OregonBuckeye
Semper Fi Buckeyes
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;926087; said:
And he was only completely healthy for 2 of them, in which he ran for over a combined 400 yards.
Upvote
0
-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter LordJeffBuck
- Start date
And he was only completely healthy for 2 of them, in which he ran for over a combined 400 yards.
No not raw talent , that doesn't mean squat by itself. the whole thing is how much did you do you earn the praise as one of the greatest. Now that includes raw talent and performance and achievements and your worth to the team.Buckeyeskickbuttocks;926087; said:
So while Mo had tons of raw talent and did make very nice contributions during the partial year he played his total achievements are buried by the achievements of other. His one year cannot overshadow the 2, 3, or 4 years of others. Maybe if he gained 5,000 yards or so. He could have won the Heisman but he didn't. He could have been the player with the most career yards but he wasn't. He could have been the record holder for yards gained in one year but he wasn't. He could have outgained McGahee in the fiesta bowl but he didn't..
The people we are looking for here are people who "did"
Upvote
0
Yertle
Pounding out aggression, turns into obsession
His second game as a Buckeye, he had the entire Horseshoe chanting "Maurice!!!" while he bulldozed through Cougar defenders. It's kind of sad that this will also be the last moment in his life that he EVER played healthy, in-shape football.
The more time goes by, the more pity I feel for Clarett.
The more time goes by, the more pity I feel for Clarett.
Upvote
0
Best Buckeye;926098; said:
Was Gayle Sayers a great Running Back?
You bet he was.
Now.. back that up with numbers.... have those numbers compete with the likes of Jim Brown...
You're discounting talent too much in my opinion. Running back is a skill, not a set of data. Clarett was an outstanding running back. It's really just that simple. He may well have been the best running back on this list under the metric of most talent. Again, my gripe is surely not to elevate Clarett above Archie, Keith and Eddie... But, instead to ward off those who were laughing off the pick as ridiculous. As I said in my first post, I think voting for Mo is impossible when you get 3 picks and Archie Keith and Eddie are there. But, to say Mo C isn't worthy of the discussion is ludicrous.
Upvote
0
Saw31
High Seas Rogue
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;926110; said:
Well unfortunately for MoC, this argument is in the context of Archie, Eddie and Keith and is therefore a ludicrous pick. And FWIW, Keith had more raw talent then any of them on that list IMO. So MoC doesn't win the "raw talent" argument with me either...
Upvote
0
Talent doesn't make you one of the best. I'll say it again and while he may be worth discussion that doesn't make him one of the best.Buckeyeskickbuttocks;926110; said:
The title of the thread is who is the greatest tailback not who had the most talent.
I will be obstreperous in my stand .
Upvote
0
Taking the skill v. numbers idea a step further....
who is the better running back, Jim Brown or Emmit Smith? Smith's got better numbers, but give me Jim Brown.
Likewise, when considering Clarett's ability, we have to look at the line he was running behind. Considering what Lydell Ross and Maurice Hall were able to accomplish behind the same line Mo ran for 1200+ I'd say it's pretty obvious Mo did it with outstanding ability. Unfortunately I can't find the stats (looks like the official site only goes back to 2003 now) but I'd bet my house Ross and Hall combined were well short of Mo's production.
who is the better running back, Jim Brown or Emmit Smith? Smith's got better numbers, but give me Jim Brown.
Likewise, when considering Clarett's ability, we have to look at the line he was running behind. Considering what Lydell Ross and Maurice Hall were able to accomplish behind the same line Mo ran for 1200+ I'd say it's pretty obvious Mo did it with outstanding ability. Unfortunately I can't find the stats (looks like the official site only goes back to 2003 now) but I'd bet my house Ross and Hall combined were well short of Mo's production.
Upvote
0
Best Buckeye;926127; said:
A consideration of who's the greatest tailback necessarily concerns who had the most talent. Like I just posted (as you were posting this), who would you rather have: Jim Brown or Emmit Smith? Gayle Sayers or Curtis Martin? Tony Dorsett or Jerome Bettis? In each, the later player has more yards, but I'd contend the former was the clearly more talented and therefore 'greater' back.
Maurice Clarett, while maybe a terrible person, was indeed a great tailback.
Upvote
0
geezee , of course Mo got more yardage but what does that have to do with the price of apples? those guys arent even on the list. besides that I'm eating watermelon.Buckeyeskickbuttocks;926128; said:
.I am not denying MO's abilities. He absolutely had talent. I just don't consider him to be one of the top ones we had.
Upvote
0
ORD_Buckeye
Wrong glass, Sir.
Rethink the methodology. Any poll of Ohio State running backs that lacks Chic Harley, Les Horvath, Matt Snell and a host of others yet includes Maurice Clarett and Antonio Pittman is fundamentally flawed. I'll abstain this round.
Upvote
0
Saw31;926134; said:
Agree.
Best Buckeye;926137; said:geezee , of course Mo got more yardage but what does that have to do with the price of apples? those guys arent even on the list. besides that I'm eating watermelon.
I am not denying MO's abilities. He absolutely had talent. I just don't consider him to be one of the top ones we had.
Neither do I. Just saying laughing the notion off out of hand isn't necessarily obvious.
Upvote
0
OregonBuckeye
Semper Fi Buckeyes
Saw31;926134; said:
Just curious, what is your main reason for placing Eddie ahead of Mo?
Upvote
0
