From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: STERLING SHARPE IS BETTER THAN JERRY RICE.
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:18:45 GMT

In article <c1gg03Cwc2AJ00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> ronnie@uts.amdahl.com (Ronnie Townsend) writes:
>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 ....

So, how many games did Kemp and Cavanough play?

>>                                  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'? 

?? Right here in SF, reading the Chronicle. 

>>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! 

Uh, how many did Rice win? It sure looked like Montana did most of the 
offensive damage. And of course, Clark was a great receiver before anyone
ever heard of Rice.

>>>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? 

Excuse me, but you called the guy and idiot: he is 2-2 against the 9ers.

>>>>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 

That awsome Philly "D" had been ripped for 4 weeks in a row (once by Green
Bay). Did you forget that? And Phoenix didn't seem to have a decent defense
as of this week: they were ranked 20th in the league in points allowed AFTER
getting a shutout against the Giants. 

>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? 

Nope. Taylor was missing and Rice's numbers went down. All the team's offense
went down a bit when Watters went down as well. But then, this seems to 
support the contention that "more offensive weapons help each other".

>>>>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? 

I said his numbers dropped, and they did. So, if having so many weapons
hurts Rice's numbers, please explain why the 49ers have 3 of the top 10 scorers.

>>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. 

Too bad "Murky" doesn't have these stats, apparantly.

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - Oh come on! You didn't think I was serious, did you?
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro