From: ronnie@uts.amdahl.com (Ronnie Townsend)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: STERLING SHARPE IS BETTER THAN JERRY RICE.
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:52:22 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Dec10.165509.4702@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>In article <88=x03hZc1qg00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> ronnie@uts.amdahl.com (Ronnie Townsend) writes:
>>In article <92338.14032132BFPQ3@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> 32BFPQ3@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU (Nathan Owen) writes:
>>>From the stats, we can deduce that Sharpe has many more receptions than
>>>Rice did after 5 years.  In fact Sharpe just broke that record last week.
>>>Rice has more yards and TDS by far.
>
>>What are you talking about? Sharpe has 17 more receptions over his first four 
>>years but 650 fewer yards and 25 yes 25!!! fewer TDs! So Sharpe gets more 
>>opportunities and does less with those opportunities. Hmmm... so how does 
>>that make him a better receiver? 
>
>Doesn't have anything to do with a) Rice has 2 of the best QBs throwing the
>ball to him (Montana and Young), 
And Steve Bono, and Jeff Kemp and Matt Cavanaugh and ....

>                                  while Sharpe has had such greats as Wright,
>Majik, etc., does it? b) the 49er's have always had a pretty good running game.

Hmmm... so where were you the last two years when all that "Midget bashing" 
was going on and the Niner offensive line was being compared to paper mache'? 

>Naw, EVERYONE knows the '9'ers offensive success is all Rices's doing. Just ask
>Jerry. After all, the 49ers never won anything BEFORE he got there (Dwight 
>Clark? Who's he?).

Yeah and exactly how many Super Bowl or league MVP awards did Uncle Dwight win?
Dwight Clark would be the first to tell you he is nowhere near in Jerry Rice's 
class as a receiver! 

>
>>C'mon, NFL teams don't triple-team anybody. They double the good ones.. and 
>>have always doubled Rice .... except for Atlanta.. but we all know Glanville's 
>>an idiot! 
>
>Then why did the "idiot" beat the 49er's twice last year? BTW, Young and Montana
>missed last year's games (Rice didn't) and the '9ers got whipped. Not anything
>to do with good QBs getting the ball to the receivers, right?

Which QB was back in coverage on the "Hail Mary" pass?  Which one of them 
missed a tackle on Deion's kickoff return TD? 

>
>>>It is my opinion that Rice is probably the slightly better reciever, but
>>>we will never really know.  You know Sharpe would have had even better
>>>numbers playing the role of Jerry Rice in San Fransisco.
>
>>I disagree. I think Rice would have HUGE numbers if he was the only threat 
>>on the field just because he'd get the ball more. Out here in the Bay Area,
>>we know all too well that Rice has complained openly of not seeing the ball 
>>enough on more than one occasion. 
>
>Then "out here in the Bay Area" you are not paying attention. Rice's numbers
>went DOWN when Taylor was hurt. And Rice openly complains about a) not being
>appreciated by the fans b) not getting the Disneyland commercial c) Steve
>Young's throwing ability d) the DeBartalo's tightfistedness on his contract.

Just maybe his numbers went down because he played against the Saints twice, 
Philly once and a pretty good Phoenix team (at least on defense) whilest 
Taylor was away. Did you notice that the 49ers offensive production fell during
that span?  Strange how Rice's "falloff" seemed to coincide with the 49er 
realization that they had something special in Ricky Watters... that couldn't
have had anything to do with it ... now could it? Oh and maybe the concussion
games (he went down to two this year and missed most of two games because of 
it) played just a small part? 

>
>>>If Sharpe continues his numbers for another four or five years he will
>>>easily make it into the Hall of fame.
>>
>>Without a doubt. Look for his production to drop off some though as Ronnie 
>>Lewis emerges on the other side. Also, give the Packers a decent running 
>>attack and again.. down go Sterling's numbers... up go the team. 
>
>Hmm. Then why do the 49ers have 3 of the top 10 NFC scorers (non-kickers)? 
>Watters, Rathman, and Rice don't seem to be suffering at all.

But wait... you just said he suffered mightily when Taylor went down! He is 
having a below average year for him... but the team is kicking ass. What's 
the problem? 
>
>Ya know, all this info IS in the SF Chronicle, so I don't see how you're 
>missing it.

Don't read the chronicle. I prefer the "Murky News".. don't really like the
format of the Chron's sports page. 


-- 
Ronnie
-------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not cynical... I just don't believe in anything....


Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro