OT: "Numbers Game " article in today's Detroit News
Isn't there someone, anyone more deserving of #79 then that steroid-enhanced freak Mandarich?
Mike Hart, Barry Sanders or Mark Fidrych?
Also to the OP...got a link for the story?
is the word/
Looks like a terrible gallery split into two parts though.
take incredible amounts of U of M homerism to make an argument for Hart over Barry. Barry is considered by many the greatest RB of all time. Mike Hart was never even the best active college running back. No contest.
I love Mike Hart but ... I mean, it's Barry Sanders.
Hart isn't even the best UM RB of the past 20 years.(Wheatley is$")
I'd take Bird over Sanders just from the amazing impact he had on the game when he was in top form. But Sanders probably wins from a long term impact perspective.
with every single one except 20. I think that one is debatable. I think Barry WINS the debate, but its worthy of discussion. Mike Hart? Certainly he deserves honorable mention...
Woodson taking #2 would be much more likely than Hart taking #20. We're talking the only player to ever win the Heisman while mainly playing defense, who also has a national title. I'm a little too young to know much of anything about Gehringer...but I'm not too young to know how dominant Barry was.
So if you're talking about complaints with that list, I wouldn't start it with Hart.
No way. Barry Sanders as a college back was better than Hart, and he CERTAINLY runs away with it (pun intended) for the #20 vote. As much as I love Hart, it's not even close, and I'd bet Mike Hart himself would say the same.
well hey, that's why I brought it up...to discuss. Like I said, I think Hart deserves attention, but I don't disagree that Barry wins the argument. But the guy's article didn't even have Mike as an honorable mention...which is why I brought up the topic in the first place. I thought this would be the forum to do so, but...off topic apparently.
you should have said that Mike Hart deserves honorable mention, but instead you said you disagreed with Barry Sanders at #20 as the choice. I agree that Hart is an honorable mention, but at a distant 3rd or so.
I said: "I think that one is debatable. I think Barry WINS the debate, but its worthy of discussion."
I honestly was just trying to create a dialogue. I disagree that Mike Hart didn't get an honorable mention.
just talking...discussion. I'm not so thin skinned that I can't take being told I'm wrong...
How can you not have #6 on your list of "not debatable"?
There is Al Kaline, and .... well, Al Kaline!
#9 Gordie Howe
#37 Doak Walker
There were a couple others that didn't have a whole lot of room for debate, but maybe there is some. I haven't looked at the second half of the list, but I thought those were 3 glaring ommissions.
I love how they listed Sheed at 36, but used a picture with him wearing 30...
as much as I loved mike hart, he was never the best rb in college any single year.
barry is considered by many as the best ever. please.
There are only two in the 0-49 range that I think they got wrong:
* Dave Bing over Desmond Howard at #21,
* Kirk Gibson over Willie Horton at #23.
Some other numbers might be arguable, but #21 is horribly incorrect, and not even close, while their pick for #23 is pretty silly as well. It fits in with the overall Spartan bias there, of course (7 Spartans and 3 Wolverines--Carter, Gehringer, Rice--made the 0-49 list).
You know you're thin at a number when you list Brandon Inge as an honorable mention...
So many problems with this list that I can't even list them all, but these really stuck out:
- Sheed wearing #36, but photo has #30 jersey
- Grant Hill not an honorable mention for 33?
- Bruce Rondon making the list as a rookie when he hasn't done anything yet? I can't think of another 43 though, but they excluded other numbers...
- Jason Grilli?!? I know he's better now, but he was awful as a Tiger
Grant Long wore #43. Local guy who had a good career at EMU and a stint with the Pistons. He played in the league for over a decade. Certainly more accomplished than Rondon at this point.
Is the criteria simply "best player"? If so. I guess Zetterberg over Laimbeer makes sense. Laimbeer did bring some intangibles to the court, though. I'm not so sure I wouldn't have to go with Laimbeer.
And, yes, I know he played for ND.