nostyle126

I think the original point was that Bruce was better at his position than Thurman was at his. Bruce is arguably the best DE ever. Thurman can't claim that he is arguably the best RB ever. Having said that, my 'eyeball test' shows that Thurman was just as good as Emmitt and Barry, but in different ways. Emmitt was a truck that never seemed to get a flat. Barry was the best pure runner of our generation. Neither was as good a receiver as thurman. Thurman laid the path for guys like Faulk and L.T. RBs just weren't that versatile before Thurman came along.

You guys don't seem to appreciate how good Ray Whitney is.

I might be a little slow, but McGee is 75 and Florence is 79. How is Florence better?

I live in charlotte. I know what this guy is and isn't. He's a very good DE who takes plays (if not whole games) off. When he's on he's a force. When he's off he's invisible. He's not worth the price the Bills would have to pay to get him.

Two words: Ray Whitney

it's so hard to ask "who was more important, Kelly or Thomas"...the K-gun was such a well-oiled machine. Reich often stepped in and looked great. Kenneth Davis often stepped in and looked great. I mean, we were without Kelly AND Thurman against Houston and still pulled off the greatest comeback ever...and then the following week did it again without Kelly or Thurman when we beat the Steelers in Pittsburgh, 24-3.

Remember when he got lit up by Darren Sharper of the Packers on a fake punt? I hated Lonnie Johnson.

Billy Shaw?

yeah, I already corrected myself.

You're right, Deacon Jones.

Since you struggled so much to research this and are relying on ESPN, I'll give you just an idea of what I'm talking about. Take Neil Smith. He played for a Chiefs team that always ran a 3-4. You might recall they had Dan Saleamua in the middle playing NT. Derrick Thomas was their Cornelius Bennett. Neil Smith put up some nice numbers as a DE in that 3-4, and the Chiefs NEVER had the offense that we did. Leslie Oneal played as both DE and OLB in the Chargers' 3-4 before they later converted to a 4-3 with Seau taking the MLB role. Reggie White spent his early career in a 4-3 double eagle defense, I grant you that, but he did play in a 3-4 with Green Bay (remember big NT Gilbert Brown) from 1993 to 1998, racking up 68.5 sacks over that span.

Reggie White, Leslie O'neal, and Neil Smith all played in 3-4s at points in their careers. And NONE of them had the offense Bruce had to let them all-out pass rush like Bruce could.

That's kind of irrelevant. DEs in a 3-4 can put up sack stats just fine. If you want to play that game, you could say that he had an advantage over other DEs because 90% of the time his team was playing with the lead, giving him more chances to tee off on the QB than most DEs normally have. Think Dwight Freeney, always getting the opportunity to rush the QB, because Manning and the Colts' offense always give them a lead to play with.

Who'da known trading away a pro-bowl left tackle for chicken scratch would make such a mess. I mean, didn't we all think it was wise to get rid of a solid left tackle and trust the LT spot to a 2nd year 7th round pick with virtually no experience? It was a fool proof idea. Crazy that it hasn't worked...none of us could've known.

Pats at the moment. They won a lot, might've cheated to do so, and have an arrogant coach and QB, not to mention some cheapshot artists...oh, and annoying fans. They are the perfect blend of ingredients for a giant bowl of hate soup. The Cowboys are up there for pure arrogance ("america's team"), even when they're not winning, but right now they are a very average franchise with some likable guys on the field. And let's be real here. None of us mind the cheerleaders. I think San Diego is a dark horse in this conversation because a lot of people don't like Phillip Rivers and his elementary school attitude and therefore like to see him lose.

I so want to believe you're joking and yet nowadays you never know when a post like this is serious.

I believe the only argument against it is that Ed 'too tall' Jones might've had more sacks than Bruce if they had kept sacks as a stat back then.

Fair enough. Yeah, a healthy McGee is a pretty gosh darn good player.

We actually had a decent return man back then named Al Edwards.

We're comparing our current #1 receiver to the 3rd and 4th receivers on that '90s team. That says a lot in and of itself. If you're asking me who I'd want on my team, I'd take Tasker for all he can do. If you're asking me who the better receiver is, it's Evans and by a mile.

I ran into him a while back at a Sears in the Carolina Place Mall. Nice guy.

It's tough to start talking about backups. That '90s team had some good depth. Guys like Glenn Parker, Mitch Frerotte, Mike Lodish, Kenneth Davis, Frank Reich, etc. Solid depth back then.

I think you underestimate McGee. McGee is a top notch CB who could be used as a shut-down corner if he weren't in a cover-2 defense that asks him to play a 10-yard cushion. That's not a knock on Odomes. That's a compliment for McGee. I think McGee would've been our #1 CB if he was on that '90s team. And yes, Odomes had an interception in Superbowl 28 when Bruce got pressure on Aikman and forced a bad pass.

McGee DEFINITELY starts over Jackson, Williams, and Washington. I also think he would've started over Odomes. Schobel is definitely borderline at best. BUT...what would Schobel be like if he had a Bruce Smith across from him and a Cornelius Bennett lined up next to him? I can see Poz over Bailey, but Bentley? Maddox? Patton? I'd say Poz is a better athlete than all of 'em but a touch smaller, making him more prone to injuries.