1,000 yards receiving

[McLoofus 35,182]

I understand some of you older guys feel a duty to protect the legacy of guys like Beasley, just like somewhat-less-older guys like me who were at AU in the early/mid 90s feel the need to protect the legacy of guys like Frank Sanders. But you're not being terribly objective to say that Duke Williams isn't every bit as talented as those guys. We all wish he came to Auburn as a true freshman, but he didn't. There's nothing that can be done about it. He's here now and he's freaking amazing and it would be a shame to spend this upcoming season comparing him to a memory that's had 20 or 45 years to inch its way towards mythology.

Btw, he runs a 4.4. He's fast. He's also strong, and he's also tough as nails and more than willing to cross the middle of the field.

I can't wait to see how good he is when he's got an accurate quarterback throwing him the ball. (We do all realize that Beasley had a Heisman winner throwing him the ball while Duke had a cornerback throwing him the ball last year, right?)

I very strongly doubt he runs a legitimate 4.4. He might run a low 4.5, and that's a lot faster than most people realize, but 4.4 is NFL burner type of speed. I mean, Sammie only ran a 4.43 at the Combine this year; you can't seriously think Duke has that kind of speed, can you?

I googled "Duke Williams 40 time" and saw 4.4 listed by several sources. He runs a 4.4 as much as any other Auburn player runs whatever is reported for them.

Speed just isn't his game. I'm not suggesting he's slow by any means, but he's much more a possession receiver with speed than a speedy receiver who can catch.

Agree to disagree.

Moreover, this is about keeping things in perspective.

Exactly what I was trying to say.

Duke has been here for one season. As spectacular as he was during that one season, and as much as he should be seen as the future first round draft pick he almost certainly will be (barring injury), he's still only done it for one year.

I hear ya, but again, there's nothing we can do about the length of his career (in fact, he himself already did more than we ever dreamed he would- he came back, praise the football gods). In his one season, he displayed talent superior to almost any WR we've seen at Auburn and at least as good as the short list of greats.

With regard to Beasley having a Heisman winner throwing him the ball, you have to keep in mind that Sullivan probably never would have won the Heisman without Beasley as a target. Only one of them was successful in the NFL, and it wasn't the quarterback,

The list of Heisman-winning quarterbacks who weren't successful in the NFL is longer than Auburn's phone book.

so just because Nick Marshall is a good enough athlete to get a look at corner in the NFL doesn't mean that the guy who led us to the 2013 SEC Championship is somehow an inferior QB. The threat of him running the ball consistently gave receivers more room to work with, as the defense had to commit more guys to defending the run game

I don't agree that Nick Marshall's running ability compensated for how rarely we attempted passes with him in the game or the quality of those passes. Surely you don't honestly think that our receivers had an easier job with Nick Marshall at quarterback than they would have- or will- with a better passer?

Objectivity means seeing things as they are, not as they could be, and talent is not the same as productivity.

Put another way: Objectivity is seeing things as they are, and not as you remember them to have been 45 years ago. I've made no projections about Duke's career. All I've commented on is "things that are". If you expected more talent or productivity out of Duke in his one season so far, then you're not being objective. If you want to hold his uncertain future against him, then you're not really being logical.

Again, Beasley was a two time All-American. Sanders was All-America for one season. Duke has only PLAYED for one season at this level. Saying he is as good as/better than those guys, or even the guys I mentioned previously, is not objective; it is subjectively raving about a current player while disregarding the contributions of past players in order to make the current player look that much better.

When did I disregard anything? Please refer back to my thesis: "But you're not being terribly objective to say that Duke Williams isn't every bit as talented as those guys." Point out to me where I said he's had or will have a superior career.

You're way off here.

Edit: My post above might be a bit too adversarial. My original intent was only to suggest that we be careful not to discount the quality of Williams's play in the process of comparing him to the all-timers. It would be a sad thing to spend this season saying, "Well, he's no Terry Beasley." For some folks, there never will be.

[Rednilla 5,391]

I understand some of you older guys feel a duty to protect the legacy of guys like Beasley, just like somewhat-less-older guys like me who were at AU in the early/mid 90s feel the need to protect the legacy of guys like Frank Sanders. But you're not being terribly objective to say that Duke Williams isn't every bit as talented as those guys. We all wish he came to Auburn as a true freshman, but he didn't. There's nothing that can be done about it. He's here now and he's freaking amazing and it would be a shame to spend this upcoming season comparing him to a memory that's had 20 or 45 years to inch its way towards mythology.

Btw, he runs a 4.4. He's fast. He's also strong, and he's also tough as nails and more than willing to cross the middle of the field.

I can't wait to see how good he is when he's got an accurate quarterback throwing him the ball. (We do all realize that Beasley had a Heisman winner throwing him the ball while Duke had a cornerback throwing him the ball last year, right?)

I very strongly doubt he runs a legitimate 4.4. He might run a low 4.5, and that's a lot faster than most people realize, but 4.4 is NFL burner type of speed. I mean, Sammie only ran a 4.43 at the Combine this year; you can't seriously think Duke has that kind of speed, can you?

I googled "Duke Williams 40 time" and saw 4.4 listed by several sources. He runs a 4.4 as much as any other Auburn player runs whatever is reported for them.

Speed just isn't his game. I'm not suggesting he's slow by any means, but he's much more a possession receiver with speed than a speedy receiver who can catch.

Agree to disagree.

Moreover, this is about keeping things in perspective.

Exactly what I was trying to say.

Duke has been here for one season. As spectacular as he was during that one season, and as much as he should be seen as the future first round draft pick he almost certainly will be (barring injury), he's still only done it for one year.

I hear ya, but again, there's nothing we can do about the length of his career (in fact, he himself already did more than we ever dreamed he would- he came back, praise the football gods). In his one season, he displayed talent superior to almost any WR we've seen at Auburn and at least as good as the short list of greats.

With regard to Beasley having a Heisman winner throwing him the ball, you have to keep in mind that Sullivan probably never would have won the Heisman without Beasley as a target. Only one of them was successful in the NFL, and it wasn't the quarterback,

The list of Heisman-winning quarterbacks who weren't successful in the NFL is longer than Auburn's phone book.

so just because Nick Marshall is a good enough athlete to get a look at corner in the NFL doesn't mean that the guy who led us to the 2013 SEC Championship is somehow an inferior QB. The threat of him running the ball consistently gave receivers more room to work with, as the defense had to commit more guys to defending the run game

I don't agree that Nick Marshall's running ability compensated for how rarely we attempted passes with him in the game or the quality of those passes. Surely you don't honestly think that our receivers had an easier job with Nick Marshall at quarterback than they would have- or will- with a better passer?

Objectivity means seeing things as they are, not as they could be, and talent is not the same as productivity.

Put another way: Objectivity is seeing things as they are, and not as you remember them to have been 45 years ago. I've made no projections about Duke's career. All I've commented on is "things that are". If you expected more talent or productivity out of Duke in his one season so far, then you're not being objective. If you want to hold his uncertain future against him, then you're not really being logical.

Again, Beasley was a two time All-American. Sanders was All-America for one season. Duke has only PLAYED for one season at this level. Saying he is as good as/better than those guys, or even the guys I mentioned previously, is not objective; it is subjectively raving about a current player while disregarding the contributions of past players in order to make the current player look that much better.

When did I disregard anything? Please refer back to my thesis: "But you're not being terribly objective to say that Duke Williams isn't every bit as talented as those guys." Point out to me where I said he's had or will have a superior career.

You're way off here.

Edit: My post above might be a bit too adversarial. My original intent was only to suggest that we be careful not to discount the quality of Williams's play in the process of comparing him to the all-timers. It would be a sad thing to spend this season saying, "Well, he's no Terry Beasley." For some folks, there never will be.

I would suggest we're on different wavelengths, not that either of us is necessarily off. I NEVER disagreed with the comment about talent. In fact, I explicitly pointed out that he should rightfully be seen as a first round pick, barring injury, which should be a pretty good indicator that I think he's among the top 2 or 3 receivers in the country (and only top 2 or 3 as opposed to best because I'm trying not to have too much of orange and blue shades on here). And considering that Beasley was picked in the first round, while Sanders was picked in the second round, I'd say that's pretty telling as to how much talent he has.

But the original proposition was about having both of our best receivers IN SCHOOL HISTORY on the field last season. Please tell me how that is not being disrespectful to the guys who did what he has done for longer than he has done it, all to make him seem like the greatest thing since sliced bread. You want to have people disappointed with a good season from him? The easiest way to do that is to convince them that he is as good as or better than the leading receiver in school history, because then if he "only" ends up with around 700 yards from being blanketed while other receivers come open and Jeremy is able to use his superior passing skills to find them and spread the ball around, all of a sudden some people start talking about him in much the same way as certain members talk about Tray Blackmon.

Come on Loof. It's not about saying he isn't this player or that player, because the fact is that he's not, and he shouldn't try to be. He's Duke Williams, and that's exactly who he needs to be, because trying to be anything else would likely make him far less effective a threat.

Finally, regarding speed, I agree that he's as much 4.4 as anyone else on the team who has reported that time when it was not recorded on a laser. Sammie got his scholarship based upon the fact that he came up to camp and ran (I believe) two or three 4.2 40s in a row, but that was hand timed. Saying that Duke is more likely a 4.5 type of guy is no slight on his part, because there are a TON of great wide receivers who never legitimately ran even that fast. And saying he is a possession receiver with speed more than a speedy receiver who can catch is far more a reflection upon where his strength lies, which is the catch radius. Seems like if he's anywhere within 5 yards of the ball when it gets close to him, he hauls it in, and that's unbelievable. But he's not likely to be outrunning many SEC cornerbacks, because most of them run legitimate 4.4 40s, and virtually all of them are listed at that speed.

