OLD SCHOOL AND FEARLESS!!

by riverrattler on Jul 2, 2009 2:35 AM CDT Comment 4 comments

I WOULD HAVE VOTE FOR DANNY AND ERIC!!! ONE WAS PART OF THE HEART AND SOUL OF WHAT WAS ONCE THE 2ND WORST TEAM IN THE LEAGUE. THE OTHER WAS THE MOST SUCCESSFUL FLY ACROSS THE MIDDLE WIDEOUT THIS TEAM HAS EVER HAD!! AND WAS JUST PLAIN FEARLESS WHEN WE NEEDED A TOUGH FIRST DOWN!! WHAT MORE NEEDS TO BE SAID ? COLSTON IS WELL ON HIS WAY TO REPLACING JOE, DANNY, AND ERIC IN THE RECORDS ; BUT STILL NEEDS MORE SKINS ON THE WALL!!!!

This FanPost was written by a reader and member of Canal Street Chronicles. It does not necessarily reflect the views of CSC and its staff or editors.

0 recs | Comment 4 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

"WHAT MORE NEEDS TO BE SAID ?"

I was going to comment, until I read this.

by coldpizza on Jul 2, 2009 12:48 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

You guys dig up some clips some stats

…and learn us youngin’s sumpin’ new/

I’m just ignorant to the old guys, as I’m sure a lot of us are. But I think we could be persuaded with the right information.

by asaint on Jul 2, 2009 5:50 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

There's a link

to the top four receivers’ career stats on the initial WR2 post, but without being there, it’s hard to vote for guys you know to be historically important to the team and city. That’s why I can’t personally vote for Abramowicz, even though he may have been more valuable in his era than Horn or Martin were in their respective generations. Martin and Ironhead and the Dome Patrol win my votes because I was a kid when they all played, so my bright-eyed optimism and hero-worship made them greater than their numbers(even when their numbers were great). If I was twelve in 2000, Joe Horn would undoubtedly be the greatest Saints receiver of all time. He is anyway, statistically. But Eric Martin is a Saints hero of my childhood, so he’s the better player to me.

One easy-to-assemble stat that I think could be helpful but that was missing would be number of playoff appearances though.

by FuSoYa on Jul 3, 2009 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The best way to compare

any two players is not directly by statistics. It’s by statistical rankings at the time they played. Of course, that doesn’t apply to certain positions where statistics aren’t/weren’t kept. Those rankings are readily available on profootballreference.com.

Just pull up each player and look at the “Appearances on Leader Boards, Awards and Honors” section, below their annual statistics. This will tell you how many times — and, more importantly, where (in parentheses) — they ranked among their peers. Disregard Pro Bowls and career rankings. In most cases, cumulative statistics are too skewed towards the present. Just look at the individual years. If Player A was Top 10 in the more important statistical categories of his position considerably more often than Player B, odds are he was a better player within his era.

I say “odds are” for a couple of reasons:

a.) Unfortunately, “leader boards” are only Top 10 lists, in most of these categories. Player B may have been the 11th or 12th best player at his given position for several years, while Player A wasn’t even a blip on the talent radar. They’re inevitably both going to receive no credit for that. Sucks, but unless you want to go to the library and spend an hour our so jotting down exact rankings from multiple years and categories from a sports almanac, it’s about the best you’re going to find online.

b.) You also have to take into account the number of teams at the time. Abramowicz is a pretty good example of that, being that his career bridged the NFL-AFL merger. I’ll pick one category to illustrated this. Abramowicz appeared on the Top 10 “receiving yards” leader board three times in his career: 7th, 3rd and 7th. However, it’s important to note that the two former were from 1968 and 1969; years when there were only 16 sets of starting WRs in the league. The latter 7th is from a league of 26 teams, making it a lot more comparable to a ranking of 7th overall today.

Of course, that doesn’t NECESSARILY mean the 7th best player in a league of 26 (or even 32) is better than the 7th best in a league of 16. The top seven from all three samples could be equally phenomenal athletes. I just think it’s something to keep in the back of your mind when judging players you’ve never seen play. Maybe treat it as some sort of semi-relevant tiebreaker, like Super Bowl rings for a QB.

by coldpizza on Jul 4, 2009 2:18 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs