Detroit needs to forget about Barry Sanders...

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: jjsole Sanders -----> Lions as is Babe ------> Redsox

really?? RedSox really can't blame the babe, their owner SOLD his rights, the Barry just walked out on them. i'd say not exactly the same.

Different but I think the Lions will be haunted by the ghost of BS for generations to come in the same way the ghost of the Babe haunts the sox.

The lions and their fans will forever wallow in the afterthought of whether or not they should have done anything different with him, as they fight, scratch and claw to improve to 6-10 every season for the next 100 years.

true, impact on team is probably the same, but i still say that Sanders wimped out.


Edit. i don't have a problem with athletes retiring in their prime, if sanders had said, i'm retiring END Of story than fine he did what he wanted to for his body.

but to say, I'm retiring so i don't have to play for the lions and then Trade me and let me play for someone else, i have a problem with that.

 

[NightRaven]

Offensive line like Dallas'? ONLY one team had that kind of offensive line. And unlike Emmit, Barry didnt need a stud line to be productive.

Barry was a true performer because he didnt NEED players around him to rule. He may be the only player like that...

 

[PlatinumGold]

| 1 | 21 108 | 6 | 0 |
| 2 | 13 35 | 60 | 0 |
| 3 | 24 147 | 36 | 1 |
| 4 | 17 24 | 18 | 0 |
| 6 | 18 157 | 27 | 3 |
| 7 | 18 124 | 0 | 0 |
| 8 | 20 76 | 4 | 0 |
| 9 | 22 167 | 31 | 0 |
| 10 | 12 44 | 23 | 0 |
| 11 | 19 92 | 14 | 1 |
| 12 | 24 120 | 6 | 2 |
| 13 | 24 138 | 0 | 1 |
| 14 | 23 90 | 93 | 1 |
| 15 | 19 54 | 33 | 1 |
| 16 | 22 76 | 8 | 2 |
| 17 | 18 48 | 39 | 0


this is my biggest problem with Barry Sanders. the stats are from 1995. and if you check out http://www.pro-football-reference.com/games/SandBa00.htm#1995 you'll see that it's NOT JUST this year that this type of pattern shows itself.

how much you want to bet that the weeks he had fewer than 100 yds rushing were on grass.

Sanders was AMAZING on turf. greatest runner EVER on turf WITHOUT question, on grass tho he was mortal at best just ONE of the better runners. no where NEAR as good as on turf.

 

[bigdog1218]

What about 1997.

Oh and in 1996, only 3 of his 8 sub 100 yard games were on grass, and he was able to rack up 152 yards, and 175 yards on grass against San Fran and GB.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: bigdog1218
What about 1997.

he had a good year.

but the other three show the same pattern. even '97 i wouldn't be surprised if he did better on turf than grass.

face it, he just can't make the same cuts he can on grass.

also, this does not factor in the kind of offensive lines he had and their performances. mb they had a particularly good one that year.

it still doesn't change my initial premise. sanders was GOD on turf but just Good on grass.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
| 1 | 21 108 | 6 | 0 |
| 2 | 13 35 | 60 | 0 |
| 3 | 24 147 | 36 | 1 |
| 4 | 17 24 | 18 | 0 |
| 6 | 18 157 | 27 | 3 |
| 7 | 18 124 | 0 | 0 |
| 8 | 20 76 | 4 | 0 |
| 9 | 22 167 | 31 | 0 |
| 10 | 12 44 | 23 | 0 |
| 11 | 19 92 | 14 | 1 |
| 12 | 24 120 | 6 | 2 |
| 13 | 24 138 | 0 | 1 |
| 14 | 23 90 | 93 | 1 |
| 15 | 19 54 | 33 | 1 |
| 16 | 22 76 | 8 | 2 |
| 17 | 18 48 | 39 | 0


this is my biggest problem with Barry Sanders. the stats are from 1995. and if you check out http://www.pro-football-reference.com/games/SandBa00.htm#1995 you'll see that it's NOT JUST this year that this type of pattern shows itself.

how much you want to bet that the weeks he had fewer than 100 yds rushing were on grass.

Sanders was AMAZING on turf. greatest runner EVER on turf WITHOUT question, on grass tho he was mortal at best just ONE of the better runners. no where NEAR as good as on turf.

