Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

101 Veteran
  1. The late Dave Duerson agreed with me. So did Jim Brown. Plenty of actual NFL people agree with me.
  2. The only reason you believe it's false is you're a Steelers homer. In case you weren't aware of it, most people who post on NFL forums are idiots with no understanding of the game; a bunch of box score-regurgitating lowbrows.
  3. Which is precisely the point. His presence in the HOF undermines the whole institution.
  4. I don't have to make him bad because he is bad. And the fact that I pointed that out is upsetting you homers.
  5. All the pathetic attempts at snark in the world aren't going to make Franco Harris a good running back. Sorry to tell you that, mate.
  6. I take on entire forums of clueless imbeciles like you, and you get demolished so badly in every argument that you have nothing left to resort to but name calling. You're a joke.
  7. You told me you were putting me on ignore. But just like the way you deliberately misrepresented what I said in the most ridiculous way, you're a despicable liar. You have no integrity whatsoever.
  8. Oh, I might just have to go through and tally Harris's broken tackles from the games available on Youtube and show how they compare to modern backs. I'm not sure you'll be able to handle that.
  9. You're making up numbers. I'm stating facts that can be verified by watching the games.
  10. Harris never had a game with more touches than he had here (41). I don't think you'll be able to find a less impressive 41 touch game in the history of the league.
  11. I'm not the one claiming I know better than Hue Jackson, an NFL coach, about what makes a good NFL running back. I'm not the one claiming I know better than Dave Duerson - somebody who actually hit Franco Harris - about how soft he was. I'm not the one citing a bunch of dorks who never played the game - sports writers - as the arbiters of my beliefs about football players. 'Tis you who is the insufferably conceited moron.
  12. "Nope. Incorrect. It absolutely does separate one from another. Some hit with speed, some hit with power. Some guys just get to the hole. It's not a 'few incompetent egomaniacs'. Look at a guy like Trent Richardson. Didn't hit the hole. He plodded into it. Even in college. I called him being a bust and people laughed at me. But it's because I saw that he was terrible at hitting the hole." Uh, I already brought up Trent Richardson. He is one of the only examples you can think of. He is the incompetent egomaniac I am talking about. Backs who don't go to the designed hole don't make NFL rosters unless they have extremely rare talent (or, unless they were really high draft picks...and then they're out in a year or two after the coaches lose patience). "Pad level can also lead to elusiveness, being a smaller target to tackle, and speed." Power and elusiveness were already covered when I mentioned, "power" and "elusiveness." You attempted to mention pad level like it's a separate thing with its own value. You told me that being able to break tackles wasn't what made someone a great back, and then brought up "pad level" being what is responsible. Laughable. Again again, Franco Harris was not elusive either. He was a stiff, lumbering, babyfat back. "Protecting the ball was an absolute problem Harris had. No one would deny that. You know who else had issues with it? Tiki Barber. Then he worked on his high and tight technique and no longer had a problem with it." It was a problem he had, yet you tried to mention it in a thread where you Steelers homers are trying to defend Franco Harris. "1 - Ok, so? 2 - He was good enough. 3 - And telegraph what exactly is going on?" It doesn't have to telegraph it because you can't do much worse at RB than Harris. You could put some blocking FB specialist in his spot and he would be as much of a running threat as Harris was. "There were plenty of RB's with terrible hands. But taking era's into account Harris was one of the better ones." Name some. And no he was not. "Haha. That fact that you don't know what this is is why I'm putting your on ignore. No vision isn't a product of a blocking scheme." Well, when you can't argue with what I actually said, why not just completely make something up and argue with that instead? "No vision isn't a product of a blocking scheme." There is not a human alive with an IQ over 50 who could have interpreted my post that way. What I was saying - which you would have actually addressed if you weren't so disingenuous - is that when fans claim a back has "vision," it means they can't come up with a reason why he has good numbers (because they are aware of how unimpressive he looks), and when an unimpressive back has good numbers, it means he is a product of the blocking scheme. Period, the end. He wouldn't put up those numbers without the great blocking, because he lacks the power, elusiveness, etc. to do it without the blockers taking care of everything.
  13. So now you're resorting to just literally making things up? I guess that's what happens when you're out of arguments.
  14. But Harris didn't break tackles nor elude them. That's the point. He got what every other back would have gotten (provided they ran to the designated hole) and absolutely nothing more. There were college RBs who never even made it to the NFL who were better than him. I don't knock Harris for a great line; I knock Harris for never breaking a tackle and seldom juking a guy. I knock Harris for going down to the first guy who was in position to tackle him, over and over again. When your RB gets one-on-one with a DB, you'd like to think the odds are pretty high he's going to either break the tackle or make him miss. Not so with Harris. With Harris, he was going down 95+% of the time. "What makes a good running back isn't this" Yes it is. Also, Hue Jackson agrees with me, as you can see in my signature. "It's hitting the hole." Every running back who makes it to the NFL can do this. That does not separate one RB from another, aside from a few incompetent egomaniacs who are out of the NFL in a year or two. "Pad level." Pad level doesn't mean anything if it doesn't lead to power. And Harris's pad level was awful. "Protecting the ball." This is somewhat of a requirement for getting the ball, a la not being an incompetent who ignores the hole (and doesn't have freakish talent to succeed anyway). But here's the thing: Harris wasn't exactly great about protecting the ball. Even taking era into consideration, 7 seasons of 8 or more fumbles is nothing to write home about in terms of ball security. "Pass Protection." 1. That was far less important in the era in which Harris was in, as it was a running league. 2. Harris was nothing special in that regard. 3. You can get a specialist to do that. "Pass catching." Basically every RB who ever made it to the NFL can catch a dumpoff pass (Bo Jackson would be the only one who genuinely had horrendous hands to where you didn't want to use him as a receiver in the flat). There have been numerous RBs over the years with actual downfield receiving skills, but Harris was not one of them, Immaculate Reception be damned. "Vision." This is the same as, "hitting the hole." When fans try to talk about "vision" to explain how an unimpressive RB is putting up numbers, you know that what they are actually looking at is a product of the blocking scheme. Nobody ever talked about Adrian Peterson's "vision" because his physical talent was obvious.
  15. Power back...hahahahahahahaha. That's like calling Drew Bledsoe a scrambling speed quarterback.