[McLoofus 35,182]

I would suggest we're on different wavelengths, not that either of us is necessarily off.

Absolutely agreed, because...

But the original proposition was about having both of our best receivers IN SCHOOL HISTORY on the field last season.

...that is not what I was responding to. I agree that's untrue, particularly in Sammie's case.

It's not about saying he isn't this player or that player

I was responding to the folks who were going a little far in doing exactly that- specifically, saying which players he isn't. But you're the one who responded to me, so here we are arguing

[Rednilla 5,391]

I would suggest we're on different wavelengths, not that either of us is necessarily off.

Absolutely agreed, because...

But the original proposition was about having both of our best receivers IN SCHOOL HISTORY on the field last season.

...that is not what I was responding to. I agree that's untrue, particularly in Sammie's case.

It's not about saying he isn't this player or that player

I was responding to the folks who were going a little far in doing exactly that- specifically, saying which players he isn't. But you're the one who responded to me, so here we are arguing

Not arguing, just discussing. We're all friends here. Or, well, I dunno about that Bird character, but the rest of us----->

[McLoofus 35,182]

I would suggest we're on different wavelengths, not that either of us is necessarily off.

Absolutely agreed, because...

But the original proposition was about having both of our best receivers IN SCHOOL HISTORY on the field last season.

...that is not what I was responding to. I agree that's untrue, particularly in Sammie's case.

It's not about saying he isn't this player or that player

I was responding to the folks who were going a little far in doing exactly that- specifically, saying which players he isn't. But you're the one who responded to me, so here we are arguing

Not arguing, just discussing. We're all friends here. Or, well, I dunno about that Bird character, but the rest of us----->

Hah, yes! "Arguing" said in jest.

Whether discussion or argument, though, it's always good when it's of the "best ever" variety.

[caleb1633 1,418]

I understand the loyalty toward Sanders and Beasley, but I think Duke has more talent than them. His catch against LA Tech last year was incredible. I've never seen a receiver at Auburn be open no matter how well he is covered, or a receiver with as huge of a catch radius. Courtney Taylor, Ben Obamanu, Devin Aromashodu, all of them were solid receivers, but none of them would've made the catch Duke made against LA Tech. He's truly in a league of his own as far as talent.

[AU64 10,122]

I understand the loyalty toward Sanders and Beasley, but I think Duke has more talent than them. His catch against LA Tech last year was incredible. I've never seen a receiver at Auburn be open no matter how well he is covered, or a receiver with as huge of a catch radius. Courtney Taylor, Ben Obamanu, Devin Aromashodu, all of them were solid receivers, but none of them would've made the catch Duke made against LA Tech. He's truly in a league of his own as far as talent.

This isn't about loyalty...it's facts and statistics.

Duke has great talent and made a few amazing catches...but about every top receiver in AU history had catches that were hard to believe and showed extraordinary talent. ac. The point is that Duke is not even on the list of AU's top receivers in history...he has 5 TD catches which is 24 behind Terry Beasley and he is not in the top 10 in any category as far as I can tell.

After this season, if he has a good year, he might move into the top 10 in a few stats but I don't think we should anoint him, based on a few great catches during a mediocre season, before his accomplishments are in the same league as those who make up the list of great AU pass receivers.

[McLoofus 35,182]

I understand the loyalty toward Sanders and Beasley, but I think Duke has more talent than them. His catch against LA Tech last year was incredible. I've never seen a receiver at Auburn be open no matter how well he is covered, or a receiver with as huge of a catch radius. Courtney Taylor, Ben Obamanu, Devin Aromashodu, all of them were solid receivers, but none of them would've made the catch Duke made against LA Tech. He's truly in a league of his own as far as talent.

This isn't about loyalty...it's facts and statistics.

Duke has great talent and made a few amazing catches...but about every top receiver in AU history had catches that were hard to believe and showed extraordinary talent. ac. The point is that Duke is not even on the list of AU's top receivers in history...he has 5 TD catches which is 24 behind Terry Beasley and he is not in the top 10 in any category as far as I can tell.

After this season, if he has a good year, he might move into the top 10 in a few stats but I don't think we should anoint him, based on a few great catches during a mediocre season, before his accomplishments are in the same league as those who make up the list of great AU pass receivers.

Making it "about facts and statistics" is mighty convenient when you know that it would be impossible for Duke's stats to match those other guys. Once again, he had a cornerback throwing him the ball in a run-heavy offense in his one and only season. Of COURSE he doesn't have stats to match.

It's a curious thing, this conversation.

[AUTigers910 45]

I think it would be more accurate to say we possibly had the most athletically gifted receiver combination we have ever had. But saying they are the best two receivers we have ever had is a huge overstatement.

