View Single Post
Old 03-05-2011, 08:23 PM   #12
Tarkus
The Thread Stalker
 
Tarkus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: In The Wind...
Posts: 11,856
Tarkus has a spectacular aura aboutTarkus has a spectacular aura aboutTarkus has a spectacular aura about
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostofSC View Post
Marc* - I certainly understand why you'd delete Buckeye's post and mine, and have absolutely no problem with that, but I'm not sure why this one was allowed to stand*.
That's still a sticking point for me here at SC, I'm afraid.

Missed your post but saw Buck's. His was short & sweet, , but was understandably 'forged' in the heat of that passive/aggressive post you refer to. A basic case of cause & effect, one more 'colorful' but only brought on by circumstances that prompted it.

I'm a life long proponent for getting paid for what you earned & while Buck's post had a raw feel to it, bachslunch's was the catalyst that brought it on & certainly 'earned it'.

Having said that, I didn't see that any censorship was necessary for the simple fact that no flags were gonna be thrown for 'piling on' nor was an impending wave of anarchy & civil unrest. It's the 'net, not a daycare center & the guys are grown men who can have their moments without having a teacher call a time out.

I will say that bachslunch, from my quick perusal of his following response to me, proves that point by laying out a football based view without the histrionics. Apparently the heat has died down.

That, I can live with...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post

...back in the '80s I had a close friend and erstwhile co-worker whose personal nickname for Richard Dent was "Bubble Butt."


That he was, Anthony. In more circles than just your friend's...



Quote:
Originally Posted by bachslunch View Post
Note well that bringing up Chris Doleman in this discussion was emphatically not my doing.
I saw that but am confused why you didn't jump Brad for his view on Doleman being much more worthy while slamming Buck for disagreeing about Dent's induction even tho he based it on a football POV.

As I easily pointed out, Doleman's 'stats' in no way show any great disparity between the 2. As usual, stats are only there to be support in a opinion on a player & never...never, alone tell of a player's true talents in a team sport.

To be truly fair, I'd have expected your response to have that same 'flavor' toward the obvious mirroring criteria for Doleman that you disagreed so strongly with Dent.


Quote:
I can see the idea that devaluing pro bowl selections after the fans got one-third of the vote is not unreasonable. If memory serves, that happened in 1995, after which Dent was practically done and Doleman would get only two more such nods. That still leaves Doleman with two more such selections. And as you pointed out above, Doleman was named a 1st team all pro three times, Dent twice. Regardless, it's info that's there and perfectly legit to point out.
Of course it's legit to include the All Pro...that's why I mentioned it tho I wonder why I would have to. It wasn't my argument about Doleman over Dent tho I'm more than fair about it to have done so.

& that's why people debate issues. Different views/different takes. No choice, well almost no choice , is entirely wrong but more of what a fan's criteria of what makes a particular player an all time great/HoFer.

IMO, the Pro Bowl was never a gauge whatsoever, whether by player choice or the inclusion of fan voting. The same likes/dislikes, favoritism, etc. affected the players as well as the fans. It's always been a popularity contest & in some cases by players, as a 'punishment' or retribution by excluding deserving but less than popular players.

The All Pro stat carries some weight as a tool in a debate but even then can be colored by surrounding players helping one be considered greater than he was & conversely by diminishing accomplishments by attributing more accolades to another when said player set the table for another to garner more of the 'sexy' press i.e. a player who draws double & at times, triple teams that allows the freedom to accumulate the stats to enhance his resume as an example. or how many other greats may have stolen the spotlight for that particular position.

It helps some healthy debate on what the real value of a player is but is too subjective to start a pissing contest on who is smart & who is stupid in their selection tho.


Quote:
There are rare exceptions who are HoF deserving with meager numbers, something I've referred to in the past as the "Ray Nitschke exception." Nitschke was a 1st team all pro only 3 times and a pro bowler once, but that's because he was always stuck behind first Bill George and Joe Schmidt and later Dick Butkus when it came time to hand out such honors. I'm having a hard time seeing such an exception in Dent's case. If time permits, I can do a year-by-year to see if that holds up to careful scrutiny.
Notice that you're now devaluing the All Pro stat in this case by referencing who had to play behind mainstays like George & Schmidt. I watched Nitschke thru-out his career & while I valued his grit/play, never had him that high on the HoF list. He was the face, as most MLBers were back in the day, of the Pack D but wasn't a game changing player IMO.

