Sean Taylor or Ed Reed

[skin4Life28]

I love watching Reed, Taylor, Williams, and Dawkins play.These guys are the elite group in the NFL. They all play at 100 mph. Right now though its Reed, Dawkins, then Taylor. Those three guys have it all. Williams is very strong in the run game, but pass defense is so-so. Taylor if he can stay focused could pass Reed, but he has to want it. All these guys though are beasts and will be for years to come.

[skinsguy]

Taylor appears to be a player hovering over a thin line between being the greatest safety football has ever seen and being a player that "could have been" the greatest safety football has ever seen. I believe it all depends on how he conducts himself outside of football. Consider Dexter Manley....I thought this guy could have been a HOF guy, but his off field troubles kept him from being the best he could have been in my opinion.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Argh. I REALLY DO think it would be a good idea to put the disclaimer that JoeCrisp had in his info about Hall of Famers.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Damn, if we only had Bluto as fullback.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Some would even give their 3rd leg...

[sportscurmudgeon]

Ramseyfan:


I have said it before - let me say it again. I do NOT hate Sean Taylor even a little bit.

Someone asked - presumably seriously - if he was better than Ed Reed - who is a bonafide All-Pro and someone who has been a defensive leader for a team that has been a Super Bowl Champ. Given a couple more seasons on the level he has been on, Ed Reed is a serious candidate for the Hall of Fame.

Now we have Sean Taylor whose career thusfar on the field allows you to compare his "passes defensed" stats with those of Shawn Springs. Pardon me while I yawn for a moment. And that makes my point completely.

Sean Taylor has prodigious physical talent to play NFL football. So far he has had ONE season that was interesting because of his big hits and "passes defensed" and disappointing because of his game-losing plays. But it was ONE season on a LOSING team and somehow that leads some folks to pose serious questions about if he is better than Ed Reed - - or even Brian Dawkins who is not as good as Ed Reed but as of June 2005 is better than Sean Taylor. That's where I get off the train. Sorry. Maybe Taylor will be better than both of those guys some day, but that day is way into the future and that day is not guaranteed to be with the Washington Redskins. So I prefer not to fantasize about them.

I do NOT hate Sean Taylor but I am not going to say he is a great football player until he shows greatness on the field. And by the way, defensing more passes than Shawn Springs is not a measure of greatness...

The analogy to Monk and Gardner is perfectly appropriate. Monk excelled on the field for a long time and won championships. Gardner is a physical specimen who would put Monk to shame in a combine workout setting and who makes some highlight reel catches. Now, which one is the better NFL football player?

No one here would seriously make that comparison - maybe because it demeans Art Monk who was a Redskin. Well, even though Ed Reed is not a Redskin, it is inappropriate at the moment to compare him and his acheivements to Sean Taylor and Taylor's achievements. The analogy holds water...

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

Ramseyfan:

I have said it before - let me say it again. I do NOT hate Sean Taylor even a little bit.

Someone asked - presumably seriously - if he was better than Ed Reed - who is a bonafide All-Pro and someone who has been a defensive leader for a team that has been a Super Bowl Champ. Given a couple more seasons on the level he has been on, Ed Reed is a serious candidate for the Hall of Fame.

Ed Reed is a stud and is many steps ahead of Taylor, but Reed has been in the league for several years and didn't really "come on" until last season. Taylor, as you point out, has been in for a total of 13 starts.

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

Now we have Sean Taylor whose career thusfar on the field allows you to compare his "passes defensed" stats with those of Shawn Springs. Pardon me while I yawn for a moment. And that makes my point completely.

Okay, so you don't like PDs. Do you feel the same way about FFs and INTs?You coveniently left out my point that he had 6 turnovers. Or do turnovers not excite you?

In his rookie season Reed had:
85 tackles, 1 sack, 5 INTs, 0 FFs, and 7 passes defensed.

