Greatest Team in VA History.....
- Thread starter GatorBait1988
- Start date
You are completely missing my point. I don't consider him a hero, my hero is my 4 year old God daughter who had a terminal disease that was supposed to live to be 2, she fought for 4.5 years. But I believe in God and I believe he loves us all equally, so I don't consider anyone scum. I chose to look at them as terrible acts. You would be hard pressed to find someone who loves animals more than I, and I can forgive. Rapists, murderers, women beaters are all incredibly horrific things, but if they ask for forgiveness then they will be forgiven. And that's is how I feel. And I certainly can't and won't judge someone I don't know, even if there is information I know about them
While I agree that's a great example of a deadbeat, I'd certainly say a serial killer or serial rapist would certainly be a much lower life form.
The original question was who was the most accomplished NFL player from VA. I'll give you Bruce Smith and Lawrence Taylor, maybe even Heath Miller, but you're saying the rest of those you named are more accomplished than hall of famer Bill Dudley? I mean.. how many seasons did David Wilson play for the Giants? 2? 3 tops?
My point wasn't that David had a better career than him, my point was they were all better players than he was. Let's be real. The guy played against a bunch of slow pokes. If you wanna call that great then that's your prerogative. Put a guy like David Wilson (4.3 40 speed) in a uniform back then and it's no telling what kind of stats he'd have. There may have been fast players then but compared to now??? LOL!! It's lineman now that are faster than skill players back then. There were waaaay better athletes back then that couldn't even play in the NFL because of discrimination.
Last edited:
Sorry about your God Daughter, she must have been one tough little lady.
Not sure how I missed LT, but add him to my list, I am not vouching for anybody's personality or moral values, the guy just asked who from VA had stellar NFL careers. Those were the ones that came to my mind.
John 8:7New International Version (NIV)
7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”
John 8:7New International Version (NIV)
7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”
Facts homie. The "all time greats" even says the game is much faster, guys are much bigger and stronger in today's game. I mean c'mon. We have 6'6 285 defensive lineman running 4.7 40s now. If he played back in the 70s and 80s then yeah you'd have a legend, but a guy that played against weanie dawgs, nahhhhh.
Real shame you have a lack of knowledge when it comes to athletes like the Bullett.
Doesn't make or break me my man. Like I said, I'm sure he was good in that time period. Doesn't make me any less knowledgeable. I get he played for UVA, Steelers, served in WWII which was a great feat.
All this argument is about is a different time period and different play of football. Not many people from the old times that would measure up in these days, except like a Jim Brown. I am certainly no all time great, but I would have been the best athlete around back in the day, doesn't make me a better football player or someone that should have been viewed that way. I just look at it as different eras.
You are correct my friend. Though it's a silly debate, I appreciate the debate. No ill will intended.
No doubt debating players from different eras is tough. My point is a guy like Bullett that wins the Maxwell Award as the best player in College Football, plays his way into the NFL Hall of Fame, has to be considered one of the all time best from Virginia. Can you imagine a guy like this if he had the same training and opportunities that players of the last 20 years have had. The best player of his day would certainly still be one of the best players of today with the same opportunities. Plus this guy is a hero that kids could look up too, great athlete that served his country in WWII where he became a pilot and flew missions for our great country and then returned to play at a high level. He then served 4 terms in the Virginia House of Delegates. If you are looking for a real hero here he is....unlike the Vicks of the world.
While I agree with you, there is no way someone should be told who their hero should be. Not one person on here would know my goddaughter but she is mine for the reasons above. Or a pro athlete now, LeBron is supposed to be and I don't agree
I'm not telling anyone who their hero should be....just pointing out the ones it shouldn't be.
That is the same thing haha. You don't know anyones back story, or their life, maybe someone has some reason to feel someone is their hero that you can't see. Besides it's THEIR hero, you don't have to agree. Maybe Wilt Chamberlain is a lot of peoples hero, doesn't mean they want to sleep with 10,000 women
LOL....can't say you're not a smart one. Who's got the energy for 10,000 women....1 wife is plenty.
Lots of interesting discussion on the topics raised and perspective. In my opinion, the debates across eras are difficult at best in determining accomplishments as the games change both with respect to the physical make up of the athletes, the rules and other factors(travel, equipment, etc.). If physical is your primary criteria bigger, faster, stronger is generally going to win, however, the debate gets murkier if the criteria is performance relative to the competitors of the time. As far as the Vick debate goes the acts he committed were heinous. He has paid his debt to society as prescribed by the court of law and went above and beyond in settling his financial affairs. Furthermore, by all accounts he continues to exhibit all the traits of a rehabilitated man intent on doing right to offset his past wrongs and, more importantly, to possibly prevent others from making bad choices. Last I checked the list of perfect beings was pretty short and we all have been given the undeserved/unearned opportunity of grace, forgiveness and second chances. It's not a real good look to throw stones from a glass house and we all live in glass houses of one form or another and those who cannot recognize that need the most help of all.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder so there really is not wrong answer when it comes to opinions and the better answer may only be determined if criteria are sufficiently narrowed to generate an objectively verifiable comparison. Cutting across eras, cutting across size classifications, the position played, etc., etc. all introduce variables upon which the debate can turn. Is a lower classification athlete's(old single A now D-1, D-2) high school career comparable to an upper class(old AAA now D-5, D-6)? Is a lineman/defender who essentially takes away an entire side of the field having a better career than a running back? All have been in the debate about determining MVP's, best teams, etc. for years.
As far as players go many mentioned here certainly deserve to be in the discussion. One thing and one other player not mentioned in this discussion is national player of the year honors. I believe Ronald Curry and Terry Kirby have been the only Virginia winners. As far as teams go you again get the classification debate although I believe it can be pretty successfully argued there is a significant difference in classifications/competition. Individual players that are good in lower classifications will be competitive moving up with some debate as to whether their effectiveness might not be as significant. Guys like Vic Hall and Thomas Jones would have still been stars at the highest levels. In my opinion, the same transferability does not apply to teams as a whole due to both quality and quantity of depth issues which over the course of a full game would have a significant effect. The teams already mentioned Curry's Crabbers, the Phoebus teams in that string of championship as well as a few others all enter the debate and old timers can go back through the former years and name teams such as T.C. Williams(1971), GW Danville(1982), etc., etc., that can fall in the debate. It's all good and great fun to debate in the offseason and it is much less stressful if people enjoy the debate instead of actually worry about being right.
As far as players go many mentioned here certainly deserve to be in the discussion. One thing and one other player not mentioned in this discussion is national player of the year honors. I believe Ronald Curry and Terry Kirby have been the only Virginia winners. As far as teams go you again get the classification debate although I believe it can be pretty successfully argued there is a significant difference in classifications/competition. Individual players that are good in lower classifications will be competitive moving up with some debate as to whether their effectiveness might not be as significant. Guys like Vic Hall and Thomas Jones would have still been stars at the highest levels. In my opinion, the same transferability does not apply to teams as a whole due to both quality and quantity of depth issues which over the course of a full game would have a significant effect. The teams already mentioned Curry's Crabbers, the Phoebus teams in that string of championship as well as a few others all enter the debate and old timers can go back through the former years and name teams such as T.C. Williams(1971), GW Danville(1982), etc., etc., that can fall in the debate. It's all good and great fun to debate in the offseason and it is much less stressful if people enjoy the debate instead of actually worry about being right.
BEST TEAM is 1982 GW Danville and it's not even close!
As I've said I saw both multiple times and Hall was a better high school football player period
You are a Powell Valley guy and of course you are going to defend your own but face it there was someone better than Thomas Jones in high school...as much as it hurts
Couldn't that be said about people from every area who say "their" guy. It is simply someone's opinion. Just because you are someone else doesn't agree doesn't make either right or wrong.
