thought the burden of proof lay with the one making the claim.
Look, I don't dispute he was great, both as a runner and receiver. First ballot HOF, IMO. I've just seen a lot of RB's with serious pass catching skills. This is not some mysterious thing that only Faulk could do at a high level, as evidenced by the fact that a ton of backs these days are splitting out and being used as part time WR's. It's just the evolution of the game. I don't take one guy who played in a certain system that used him at WR and automatically discount the others who played at a time when that wasn't done.
For the record, I don't get how opportunity equals more skill. I don't necessarily think Kordell Stewart was a more versatile athlete than Mike Vick, just because they used him at a bunch of positions. More about scheme and personnel than skills.
Also, Faulk averaged 9 yards per catch. Hardly the average of even a real good, much less great WR... |
No, again - this is a debate. You just don't sit there and let one side prove their argument and you do absolutely nothing, you DO have to participate . Now, since I've dropped MY proof, it's now time for YOU to drop YOUR proof.
Ok, then name those "ton of backs" that have done it at the success level and skill that Faulk has. THAT'S what this is about. No one is saying "Faulk is the ONLY RB to ever line up at WR". This also isn't about "Has the game of football evolved?". Again, stop trying to change the topic.
And again, you can't play in a system if you don't FIT into a system. The system was successful LARGELY due to the fact that Faulk was GREAT enough to play within that system.
And neither you nor I know if the opportunities for the RBs you were there. Maybe they were, and those RBs couldn't adapt to that system, so they 86'd it. Who knows? What we DO know is that Faulk was able to play in that system, and if he wasn't, they wouldn't have had him in there and/or they wouldn't have ran that system. In that case, we can't say Shaq was better than Mikan because Mikan never played in the systems Shaq has played and flourished in, therefore, Mikan didn't have those same opportunities...but we can tell by watching the 2 players that Shaq was superior than Mikan.
And this isn't JUST about how many YPC Faulk had, this is about his COMPLETE ABILITY at playing the WR spot. |
Again, if he had the complete ability to play WR, why the 9 yards per catch? That's certainly a sign of ability. MA had 9.2 catching out of the backfield... |
Again - the YPC isn't the sole focus, but that's all you're gonna hold onto because that's all you really have. The other examples I presented you have yet to dispute because they're indisputable. As for the 9 YPC, that's about right for a guy that usually has 3 levels to go through than a WR would, since a lot of his catches happened from swing routes, wheel routes, and screens. A WR usually doesn't have to go through all 3 levels - it's usually 1, and 2 at most. In other words, a WR is down the field farther to catch a pass than an RB would. |
So you're saying he did almost all of his pass catching out of the backfield, and didn't do more than a little bit of WR work...
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuxuryBrown
Franchise Player
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 17429
Location: Mackadocious, Ca.
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | Chef Green wrote: | As for Faulk - I'm a Rams fan so I'm biased, but I watched most of the guys being mentioned in this debate, and there's only a couple I'd pick for my team before Faulk. Sweetness and Sanders.
As for who might have been a better receiver than Faulk - to this point, not one RB, ever. Could other guys have done it? Who knows? They didn't have the chance. But now your arguing in fantasy land. Faulk had the chance, and he actually did it. No disrespect to Thurman Thomas or Roger Craig (actually, I'm a Rams fan, so Roger Craig can eat a d---), but those guys didn't do what Faulk did. |
And that's the whole point: if Faulk COULDN'T do it, they wouldn't have used him as a WR. Simple as that. That's why he was the best receiving RB. |
Good point, except the argument never was that he wasn't good enough, because any fool can see that he was. It's just context.
Ditka used William Perry as a fullback. Does that automatically mean he automatically had the best running and blocking skills of any DT, penalizing any DT who never got used in such a way?