In 3 fewer starts (nearly 1/4 of a season) Taylor had:
76 tackles, 1 sack, 4 INTs, 2 FFs, and 9 passes defensed.

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

The analogy to Monk and Gardner is perfectly appropriate. Monk excelled on the field for a long time and won championships. Gardner is a physical specimen who would put Monk to shame in a combine workout setting and who makes some highlight reel catches. Now, which one is the better NFL football player?

No one here would seriously make that comparison - maybe because it demeans Art Monk who was a Redskin. Well, even though Ed Reed is not a Redskin, it is inappropriate at the moment to compare him and his acheivements to Sean Taylor and Taylor's achievements. The analogy holds water...

I'm sorry, but Gardner HAS NEVER possessed the athletic ability that ST does. Gardner was picked in the middle of the first round whereas ST was a top 5 pick despite the fact that Taylor plays safety and Gardner plays wideout. The comparison between Gardner-Monk and Taylor-Reed is dead wrong.

[monk81]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

Ramseyfan:


I have said it before - let me say it again. I do NOT hate Sean Taylor even a little bit.

Someone asked - presumably seriously - if he was better than Ed Reed - who is a bonafide All-Pro and someone who has been a defensive leader for a team that has been a Super Bowl Champ. Given a couple more seasons on the level he has been on, Ed Reed is a serious candidate for the Hall of Fame.

Now we have Sean Taylor whose career thusfar on the field allows you to compare his "passes defensed" stats with those of Shawn Springs. Pardon me while I yawn for a moment. And that makes my point completely.

Sean Taylor has prodigious physical talent to play NFL football. So far he has had ONE season that was interesting because of his big hits and "passes defensed" and disappointing because of his game-losing plays. But it was ONE season on a LOSING team and somehow that leads some folks to pose serious questions about if he is better than Ed Reed - - or even Brian Dawkins who is not as good as Ed Reed but as of June 2005 is better than Sean Taylor. That's where I get off the train. Sorry. Maybe Taylor will be better than both of those guys some day, but that day is way into the future and that day is not guaranteed to be with the Washington Redskins. So I prefer not to fantasize about them.

I do NOT hate Sean Taylor but I am not going to say he is a great football player until he shows greatness on the field. And by the way, defensing more passes than Shawn Springs is not a measure of greatness...

The analogy to Monk and Gardner is perfectly appropriate. Monk excelled on the field for a long time and won championships. Gardner is a physical specimen who would put Monk to shame in a combine workout setting and who makes some highlight reel catches. Now, which one is the better NFL football player?

No one here would seriously make that comparison - maybe because it demeans Art Monk who was a Redskin. Well, even though Ed Reed is not a Redskin, it is inappropriate at the moment to compare him and his acheivements to Sean Taylor and Taylor's achievements. The analogy holds water...

YEAH ART MONK!!!

[sportscurmudgeon]

Ramseyfan:

No one - not I nor anyone else here - was trying to compare Gardner's athetic skills with Sean Taylors. Only you brought that into the disucssion so let me say that you have discoverd the obvious. Sean Taylor is far more athletic than Rod Gardner. That and four bucks will get you a latte at Starbucks. The analogy goes like this:

Taylor is a stud; he is a better "athlete" than Ed Reed; Reed has accomplished ten miles more on the field than Taylor has; Reed has shown that he is a great player; Taylor has not yet shown that. THEREFORE, comparing the two of them is premature at best and silly at worst.


Gardner is a stud; he is a better "athlete" than Art Monk; MOnk accomplished ten miles more on the field than Gardner has; Mond showed he was a great player; Garnder has not yet shown that. THEREFORE, comparing the two of them would be ridiculous at this point.


Ed Reed didn't come on until last season? I think there are a whole bunch of offensive coordinators in the NFL who might raise an eyebrow at that statement. Reed has continued to get better throughout his career, but he was hardly a stiff in prior years.


I've said this before too. Greatness in a team or a player is usually self-evident. Great teams point to their records and go on about their business; great players - even when stuck on bad teams demonstrate their greatness without fans having to concoct measures for them where they stand out.

