The Bo Jackson overhype is ridiculous

[daineraider]

10 hours ago, NFLExpert49 said:

Marcus Allen was shot by the time Bo got there. He just hung around forever as a goal line specialist. 

?, Allen was 27 when Bo was a Rookie.  He played 10 more years after that.  They split carries pretty evenly.  

Allen also had over 1000 yds from scrimmage from age 33-36, so no, he didn’t just hang around as a goal line specialist.

[LaserFocus]

20 hours ago, NFLExpert49 said:

Was he a rare athlete? Sure. 

Was he great at any professional sport? Not really.

He was a mediocre professional baseball player and a dangerous but overrated NFL RB. Impressive power/speed ratio, sure. "4.12?" What was Rod Jones, then?

And perhaps the silliest of all is people who actually think that had he not gotten severely injured, he would have been in the discussion as one of the greatest RBs of all-time.

Aside from the fact that he may have been the worst pass catching back to ever lace them up with the pair of bricks attached to his wrists, this is a guy who was already 28 years old at the time of his injury. Before that (and to be fair, since he missed some football games playing baseball), the best he ever averaged in a season was 86.4 rushing yards per game. For a guy who sucked in every other facet of the game, that does not put you in the discussion for greatest RBs in history. Not even close. 

He was a part-time player whose small sample size lets people's imaginations run away with them into unrealistic territory. It's like how Bills fans thought the coaching staff was stupid for not making C.J. Spiller the clear feature guy because he averaged 6 yards per carry one season while splitting carries with Fred Jackson. 

And the reality is, he was likely already about halfway done with his football career as it was. He was a novelty, not a great. 

And what's really irritating is that whenever someone presses people on the ridiculous Bo Jackson "greatness" myth, they are sure to hear a bunch or responses from people who are apparently dead serious - without a hint of tongue-in-cheek - going, "he was the best in Tecmo Bowl." People seem to be honestly believe that proves he was great. It's unreal. 

The Jackson mythology is obnoxious.

I think we saw enough of Jackson at Auburn, and his brief time with the Raiders, to say the Jim Brown comparisons were warranted, had he committed to football. Jackson really didn't have the advantage of conditioning for football, but what we saw on tape was pretty remarkable. Of course, we're speculating, but the skill set was so obvious with the Raiders. Football fans everywhere lost when Jackson was hurt, just like when Greg Cook was injured, and so many others. I think if we had the chance to speak with any defensive player from that era, they would agree about how special Jackson was, even in a small sample size. 

    

[NFLExpert49]

1 hour ago, daineraider said:

?, Allen was 27 when Bo was a Rookie.  He played 10 more years after that.  They split carries pretty evenly.  

Allen also had over 1000 yds from scrimmage from age 33-36, so no, he didn’t just hang around as a goal line specialist.

And he was shot at that point. Everybody's body is different The Raiders started both a shot Eric Dickerson and a shot Roger Craig over him before he left for Kansas City and was platooned there, where he usually came in once the Chiefs got inside the 20. 

Earl Campbell burned out at a similar rate. Some backs get really banged up in short order and they're never the same after only a few years. 

[kingseanjohn]

12 hours ago, THE DUKE said:

Bo averaged 5.4 yards per carry for his career

Barry Sanders averaged 5.0, Walter Payton 4.4, Gale Sayers 5.0, Jim Brown 5.2, Emmitt Smith 4.2, Adrian Peterson 4.8

Bo didn't have the longevity, but with the opportunity he had, he absolutely was up there with the best

 

Can't forget Jamaal Charles' 5.4ypc career average

[TecmoSuperJoe]

20 minutes ago, NFLExpert49 said:

And he was shot at that point. Everybody's body is different The Raiders started both a shot Eric Dickerson and a shot Roger Craig over him before he left for Kansas City and was platooned there, where he usually came in once the Chiefs got inside the 20. 

Earl Campbell burned out at a similar rate. Some backs get really banged up in short order and they're never the same after only a few years. 

Given the Al Davis/Marcus Allen situation in LA, I don't think he's the best example to utilize when making a claim that a runner is shot/essentially done as a starter. Allen did having a semi resurgence with the Chiefs later on, and the numbers he put up for his age were pretty remarkable. Allen probably has better career numbers in his prime if he wasn't shackled in LA. 

Earl Campbell I agree. He was clearly done when he went to the Saints at age 30. Four straight years of 300 plus carries took it's toll. 

[Nabbs4u]

10 hours ago, NFLExpert49 said:

And he was shot at that point. Everybody's body is different The Raiders started both a shot Eric Dickerson and a shot Roger Craig over him before he left for Kansas City and was platooned there, where he usually came in once the Chiefs got inside the 20. 

Earl Campbell burned out at a similar rate. Some backs get really banged up in short order and they're never the same after only a few years. 

Both of those players Started over Allen because of Al Davis's hatred/vendetta towards Allen, not because of his ability or talent. You also keep making assumptions that because the infamous age of 30 was on the horizon ,Bo too would of fallen off a cliff like RB before/after him.