I'm pretty sure the misunderstanding has been resolved, but this reminds me of how Cam is evaluated in our history, assuming Duke is unbelievable this year. Was Cam the best quarterback we have ever had? If you ask me I would believe so. Did he contribute to our program more than any other quarterback we have ever had? That raises a much larger debate where one can argue championship vs multiple years of good play plus a heisman. Say Duke has a Cam like performance this year. Could we say he was the best receiver we have had? Some may say yes and others no. At that point you're arguing ability vs contribution. Basically it comes down to a subjective case of personal judgement as to what makes a player the best at his respective position. To say that Duke has contributed as much as Beasley or Sanders would be absurd though.

[McLoofus 35,182]

I think it would be more accurate to say we possibly had the most athletically gifted receiver combination we have ever had. But saying they are the best two receivers we have ever had is a huge overstatement.

I'm pretty sure the misunderstanding has been resolved, but this reminds me of how Cam is evaluated in our history, assuming Duke is unbelievable this year. Was Cam the best quarterback we have ever had? If you ask me I would believe so. Did he contribute to our program more than any other quarterback we have ever had? That raises a much larger debate where one can argue championship vs multiple years of good play plus a heisman. Say Duke has a Cam like performance this year. Could we say he was the best receiver we have had? Some may say yes and others no. At that point you're arguing ability vs contribution. Basically it comes down to a subjective case of personal judgement as to what makes a player the best at his respective position. To say that Duke has contributed as much as Beasley or Sanders would be absurd though.

Well said. I almost brought up Cam myself in the exact same way, but I feared folks would lose their minds before bothering to read what I wrote.

[caleb1633 1,418]

I think it would be more accurate to say we possibly had the most athletically gifted receiver combination we have ever had. But saying they are the best two receivers we have ever had is a huge overstatement.

I'm pretty sure the misunderstanding has been resolved, but this reminds me of how Cam is evaluated in our history, assuming Duke is unbelievable this year. Was Cam the best quarterback we have ever had? If you ask me I would believe so. Did he contribute to our program more than any other quarterback we have ever had? That raises a much larger debate where one can argue championship vs multiple years of good play plus a heisman. Say Duke has a Cam like performance this year. Could we say he was the best receiver we have had? Some may say yes and others no. At that point you're arguing ability vs contribution. Basically it comes down to a subjective case of personal judgement as to what makes a player the best at his respective position. To say that Duke has contributed as much as Beasley or Sanders would be absurd though.

Exactly. I think Duke is the most talented receiver we've had, and if he has a monster year, we've gotta put him up there with the Beasleys and the Sanders.

[cole256 17,084]

Duke lost a little consistency by the end of the year, I was thinking injury maybe but this year will tell a good bit about him. Duke didn't get doubled as much as some other wr's did

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,673]

I'm just gonna be real and say if I did an all-Auburn team, Duke would be WR1

That's just me though

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,673]

I think it would be more accurate to say we possibly had the most athletically gifted receiver combination we have ever had. But saying they are the best two receivers we have ever had is a huge overstatement.

I'm pretty sure the misunderstanding has been resolved, but this reminds me of how Cam is evaluated in our history, assuming Duke is unbelievable this year. Was Cam the best quarterback we have ever had? If you ask me I would believe so. Did he contribute to our program more than any other quarterback we have ever had? That raises a much larger debate where one can argue championship vs multiple years of good play plus a heisman. Say Duke has a Cam like performance this year. Could we say he was the best receiver we have had? Some may say yes and others no. At that point you're arguing ability vs contribution. Basically it comes down to a subjective case of personal judgement as to what makes a player the best at his respective position. To say that Duke has contributed as much as Beasley or Sanders would be absurd though.

I rather have a championship than multiple 10 win seasons, mainly because we don't have much of either. But you can enjoy championships a lot longer than a 10 win season

A LOT

If Duke is the main reason we get a championship, he contributed more than any great IMO (under the presumption that 1957 and 2010 didn't consider any Auburn greats at WR)

[Rednilla 5,391]

I understand the loyalty toward Sanders and Beasley, but I think Duke has more talent than them. His catch against LA Tech last year was incredible. I've never seen a receiver at Auburn be open no matter how well he is covered, or a receiver with as huge of a catch radius. Courtney Taylor, Ben Obamanu, Devin Aromashodu, all of them were solid receivers, but none of them would've made the catch Duke made against LA Tech. He's truly in a league of his own as far as talent.

Um, okay, no, you don't get to say that because you didn't see Sanders or Beasley play, Duke Williams is more athletically gifted. For one thing, athletes are judged by the comparison between them and others of their time, which is the reason every discussion about the best baseball player of all time both begins AND ends with Babe Ruth...and I HATE the Yankees.

But more than that, do you happen to know anything about Frank Sanders? I can't speak as much about Beasley (though that catch where he left the UF defenders in the dust gives a pretty clear picture as to the speed differential between him and the other players of the day), but I saw Sanders play, just like I've been seeing Duke play, and while I seem to be the only person defending the older receivers who thinks the notion of Duke being mentioned in the same breath as the greats ever at Auburn IF he has a season up to par with what I believe he is capable this year, you simply cannot be old enough to remember the magic of 20 straight wins from 93 to 94. I've already described his first famous catch from Patrick Nix, but the more famous one came in The Swamp during the closing seconds of a game against #1 Florida at a place only Bobby Bowden had beaten him to that point (and at which no other SEC team would win for five years).