Craig and MA really started the trend of RB's being used as more than outlet, screen, and occasional receivers. Faulk's coach continued that trend by actually slotting him out there at times. Now you see a plethora of hybrids doing this, and some of them will pass Faulk's yards. Won't necessarily make them better than Faulk... |
Again, you changed the argument because you couldn't counter. How hard is it to stick to the argument? This wasn't ever about "Who started the trend with RB's being receivers". No one here is disputing that, so why you keep bringing that up is truly ridiculous and evasive. This is about who the best RB at receiving is. Hands down it's Faulk. You haven't presented anything to dispute that. At all. |
How so? What definable thing makes him the best? The fact that MA had more yards per catch, or that Craig caught for 1000 yards first, or that LT and Centers both caught 100 passes in a year, all without the benefit of lining up at receiver? |
What? It's the stats, his output, his ability and skillset, and the comments from DBs and coaches about his receiving skills. Again, prove he isn't, since you you're so adamant that he isn't. Present your case other than "MA and Craig started the trend" which doesn't prove anything. |
Ah, so now I have to prove the negative. I thought the burden of proof lay with the one making the claim.
Look, I don't dispute he was great, both as a runner and receiver. First ballot HOF, IMO. I've just seen a lot of RB's with serious pass catching skills. This is not some mysterious thing that only Faulk could do at a high level, as evidenced by the fact that a ton of backs these days are splitting out and being used as part time WR's. It's just the evolution of the game. I don't take one guy who played in a certain system that used him at WR and automatically discount the others who played at a time when that wasn't done.
For the record, I don't get how opportunity equals more skill. I don't necessarily think Kordell Stewart was a more versatile athlete than Mike Vick, just because they used him at a bunch of positions. More about scheme and personnel than skills.
Also, Faulk averaged 9 yards per catch. Hardly the average of even a real good, much less great WR... |
No, again - this is a debate. You just don't sit there and let one side prove their argument and you do absolutely nothing, you DO have to participate . Now, since I've dropped MY proof, it's now time for YOU to drop YOUR proof.
Ok, then name those "ton of backs" that have done it at the success level and skill that Faulk has. THAT'S what this is about. No one is saying "Faulk is the ONLY RB to ever line up at WR". This also isn't about "Has the game of football evolved?". Again, stop trying to change the topic.
And again, you can't play in a system if you don't FIT into a system. The system was successful LARGELY due to the fact that Faulk was GREAT enough to play within that system.
And neither you nor I know if the opportunities for the RBs you were there. Maybe they were, and those RBs couldn't adapt to that system, so they 86'd it. Who knows? What we DO know is that Faulk was able to play in that system, and if he wasn't, they wouldn't have had him in there and/or they wouldn't have ran that system. In that case, we can't say Shaq was better than Mikan because Mikan never played in the systems Shaq has played and flourished in, therefore, Mikan didn't have those same opportunities...but we can tell by watching the 2 players that Shaq was superior than Mikan.
And this isn't JUST about how many YPC Faulk had, this is about his COMPLETE ABILITY at playing the WR spot. |
Again, if he had the complete ability to play WR, why the 9 yards per catch? That's certainly a sign of ability. MA had 9.2 catching out of the backfield... |
Again - the YPC isn't the sole focus, but that's all you're gonna hold onto because that's all you really have. The other examples I presented you have yet to dispute because they're indisputable. As for the 9 YPC, that's about right for a guy that usually has 3 levels to go through than a WR would, since a lot of his catches happened from swing routes, wheel routes, and screens. A WR usually doesn't have to go through all 3 levels - it's usually 1, and 2 at most. In other words, a WR is down the field farther to catch a pass than an RB would. |
So you're saying he did almost all of his pass catching out of the backfield, and didn't do more than a little bit of WR work... |
Dude, you're not slick, so stop trying to be.
_________________
| Quote: | Smooth, but I move like an army / Bulletproof down in case brothas try to bomb me / Puttin' brothas to rest like Elliot Ness / Cuz I don't like stress
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | Chef Green wrote: | As for Faulk - I'm a Rams fan so I'm biased, but I watched most of the guys being mentioned in this debate, and there's only a couple I'd pick for my team before Faulk. Sweetness and Sanders.
As for who might have been a better receiver than Faulk - to this point, not one RB, ever. Could other guys have done it? Who knows? They didn't have the chance. But now your arguing in fantasy land. Faulk had the chance, and he actually did it. No disrespect to Thurman Thomas or Roger Craig (actually, I'm a Rams fan, so Roger Craig can eat a d---), but those guys didn't do what Faulk did. |
And that's the whole point: if Faulk COULDN'T do it, they wouldn't have used him as a WR. Simple as that. That's why he was the best receiving RB. |
Good point, except the argument never was that he wasn't good enough, because any fool can see that he was. It's just context.
