Originally posted by backontop:Originally posted by Niners99:Originally posted by backontop:Originally posted by Niners99:Originally posted by backontop:Originally posted by Niners99:Originally posted by backontop:Originally posted by Niners99:Originally posted by backontop:Originally posted by Niners99:Originally posted by Owens81Owns:Originally posted by Niners99:
I like how everyone forgot how much of a beast Fred Beasley was for us.
Not even close to the player Rathman was.
oh really? how so.
Rathman
att yards ave lng TD rec yards ave lng TD fmb fmb lost
544 2,020 3.7 35 26 320 2,684 8.4 36 8 3 1
Beasley
att yards ave lng TD rec yards ave lng TD fmb fmb lost
183 610 3.3 44 8 133 1,017 7.6 34 5 3 3
lol offensive stats? offensive stats mean nothing. FB's block. Beasley was hardly ever handed the ball. why? because he was an all-pro run blocker. in his prime he was the strongest, meanest, toughest run blocker in the NFL. i remember so many replays of him just lighting guys up clearing lanes.
you act like Rathman was some kind of chump when it came to blocking. Sorry but Rathman>>>>the rest. go watch some old tape and learn wtf you're talking about because you sir are confused.
when did i say Rathman was a chump? you guys pay way too much attention to offensive stats. William Floyd is getting more votes than Beasley, which is hilarious. Rathman in his prime was never considered all-pro.
What is hilarious is you saying that Beasley is better than Rathman. Floyd gained the popularity of the fans(trust me I know, he is one of my favorite players). Nobody is disregarding what Beasley did for us. Beastly was the man but he was not better than Rathman.
based on what though? throw offensive stats away. the position of FB is a blocking position. if your argument is Rathman was a better offensive player than Beasley, i agree. but as a FB, which is a blocking specialist, Beasley was better. at no point in Rathman's career was he considered all-pro caliber. Beasley was the best FB in the NFL for a stretch of time.
every time i explain that, the only counter is "dude he wasnt better than Rathman". based on what. Beasley was a pro bowler, and all-pro, and was widely considered the best at what he did for a time. Rathman cant say that.
sorry but the FB position in the WCO is not just about blocking. You have to be a complete back to be a FB in the WCO. I can do the same thing you are as well. Get rid of the though of blocking because I want to play your (bend things to go my way game, Even though Rathman was a solid blocker.) Now who is better still? Ohhhh it's Rathman!!! No matter what way you bend or twist it Rathman will always come out on top. To quote the great Mike Singletary "Sorry but you PHail!"
hm, yeah not so much. you still failed to provide a reason why Rathman was better. Beasley was a 2 time all-pro. Rathman wasnt. Beasley was a top 2-3 FB for several years. Rathman wasnt.
Rathman had a better full overall career, but from about 2000-2003 Fred Beasley was the best weve had in a long time. shame that nobody remembers that.
I've already provided a reason why Rathman was better. You chose to ignore it.
at 1:30 amazing have that game on tape Jerry's 100th td
at 2:20 I was at that game
Rathman was better