That catch, if you've not already seen it in the highlight reels, is of him leaping up high in the end zone to pluck the ball out of the air with Gators on every side of him.

BTW, those who keep up with such things better than I, didn't Frank also either do the high jump or run hurdles for AU's track and field team? Pretty sure he was a Pro Bowler renowned for his sure hands, long wingspan, and ability to be the quarterback's best friend by catching everything close to him, and even knocking the ball away from defenders who clearly had position (if he was unable to catch it, that is, though he did plenty of taking the ball away from corners).

Honestly, if anything, Duke is a Sanders-esque type of player. He has that kind of ability...and for me to say that speaks INCREDIBLY highly of my opinion of him, because there aren't too many receivers this side of Jerry Rice that I put ahead of Sanders.

I think it would be more accurate to say we possibly had the most athletically gifted receiver combination we have ever had. But saying they are the best two receivers we have ever had is a huge overstatement.

More accurate maybe, but even that point is debatable. Thomas Bailey was a pretty solid 2 punch to go along with Sanders, and if memory serves, Willie Gosha, Karsten Bailey, and Tyrone Goodson were on at least the 94 team with the two of them.

I'm pretty sure the misunderstanding has been resolved, but this reminds me of how Cam is evaluated in our history, assuming Duke is unbelievable this year. Was Cam the best quarterback we have ever had? If you ask me I would believe so. Did he contribute to our program more than any other quarterback we have ever had? That raises a much larger debate where one can argue championship vs multiple years of good play plus a heisman. Say Duke has a Cam like performance this year. Could we say he was the best receiver we have had? Some may say yes and others no. At that point you're arguing ability vs contribution. Basically it comes down to a subjective case of personal judgement as to what makes a player the best at his respective position. To say that Duke has contributed as much as Beasley or Sanders would be absurd though.

This is a more difficult comparison to make, IMO, primarily because wide receivers cannot dominate a game the way a QB can, and often the contributions of non-QBs can be overlooked. The propensity of our receivers for downfield blocking has been good for a long time (to a fault in the latter years of Tubs' tenure, because they ran out of superior athletes at the position and were teaching the fundamentals of how to block rather than how to get open), and even selling a good decoy route makes for a great contribution, whereas at quarterback everything is under a microscope.

Making it "about facts and statistics" is mighty convenient when you know that it would be impossible for Duke's stats to match those other guys. Once again, he had a cornerback throwing him the ball in a run-heavy offense in his one and only season. Of COURSE he doesn't have stats to match.

It's a curious thing, this conversation.

And making it about talent is mighty convenient when you know it's impossible to put two players from different eras of football side by side and comparing them. Going back to my baseball analogy, anyone who thinks Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire, Hank Aaron, Roger Maris, or ANYONE ELSE has a legitimate claim to being a better baseball player (or even home run hitter) than Babe Ruth needs to be reminded that Ruth hit more home runs than the entire rest of his team combined in TWO different seasons.

But this crap about how a cornerback was throwing him passes is nothing more than that: crap. He was a quarterback in high school. He was a quarterback in JUCO. He was a quarterback at Auburn. Matter of fact, he was only a corner for one season in college. So stop freaking calling him a cornerback who was throwing the ball. If anything, he was a running quarterback with a strong arm and not the greatest accuracy.

Know who else that applies to? The guy you agreed is the best QB in school history: Cam Newton.

So either Nick was simply limited by his arm accuracy (even while the threat of the QB run has been likened by many coaches to having a 12th man to defend), or Cam doesn't belong in the classification of quarterback. You can't have it both ways.

[AUbritt 611]

So, I find this turn in the conversation a bit odd. The issue has gone from whether we'll have a 1,000 yard receiver to comparing Auburn greats. And it's got a weirdly confrontational tone to it. Why? We're all Auburn folks, and we all love Auburn.

Duke is great. I'm happy he came back this season. I expect a monster year from him. He got over 700 yards receiving last season (if I remember correctly), and he missed several games. I think he is likely to go over 1,000, and we may actually have another 1,000 yard receiver emerge this year. I think JJ is going to sling it around. A lot.

[Tiger 8,827]

Only to hit on your last point....NM is a cornerback. Ask the Jaguars. The top level of the game considers him a CB and won't even give him a shot at QB. It is not necessarily a knock on him to call him a CB throwing passes, we should just appreciate that Gus took a guy like that and almost won a national championship with him.

Also, Cam Newton is most certainly a QB.

[Barnacle 9,064]

So, I find this turn in the conversation a bit odd. The issue has gone from whether we'll have a 1,000 yard receiver to comparing Auburn greats. And it's got a weirdly confrontational tone to it. Why? We're all Auburn folks, and we all love Auburn.

