Me And A Steeler Fan Have a Bet.....

[Poman]

We have a bet on who was/is a better WR......Terrell Owens or Lynn Swann.....Curious what you guys think.....

[FanboyOf91]

Lynn Swann has some rings.

[GhostofSparta]

How do you qualify "better"? I mean, for example, TO has the stats, but Swann has the rings.

[Poman]

How do you qualify "better"? I mean, for example, TO has the stats, but Swann has the rings.

I guess that would be subjective.....I'm not sure the Steelers got those rings solely because of Lynn Swann....But I'm sure he was a huge part of it. I actually say Terrell Owens, even though I hate him, simply because of the disparity in stats.....So I guess I would qualify "better" as however you guys would qualify better....Matter of opinion....

[terrifNick21]

Terrell Owens. I feel rings don't matter when talking about something like this....Hell, Brandon Stokely has a ring...but he's nowhere near the receiver TO is....

[GhostofSparta]

I guess that would be subjective.....I'm not sure the Steelers got those rings solely because of Lynn Swann....But I'm sure he was a huge part of it. I actually say Terrell Owens, even though I hate him, simply because of the disparity in stats.....So I guess I would qualify "better" as however you guys would qualify better....Matter of opinion....
And that's where it becomes a problem again. I don't think the Steelers won any of their SBs because of Swann (despite that highlight catch over the Cowboys' corner, which is a sweet photo highlight), but no team has won a ring while TO has played for him (and for that matter, neither the 49ers nor the Eagles have even made it to the SB after TO left). He played in the SB with the Eagles, but the SB was the only postseason game he played in that year and it was the only postseason game the Eagles lost that year.

If it was me, I'd have to say TO. But while TO has the stats, he doesn't have a ring and is a team cancer. So it's all a matter of opinion.

[Poman]

And that's where it becomes a problem again. I don't think the Steelers won any of their SBs because of Swann (despite that highlight catch over the Cowboys' corner, which is a sweet photo highlight), but no team has won a ring while TO has played for him (and for that matter, neither the 49ers nor the Eagles have even made it to the SB after TO left). He played in the SB with the Eagles, but the SB was the only postseason game he played in that year and it was the only postseason game the Eagles lost that year.

If it was me, I'd have to say TO. But while TO has the stats, he doesn't have a ring and is a team cancer. So it's all a matter of opinion.

Agreed....But he is a huge homer and thinks Lynn was vastly superior...But I'm sticking by Terrell despite my dislike for him and the problems he causes with whatever club he is with....

[Spaceman Spiff]

I'll go with Owens.

Swann has rings but I always thing rings are overrated when it comes to things like this. Swann was fortunate enough to play on some spectacular teams...he got lucky.

Granted, he made some awesome catches but from what I can tell he didn't seem to be a huge game breaker like Owens.

IIRC, I once added up Swann and Stallworth's stats and they barely exceeded Gary Clark's career.

[GhostofSparta]

Agreed....But he is a huge homer and thinks Lynn was vastly superior...But I'm sticking by Terrell despite my dislike for him and the problems he causes with whatever club he is with....
Oh God, he's a Steelers fan, good luck winning this bet.

[Poman]

Does anybody know if Swann drew the double teams like Terrell Owens does?

[Poman]

Oh God, he's a Steelers fan, good luck winning this bet.

Hahaha....agreed...we argue on everything.....

[SC_RedskinsFan]

The key to this is ringS. He did not just have one. To pull that off you have to be a team player, does TO know what that means?

[Spaceman Spiff]

The key to this is ringS. He did not just have one. To pull that off you have to be a team player, does TO know what that means?

I hate to come running to TO's defense here, but he did come back early from that injury to play in the Superbowl and had 9 catches for 122 yards. I don't think that's NOT being a team player.

TO definitely has been a douchebag, but he's been well liked by a lot of his teammates and no one disputes that he doesn't give it his all on the field. He's a good downfield blocker, too.

[Hubbs]

I think the most telling factor is this:

Who would you rather have on your team if it was about to play in the Super Bowl?

Now, I know I'm a youngin', and am only familiar with Swann through highlights. But, despite the fact that Swann has actually won Super Bowls, I view that as more of an accomplishment of the rest of his team than of his own plays. If I need one receiver, for one game, I'm picking Owens.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I hate to come running to TO's defense here, but he did come back early from that injury to play in the Superbowl and had 9 catches for 122 yards. I don't think that's NOT being a team player.

A broken leg no less.

Definitely TO.