Blah, you can quote stats all you want to... but it doesn't take a genious to figure out that Barry had incredible moves on turf AND grass... what is your argument that he was better on turf? Is making the hall of fame contingent upon whether you ran well on turf or grass? How come the best runner ever on grass wasn't as good as Barry on turf? Your argument is incredibly weak.

 

[NightRaven]

Barry had some good offensive linemen to run behind... Pro Bowlers like Lomas Brown, and Kevin Glover. Not to mention guys like Erik Andolsek, and Mike Utley before they suffered thier unfortunate circumstances. They had some stinkers though...

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
| 1 | 21 108 | 6 | 0 |
| 2 | 13 35 | 60 | 0 |
| 3 | 24 147 | 36 | 1 |
| 4 | 17 24 | 18 | 0 |
| 6 | 18 157 | 27 | 3 |
| 7 | 18 124 | 0 | 0 |
| 8 | 20 76 | 4 | 0 |
| 9 | 22 167 | 31 | 0 |
| 10 | 12 44 | 23 | 0 |
| 11 | 19 92 | 14 | 1 |
| 12 | 24 120 | 6 | 2 |
| 13 | 24 138 | 0 | 1 |
| 14 | 23 90 | 93 | 1 |
| 15 | 19 54 | 33 | 1 |
| 16 | 22 76 | 8 | 2 |
| 17 | 18 48 | 39 | 0


this is my biggest problem with Barry Sanders. the stats are from 1995. and if you check out http://www.pro-football-reference.com/games/SandBa00.htm#1995 you'll see that it's NOT JUST this year that this type of pattern shows itself.

how much you want to bet that the weeks he had fewer than 100 yds rushing were on grass.

Sanders was AMAZING on turf. greatest runner EVER on turf WITHOUT question, on grass tho he was mortal at best just ONE of the better runners. no where NEAR as good as on turf.

Blah, you can quote stats all you want to... but it doesn't take a genious to figure out that Barry had incredible moves on turf AND grass... what is your argument that he was better on turf? Is making the hall of fame contingent upon whether you ran well on turf or grass? How come the best runner ever on grass wasn't as good as Barry on turf? Your argument is incredibly weak.

LOL

wtf are you talking about. mb respond to what i posted if you want to claim i have a weak argument.

WHERE did

How come the best runner ever on grass wasn't as good as Barry on turf?

come from??

i stand by what i said and NOTHING you said refutes it.

Barry was the best ever on turf and Not the best ever on grass. i'd take, Sweetness, Jim Brown, OJ Simpson and mb even Tony Dorsett over Sanders strictly on grass. ON turf it's Sanders over ANYONE else.

 

[NightRaven]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
| 1 | 21 108 | 6 | 0 |
| 2 | 13 35 | 60 | 0 |
| 3 | 24 147 | 36 | 1 |
| 4 | 17 24 | 18 | 0 |
| 6 | 18 157 | 27 | 3 |
| 7 | 18 124 | 0 | 0 |
| 8 | 20 76 | 4 | 0 |
| 9 | 22 167 | 31 | 0 |
| 10 | 12 44 | 23 | 0 |
| 11 | 19 92 | 14 | 1 |
| 12 | 24 120 | 6 | 2 |
| 13 | 24 138 | 0 | 1 |
| 14 | 23 90 | 93 | 1 |
| 15 | 19 54 | 33 | 1 |
| 16 | 22 76 | 8 | 2 |
| 17 | 18 48 | 39 | 0


this is my biggest problem with Barry Sanders. the stats are from 1995. and if you check out http://www.pro-football-reference.com/games/SandBa00.htm#1995 you'll see that it's NOT JUST this year that this type of pattern shows itself.

how much you want to bet that the weeks he had fewer than 100 yds rushing were on grass.

Sanders was AMAZING on turf. greatest runner EVER on turf WITHOUT question, on grass tho he was mortal at best just ONE of the better runners. no where NEAR as good as on turf.

Blah, you can quote stats all you want to... but it doesn't take a genious to figure out that Barry had incredible moves on turf AND grass... what is your argument that he was better on turf? Is making the hall of fame contingent upon whether you ran well on turf or grass? How come the best runner ever on grass wasn't as good as Barry on turf? Your argument is incredibly weak.

Agreed. Some of Barry's best games were at Tampa Bay and Chicago. I still remember the run against the Bucs where he lost his shoe, but still outran the defense to the endzone...

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: bigdog1218
What about 1997.