:grouphug:/>

Duke is great. I'm happy he came back this season. I expect a monster year from him. He got over 700 yards receiving last season (if I remember correctly), and he missed several games. I think he is likely to go over 1,000, and we may actually have another 1,000 yard receiver emerge this year. I think JJ is going to sling it around. A lot.

:wareagle:/>

You're killing it today.

[AUbritt 611]

So, I find this turn in the conversation a bit odd. The issue has gone from whether we'll have a 1,000 yard receiver to comparing Auburn greats. And it's got a weirdly confrontational tone to it. Why? We're all Auburn folks, and we all love Auburn.

:grouphug:/>

Duke is great. I'm happy he came back this season. I expect a monster year from him. He got over 700 yards receiving last season (if I remember correctly), and he missed several games. I think he is likely to go over 1,000, and we may actually have another 1,000 yard receiver emerge this year. I think JJ is going to sling it around. A lot.

:wareagle:/>

You're killing it today.

Hope I'm not killing any threads.

[Barnacle 9,064]

So, I find this turn in the conversation a bit odd. The issue has gone from whether we'll have a 1,000 yard receiver to comparing Auburn greats. And it's got a weirdly confrontational tone to it. Why? We're all Auburn folks, and we all love Auburn.

:grouphug:/>

Duke is great. I'm happy he came back this season. I expect a monster year from him. He got over 700 yards receiving last season (if I remember correctly), and he missed several games. I think he is likely to go over 1,000, and we may actually have another 1,000 yard receiver emerge this year. I think JJ is going to sling it around. A lot.

:wareagle:/>

You're killing it today.

Hope I'm not killing any threads.

;)/>

Just the negativity!

[McLoofus 35,182]

Only to hit on your last point....NM is a cornerback. Ask the Jaguars. The top level of the game considers him a CB and won't even give him a shot at QB. It is not necessarily a knock on him to call him a CB throwing passes, we should just appreciate that Gus took a guy like that and almost won a national championship with him.

Also, Cam Newton is most certainly a QB.

Yeah, #1 overall pick in the draft, just signed a $100 million contract after 4 years of playing quarterback in the league. Totally the same as a guy who plays defense now.

Rednilla, come on, man. I thought we were just having a "discussion".

[Rednilla 5,391]

Only to hit on your last point....NM is a cornerback. Ask the Jaguars. The top level of the game considers him a CB and won't even give him a shot at QB. It is not necessarily a knock on him to call him a CB throwing passes, we should just appreciate that Gus took a guy like that and almost won a national championship with him.

Also, Cam Newton is most certainly a QB.

*Sigh* The argument for Duke was being made that Terry Beasley and Frank Sanders had much better QBs throwing the ball to them, that Beasley even had a Heisman winner throwing to him. I pointed out that neither had a QB that made it in the NFL (White was a backup for the Giants for a while, I think, but that's it), and that only Marshall's athleticism gave him a shot at making the League at all. The reply was that most Heisman winners don't have success in the NFL, as if that somehow makes the claim of Marshall not being a QB more valid. YOU'RE ONLY A QB IF YOU MAKE IT TO THE NFL AS ONE!!! IF YOU AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH THROWING THE BALL IN COLLEGE, BUT YOU HAVE THE ATHLETICISM, YOU WERE NEVER REALLY A QB TO BEGIN WITH!!!!

But for crying out loud, I'll just veer far away from this thread. Obviously my method of spelling out my logic so that my opinion can be understood, or pointing out the logical fallacies (as I see them, at least) makes people think I'm arguing and/or belittling them. It can't be that I communicate differently than others, it simply has to be that I'm just a jerk. Right.

Britt, you want to know why I don't come around here much anymore? This is it, right here.

[bigbird 60,540]

I understand the loyalty toward Sanders and Beasley, but I think Duke has more talent than them. His catch against LA Tech last year was incredible. I've never seen a receiver at Auburn be open no matter how well he is covered, or a receiver with as huge of a catch radius. Courtney Taylor, Ben Obamanu, Devin Aromashodu, all of them were solid receivers, but none of them would've made the catch Duke made against LA Tech. He's truly in a league of his own as far as talent.

Um, okay, no, you don't get to say that because you didn't see Sanders or Beasley play, Duke Williams is more athletically gifted. For one thing, athletes are judged by the comparison between them and others of their time, which is the reason every discussion about the best baseball player of all time both begins AND ends with Babe Ruth...and I HATE the Yankees.

But more than that, do you happen to know anything about Frank Sanders? I can't speak as much about Beasley (though that catch where he left the UF defenders in the dust gives a pretty clear picture as to the speed differential between him and the other players of the day), but I saw Sanders play, just like I've been seeing Duke play, and while I seem to be the only person defending the older receivers who thinks the notion of Duke being mentioned in the same breath as the greats ever at Auburn IF he has a season up to par with what I believe he is capable this year, you simply cannot be old enough to remember the magic of 20 straight wins from 93 to 94. I've already described his first famous catch from Patrick Nix, but the more famous one came in The Swamp during the closing seconds of a game against #1 Florida at a place only Bobby Bowden had beaten him to that point (and at which no other SEC team would win for five years).