Quote:
I'm also one who is suspicious of raw defensive stats, as I'm not sure they necessarily tell us how good the player actually was. Dan Hampton's sack total was meager, but that wasn't his role in the Bear's defense at the time. And high sack totals don't tell you that Doleman, Dent, Dean, John Randle, and Derrick Thomas did not play the run well.
& that's why the whole argument about the HoF is a no win situation with me in as it's more for spirited debate with no clear cut answer. Just using raw stats does absolutely nothing except show, for the most part, that a fan didn't see enough of that players to only use stats for a main factor.

There's numerous examples of great/HoF players who got the 'sexy' nod of greatness on those raw stats where it was more about other great players that gave them the opportunity for inclusion than it was about them being all around great.

Tackles? Not a defining tool at all. Hell, a lot of tackles/sacks are a direct result of players having the play herded to them thru other players efforts.

Sacks? Always found it a marketing tool by the NFL since most sacks are designed for isolation of a players talents to maximize the chance. How many sacks by the great LT were nothing but a free lane to the QB or crafted stunts to leave a RB to pick up him up? Can't discount his greatness as a game changer but silly not to understand it's a team sport where it includes the talents of a DC who knows how to attack an offense in this case.

Dent's induction was about his talents but not some sort of whitewashing of his good but not great run support. He altered OC's schemes thru-out his career which is more of criteria to me than just stats.



Quote:
Tackles are notoriously unreliable to cite, as Rich Gosselin said in an article that's unfortunately no longer up at his paper's website -- the article was originally found at:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont....141e71c8.html

In it, Gosselin pointed out that there's no uniform standard for counting tackles and many teams are remarkably lavish about awarding them. In short, tackle stats are meaningless.
You're singing to the choir on this one...

Stats just help flesh out a career but are notoriously lacking as a main course. Besides being inflated by teams as an example, tackles alone don't explain where it was made. Was it a tackle made 5 yards past the LOS, was it a penetration tackle, a blown assignment gimme, or a truly great individual effort, etc.?

Just too vague to fully rely on...


Quote:
I can also say that I did not sweep Dent's success in Super Bowl XX under the rug. It's not to be denied. However, I did note that "One fine season or a clutch of great games do not a HoF-er make."
& as I noted, followed his career thru-out & didn't rely on raw stats. Use of any of his stats are supporting the fact that he wasn't reliant on a season or 2 for his induction.


Quote:
I've noticed a fair bit of revisionist history going on the last several years regarding player reputations in order to boost their HoF arguments. I've seen observations from what would clearly seem to be, well let's just say "favorably leaning" sources saying that Shannon Sharpe blocked for several 1000 yard rushers (in fact he didn't block well and thought it was beneath him), that Derrick Thomas played the run and pass well (not my understanding here), and that Richard Dent played well against the run.
This is true but I'd say you haven't seen it in this thread. Maybe some of this "favorably leaning" rhetoric we've all read has you more fired up to say things like he should kiss Hampton's feet for his play.

All greats thru-out team sports benefit from other players efforts to get to where they are. The debate will always be about how much of that supported that player's play & how much propped them up.


Quote:
I'm not impressed when a Bears fan or Bears writer puts forth glowing praise of Dent's supposed run stopping prowess any more than I am about John Madden saying Ray Guy was the greatest punter ever. And the only places I've seen making the "good against the run" assertion for Dent come from Bear-friendly sources.
I wouldn't be impressed by anyone touting his "supposed run stopping prowess" either but then you mention "good against the run".

Confusing...

Now you seem to say he wasn't good against the run. He was a solid run defender & surely wouldn't be a HoFer if that was the single criteria being used. However, it's the sum of the parts with any player. Using 1 thing like that would make, say a HoF RB, ineligible even with outstanding run greatness cuz he was an average receiver. Or a HoF QB shouldn't be in cuz there were better good QBs out there with a better deep ball, etc., etc.