Oh and in 1996, only 3 of his 8 sub 100 yard games were on grass, and he was able to rack up 152 yards, and 175 yards on grass against San Fran and GB.

Wait a second? Didn't San Fran and GB both play each other in the divisional playoffs? Didn't Green Bay beat Pats 35-21 to win the Super Bowl that year?

Doh, there goes PlatGold's argument about Barry not being able to run on grass, lmao.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
| 1 | 21 108 | 6 | 0 |
| 2 | 13 35 | 60 | 0 |
| 3 | 24 147 | 36 | 1 |
| 4 | 17 24 | 18 | 0 |
| 6 | 18 157 | 27 | 3 |
| 7 | 18 124 | 0 | 0 |
| 8 | 20 76 | 4 | 0 |
| 9 | 22 167 | 31 | 0 |
| 10 | 12 44 | 23 | 0 |
| 11 | 19 92 | 14 | 1 |
| 12 | 24 120 | 6 | 2 |
| 13 | 24 138 | 0 | 1 |
| 14 | 23 90 | 93 | 1 |
| 15 | 19 54 | 33 | 1 |
| 16 | 22 76 | 8 | 2 |
| 17 | 18 48 | 39 | 0


this is my biggest problem with Barry Sanders. the stats are from 1995. and if you check out http://www.pro-football-reference.com/games/SandBa00.htm#1995 you'll see that it's NOT JUST this year that this type of pattern shows itself.

how much you want to bet that the weeks he had fewer than 100 yds rushing were on grass.

Sanders was AMAZING on turf. greatest runner EVER on turf WITHOUT question, on grass tho he was mortal at best just ONE of the better runners. no where NEAR as good as on turf.

Blah, you can quote stats all you want to... but it doesn't take a genious to figure out that Barry had incredible moves on turf AND grass... what is your argument that he was better on turf? Is making the hall of fame contingent upon whether you ran well on turf or grass? How come the best runner ever on grass wasn't as good as Barry on turf? Your argument is incredibly weak.

LOL

wtf are you talking about. mb respond to what i posted if you want to claim i have a weak argument.

WHERE did

How come the best runner ever on grass wasn't as good as Barry on turf?

come from??

i stand by what i said and NOTHING you said refutes it.

Barry was the best ever on turf and Not the best ever on grass. i'd take, Sweetness, Jim Brown, OJ Simpson and mb even Tony Dorsett over Sanders strictly on grass. ON turf it's Sanders over ANYONE else.

Nothing refutes it? What? lol... You're basically IMPLYING that it's harder to run on grass than turf... SO if someone is spectacular on GRASS they should be better than the person on TURF. Yet noone you've named on your list is better than Barry on turf, according to you. See the problem now?

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
| 1 | 21 108 | 6 | 0 |
| 2 | 13 35 | 60 | 0 |
| 3 | 24 147 | 36 | 1 |
| 4 | 17 24 | 18 | 0 |
| 6 | 18 157 | 27 | 3 |
| 7 | 18 124 | 0 | 0 |
| 8 | 20 76 | 4 | 0 |
| 9 | 22 167 | 31 | 0 |
| 10 | 12 44 | 23 | 0 |
| 11 | 19 92 | 14 | 1 |
| 12 | 24 120 | 6 | 2 |
| 13 | 24 138 | 0 | 1 |
| 14 | 23 90 | 93 | 1 |
| 15 | 19 54 | 33 | 1 |
| 16 | 22 76 | 8 | 2 |
| 17 | 18 48 | 39 | 0


this is my biggest problem with Barry Sanders. the stats are from 1995. and if you check out http://www.pro-football-reference.com/games/SandBa00.htm#1995 you'll see that it's NOT JUST this year that this type of pattern shows itself.

how much you want to bet that the weeks he had fewer than 100 yds rushing were on grass.

Sanders was AMAZING on turf. greatest runner EVER on turf WITHOUT question, on grass tho he was mortal at best just ONE of the better runners. no where NEAR as good as on turf.

Blah, you can quote stats all you want to... but it doesn't take a genious to figure out that Barry had incredible moves on turf AND grass... what is your argument that he was better on turf? Is making the hall of fame contingent upon whether you ran well on turf or grass? How come the best runner ever on grass wasn't as good as Barry on turf? Your argument is incredibly weak.

LOL

wtf are you talking about. mb respond to what i posted if you want to claim i have a weak argument.