I have an idea. It may show why this is an unwinnable argument no matter what your view is. Name your top player at each position in NFL history. That would be even harder because of how even the competition is because even though there are guys who we all think are terrible NFL players, they are still the best of the best and thus competition is closer.
Another thing to think about is that some of the better teams we have had over the years didn't have these superior players on their teams, ones that would go on to be great college and/or pro careers, they just played so well as a team that they beat teams with the high recruits.
Or even further, since older players have been discussed here with the difference in athleticism as the years have gone on, how would these players translate in different eras.
There is a lot to think about and there is certainly nothing wrong with having your opinion and having pride in your hometown guy. The thing I think does go wrong is saying my guy is better than yours. Everyone has their own opinion, and that is what makes us unique. And saying hands down better, not even close, etc just takes it over the top for me.
And all these talks about stats and the would be stats and which stats matter and such. I'm sure this may be merging threads so I am sorry for that, but when all state stuff was brought up and stats were brought up about being all that should matter. I strongly disagree with that. I am sure there are players that are really deserving on teams that didn't win much, but stats are deceptive. IF a player from the final 2 teams this year (Appomattox and Richlands) put up noteworthy stats would seem more impressive than someone put up more stats from a team that didn't win as much because the final 2 probably didn't play in at least 1/3 of the snaps, while some others played the entire game. There is also the case of having more players on a team and it being spread around, which equals less stats but maybe not being a lesser player. There HAS to be something to be said for winning as this is a team sport. Just like stats, this shouldn't be the end all be all for it, but I think there are several factors. My final factor for it is their impact on the game. Lets use a CB for example. If a team rarely throws a corners way because of how good he is, that means he had a great impact on the game, and when they do throw his way he gets PBU and INT, well he may not have the gaudy stats of others, but higher percentage for his opportunities.
I get some will not agree with how I feel on these things, and that is fine, but wanted to point it out so you guys understand where I am coming from on these issues
Another thing to think about is that some of the better teams we have had over the years didn't have these superior players on their teams, ones that would go on to be great college and/or pro careers, they just played so well as a team that they beat teams with the high recruits.
Or even further, since older players have been discussed here with the difference in athleticism as the years have gone on, how would these players translate in different eras.
There is a lot to think about and there is certainly nothing wrong with having your opinion and having pride in your hometown guy. The thing I think does go wrong is saying my guy is better than yours. Everyone has their own opinion, and that is what makes us unique. And saying hands down better, not even close, etc just takes it over the top for me.
And all these talks about stats and the would be stats and which stats matter and such. I'm sure this may be merging threads so I am sorry for that, but when all state stuff was brought up and stats were brought up about being all that should matter. I strongly disagree with that. I am sure there are players that are really deserving on teams that didn't win much, but stats are deceptive. IF a player from the final 2 teams this year (Appomattox and Richlands) put up noteworthy stats would seem more impressive than someone put up more stats from a team that didn't win as much because the final 2 probably didn't play in at least 1/3 of the snaps, while some others played the entire game. There is also the case of having more players on a team and it being spread around, which equals less stats but maybe not being a lesser player. There HAS to be something to be said for winning as this is a team sport. Just like stats, this shouldn't be the end all be all for it, but I think there are several factors. My final factor for it is their impact on the game. Lets use a CB for example. If a team rarely throws a corners way because of how good he is, that means he had a great impact on the game, and when they do throw his way he gets PBU and INT, well he may not have the gaudy stats of others, but higher percentage for his opportunities.
I get some will not agree with how I feel on these things, and that is fine, but wanted to point it out so you guys understand where I am coming from on these issues
Jones was a great RB but Hall excelled at passing, running and decision making.....hands down the best.
Can not argue what you are saying, but Jones had the talent to take him to the next level as he was a 1st team high school all american and every major college offered him. Even VT who his mother said he would never go. I'm not sure if there are 6 or 7 Jones kids and all but Julius went to UVA. I know the family well as I played against his uncle David at Appalachia and saw his uncle Ed Clark. No one will know but Ed may have been the best back in Va history.