That catch, if you've not already seen it in the highlight reels, is of him leaping up high in the end zone to pluck the ball out of the air with Gators on every side of him.

BTW, those who keep up with such things better than I, didn't Frank also either do the high jump or run hurdles for AU's track and field team? Pretty sure he was a Pro Bowler renowned for his sure hands, long wingspan, and ability to be the quarterback's best friend by catching everything close to him, and even knocking the ball away from defenders who clearly had position (if he was unable to catch it, that is, though he did plenty of taking the ball away from corners).

Honestly, if anything, Duke is a Sanders-esque type of player. He has that kind of ability...and for me to say that speaks INCREDIBLY highly of my opinion of him, because there aren't too many receivers this side of Jerry Rice that I put ahead of Sanders.

I think it would be more accurate to say we possibly had the most athletically gifted receiver combination we have ever had. But saying they are the best two receivers we have ever had is a huge overstatement.

More accurate maybe, but even that point is debatable. Thomas Bailey was a pretty solid 2 punch to go along with Sanders, and if memory serves, Willie Gosha, Karsten Bailey, and Tyrone Goodson were on at least the 94 team with the two of them.

I'm pretty sure the misunderstanding has been resolved, but this reminds me of how Cam is evaluated in our history, assuming Duke is unbelievable this year. Was Cam the best quarterback we have ever had? If you ask me I would believe so. Did he contribute to our program more than any other quarterback we have ever had? That raises a much larger debate where one can argue championship vs multiple years of good play plus a heisman. Say Duke has a Cam like performance this year. Could we say he was the best receiver we have had? Some may say yes and others no. At that point you're arguing ability vs contribution. Basically it comes down to a subjective case of personal judgement as to what makes a player the best at his respective position. To say that Duke has contributed as much as Beasley or Sanders would be absurd though.

This is a more difficult comparison to make, IMO, primarily because wide receivers cannot dominate a game the way a QB can, and often the contributions of non-QBs can be overlooked. The propensity of our receivers for downfield blocking has been good for a long time (to a fault in the latter years of Tubs' tenure, because they ran out of superior athletes at the position and were teaching the fundamentals of how to block rather than how to get open), and even selling a good decoy route makes for a great contribution, whereas at quarterback everything is under a microscope.

Making it "about facts and statistics" is mighty convenient when you know that it would be impossible for Duke's stats to match those other guys. Once again, he had a cornerback throwing him the ball in a run-heavy offense in his one and only season. Of COURSE he doesn't have stats to match.

It's a curious thing, this conversation.

And making it about talent is mighty convenient when you know it's impossible to put two players from different eras of football side by side and comparing them. Going back to my baseball analogy, anyone who thinks Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire, Hank Aaron, Roger Maris, or ANYONE ELSE has a legitimate claim to being a better baseball player (or even home run hitter) than Babe Ruth needs to be reminded that Ruth hit more home runs than the entire rest of his team combined in TWO different seasons.

But this crap about how a cornerback was throwing him passes is nothing more than that: crap. He was a quarterback in high school. He was a quarterback in JUCO. He was a quarterback at Auburn. Matter of fact, he was only a corner for one season in college. So stop freaking calling him a cornerback who was throwing the ball. If anything, he was a running quarterback with a strong arm and not the greatest accuracy.

Know who else that applies to? The guy you agreed is the best QB in school history: Cam Newton.

So either Nick was simply limited by his arm accuracy (even while the threat of the QB run has been likened by many coaches to having a 12th man to defend), or Cam doesn't belong in the classification of quarterback. You can't have it both ways.

[Rednilla 5,391]

Only to hit on your last point....NM is a cornerback. Ask the Jaguars. The top level of the game considers him a CB and won't even give him a shot at QB. It is not necessarily a knock on him to call him a CB throwing passes, we should just appreciate that Gus took a guy like that and almost won a national championship with him.

Also, Cam Newton is most certainly a QB.

Yeah, #1 overall pick in the draft, just signed a $100 million contract after 4 years of playing quarterback in the league. Totally the same as a guy who plays defense now.

Rednilla, come on, man. I thought we were just having a "discussion".

Yeah, and how long did those QBs who were "real quarterbacks" that were throwing the ball to Beasley and Sanders play QB in the NFL, again?

What do you mean "come on"? I have been away from the internet for the last few days, I come back to the thread, I see several things I want to respond to, and I put them all in one comment so as not to clutter the board to egregiously. Why am I not allowed to have an opinion of my own to provide backing evidence for? Am I supposed to simply fade into the background whenever someone doesn't agree with me?