WHERE did

How come the best runner ever on grass wasn't as good as Barry on turf?

come from??

i stand by what i said and NOTHING you said refutes it.

Barry was the best ever on turf and Not the best ever on grass. i'd take, Sweetness, Jim Brown, OJ Simpson and mb even Tony Dorsett over Sanders strictly on grass. ON turf it's Sanders over ANYONE else.

Nothing refutes it? What? lol... You're basically IMPLYING that it's harder to run on grass than turf... SO if someone is spectacular on GRASS they should be better than the person on TURF. Yet noone you've named on your list is better than Barry on turf, according to you. See the problem now?

No speed. you read WAY too much into other peoples post. i didn't imply ANYTHING of the sort.

Barry could make cuts on turf that NO ONE else could, however not even HE could make those same cuts on grass.

runners like Emmitt smith didn't benefit as much from turf as those extreme stop and go moves just weren't part of their arsenal.

it's kind of interesting tho how hard you are taking this criticism of sanders tho.

 

[Jeff7181]

Yeah, the Lions should have spent money on players rather than a new Stadium... that was just stupid... downtown is already a fuggin mess, now they ad a buttload more traffic to it, RIGHT next to the new Tigers ballpark, someone had their thumb in their butthole and was sniffing whiteout when they thought of that wonderful plan.

 

[Sid59]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
do you guys HONESTLY feel like Sanders was the ONLY player in the history of sports to be on a BAD franchise??

it's not that. they were within smelling distance from the super bowl. then what do the Lions do as a team? they toss their talent out the window and run away from being contenders again. this was the breaking point and not getting more talent.


how many more players with the abilities of Sanders, of any sport, played with a BAD franchise? Sanders stuck with the Lions and couldn't stand losing anymore. They didn't trade him so he retired. Find me another instance of this.

 

[bigdog1218]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: bigdog1218
What about 1997.

he had a good year.

but the other three show the same pattern. even '97 i wouldn't be surprised if he did better on turf than grass.

face it, he just can't make the same cuts he can on grass.

also, this does not factor in the kind of offensive lines he had and their performances. mb they had a particularly good one that year.

it still doesn't change my initial premise. sanders was GOD on turf but just Good on grass.

You're making an assumption completly disregarding the key factors such as the teams they were playing, injuries, the score, that all would have determined the amount of yards he attained. lets look at the sub 100 games in 1996.

Week 3 at PHI, turf field, grass argument doesn't work, plus he had 2 tds
Week 4 CHI, home on turf, CHI 11th ranked rush defense
Week 5 at TAM, 15 carries 73 yards = 4.9 yards a carry, Detroit won 27-0, Barry had limited carries
Week 6 ATL, home on turf
Weel 7 at OAK, 9 carries 36 yards, again limited carries
Week 11 at SDG, probably only game that helps your argument, even though he had 2 tds.
Week 14, KC, home on turf
Week 16, GB, home on turf, 4th ranked rush defense

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
| 1 | 21 108 | 6 | 0 |
| 2 | 13 35 | 60 | 0 |
| 3 | 24 147 | 36 | 1 |
| 4 | 17 24 | 18 | 0 |
| 6 | 18 157 | 27 | 3 |
| 7 | 18 124 | 0 | 0 |
| 8 | 20 76 | 4 | 0 |
| 9 | 22 167 | 31 | 0 |
| 10 | 12 44 | 23 | 0 |
| 11 | 19 92 | 14 | 1 |
| 12 | 24 120 | 6 | 2 |
| 13 | 24 138 | 0 | 1 |
| 14 | 23 90 | 93 | 1 |
| 15 | 19 54 | 33 | 1 |
| 16 | 22 76 | 8 | 2 |
| 17 | 18 48 | 39 | 0


this is my biggest problem with Barry Sanders. the stats are from 1995. and if you check out http://www.pro-football-reference.com/games/SandBa00.htm#1995 you'll see that it's NOT JUST this year that this type of pattern shows itself.

how much you want to bet that the weeks he had fewer than 100 yds rushing were on grass.

Sanders was AMAZING on turf. greatest runner EVER on turf WITHOUT question, on grass tho he was mortal at best just ONE of the better runners. no where NEAR as good as on turf.

Blah, you can quote stats all you want to... but it doesn't take a genious to figure out that Barry had incredible moves on turf AND grass... what is your argument that he was better on turf? Is making the hall of fame contingent upon whether you ran well on turf or grass? How come the best runner ever on grass wasn't as good as Barry on turf? Your argument is incredibly weak.