Ditka used William Perry as a fullback. Does that automatically mean he automatically had the best running and blocking skills of any DT, penalizing any DT who never got used in such a way?
Craig and MA really started the trend of RB's being used as more than outlet, screen, and occasional receivers. Faulk's coach continued that trend by actually slotting him out there at times. Now you see a plethora of hybrids doing this, and some of them will pass Faulk's yards. Won't necessarily make them better than Faulk... |
Again, you changed the argument because you couldn't counter. How hard is it to stick to the argument? This wasn't ever about "Who started the trend with RB's being receivers". No one here is disputing that, so why you keep bringing that up is truly ridiculous and evasive. This is about who the best RB at receiving is. Hands down it's Faulk. You haven't presented anything to dispute that. At all. |
How so? What definable thing makes him the best? The fact that MA had more yards per catch, or that Craig caught for 1000 yards first, or that LT and Centers both caught 100 passes in a year, all without the benefit of lining up at receiver? |
What? It's the stats, his output, his ability and skillset, and the comments from DBs and coaches about his receiving skills. Again, prove he isn't, since you you're so adamant that he isn't. Present your case other than "MA and Craig started the trend" which doesn't prove anything. |
Ah, so now I have to prove the negative. I thought the burden of proof lay with the one making the claim.
Look, I don't dispute he was great, both as a runner and receiver. First ballot HOF, IMO. I've just seen a lot of RB's with serious pass catching skills. This is not some mysterious thing that only Faulk could do at a high level, as evidenced by the fact that a ton of backs these days are splitting out and being used as part time WR's. It's just the evolution of the game. I don't take one guy who played in a certain system that used him at WR and automatically discount the others who played at a time when that wasn't done.
For the record, I don't get how opportunity equals more skill. I don't necessarily think Kordell Stewart was a more versatile athlete than Mike Vick, just because they used him at a bunch of positions. More about scheme and personnel than skills.
Also, Faulk averaged 9 yards per catch. Hardly the average of even a real good, much less great WR... |
No, again - this is a debate. You just don't sit there and let one side prove their argument and you do absolutely nothing, you DO have to participate . Now, since I've dropped MY proof, it's now time for YOU to drop YOUR proof.
Ok, then name those "ton of backs" that have done it at the success level and skill that Faulk has. THAT'S what this is about. No one is saying "Faulk is the ONLY RB to ever line up at WR". This also isn't about "Has the game of football evolved?". Again, stop trying to change the topic.
And again, you can't play in a system if you don't FIT into a system. The system was successful LARGELY due to the fact that Faulk was GREAT enough to play within that system.
And neither you nor I know if the opportunities for the RBs you were there. Maybe they were, and those RBs couldn't adapt to that system, so they 86'd it. Who knows? What we DO know is that Faulk was able to play in that system, and if he wasn't, they wouldn't have had him in there and/or they wouldn't have ran that system. In that case, we can't say Shaq was better than Mikan because Mikan never played in the systems Shaq has played and flourished in, therefore, Mikan didn't have those same opportunities...but we can tell by watching the 2 players that Shaq was superior than Mikan.
And this isn't JUST about how many YPC Faulk had, this is about his COMPLETE ABILITY at playing the WR spot. |
Again, if he had the complete ability to play WR, why the 9 yards per catch? That's certainly a sign of ability. MA had 9.2 catching out of the backfield... |
Again - the YPC isn't the sole focus, but that's all you're gonna hold onto because that's all you really have. The other examples I presented you have yet to dispute because they're indisputable. As for the 9 YPC, that's about right for a guy that usually has 3 levels to go through than a WR would, since a lot of his catches happened from swing routes, wheel routes, and screens. A WR usually doesn't have to go through all 3 levels - it's usually 1, and 2 at most. In other words, a WR is down the field farther to catch a pass than an RB would. |
So you're saying he did almost all of his pass catching out of the backfield, and didn't do more than a little bit of WR work... |
Dude, you're not slick, so stop trying to be. |
Just following your train of thought. But seriously, I think we just measure the criteria differently, and measure opportunity-as-skill differently as well.
We can agree he's a HOF back and both a great rusher and receiver, and leave it there.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
