re: Can Your School Top Auburn's Big 3 of Barkley, Bo, and Frank Thomas

The Jets like today sucked....and Namath played damn near cippled most of his career......he did win the Super Bowl and was really an "icon and entertainer" like some wannabe is trying to do...

And if you want to get real on the stats, Bo Jackson is nowhere near one the best RBs in college or pros

quote:

---

And if you want to get real on the stats, Bo Jackson is nowhere near one the best RBs in college or pros

---

Bo didn't have the games played to put up great numbers but one thing is for certain and that's that the guy is top 3 most talented players ever. The games he did play he put outstanding numbers up in. The same can't be said about Joe.

Namath won the Super Bowl with his arm and was named the game's Most Valuable Player. Did Dilfer do that too?

Bo played enough college games and isn't even top 15 in career yards or rushing touchdowns....Hell Ricky Williams is a waaaay better back than Bo

And Namath carried that Jets team in what is sill one of the biggest Super Bowl wins in the history of the game....Bo never won a title at the college or pro level

Bo shared carries his first two years and caught hurt his junior season. That's the reason he's not on that list. Not for a lack of talent.

And rings don't define a player. By your logic Robert Horry would be a better player than MJ, Kobe, and Shaq. He's not. He's not even better than Chuck who has none.

Ricky Williams -

quote:

---

Faulk > Jackson

---

No love lost on the fambly, but get real here

I was serious... Have Bama fans ever seen his numbers in the NFL? They are not HOF worthy by no means. If u take away '69 and '70 they're awful, and his numbers weren't even that great those seasons.
The_SwAUggford

He had a career record of 62-63-1 and the Jets were over .500 in only 4 out of 12 seasons he started.

TD-INT was 173-220 and he had a career completion percentage of 50.1%.

Those numbers are from from good and even further from HOF numbers.

------------------

The game was far different in the 50s 60s and early 70s than today.

Completion percentage was never much over 50 percent and TD to INT ratios were far worse.

Reasons' Teams did not throw the ball near as much as today and usually only on 3rd down and long or long on first down.

They didnt believe in the short route at all and for good reason ,in those days the LB or DB could get away with murder close to the line of scrimmage.

Anyone knows that 3rd and long or a deep pattern is far less likely to be completed and far more likely to be intercepted.

Long bombs on 3rd and 10 or 3rd and 13 were the norm ,the thinking is a 40 to 50 yard bomb ,intercepted on 3rd down is just like a punt.

You cant compare raw numbers from different eras when 1. Rules change and 2. The more you pass like today 60 to 65 percent , the better you are going to be. throwing 12 to 18 times a game was the norm then.

quote:

---

Once again, I think the most pressing question is "who gives a shite?"

Seriously, why does this matter?

---

This. I guess having a "Big 3" makes up for you lack of a championship (that wasn't paid for) in football.