LOL

wtf are you talking about. mb respond to what i posted if you want to claim i have a weak argument.

WHERE did

How come the best runner ever on grass wasn't as good as Barry on turf?

come from??

i stand by what i said and NOTHING you said refutes it.

Barry was the best ever on turf and Not the best ever on grass. i'd take, Sweetness, Jim Brown, OJ Simpson and mb even Tony Dorsett over Sanders strictly on grass. ON turf it's Sanders over ANYONE else.

Nothing refutes it? What? lol... You're basically IMPLYING that it's harder to run on grass than turf... SO if someone is spectacular on GRASS they should be better than the person on TURF. Yet noone you've named on your list is better than Barry on turf, according to you. See the problem now?

No speed. you read WAY too much into other peoples post. i didn't imply ANYTHING of the sort.

Barry could make cuts on turf that NO ONE else could, however not even HE could make those same cuts on grass.

runners like Emmitt smith didn't benefit as much from turf as those extreme stop and go moves just weren't part of their arsenal.

it's kind of interesting tho how hard you are taking this criticism of sanders tho.

I still don't see where you're coming with the assumption that he couldn't cut better than anyone else on grass and was only "GOOD". It's also amazing that you still haven't backed up your arguments with career stats on grass vs turf yet you feel inclined to say that backs such as T.Dorsett and OJ were better than Barry on grass. Last but not least, you still haven't answered how it was possible that Barry racked up 152 yards in 20 rushes(7.6avg) on grass against the Super Bowl champs (GB who had a nasty defense that year) and 175 in 28 rushes(6.25avg) against SF who made the playoffs as well (1996). If you want, I'll do the legwork and find the stats for you.

How hard I'm taking the criticism? lol, I just don't like when people try to asset their opinions when they don't supplement it with factual information.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
| 1 | 21 108 | 6 | 0 |
| 2 | 13 35 | 60 | 0 |
| 3 | 24 147 | 36 | 1 |
| 4 | 17 24 | 18 | 0 |
| 6 | 18 157 | 27 | 3 |
| 7 | 18 124 | 0 | 0 |
| 8 | 20 76 | 4 | 0 |
| 9 | 22 167 | 31 | 0 |
| 10 | 12 44 | 23 | 0 |
| 11 | 19 92 | 14 | 1 |
| 12 | 24 120 | 6 | 2 |
| 13 | 24 138 | 0 | 1 |
| 14 | 23 90 | 93 | 1 |
| 15 | 19 54 | 33 | 1 |
| 16 | 22 76 | 8 | 2 |
| 17 | 18 48 | 39 | 0


this is my biggest problem with Barry Sanders. the stats are from 1995. and if you check out http://www.pro-football-reference.com/games/SandBa00.htm#1995 you'll see that it's NOT JUST this year that this type of pattern shows itself.

how much you want to bet that the weeks he had fewer than 100 yds rushing were on grass.

Sanders was AMAZING on turf. greatest runner EVER on turf WITHOUT question, on grass tho he was mortal at best just ONE of the better runners. no where NEAR as good as on turf.

Blah, you can quote stats all you want to... but it doesn't take a genious to figure out that Barry had incredible moves on turf AND grass... what is your argument that he was better on turf? Is making the hall of fame contingent upon whether you ran well on turf or grass? How come the best runner ever on grass wasn't as good as Barry on turf? Your argument is incredibly weak.

LOL

wtf are you talking about. mb respond to what i posted if you want to claim i have a weak argument.

WHERE did

How come the best runner ever on grass wasn't as good as Barry on turf?

come from??

i stand by what i said and NOTHING you said refutes it.

Barry was the best ever on turf and Not the best ever on grass. i'd take, Sweetness, Jim Brown, OJ Simpson and mb even Tony Dorsett over Sanders strictly on grass. ON turf it's Sanders over ANYONE else.

Nothing refutes it? What? lol... You're basically IMPLYING that it's harder to run on grass than turf... SO if someone is spectacular on GRASS they should be better than the person on TURF. Yet noone you've named on your list is better than Barry on turf, according to you. See the problem now?

No speed. you read WAY too much into other peoples post. i didn't imply ANYTHING of the sort.