Again let me use an analogy. Barry Sanders was a great player; he played on bad teams most of his career. When people talk about Barry Sanders, they don't have to manufacture yardsicks for him to surpass such as "defensed more passes than Shawn Springs". They don't compare his "rookie stats" with other players. They acknowledge his greatness because of everything he accomplished on the field. Same with Walter Payton playing for a whole bunch of sorry-assed Bears' teams. And Dick Butkis and Tommy Nobis and Sonny Jurgensen and Charlie Taylor and Archie Manning and Lem Barney ...

As long as anyone has to resort to convoluted stats to bolster a player's reputation, the chances are that the player isn't anywhere near great - - yet.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

Ramseyfan:

No one - not I nor anyone else here - was trying to compare Gardner's athetic skills with Sean Taylors. Only you brought that into the disucssion so let me say that you have discoverd the obvious. Sean Taylor is far more athletic than Rod Gardner. That and four bucks will get you a latte at Starbucks. The analogy goes like this:

Taylor is a stud; he is a better "athlete" than Ed Reed; Reed has accomplished ten miles more on the field than Taylor has; Reed has shown that he is a great player; Taylor has not yet shown that. THEREFORE, comparing the two of them is premature at best and silly at worst.

Gardner is a stud; he is a better "athlete" than Art Monk; MOnk accomplished ten miles more on the field than Gardner has; Mond showed he was a great player; Garnder has not yet shown that. THEREFORE, comparing the two of them would be ridiculous at this point.

Ed Reed didn't come on until last season? I think there are a whole bunch of offensive coordinators in the NFL who might raise an eyebrow at that statement. Reed has continued to get better throughout his career, but he was hardly a stiff in prior years.

I've said this before too. Greatness in a team or a player is usually self-evident. Great teams point to their records and go on about their business; great players - even when stuck on bad teams demonstrate their greatness without fans having to concoct measures for them where they stand out.

Again let me use an analogy. Barry Sanders was a great player; he played on bad teams most of his career. When people talk about Barry Sanders, they don't have to manufacture yardsicks for him to surpass such as "defensed more passes than Shawn Springs". They don't compare his "rookie stats" with other players. They acknowledge his greatness because of everything he accomplished on the field. Same with Walter Payton playing for a whole bunch of sorry-assed Bears' teams. And Dick Butkis and Tommy Nobis and Sonny Jurgensen and Charlie Taylor and Archie Manning and Lem Barney ...

As long as anyone has to resort to convoluted stats to bolster a player's reputation, the chances are that the player isn't anywhere near great - - yet.

First, okay, I know understand your analogy a bit better and don't have as much beef with it. But, I still think the analogy doesn't exactly work. The comparison of Taylor to Reed is indeed premature (as I've previously noted), but it's by no means silly.

Second, when I said Reed didn't "come on" until "last season," I actually meant the 2003 season. He's been a stud since he entered the league, but it's only been in the past two seasons that he has been considered one of the top 5 players in the league. He wasn't the Ed Reed of 2004 in his rookie season and I wholeheartedly expect Taylor to make similar leaps.

Third, I'm not sure why you've been so insistent on focusing on how I noted that Taylor had more passes defensed than Springs. That was one of many of ST's stats I cited (i.e. Taylor had 6 turnovers as a rookie in fewer starts than Reed).

Fourth, how exactly are Taylor's stats convoluted? They are what they are.
Please don't refer to the passes defensed stat again....again, it was one of several ST stats I cited.

If what you are saying is that comparing Taylor to Reed is premature, as I noted earlier, I can agree with that. But, I suspect (perhaps erroneously) that you don't think Taylor's play is EVER going to match his potential. I disagree with that notion (if that is indeed what you are saying).

[TheMalcolmConnection]

I'm actually going to agree with SC on this one on most of his points. I think he's supporting some claims in the way that only he can.