noname2200 said:
He was a running back with the Raiders who was a top-tier athlete in two sports, baseball and football. He much preferred baseball, though (he was a likely Hall of Famer before his injury). He was the first overall pick, but since that team refused to let him play baseball he never signed with them, and only played in the NFL after Al Davis decided to let him finish each baseball season before joining the Raiders squad. Effectively, this meant he only played about half the season, and was by necessity the team's second running back behind Marcus Allen. He still got paid like a full-time starting RB, though, which was fair since he outperformed several of them. Dude was wicked fast, and unfairly powerful to boot. Of course, he thought of football as a mere hobby. It's not a perfect comparison, but think of him as Adrian Peterson if AP only started thinking about football in November, and openly told everyone he was only here because his real job is seasonal. As for why we're mentioning him, it's a combination of someone placing him on the wrong California team, and it being a very slow news day. |
No, he was on the white sox and I always liked him and was the only running back to cross my mind that played around that era. I knew joe montana and jerry rice were just a dominate combination because I was in SF when they were playing (I was like 6). If I were older and followed football more it wouldn't have mattered what team I got my players from (which I illustrated in the last post). I was just trying to make a point that if's were a valid argument then we can say if teams had players that were dominate years ago were playing today in their prime they would win. I made it Joe, Jerry, and Bo because it's obvious that will never happen since players can't de-age to their prime (and repair career ending injuries) which makes my comments ridiculous, but my second example (though extremely unlikey) could potentially happen.