Barry could make cuts on turf that NO ONE else could, however not even HE could make those same cuts on grass.

runners like Emmitt smith didn't benefit as much from turf as those extreme stop and go moves just weren't part of their arsenal.

it's kind of interesting tho how hard you are taking this criticism of sanders tho.

I still don't see where you're coming with the assumption that he couldn't cut better than anyone else on grass and was only "GOOD". It's also amazing that you still haven't backed up your arguments with career stats on grass vs turf yet you feel inclined to say that backs such as T.Dorsett and OJ were better than Barry on grass. Last but not least, you still haven't answered how it was possible that Barry racked up 152 yards in 20 rushes(7.6avg) on grass against the Super Bowl champs (GB who had a nasty defense that year) and 175 in 28 rushes(6.25avg) against SF who made the playoffs as well (1996). If you want, I'll do the legwork and find the stats for you.

How hard I'm taking the criticism? lol, I just don't like when people try to asset their opinions when they don't supplement it with factual information.

interesting use of the word asset.

and as anyone that really is interested in stats will note, 2 examples does not statistical evidence make. for example, in 1997 sanders had a total of 53 yds COMBINED against Atlanta and TB, both of which play on grass. so that easily counters your 2 examples.

as to why i haven't posted stats, to be honest, i haven't found them yet.


edit, those two games i mentioned were in detroit, bad example.

 

[wyvrn]

Originally posted by: royaldank
Barry is a loser. I'm glad Detroit stood by their principles and told him see ya. The man was under contract. Too bad he felt like crying for a couple season rather than actually playing.

Agree. He wasn't a man to honor his contract, so Detroit shouldn't help him out at all.

 

[PlatinumGold]

OK speed, you want stats here are some stats.

in 27 games on grass for the seasons of '95, '96, '97, '98 (only chose those years because those are the only years i could find broken down by game) sanders averaged 98 yds per game.
in those 27 games he had 7 games of less than 60 yds

in the 37 games played on turf during the same period he averaged 108 yds per game
in those 37 games he only had 8 games of less than 60 yds.

you can test for statistical significance if you want to, i'm willing to wager that the sample size is mb too small, but there was a difference between sanders on turf and on grass.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
| 1 | 21 108 | 6 | 0 |
| 2 | 13 35 | 60 | 0 |
| 3 | 24 147 | 36 | 1 |
| 4 | 17 24 | 18 | 0 |
| 6 | 18 157 | 27 | 3 |
| 7 | 18 124 | 0 | 0 |
| 8 | 20 76 | 4 | 0 |
| 9 | 22 167 | 31 | 0 |
| 10 | 12 44 | 23 | 0 |
| 11 | 19 92 | 14 | 1 |
| 12 | 24 120 | 6 | 2 |
| 13 | 24 138 | 0 | 1 |
| 14 | 23 90 | 93 | 1 |
| 15 | 19 54 | 33 | 1 |
| 16 | 22 76 | 8 | 2 |
| 17 | 18 48 | 39 | 0


this is my biggest problem with Barry Sanders. the stats are from 1995. and if you check out http://www.pro-football-reference.com/games/SandBa00.htm#1995 you'll see that it's NOT JUST this year that this type of pattern shows itself.

how much you want to bet that the weeks he had fewer than 100 yds rushing were on grass.

Sanders was AMAZING on turf. greatest runner EVER on turf WITHOUT question, on grass tho he was mortal at best just ONE of the better runners. no where NEAR as good as on turf.

Blah, you can quote stats all you want to... but it doesn't take a genious to figure out that Barry had incredible moves on turf AND grass... what is your argument that he was better on turf? Is making the hall of fame contingent upon whether you ran well on turf or grass? How come the best runner ever on grass wasn't as good as Barry on turf? Your argument is incredibly weak.

LOL

wtf are you talking about. mb respond to what i posted if you want to claim i have a weak argument.

WHERE did

How come the best runner ever on grass wasn't as good as Barry on turf?

come from??

i stand by what i said and NOTHING you said refutes it.

Barry was the best ever on turf and Not the best ever on grass. i'd take, Sweetness, Jim Brown, OJ Simpson and mb even Tony Dorsett over Sanders strictly on grass. ON turf it's Sanders over ANYONE else.

Nothing refutes it? What? lol... You're basically IMPLYING that it's harder to run on grass than turf... SO if someone is spectacular on GRASS they should be better than the person on TURF. Yet noone you've named on your list is better than Barry on turf, according to you. See the problem now?

