Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

top dawg

Johnathan Jones of the Charlotte Observer: Impressions after Day 3

87 posts in this topic

ok.

 

Smitty.  Can we just talk numbers in regards to HOF.  Nothing else.  If Smith's retired today....do you think he has the numbers?  If yes, do you think Santana Moss has the numbers?

 

I personally don't think numbers should be the end all be all...but I think you start the conversation just looking there.

 

In regards to the literal numbers, which rightly or wrongly are many a person's litmus test to determining hall of fame material, you're more than likely correct, CRA, Smitty does not get in---not immediately. Not ever. But then when you take intangibles into account, and more importantly Steve Smith's impact upon his games and the game of football, perhaps he will get in one day (based only upon his play up to today). Will people's perceptions and thoughts on what justifies a spot in Canton hopefully evolve over the years which would help Smith and others get into the Hall? Maybe. Is it likely? Perhaps not.  My thing is that for what Smith brings to the game, especially when he was in his prime, so-to-speak, poo and Smitty don't belong in the same sentence, ever. Call my thinking on this clouded, "homerish, emo (which I am really not trying to convey)" or whatever, but that's my whole point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im still glad we have a good RB core with stew down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Statements on Stewart are concerning....understanding that camp is 8 weeks away and the seson 12-14 weeks...at some point, the man has to be healthy or it's chronic.

 

Of course, he had an issue before being drafted  in the first round with his foot and was 'cleared' by Panthers doctors.

 

I really like Jonathan; but at some point, chronic becomes a problem even if he manages to get in the game.

 

 

What I'm thinking is that, unlike the "GIVE ME SIXTH ROUND WAHD RECEEBERS!!!!" crowd, maybe Gettlemen knew what he was doing selecting Barner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to the literal numbers, which rightly or wrongly are many a person's litmus test to determining hall of fame material, you're more than likely correct, CRA, Smitty does not get in---not immediately. Not ever. But then when you take intangibles into account, and more importantly Steve Smith's impact upon his games and the game of football, perhaps he will get in one day (based only upon his play up to today). Will people's perceptions and thoughts on what justifies a spot in Canton hopefully evolve over the years which would help Smith and others get into the Hall? Maybe. Is it likely? Perhaps not.  My thing is that for what Smith brings to the game, especially when he was in his prime, so-to-speak, poo and Smitty don't belong in the same sentence, ever. Call my thinking on this clouded, "homerish, emo (which I am really not trying to convey)" or whatever, but that's my whole point.

well....if am still pulling for him.  Again, I think he has a shot if he can find a ring w/ 2 more deep postseason runs.  His career playoff numbers would help a lot.  I mean after 2005....he had set himself up for something crazy.  He just couldn't get back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bwahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa.........

 

jake a game manager? lol you must not have really paid attention. the dude was nothing but a risk taker as a passer, always airing it out way down field in some really reckless situations just trusting that smitty or whoever would be able to grab it.

 

game manager = safe and controlled ≠ jake delhomme

 

Just because jake sucks as a QB doesnt make him a "gunslinger" he was a game managning QB who sucked and threw Ints... why dont you read up of the two terms and look at history. They are types of players, not adjectives after-the-fact.

 

Edit: gunslingers throw big yardage games.. game managers dont... I dont recall jake having too many big yardage games. a lot of INTs thrown, yes, but never aired it out. he was in a system to be a game manager, and just failed to be a quality QB, except for maybe two/three ok years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because jake sucks as a QB doesnt make him a "gunslinger" he was a game managning QB who sucked and threw Ints... why dont you read up of the two terms and look at history. They are types of players, not adjectives after-the-fact.

 

Edit: gunslingers throw big yardage games.. game managers dont... I dont recall jake having too many big yardage games. a lot of INTs thrown, yes, but never aired it out. he was in a system to be a game manager, and just failed to be a quality QB, except for maybe two/three ok years.

 

lol ok.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a Gunslinger is a Mindset. Jake had that mindset. And I refuse to change that description just because Top Dawg isn't happy with it. 20 years ago, or even in todays NFL, the Gunslinger walks a lonely path. His brethren are thin in numbers. Few men dare lead such a life.

Jake gave us 5 good years. It is like kids nowadays believe anything U2 and gaggle tell them. I was there, I saw what he did. I saw it with my own two eyes. Good Jake was a pleasure to watch. As long as you took your heart medicine that is. Ha

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because jake sucks as a QB doesnt make him a "gunslinger" he was a game managning QB who sucked and threw Ints... why dont you read up of the two terms and look at history. They are types of players, not adjectives after-the-fact.

 

Edit: gunslingers throw big yardage games.. game managers dont... I dont recall jake having too many big yardage games. a lot of INTs thrown, yes, but never aired it out. he was in a system to be a game manager, and just failed to be a quality QB, except for maybe two/three ok years.

 

he was a gambling/gunslinger who QB'd a running offense.  When his number was called....he was what he was.  He was a gamblin man.  

 

your definition means Tom Brady is a gunslinger

 

Gunslingers by nature are flawed.  Favre represents the top of that totem pole.   Not the Brady's and Mannings per your definition simply b/c they throw for yards.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm still laughing at this....

 

it's not big yardage games...it's big yardage passes thrown into double and triple coverage with very little chance of success. they take huge risks and rarely take the safe high percentage throws that a game manager would.

 

i swear you didn't really watch or pay attention to jake.

 

the guy was a risk taking, gambling, gunslinger. the yardage wasn't there like some others but that's mainly because we ran more than others and threw less. but the system didn't call for a game manager. we spent time going back in both the air coryell with henning...and his offense was a feed the stud offense which usually meant smitty, regardless of who he had on him. when davidson was here we ran an erdhart perkins offense. both of which make more use of deep/not safe passes set up by the run game.

 

game managers throw predominantly short safe passes to safe targets. that just wasn't jake. that wasn't our offense.

 

believe differently if you want, but jake was a massive risk taking, deep ball throwing into double coverage, gunslinger. he was no game manager.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites