I think Bavaro's peak was legendary good. Not sure i'd say the same for Banks even if he was indeed the very best LB in football there for a little while. Bavaro was even better than that in my view. I'd probably choose Bavaro.
either one would be one of the very best at his position in the league in 2016. If I had to choose because the Giants LB's have been so bad for so long I'd take Banks 50.1 vs 49.9
Both fit big needs. My gut says Tye and the rookie Adams will surprise in their production and value. LB is more of a need. So, my answer is Banks even though Bavaro is my all time favorite Giant.
However, you pose the question, which one I'd add to the team. So I'd have to go Banks because I think we have enough offensive weapons to win another ring. Our problem has been defense and adding a player like Banks would have a bigger overall impact on the team.
He'd be a great 4-3 SAM and could even play in the middle well. Just a great player, and we still need great players on D. Our offense will get by without Bavaro, one of my all-time favorites.
Now if the question was Jumbo Elliott vs. Banks we'd have a discussion going. Plant him at LT and shift over Flowers and we'd be in business on the OL. (Jumbo never could play RT when he was here, and begged for the move to LT after his first year.)
However, you pose the question, which one I'd add to the team. So I'd have to go Banks because I think we have enough offensive weapons to win another ring. Our problem has been defense and adding a player like Banks would have a bigger overall impact on the team.
Honestly - as huge as LT was, there were plenty of games where Carl was the best linebacker - the best PLAYER on the field. SB XXI was one of those games.
What if Bavaro was on the team for the Carolina game? I think Bavaro would have put a stop to Norman's antics real quick. OBJ is such a target he needs a big brother/enforcer type to protect him. So Bavaro.
There are so many things each guy brought to the team that I don't think this current team has that it's a shame to have to choose.
Bavaro with this offensive scheme would be a lock for the HOF.
That being said, when I look at all of the team needs from on the field performance and leadership and then add locker room presence...that's the tie-breaker that goes to Banks for me.
He would be that guy that as Eli said (I believe referring to Tuck) you have the defense handled, I've got the offense.
gets at least 500 yards and 5 touchdowns a year from the tight end position regardless of the trash they throw out there. Shockey, boss, ballard, unicorn, myers, donnell it doesn't matter. Give me banks all day
playing off the TE ... he was a perfect bookend for LT who ran the runners down from behind as Banks strung out the play. Banks belongs in the HOF imo.
Having said that, in today's pass first league, Bank's value wouldn't be the same as it was back on that 1986 squad. Bavaro, however, brought something more than just a TE. He brought toughness. He was a leader that got the whole team jazzed without saying a word (he literally didn't talk) - he just left everything on the field. Toughest SOB I ever saw play football. With Beckham, he would literally transform this team.
This comes down to if you prefer a sideline to sideline enforcer on defense that can stop the run and cover TEs and RBs vs. a tough as nails TE than can do everything at a high level. I have got to go with defense on this one. Banks it is.
This team was 6th in points and yards per game last year. They D meanwhile, ranked dead last in ypg. A LBer like Banks would make a much bigger impact as far as actually improving the the product on the field.
gets at least 500 yards and 5 touchdowns a year from the tight end position regardless of the trash they throw out there. Shockey, boss, ballard, unicorn, myers, donnell it doesn't matter. Give me banks all day
So imagine what he'd do with Mark Bavaro if he makes trash look acceptable.
Banks was awesome. Banks is everything and then some of what the Giants liked in Floyd during the draft. An extremely versatile linebacker. I think he could play in any scheme in today's NFL.
But id take Bavaro. Went into this thread going that way, surprised that Banks is getting a clear win on this thread.
Like KWALL said, Bavaro and Beckham on the same team? Unfair. With Eli Manning? Bavaro might or might not be better than Gronk, but he'd be on the same tier. And that's saying something since Gronk is 3 tiers ahead of everyone else around today at his position. Bavaro was tougher though. Gronk would get his ass kicked by '86 Bavaro.
What about peak Harry Carson? Is a beast run stopping MLB even in this discussion for today's league against monsters at the OLB and receiving positions?
Banks or Bavaro, Banks or Bavaro. Shit. How do you choose. They both were so dynamic and made a huge difference when they were on the field. I disagree with Victor in Ct who said Banks would get lost in Spags scheme. Banks was an attacking style LB and Spags, when he has the right people, loves to press and attack.
But my reason for choosing Banks is that the offense was the eigth rated offense in the entire NFL last year and the defense was dead last in totality and in just about every category as well. If the defense was simply middle of the road they probably make a playoff run if not get into the playoffs.
The need is greater on defense then it is on offense and a linebacker with the chops Banks had would only make them that much better. And lord knows they have not a had a linebacker the likes of Banks in what seems forever.
He eliminates the blocking issues on the right side, would be another receiving threat and an ideal target on third downs. His ability to block and catch makes him a constant mismatch.
in 86 was a different level player. Its Banks. Banks if his play was as good as it was in 86 through an entire season would be a defensive MVP candidate in spite of his small sack numbers.
Ive rewatched the 86 playoff run recently. Bavaro was a great player, but Banks was in another universe. Single handedly mauled the 49er offense.
1986', teams simply could NOT run on the strong side...
...Banks was absolutely phenomenal at standing up linemen and Tight Ends, was capable of beating double teams, would shed blocks and 86' was his best year, 113 tackles, 6.5 sacks, blew up MANY plays.
In the 85 and 86 playoffs, he was ridiculous.
I would love for the Giants to have a linebacker like that now - JPP is nice, but the Giants sorely NEED another dominant presence in that front 7. It's what they had really from the year Osi was drafted straight through his and Tucks departure.
...the dominant Joe Morris rushing attack aside - in 86, Mark Bavaro had 1000 yards receiving - behind him? Bobby Johnson with 536 - that team had NO receiving threats.
Bavaro's success was as much about the lack of anywhere else to throw the ball as it was to his own skill as a receiver.
And oh, what a fantastic blocker as well!
But honestly, in this offense? He wouldn't hit 1,000 yards. He would certainly be a dramatic improvement at TE, but there ARE other places to throw the ball on this team.
An impact Linebacker would be more valuable than an impact TE for 2016, plain and simple.
But I would go with Banks, he would bring the toughness and ability to cover tight ends . The way Bavaro and Banks went at each other during practices and pushed each other to become the players they were. Bavaro probably could play LB and Banks probably play TE.
However, you pose the question, which one I'd add to the team. So I'd have to go Banks because I think we have enough offensive weapons to win another ring. Our problem has been defense and adding a player like Banks would have a bigger overall impact on the team.
You are way off on the AA of both. Banks would be a 4 down LB. Never off the field. Could move him inside too.
Bavaro wasn't just a lumbering big guy. He could run and he could plant and get open. He would be an exceptional pass catching TE in today's NFL.
.
It's too bad he had knee issues after about 5 years.
He went on to Philly, never the same.
I loved the way the guy played though, damn toughness
he brought that team, it was just great to watch.
I think giants fans tend to overrate him a bit. He was the only consistent receiving threat on that team. Manuel was injured but was good, and Bobby Johnson and Stacey Robinson and McConkey were not bad when called upon, and it was a different era so just looking at the stats is unfair. But he stands out to many for that reason.
Meanwhile Banks is criminally underrated. One pro bowl? Unreal. Banks is the best defender arguably in Giants playoff history for his 85-86 performance. And while far more mortal in 90 he was still a solid contributor.
I didn't see either play, so not sure if I can add much...
I'll say Bavarro, just because you saw how pronounced his impact was in a solid, but unspectacular offense. You might wonder how good Banks would've been in a more pedestrian defense.
.....as was Banks. I said Giant fans tend to overrate him a bit (due to some awesome plays for sure). He is not sniffing Canton with his body of work. At his peak, yes, a hall of fame talent; it was too short. Giants fans tend to remember him over guys like Carson and Banks. The 'Rambo' look helped his pop icon status for sure. Hardly a derogatory remark towards him just my observation.
...as good as they come, a DYNAMITE run blocker, excellent receiver, soft hands, skilled in finding the open field. He and Simms developed an awesome relationship, and the seam pattern became a serious weapon for that team.
no doubt he was great. But he is slightly overrated by Giants fans.
Which is possible. Im not talking Mike Alstott overrated here. He simply merits more praise than many other Giants on that team.
First of all, the Giant offense, in spite of what people here say, was a pretty top shelf offense in the mid 80s. Ball control was the gameplan in 86, but Simms rang up the passing quite often between 84-86. Even the receivers were not as bad as they statistically project. Manuel was hurt most of the year but he would have put up good numbers. They went committee and they weren't throwing a lot given the way they were winning.
There were a lot of great players on that team.
When you consider guys like George Martin, Leonard Marshall, Bart Oates, Mo Carthon, Mark Collins and others are fairly underrated and not spoken about as frequently as bavaro that is the context Im making the statement.
To those who did not see that team Banks #s makes him exceptionally underrated. Madden thought he was going to be better than LT.
...didn't really focus on one player - Simms was hitting his backs, all his receivers and TE's - racked up 3,800+ yds passing that season.
Manuel was really the only dangerous wide receiver of the lot, but he was injured in 86'. That opened the door for Bavaro - when Manuel came back healthy in 88', HE had the 1000 yard season, Bavaro's numbers dropping in kind.
86' was a run first unit - phenomenal blockers, Joe Morris was a fantastic, powerful back and that was his best season. And Bavaro FEASTED on teams bringing the extra safety into the box.
The best full season in modern-era Giants history.
He could get open but he wasn't a top WR. They had very little at that position.
I just don't see how anybody can say Bavaro is overrated. He was a HOF player. Injuries didn't allow him to do it long enough to get in. That's the only thing that prevented Bavaro in HOF. There are plenty of players in he HOF that weren't as good as Bavaro.
If he he played today he would be an elite offensive weapon. There was nothing missing from his game. And that is NOT overrating him.
Joe Montana was ranked the most overrated 9er in history on an nfl website a few years ago. Can someone be an all time great and simultaneously overrated? Yes.
Consider banks vs Bavaro a Montana vs young style debate. Young is arguably a bit underrated and even better than Montana. Montana is a legend yet people who know football realize he had a noodle arm compared to elway and Marino and was largely a product of the Walsh system.
Young had he played on the 81-90 niners would probably have won as much. Had Montana run into the 92-95 boys and the favor packers probably would have won less.
It's a splitting hairs argument-- maybe ''over ranked' is the better term for what I'm saying.
Now, when considering our putrid defense and lbs today, banks is a no brainer vast upgrade to this team. Bavaro improves the overall passing offense but not as dramatically as banks would this d.
Osi. Phil had a much liver arm as did people I discussed. Part of why Montana went in the third round. And why Walsh wanted Simms.
Obviously I agree with your point about accuracy and his overall greatness. heres a question: would you rather have Montana or LT?
Most lists rank Montana as the best overall player or two--him and rice often top the list, although people say Tom B often nowadays.
Taylor ends up somewhere between 4-6. Personally, LT could play on any d in history and be the best player on it. Meanwhile Montana could be replaced by Rodgers, Young and others and their success would probably be similar.
So to my point, it's possible to be overrated without it being a slight to a player and their ability and greatness.
In 1986, Bavaro's importance to the team, as great as he was, was magnified by the team's utter lack of quality wide receivers. Bobby Johnson and Stacy Robinson led the wrs with a combined total of 1026 yards. Just pathetic. Now, we have as many as three vastly better than those, if Cruz is even decently healthy. Even Harrison is probably better than those two. And, our TE's this year should at least hold the fort. People forget how green Tye was. I think he comes in much better this year, with better backups from among Donnell, Adams and maybe Malleck.
On the other hand, our LBs remain a motley crew, until and unless proven otherwise. Banks would dramatically upgrade that bunch, providing sideline to sideline skills our current bunch almost certainly lacks.
Because receivers grow on trees and qbs have rules which make their lives easier. Meanwhile the teams that have abundance of lesser available talent (quality lbs and emphasis on defense) have been dominant precisely because they have something unique and they can actually stop other teams. Seattle Carolina and Denver illustrate why investing in d is in fashion again. More of an argument for Banks in my view.
Bavaro's importance to the team, as great as he was, was magnified by the team's utter lack of quality wide receivers
That is such horse shit. It was not "magnified" by the lack of talent at WR. Just the opposite. It's just so far off base about the value Bavaro brought to a team.
In today's NFL, a 2 way TE and ass kicker like Bavaro would add a ton to any team
His value was higher because the team had pedestrian wr
If Manuel was healthy and if they had more wrs like today his value would not be as high. Hence the term magnified. Don't see why this is so objectionable.
X Meadowlander makes same point--in 1988 Bavaros numbers took a permanent hit. Giants had Manuel and started using Baker and his emphasis in the offense was lessened. Still great but not as critical as he was.
I can definitely see your argument for Banks over Bavaro, it's probably the way I would lean, although I waffle back and forth. However, Bavaro is not over rated by anyone, anywhere, Giants fan or no. Name another TE that was as complete as Bavaro. You can count them on JPPs hand. It's not just about the 49ers highlight play. It's not just about being an excellent pass catcher and dragging or running over the other teams players for YAC. It's about standing him out on an island vs. any DE on any team, including Reggie White and having him be able to block them without help. Sure Morris and Carthon were great... but Bavaro was an absolutely CRUCIAL part of the run game. Not to mention pass protection.
Others have pointed out our need at LB is way more important to the D than TE to the O. Though Banks played with two HOFer's (!!!) so there's no evidence that he would single-handedly turn around the worst unit on the team.
And Bavaro's ceiling - which was right around 86 - was a little higher than Banks'. I now consider him the the Gronk of the good-ol-days, when power mattered as much as speed.
Johnny no disagreement at all with anything you said regarding his skills.
Bavaro was a truly dominant player in 86 and 87. His peak was too short to be a hall of famer, but so was Banks quite honestly so it's a moot point.
Here's where I will throw a bit of a wrench--Bavaro is brought up far more than many others on that team. As I said earlier, over ranked is the best term perhaps -- see my earlier posts.
I don't know how anyone could say "not even close"
both players dominated their position for a few years. Bavaro had a brighter peak simply because he was literally the most dominant TE ever. Madden said that. So did many others.
Banks had an insane peak too and his overall career had a more consistent run, kind of, but Bavaro was so good there for a bit. Not even close? You're just not paying attention to how good Bavaro was.
Honestly I still can't get past that guys like MArshall, Banks, Oates and Bavaro get absolutely no HOF talk. Ever. Why? MArshall was a top 3/4 DE for a long long time. He really never had a bad year until 90 and then he went bananas in that postseason yet again. The guy made pro bowls and helped his defense beat up on legendary teams in legendary moments. He put up great stats for his career. He won TWO rings! How does this guy not even get a whiff? Same with Banks.
To me there are two athletes in this town that are sort of overrated only because they are almost like black holes that suck in all the adulation and respect which subsequently impact the rest of the teams they played for. And those two players are Lawrence Taylor and Derek Jeter. These players are so beloved and respected, and rightfully so, that it almost corrupts the fans and media perception of some of their respective teammates. LT was so good guys like Banks and MArshall just went along for the ride. That's so unfair. If those guys didn't hold up their end the Giants don't win NFL titles. That's why they are HOF caliber players.
the same people saying Bavaro wasn't the best player in football
are probably the same people that insist on believing Gronk isn't the best non QB player in all of football right now. And if he isn't the very best he's on a very short list of the best.
The TE position is criminally under appreciated. Not enough TEs in Canton and only now will a few more get in but based solely on their receiving numbers--IE Gonzo and Gates.
so first of all gronk is not the best non qb. JJ Watt and Von Miller get that distinction first. He's close and he's up there. Also believe ODB is in the running......but I would say the two defensive players go first.
And Bavaro was definitely not better than Jerry Rice or Lawrence Taylor. So this is what Im talking about when you can overrate a great player like Bavaro. Was Bavaro better than Eric Dickerson or Walter Payton or Ronnie Lott as well? Thats dubious.
Otherwise Im largely in agreement with what you posted.
I disagree with the Taylor/Jeter thing. Everybody makes their own reputation. Taylor came on the seen next to a nine-time All Pro future HOFer and didn't seem to have a problem making his own reputation. Banks has made a very good impression in line with his ability. He was great, just not HOF like the two guys he played with. NBD.
Bavaro was a little closer, but his smash mouth style didn't afford him the durability he needed to get in. Quite a shame
neither is really particularly close. there are a few criminal ommissions like Kenny Stabler and LC Greenwood that are way ahead of them......
Quite frankly Phil needs to get in first. His excellence was longer than Banks or Bavaro even if his peak wasn't as high and being the #1 color commentator for 15 plus years with CBS (even though he has stunk recently) helps Phil's HOF case quite a bit.
agreed. But there is still a class of non inclusions which is puzzling, like Stabler, Bob Lily and LC Greenwood. Of course, the fantasy stat compliers of the aughts will get in which will be overkill. I don't see how Curtis Martin was such a shoe in for the hall for example........
You are way off on the AA of both. Banks would be a 4 down LB. Never off the field. Could move him inside too.
Bavaro wasn't just a lumbering big guy. He could run and he could plant and get open. He would be an exceptional pass catching TE in today's NFL.