[Poman]

I think the most telling factor is this:

Who would you rather have on your team if it was about to play in the Super Bowl?

Now, I know I'm a youngin', and am only familiar with Swann through highlights. But, despite the fact that Swann has actually won Super Bowls, I view that as more of an accomplishment of the rest of his team than of his own plays. If I need one receiver, for one game, I'm picking Owens.

Good Post.....

[DButz65]

A bet over this is just plain silly IMHO, and could be argued forever, not worth the trouble of arguing over it.. he wont give in, trust me lol

So is the bet to see who will get more votes here on ES?


I would of told him neither and said ART MONK :)

[Warhead36]

Easily TO. Athletes nowadays are much better than they were 30 years ago. Swann would be average at best in today's NFL.

[Poman]

A bet over this is just plain silly IMHO, and could be argued forever, not worth the trouble of arguing over it.. he wont give in, trust me lol

So is the bet to see who will get more votes here on ES?


I would of told him neither and said ART MONK :)

It is silly....And yes, he wanted me to post it here, so I guess it would be based on you guys votes.....And we have been arguing over it forever....:silly: Like I said its strickly opinion....

[fullnelson9999]

The Steelers won Super Bowls with Swann's help, not because of him.

The Eagles signed TO and immediately became a ridiculous team. He was a real difference maker. If you replaced Swann in the 70s with TO, they would probably have won another championship. Thats how I feel.

I say TO, despite not winning a SB with the Eagles, helped his team more than Swann did in Pittsburgh.

By that, I say TO.

[stickyshooZ]

TO in his prime was nearly unstoppable. Give me Mr. Popcorn.

[HighOnHendrix]

A bet over this is just plain silly IMHO, and could be argued forever, not worth the trouble of arguing over it.. he wont give in, trust me lol

So is the bet to see who will get more votes here on ES?


I would of told him neither and said ART MONK :)

Yeah, how do you bet on something that is a matter of debate?

[Poman]

Yeah, how do you bet on something that is a matter of debate?

I guess its really more for the sake of argument.....And fun..

[WhoRUSupposed2Be]

I think the most telling factor is this:

Who would you rather have on your team if it was about to play in the Super Bowl?

Now, I know I'm a youngin', and am only familiar with Swann through highlights. But, despite the fact that Swann has actually won Super Bowls, I view that as more of an accomplishment of the rest of his team than of his own plays. If I need one receiver, for one game, I'm picking Owens.

You make it sound as if it was an individual accomplishment.

[Kosher Ham]

T.O. everytime.

Sure Swann has the rings, but so does Bradshaw and he was far from a superior QB. Between him and Namath, I don't know which was more overrated.

[Peeping Wizard]

How do you capitalize on this bet? What makes you a winner and him a loser or vice versa?

[MattFancy]

T.O. hands down. Rings don't matter unless you're talking about QB. T.O. has put up some crazy numbers so far in his career. He hasn't just done it with one team like Swann, he's played well with multiple QBs on multiple teams. Swann was a good WR, don't get me wrong. But T.O. is better.

[PeterMP]

I'm not going to say it is Swann, but most of you have at least poor reasoning.

TO has better numbers partly AT LEAST due to changes in the game. These include not just the way people think about it, but absolute changes in the rules of the games to make passing more effecient.

The way you'd look at this is to look at the number of seasons they were in the top 5 or 10 in different relavent statistics for WR's.

I'll also point out because of advances in medical sciences and the way the game is played, a lot of players play longer today than in the past. I wouldn't be shocked if Swann had a higher peak, but TO has a better career simply because I'll bet he will end up playing longer so you could argue that you need to look at percentages and not absolute numbers.

[PeterMP]

Easily TO. Athletes nowadays are much better than they were 30 years ago. Swann would be average at best in today's NFL.
If you ignore advances in the related sciences, there is absolutely no reason to believe that atheletes today are more better than atheletes in the past.

In other words, if you took a young Lynn Swann and gave him what we know today about praciticing, health, conditioning, etc., and he applied in a manner to what the best modern atheletes do there is no reason to believe he couldn't compete in the NFL.

[GibbsFactor]

TO. Next Question.

[SKOALSKIN]

We have a bet on who was/is a better WR......Terrell Owens or Lynn Swann.....Curious what you guys think.....

How is this a bet? Its more of a debate then anything.

[Predicto]

TO by a mile (even though I can't stand him).

Swann is one of the most overrated players of all time. The biggest joke in the Hall of Fame, hands down.