How do you know? Because we've seen dozens of RB's like him with his size, speed and power before in the NFL? Because of the enormous amount of wear and tear he didn't have on his body? The fact is we will never know just how good he could of been for two reasons. 

1. He didn't play full time (16 gm seasons) as the "Bell Cow" RB.

2. Career ending injury

Had Bo Jackson committed to playing in the NFL full time and everything that entails (OTA,TC,etc) and no MLB. He would of been downright scary!

[LaserFocus]

14 hours ago, Malik said:

I mean sure ya. He was just one of Bo's contemporaries who was also one of the greatest college players ever and was a great all-around athlete. Whose to say that even if healthy his career doesn't turn out exactly like Walker's?

I just don't think a healthy Bo Jackson would have faded so quickly as a pure runner like Walker did after his age 26 season. The age 27+ Herschel Walker did not resemble the earlier version, he turned into a more tentative, less physical back. Of course, Walker stuck around by adding value as a receiver and returner, but he more of a complimentary piece for the rest of his NFL career. If I'm not mistaken, Walker could manage only nine 100 yard rushing days the rest of the way after leaving the Cowboys, that's just three more than Jerome Bettis had in just his 2004 season. Walker had a productive career, but far short of a HOF one.  

[DutchFalcon]

On 15-8-2018 at 5:29 AM, NFLExpert49 said:

Was he a rare athlete? Sure. 

Was he great at any professional sport? Not really.

He was a mediocre professional baseball player and a dangerous but overrated NFL RB. Impressive power/speed ratio, sure. "4.12?" What was Rod Jones, then?

And perhaps the silliest of all is people who actually think that had he not gotten severely injured, he would have been in the discussion as one of the greatest RBs of all-time.

Aside from the fact that he may have been the worst pass catching back to ever lace them up with the pair of bricks attached to his wrists, this is a guy who was already 28 years old at the time of his injury. Before that (and to be fair, since he missed some football games playing baseball), the best he ever averaged in a season was 86.4 rushing yards per game. For a guy who sucked in every other facet of the game, that does not put you in the discussion for greatest RBs in history. Not even close. 

He was a part-time player whose small sample size lets people's imaginations run away with them into unrealistic territory. It's like how Bills fans thought the coaching staff was stupid for not making C.J. Spiller the clear feature guy because he averaged 6 yards per carry one season while splitting carries with Fred Jackson. 

And the reality is, he was likely already about halfway done with his football career as it was. He was a novelty, not a great. 

And what's really irritating is that whenever someone presses people on the ridiculous Bo Jackson "greatness" myth, they are sure to hear a bunch or responses from people who are apparently dead serious - without a hint of tongue-in-cheek - going, "he was the best in Tecmo Bowl." People seem to be honestly believe that proves he was great. It's unreal. 

The Jackson mythology is obnoxious.

 You don't know Bo

[MWil23]

Bo Jackson is/was an Urban Legend. The guy was an All Star/Pro Bowler in 2 different sports. He's also the greatest video game athlete of all time.

He's a giant unknown/what could have been story. We were robbed and will truly never know, but we saw glimpses, and for people like me, that was enough to know what/who he was. He was a solid but not elite MLB player and one of the best/most dynamic RBs in the game in the NFL.

[Malik]

5 hours ago, LaserFocus said:

I just don't think a healthy Bo Jackson would have faded so quickly as a pure runner like Walker did after his age 26 season. The age 27+ Herschel Walker did not resemble the earlier version, he turned into a more tentative, less physical back. Of course, Walker stuck around by adding value as a receiver and returner, but he more of a complimentary piece for the rest of his NFL career. If I'm not mistaken, Walker could manage only nine 100 yard rushing days the rest of the way after leaving the Cowboys, that's just three more than Jerome Bettis had in just his 2004 season. Walker had a productive career, but far short of a HOF one.  

to be fair he did spend the first 3 years of his career in the USFL. his career would likely be very different if he spent the entire time in the NFL

[footbull3196]

On 8/14/2018 at 11:14 PM, showtime said:

Yes it does.  He's one of the greatest athletes ever.  Had he not gotten injured, he could have been one of the greatest ever.  Who knows?

Show me the evidence that backs up this statement.  I'm talking facts, not "I saw him do things nobody else could".  I want hard evidence that proves that this guy was well on his way to dominating the league because I sure as hell am not seeing it at this point

[Speedyg]

8 minutes ago, footbull3196 said:

Show me the evidence that backs up this statement.  I'm talking facts, not "I saw him do things nobody else could".  I want hard evidence that proves that this guy was well on his way to dominating the league because I sure as hell am not seeing it at this point

Don't you...kind of have to with the greats?

Stats can be manipulated, not to mention the differences in eras. Comparing stats from one era to another is just as, if not more of a futile exercise than the "eye test"

[footbull3196]

1 minute ago, Speedyg said:

Don't you...kind of have to with the greats?