Like I said, confusing...


Quote:
In defense of what I'm saying, please take a look at this article:

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/stor...p-pass-rushers

which was written by someone from Sporting News who clearly thinks much of Dent and appears to have been a big '85 Bears fan. Note well that he says here:

"The only knock I can put on Dent is he was -- and this is hard for a guy who has "1985 Bears" tattooed on his forehead to admit -- kind of lazy. By my recollection, he took lots of running plays off. He didn't exactly chase ballcarriers across the field; his approach was more to wave his giant right hand and say, "Good luck to you. Otis Wilson probably is about to kill you, but good luck to you.""

Yeah -- I'm finding that really tough to ignore.
Well, that's his opinion. I've seen players run down ball carriers 15 yards down field with a lot more motor than others, in & out of the HoF & others, also in & out of the HoF, not have that same motor.

I'd agree to that extent but that cute part of "wave his giant right hand and say, "Good luck to you. Otis Wilson probably is about to kill you, but good luck to you." is ridiculous. Once again, not ever on a soap box embellishing his 'run prowess' but reiterating his solid run support.

Besides all that, Dent would not have survived being on that Bear D with that kind of mentality. No one, especially Singletary, would have put up with that kind of play not to mention Ditka.

This use of an article smacks of trying to fill in blanks as a replacement to actually having seen him play.


Quote:
And no offense, but I'm also leery about taking a fan's word on behalf of a player's prowess, unless they did hard-core film study and really know what to look for in evaluating a player's skill. A fan who doesn't will probably see when Dent makes a sack or strip, but not likely be aware if he's out of position on a running play. Chances are good they're doing what most of us guys do at a football game -- noticing the guy with the ball, checking out the cheerleading talent, yelling invective at an opposing player. It's fun, but it's not hard-core talent weighing.


& no offense, but I'm leery of a fan who already made a disjointed case based on innuendo & sound bites magnifying the run only as the criteria while discounting any supporting stats like sack totals, hyping hollow Pro Bowl awards yet omitting things like the SB XX MVP award, speaking of longevity of career to pad totals while ignoring the fact that it was essentially accomplished in 11 years due to injuries instead of when he retired in 15 years, etc.

To be honest, I've yet to understand where your basis on Dent's induction comes from except from what you've read/heard.

& the comment of "hard core film study' makes this sound like you have to be in a room with a projector when it's more about either having football knowledge or not. This is not that complicated....

The problem in today's NFL is games are drastically changed by the smaller viewing camera work which has eliminated the opportunity to follow the whole play, seeing exactly how plays develop/who's doing what for the close up view. The drive to show the 'up close & personal' has ruined it for fans to be able to see simple things like that INT was the receiver getting bumped off that timing route instead of the outcry of that QB is a bum or the times the announcers expound on that great tackle when a replay shows it was a blown assignment, not some heroic effort...if you're lucky to see a replay at all.

Mark my words, one day down the road the NFL will market some kind of NFL Plus or some nonsense offering more camera angles & zoom outs...for a charge. Capitalism at it's finest...

& thanks for the breakdown of what some fans miss & what those fans should be looking for but that lesson isn't something needed at this end. You won't find anything in my posts lacking.

I'm not a fan that needs stats as my sole foundation nor am I ever going to belittle a player without having seen enough film to make a solid assessment.


Quote:
One other issue I have here is this: why has Dent been found worthy of the HoF when Claude Humphrey and L.C. Greenwood have been rejected several times and someone like Gene Brito hasn't even gotten the time of day from the committee? If the bar's low enough and all three of these folks are in, maybe that's different.
& that's the real outcry here. More about the 'If he's in, why aren't they?".

I said it before, I'll say it again:

It's the process & the way decisions are made & by whom & the shame is that it's not going to change. To ignore that simple fact ends up with these player against player convos that go nowhere except down.

Realize where the real issue is...
__________________

Last edited by Tarkus; 03-06-2011 at 12:29 AM.
Tarkus is offline