GSPODS wrote:](*,)
This has gone so far away from the original point that I doubt there is any hope of bringing it back. I will make an effort.
The original point of this discussion was that John Riggins needed the Redskins and The Hogs as much as the Redskins and The Hogs needed John Riggins. Everybody is in such a rush to defend Riggins, as though I am attacking him. I'm not attacking Riggins. What I am attacking is that Riggins is not a Hall Of Fame running back without the Hogs. 75% of Riggins' statistical accomplishments and 100% of Riggins' reputation, both on and off the football field, were established as a member of the Washington Redskins. Riggins had less than 4000 career rushing yards and a league-wide reputation for being a volatile alcoholic when he retired from the New Yuck Jets.
Almost everyone knows the "You need me more than I need you" story between Riggins and Joe Gibbs. Let's quantify and qualify that statement. At the time, Riggins was right. However, had Riggins stayed retired, would anyone be discussing him nearly 30 years later? The honest truth is that Gibbs needed Riggins, Riggins needed The Hogs, The Hogs needed Riggins, and Riggins needed The Redskins as much as Gibbs needed Riggins. Not only would Riggins not be a Hall Of Famer, SuperBowl MVP, Redskins Legend, likely he would have retired to Kansas and died of cirrhosis of the liver. People tend to forget that no one else was beating Riggins' door down to come back to the NFL.
Riggins should be making frequent sabbaticals to the grave of one Jack Kent Cooke, without whom Gibbs would not have been able to pursue Riggins, and without whom Riggins would not have been able to pursue legendary status among the football greats.
Nobody is happier about the way things actually worked out than I am. But why people act like it's a Cardinal Sin to say anything even remotely negative about Redskins players while, at the same time, talking negatively about Bengals players, Cowboys players, and others is a ridiculously homerish double-standard. The only difference is drug of choice. For Riggins, it was alcohol. For Lawrence Taylor, it was cocaine. For Michael Irvin, it was crack. For Lyle Alzado, it was steroids.
Would anyone care to argue that some of the best players of all-time were drug addicts? Or that the Hall Of Fame voters love drug addicts?
Riggins is a Redskins legend. But how about a little perspective?
Very very very few, if any, RBs could be great without at least a mediocre o-line. You honestly think that Emmit Smith would be in the position he's in if he didn't have the aforementioned support that he had? You're arguing for the sake of arguing, and you're surely not being objective.
Here, I'll sum it up for you and you can stop twisting and quoting stats:
Was Riggins the best RB of all time? NO
Is Riggins arguable worthy of his reputation? YES
Can we give Riggins full credit for his accomplishments? NO
Does GSPODS statement apply?
YESThe honest truth is that Gibbs needed Riggins, Riggins needed The Hogs, The Hogs needed Riggins, and Riggins needed The Redskins as much as Gibbs needed Riggins.
I think the majority of the people here agree, you just don't wanna hear it.What I am attacking is that Riggins is not a Hall Of Fame running back without the Hogs
Bottom line is that Riggins was in the right place at the time and made the most of his situation. Isn't that what all players try to do? Would Irvin have the stats he did if not for Aikman? You could apply this theory to the majority of the HoF inductees. You wanna argue Riggins isn't worth spit? Take it to another board, b/c we aren't buying your snake oil here...
Come on, dude, that's not true.
ey. They are something that we would all like to be secretly. They also produce when it was necessary and sometimes they are just plain lucky. Either way, they secured a place in our hearts that makes them bigger than life because they were in the right place at the right time.