No speed. you read WAY too much into other peoples post. i didn't imply ANYTHING of the sort.

Barry could make cuts on turf that NO ONE else could, however not even HE could make those same cuts on grass.

runners like Emmitt smith didn't benefit as much from turf as those extreme stop and go moves just weren't part of their arsenal.

it's kind of interesting tho how hard you are taking this criticism of sanders tho.

I still don't see where you're coming with the assumption that he couldn't cut better than anyone else on grass and was only "GOOD". It's also amazing that you still haven't backed up your arguments with career stats on grass vs turf yet you feel inclined to say that backs such as T.Dorsett and OJ were better than Barry on grass. Last but not least, you still haven't answered how it was possible that Barry racked up 152 yards in 20 rushes(7.6avg) on grass against the Super Bowl champs (GB who had a nasty defense that year) and 175 in 28 rushes(6.25avg) against SF who made the playoffs as well (1996). If you want, I'll do the legwork and find the stats for you.

How hard I'm taking the criticism? lol, I just don't like when people try to asset their opinions when they don't supplement it with factual information.

interesting use of the word asset.

and as anyone that really is interested in stats will note, 2 examples does not statistical evidence make. for example, in 1997 sanders had a total of 53 yds COMBINED against Atlanta and TB, both of which play on grass. so that easily counters your 2 examples.

as to why i haven't posted stats, to be honest, i haven't found them yet.


edit, those two games i mentioned were in detroit, bad example.

I meant to say assert. My analysis is below this post... (BTW Atlanta plays on turf! lol) and yes those 2 games were in Detroit.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
| 1 | 21 108 | 6 | 0 |
| 2 | 13 35 | 60 | 0 |
| 3 | 24 147 | 36 | 1 |
| 4 | 17 24 | 18 | 0 |
| 6 | 18 157 | 27 | 3 |
| 7 | 18 124 | 0 | 0 |
| 8 | 20 76 | 4 | 0 |
| 9 | 22 167 | 31 | 0 |
| 10 | 12 44 | 23 | 0 |
| 11 | 19 92 | 14 | 1 |
| 12 | 24 120 | 6 | 2 |
| 13 | 24 138 | 0 | 1 |
| 14 | 23 90 | 93 | 1 |
| 15 | 19 54 | 33 | 1 |
| 16 | 22 76 | 8 | 2 |
| 17 | 18 48 | 39 | 0


this is my biggest problem with Barry Sanders. the stats are from 1995. and if you check out http://www.pro-football-reference.com/games/SandBa00.htm#1995 you'll see that it's NOT JUST this year that this type of pattern shows itself.

how much you want to bet that the weeks he had fewer than 100 yds rushing were on grass.

Sanders was AMAZING on turf. greatest runner EVER on turf WITHOUT question, on grass tho he was mortal at best just ONE of the better runners. no where NEAR as good as on turf.

Blah, you can quote stats all you want to... but it doesn't take a genious to figure out that Barry had incredible moves on turf AND grass... what is your argument that he was better on turf? Is making the hall of fame contingent upon whether you ran well on turf or grass? How come the best runner ever on grass wasn't as good as Barry on turf? Your argument is incredibly weak.

LOL

wtf are you talking about. mb respond to what i posted if you want to claim i have a weak argument.

WHERE did

How come the best runner ever on grass wasn't as good as Barry on turf?

come from??

i stand by what i said and NOTHING you said refutes it.

Barry was the best ever on turf and Not the best ever on grass. i'd take, Sweetness, Jim Brown, OJ Simpson and mb even Tony Dorsett over Sanders strictly on grass. ON turf it's Sanders over ANYONE else.

Nothing refutes it? What? lol... You're basically IMPLYING that it's harder to run on grass than turf... SO if someone is spectacular on GRASS they should be better than the person on TURF. Yet noone you've named on your list is better than Barry on turf, according to you. See the problem now?

No speed. you read WAY too much into other peoples post. i didn't imply ANYTHING of the sort.

Barry could make cuts on turf that NO ONE else could, however not even HE could make those same cuts on grass.

runners like Emmitt smith didn't benefit as much from turf as those extreme stop and go moves just weren't part of their arsenal.

it's kind of interesting tho how hard you are taking this criticism of sanders tho.