Stats can be manipulated, not to mention the differences in eras. Comparing stats from one era to another is just as, if not more of a futile exercise than the "eye test"

You do have a point, but I'm saying that in this particular case, people take that eye test (which I will admit works in Bo's favor) and project it to speculate that he would have been a 1500 yard rusher year in and year out.  I don't see his style of play in football as sustainable at all, and this is if he was only playing football too

[Soko]

On 8/15/2018 at 12:14 AM, showtime said:

Yes it does.  He's one of the greatest athletes ever.  Had he not gotten injured, he could have been one of the greatest ever.  Who knows?

I think the issue people are having is two fold. 

The first, is all the if statements. If he was healthy (which virtually no player stays), if he were the bell cow, if he committed to one sport. There are lots of if’s. Similar claims can be made about plenty of players, and the position is unbeatable because you can’t disprove a negative. I could say if Andre Johnson played with elite QBs, in an offense that fit him perfectly, in a division with bad defenses, he’d be the GOAT. It’s an unarguable position in both directions. I don’t have a problem with hypotheticals, as long as we recognize how moot they are when there are that many qualifiers.

Second, being a great athlete doesn’t necessarily translate to GOAT. Randy Moss is probably a great example - he was perhaps the best athlete we’ve ever seen and he had lots of skill to boot (his hands, for example), but even that isn’t enough to edge him out over Rice because Rice was also insanely dedicated to his craft. So was Sanders. I think to just say “well if Bo was as dedicated as he needed to be” is sort of a major hypothetical that wasn’t really close to reality. There are plenty of insanely talented players that, while not on Bo’s level, never came close to what their talent would suggest they’re capable of (Reggie Bush, Darren McFadden, Jon Beason, Vernon Davis, Michael Vick, etc). 

(I know I’m going to get a response saying “Omgz how can u compare Bo to those scrubs”, when that isn’t the point).

I was too young to watch Bo Jackson in the game, but these two points sort of stick out. Simply stating his athleticism as a reason isn’t enough. And using so many qualifiers just dilutes the reality of it all. I don’t have any issues with people having their own opinions about Jackson even if it’s just based on the eye test/his athleticism, but on the whole it’s flimsy.

EDIT: FWIW, I’m not really on either side. I haven’t seen the guy, far be it for me to make some sort of conclusion. But those aspects just seem shallow, to me. If the response is “you needed to see him play to understand”, I’d say that I can’t disprove that negative either and that that statement doesn’t really change the points that were made.

[Speedyg]

2 minutes ago, footbull3196 said:

You do have a point, but I'm saying that in this particular case, people take that eye test (which I will admit works in Bo's favor) and project it to speculate that he would have been a 1500 yard rusher year in and year out.  I don't see his style of play in football as sustainable at all, and this is if he was only playing football too

Well, I can't really comment as I'm not old enough to have seen him play live. But a guy who gets frequently compared to him by those who have seen them both play, is Fred Taylor.

Ironically, he kind of had similar situations that people are saying about Bo (with the exception of the two-sport thing) with the injuries (Taylor had a groin injury that got him a bad rap of being called Fragile Fred), and that Taylor as a young player didn't take care of his body (he tells a story of him partying and getting hammered the night before he rushed for like...230 yards vs. Pittsburgh).

The stats wouldn't back up those who would claim him as one of the best ever running backs, but those who covered him and his peers (Ray Lewis, who played in the same division as Taylor prior to realignment, speaks and spoke highly of him, even bringing him up during his own HoF press stuff) would say he was as rare a running back who had size and power (6'1, 228 lbs), speed (4.28 hand time at pro day, probably a 4.35 guy if they did electronic then), and cuts and jukes like he's 5'10 180 lb.

That's rare combination that even when I watch rookie running backs come into the league today that draft analyst and media says are "generational", I watch them and go "nope, not the athlete/runner that Fred was". The wiggle, agility, and change of direction that he had was ridiculous for his size (some bigger backs have the speed, but can't touch his agility. Like Fournette)

I remember saying that in watching Gurley, Fournette, and even Elliott. Barkley is up there I think. AP is more explosive and more violent, and he does have ridiculous cutting ability, but he looked like...how can i explain it, a 6'1 220 guy when he jukes and cuts? Whereas Taylor looks like...a scat back when he makes those moves.

Anyway, long-winded. But I had to frame what Fred Taylor was to those who watched and played against him...because everyone of those people who think Fred was a one-in-a-generation back (as far as pure runner is concerned)...they all said the same thing:

Bo Jackson was an even bigger freak than him.

So if that's the case, and you extrapolate a longer career, focusing on one-sport, not splitting carries, etc...well, why couldn't he be when Taylor (who even his best supporters believe is an inferior player to Bo) is good enough to be #17 in the rushing list? And at least 2, if not 3 of those above are clearly up there more due to longevity than pure running talent compared to Bo.