[Rednilla 5,391]

I understand the loyalty toward Sanders and Beasley, but I think Duke has more talent than them. His catch against LA Tech last year was incredible. I've never seen a receiver at Auburn be open no matter how well he is covered, or a receiver with as huge of a catch radius. Courtney Taylor, Ben Obamanu, Devin Aromashodu, all of them were solid receivers, but none of them would've made the catch Duke made against LA Tech. He's truly in a league of his own as far as talent.

Um, okay, no, you don't get to say that because you didn't see Sanders or Beasley play, Duke Williams is more athletically gifted. For one thing, athletes are judged by the comparison between them and others of their time, which is the reason every discussion about the best baseball player of all time both begins AND ends with Babe Ruth...and I HATE the Yankees.

But more than that, do you happen to know anything about Frank Sanders? I can't speak as much about Beasley (though that catch where he left the UF defenders in the dust gives a pretty clear picture as to the speed differential between him and the other players of the day), but I saw Sanders play, just like I've been seeing Duke play, and while I seem to be the only person defending the older receivers who thinks the notion of Duke being mentioned in the same breath as the greats ever at Auburn IF he has a season up to par with what I believe he is capable this year, you simply cannot be old enough to remember the magic of 20 straight wins from 93 to 94. I've already described his first famous catch from Patrick Nix, but the more famous one came in The Swamp during the closing seconds of a game against #1 Florida at a place only Bobby Bowden had beaten him to that point (and at which no other SEC team would win for five years).

That catch, if you've not already seen it in the highlight reels, is of him leaping up high in the end zone to pluck the ball out of the air with Gators on every side of him.

BTW, those who keep up with such things better than I, didn't Frank also either do the high jump or run hurdles for AU's track and field team? Pretty sure he was a Pro Bowler renowned for his sure hands, long wingspan, and ability to be the quarterback's best friend by catching everything close to him, and even knocking the ball away from defenders who clearly had position (if he was unable to catch it, that is, though he did plenty of taking the ball away from corners).

Honestly, if anything, Duke is a Sanders-esque type of player. He has that kind of ability...and for me to say that speaks INCREDIBLY highly of my opinion of him, because there aren't too many receivers this side of Jerry Rice that I put ahead of Sanders.

I think it would be more accurate to say we possibly had the most athletically gifted receiver combination we have ever had. But saying they are the best two receivers we have ever had is a huge overstatement.

More accurate maybe, but even that point is debatable. Thomas Bailey was a pretty solid 2 punch to go along with Sanders, and if memory serves, Willie Gosha, Karsten Bailey, and Tyrone Goodson were on at least the 94 team with the two of them.

I'm pretty sure the misunderstanding has been resolved, but this reminds me of how Cam is evaluated in our history, assuming Duke is unbelievable this year. Was Cam the best quarterback we have ever had? If you ask me I would believe so. Did he contribute to our program more than any other quarterback we have ever had? That raises a much larger debate where one can argue championship vs multiple years of good play plus a heisman. Say Duke has a Cam like performance this year. Could we say he was the best receiver we have had? Some may say yes and others no. At that point you're arguing ability vs contribution. Basically it comes down to a subjective case of personal judgement as to what makes a player the best at his respective position. To say that Duke has contributed as much as Beasley or Sanders would be absurd though.

This is a more difficult comparison to make, IMO, primarily because wide receivers cannot dominate a game the way a QB can, and often the contributions of non-QBs can be overlooked. The propensity of our receivers for downfield blocking has been good for a long time (to a fault in the latter years of Tubs' tenure, because they ran out of superior athletes at the position and were teaching the fundamentals of how to block rather than how to get open), and even selling a good decoy route makes for a great contribution, whereas at quarterback everything is under a microscope.

Making it "about facts and statistics" is mighty convenient when you know that it would be impossible for Duke's stats to match those other guys. Once again, he had a cornerback throwing him the ball in a run-heavy offense in his one and only season. Of COURSE he doesn't have stats to match.

It's a curious thing, this conversation.

And making it about talent is mighty convenient when you know it's impossible to put two players from different eras of football side by side and comparing them. Going back to my baseball analogy, anyone who thinks Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire, Hank Aaron, Roger Maris, or ANYONE ELSE has a legitimate claim to being a better baseball player (or even home run hitter) than Babe Ruth needs to be reminded that Ruth hit more home runs than the entire rest of his team combined in TWO different seasons.

But this crap about how a cornerback was throwing him passes is nothing more than that: crap. He was a quarterback in high school. He was a quarterback in JUCO. He was a quarterback at Auburn. Matter of fact, he was only a corner for one season in college. So stop freaking calling him a cornerback who was throwing the ball. If anything, he was a running quarterback with a strong arm and not the greatest accuracy.

Know who else that applies to? The guy you agreed is the best QB in school history: Cam Newton.

So either Nick was simply limited by his arm accuracy (even while the threat of the QB run has been likened by many coaches to having a 12th man to defend), or Cam doesn't belong in the classification of quarterback. You can't have it both ways.

Thanks for letting me know how much you care.