Sheriff Gonna Getcha
06-01-2005, 10:26 PM
Ramseyfan:
No one - not I nor anyone else here - was trying to compare Gardner's athetic skills with Sean Taylors. Only you brought that into the disucssion so let me say that you have discoverd the obvious. Sean Taylor is far more athletic than Rod Gardner. That and four bucks will get you a latte at Starbucks. The analogy goes like this:
Taylor is a stud; he is a better "athlete" than Ed Reed; Reed has accomplished ten miles more on the field than Taylor has; Reed has shown that he is a great player; Taylor has not yet shown that. THEREFORE, comparing the two of them is premature at best and silly at worst.
Gardner is a stud; he is a better "athlete" than Art Monk; MOnk accomplished ten miles more on the field than Gardner has; Mond showed he was a great player; Garnder has not yet shown that. THEREFORE, comparing the two of them would be ridiculous at this point.
Ed Reed didn't come on until last season? I think there are a whole bunch of offensive coordinators in the NFL who might raise an eyebrow at that statement. Reed has continued to get better throughout his career, but he was hardly a stiff in prior years.
I've said this before too. Greatness in a team or a player is usually self-evident. Great teams point to their records and go on about their business; great players - even when stuck on bad teams demonstrate their greatness without fans having to concoct measures for them where they stand out.
Again let me use an analogy. Barry Sanders was a great player; he played on bad teams most of his career. When people talk about Barry Sanders, they don't have to manufacture yardsicks for him to surpass such as "defensed more passes than Shawn Springs". They don't compare his "rookie stats" with other players. They acknowledge his greatness because of everything he accomplished on the field. Same with Walter Payton playing for a whole bunch of sorry-assed Bears' teams. And Dick Butkis and Tommy Nobis and Sonny Jurgensen and Charlie Taylor and Archie Manning and Lem Barney ...
As long as anyone has to resort to convoluted stats to bolster a player's reputation, the chances are that the player isn't anywhere near great - - yet.
First, okay, I know understand your analogy a bit better and don't have as much beef with it. But, I still think the analogy doesn't exactly work. The comparison of Taylor to Reed is indeed premature (as I've previously noted), but it's by no means silly.
Second, when I said Reed didn't "come on" until "last season," I actually meant the 2003 season. He's been a stud since he entered the league, but it's only been in the past two seasons that he has been considered one of the top 5 players in the league. He wasn't the Ed Reed of 2004 in his rookie season and I wholeheartedly expect Taylor to make similar leaps.
Third, I'm not sure why you've been so insistent on focusing on how I noted that Taylor had more passes defensed than Springs. That was one of many of ST's stats I cited (i.e. Taylor had 6 turnovers as a rookie in fewer starts than Reed).
Fourth, how exactly are Taylor's stats convoluted? They are what they are.
Please don't refer to the passes defensed stat again....again, it was one of several ST stats I cited.
If what you are saying is that comparing Taylor to Reed is premature, as I noted earlier, I can agree with that. But, I suspect (perhaps erroneously) that you don't think Taylor's play is EVER going to match his potential. I disagree with that notion (if that is indeed what you are saying).
No one - not I nor anyone else here - was trying to compare Gardner's athetic skills with Sean Taylors. Only you brought that into the disucssion so let me say that you have discoverd the obvious. Sean Taylor is far more athletic than Rod Gardner. That and four bucks will get you a latte at Starbucks. The analogy goes like this:
Taylor is a stud; he is a better "athlete" than Ed Reed; Reed has accomplished ten miles more on the field than Taylor has; Reed has shown that he is a great player; Taylor has not yet shown that. THEREFORE, comparing the two of them is premature at best and silly at worst.
Gardner is a stud; he is a better "athlete" than Art Monk; MOnk accomplished ten miles more on the field than Gardner has; Mond showed he was a great player; Garnder has not yet shown that. THEREFORE, comparing the two of them would be ridiculous at this point.
Ed Reed didn't come on until last season? I think there are a whole bunch of offensive coordinators in the NFL who might raise an eyebrow at that statement. Reed has continued to get better throughout his career, but he was hardly a stiff in prior years.
I've said this before too. Greatness in a team or a player is usually self-evident. Great teams point to their records and go on about their business; great players - even when stuck on bad teams demonstrate their greatness without fans having to concoct measures for them where they stand out.
Again let me use an analogy. Barry Sanders was a great player; he played on bad teams most of his career. When people talk about Barry Sanders, they don't have to manufacture yardsicks for him to surpass such as "defensed more passes than Shawn Springs". They don't compare his "rookie stats" with other players. They acknowledge his greatness because of everything he accomplished on the field. Same with Walter Payton playing for a whole bunch of sorry-assed Bears' teams. And Dick Butkis and Tommy Nobis and Sonny Jurgensen and Charlie Taylor and Archie Manning and Lem Barney ...
As long as anyone has to resort to convoluted stats to bolster a player's reputation, the chances are that the player isn't anywhere near great - - yet.
First, okay, I know understand your analogy a bit better and don't have as much beef with it. But, I still think the analogy doesn't exactly work. The comparison of Taylor to Reed is indeed premature (as I've previously noted), but it's by no means silly.
Second, when I said Reed didn't "come on" until "last season," I actually meant the 2003 season. He's been a stud since he entered the league, but it's only been in the past two seasons that he has been considered one of the top 5 players in the league. He wasn't the Ed Reed of 2004 in his rookie season and I wholeheartedly expect Taylor to make similar leaps.
Third, I'm not sure why you've been so insistent on focusing on how I noted that Taylor had more passes defensed than Springs. That was one of many of ST's stats I cited (i.e. Taylor had 6 turnovers as a rookie in fewer starts than Reed).
Fourth, how exactly are Taylor's stats convoluted? They are what they are.
Please don't refer to the passes defensed stat again....again, it was one of several ST stats I cited.
If what you are saying is that comparing Taylor to Reed is premature, as I noted earlier, I can agree with that. But, I suspect (perhaps erroneously) that you don't think Taylor's play is EVER going to match his potential. I disagree with that notion (if that is indeed what you are saying).