I still don't see where you're coming with the assumption that he couldn't cut better than anyone else on grass and was only "GOOD". It's also amazing that you still haven't backed up your arguments with career stats on grass vs turf yet you feel inclined to say that backs such as T.Dorsett and OJ were better than Barry on grass. Last but not least, you still haven't answered how it was possible that Barry racked up 152 yards in 20 rushes(7.6avg) on grass against the Super Bowl champs (GB who had a nasty defense that year) and 175 in 28 rushes(6.25avg) against SF who made the playoffs as well (1996). If you want, I'll do the legwork and find the stats for you.

How hard I'm taking the criticism? lol, I just don't like when people try to asset their opinions when they don't supplement it with factual information.

interesting use of the word asset.

and as anyone that really is interested in stats will note, 2 examples does not statistical evidence make. for example, in 1997 sanders had a total of 53 yds COMBINED against Atlanta and TB, both of which play on grass. so that easily counters your 2 examples.

as to why i haven't posted stats, to be honest, i haven't found them yet.


edit, those two games i mentioned were in detroit, bad example.

I meant to say assert. My analysis is below this post... (BTW Atlanta plays on turf! lol) and yes those 2 games were in Detroit.

btw, atlanta USED to play on grass.

 

[PlatinumGold]

i guess you don't remember fulton county stadium. i'm pretty sure sanders played in fulton county stadium and not the new one.

 

[PlatinumGold]

damn, i'm too old. i guess sanders played in georgia dome for the years mentioned.

i'm going to have to change my stats.

 

[PlatinumGold]

stats with some modifications

in 27 games on grass for the seasons of '95, '96, '97, '98 (only chose those years because those are the only years i could find broken down by game) sanders averaged 98 yds per game.
in those 27 games he had 7 games of less than 60 yds
11 games less than 80 yds


in the 37 games played on turf during the same period he averaged 108 yds per game
in those 37 games he only had 8 games of less than 60 yds.
13 games less than 80 yds


OTOH,

Grass greater than 150 yds = 4/27

Turf greater than 150 = 8/37


you can test for statistical significance if you want to, i'm willing to wager that the sample size is mb too small, but there was a difference between sanders on turf and on grass.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
OK speed, you want stats here are some stats.

in 27 games on grass for the seasons of '95, '96, '97, '98 (only chose those years because those are the only years i could find broken down by game) sanders averaged 98 yds per game.
in those 27 games he had 7 games of >60 yds

in the 37 games played on turf during the same period he averaged 108 yds per game
in those 37 games he only had 8 games of > 60 yds.

you can test for statistical significance if you want to, i'm willing to wager that the sample size is mb too small, but there was a difference between sanders on turf and on grass.

You should break it down to yds/carries on grass/turf rather than per game, it makes it more accurate.

Anyways, against GOOD and GREAT teams let's take a look at Barry's stats on grass:

1995
---------------
18-124 against Green Bay who went to playoffs (6.8/carry)
at home against Green Bay - 22-167 (7.5/carry)
24-120 against Bears who went 9-7 (5/carry)

1997
---------------
23-105 against Green Bay who went to Super Bowl (4.6/carry)
at home against Green Bay - 28-139(4.9/carry)
30-137 against Miami who went to playoffs (4.6/carry)

1996
---------------
20-152 against Green Bay who won SB (7.6/carry)
at home against Green Bay - 21-78 (3.7/carry)
28-175 against San Fran who went to playoffs (6.2/carry)

1998
---------------
17-70 against Green Bay who went to playoffs (4.1/carry)
at home against Green Bay 24-155 (6.4/carry)
18-103 against Jacksonville who went to playoffs (5.7/carry)

Total stats on grass against playoff teams from 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998*
*I put 1995 Bears in because they went 9-7 and were good enough to make wildcard but didn't
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
178 - 986 = 5.5yds/carry on grass against playoff teams!


Statistically, I think you have been disproven... Taking the GB sample set b/c that's all we have of Barry against a good team on turf and grass, your theory only holds true for 2 of 4 years... 1997 doesn't qualify because 0.3 yards isn't large enough of a difference. Of course I didn't include games against crap defenses, because that doesn't really show an athlete's true skill: it's how you play against the good teams that counts.

Albeit, yes, there were only 8 games on grass against good teams to choose from but I think that's a good enough sample size.

Also, in your stats above, why have you decided that games of 150yards or more is the deciding discriminator/variable? I think games against playoff teams on grass away is a much more accurate statistic than games of 150yards or more...

So what do you think?