.
It's too bad he had knee issues after about 5 years.
He went on to Philly, never the same.
I loved the way the guy played though, damn toughness
he brought that team, it was just great to watch.
IIRC, he came out of college with knee issues. I am pretty sure he was a 4th round draft choice and a reporter asked other coaches about Bavaro and why they didn't pick him before that. I think it was Bill Walsh or Tom Landry who said.
"We loved Bavaro coming out of college but, we just underestimated his tolerance for pain"
so first of all gronk is not the best non qb. JJ Watt and Von Miller get that distinction first. He's close and he's up there. Also believe ODB is in the running......but I would say the two defensive players go first.
And Bavaro was definitely not better than Jerry Rice or Lawrence Taylor. So this is what Im talking about when you can overrate a great player like Bavaro. Was Bavaro better than Eric Dickerson or Walter Payton or Ronnie Lott as well? Thats dubious.
Otherwise Im largely in agreement with what you posted.
Gronk is next to all the elite players. He's RIGHT there with Miller and Watt. Gronk impacts the game as much as anyone. He's as good a TE to come along since Bavaro. The guy does everything at a high level and in crunch time his impact is even greater. 4th down with 20 seconds left and pats are in the red zone? They are going to Gronk and winning. The guy's an absolute beast. Don't tell me Tom Brady. I don't care. Gronk helps Brady as much as BRady helps Gronk.
you're right to say it's impossible and a but unfair to say a player like Bavaro was BETTER than Lott or Rice...that's fine. But he was right there with him. I don't like to get into who was better anyway. I basically just categorize players in groups. Bavaro was in that elite group of a choice few.
Banks is a prototype 3-4 LB. Might be somewhat underutilized in a 4-3.
I flipflopped twice just typing this comment.
Going with Banks.
Bring physicality and ownership to the unit.
However, you pose the question, which one I'd add to the team. So I'd have to go Banks because I think we have enough offensive weapons to win another ring. Our problem has been defense and adding a player like Banks would have a bigger overall impact on the team.
Our LB's aren't the greatest either, but I think we are in better shape there than at TE.
Now if the question was Jumbo Elliott vs. Banks we'd have a discussion going. Plant him at LT and shift over Flowers and we'd be in business on the OL. (Jumbo never could play RT when he was here, and begged for the move to LT after his first year.)
However, you pose the question, which one I'd add to the team. So I'd have to go Banks because I think we have enough offensive weapons to win another ring. Our problem has been defense and adding a player like Banks would have a bigger overall impact on the team.
+1
Honestly - as huge as LT was, there were plenty of games where Carl was the best linebacker - the best PLAYER on the field. SB XXI was one of those games.
I think of Bavaro knocking the shyte out of the DEs that I don't think today's TEs could do.
Banks is a prototype 3-4 LB. Might be somewhat underutilized in a 4-3.
Sick and tired of all you talking about a 4-3 when NYG like most teams play more of a 4-2-5 then anything else.
There are so many things each guy brought to the team that I don't think this current team has that it's a shame to have to choose.
Bavaro with this offensive scheme would be a lock for the HOF.
That being said, when I look at all of the team needs from on the field performance and leadership and then add locker room presence...that's the tie-breaker that goes to Banks for me.
He would be that guy that as Eli said (I believe referring to Tuck) you have the defense handled, I've got the offense.
I think of Bavaro knocking the shyte out of the DEs that I don't think today's TEs could do.
Except Bavaro, would solve the major concerns people have about the right side..:)
Link - ( New Window )
Having said that, in today's pass first league, Bank's value wouldn't be the same as it was back on that 1986 squad. Bavaro, however, brought something more than just a TE. He brought toughness. He was a leader that got the whole team jazzed without saying a word (he literally didn't talk) - he just left everything on the field. Toughest SOB I ever saw play football. With Beckham, he would literally transform this team.
So imagine what he'd do with Mark Bavaro if he makes trash look acceptable.
Banks was awesome. Banks is everything and then some of what the Giants liked in Floyd during the draft. An extremely versatile linebacker. I think he could play in any scheme in today's NFL.
But id take Bavaro. Went into this thread going that way, surprised that Banks is getting a clear win on this thread.
Like KWALL said, Bavaro and Beckham on the same team? Unfair. With Eli Manning? Bavaro might or might not be better than Gronk, but he'd be on the same tier. And that's saying something since Gronk is 3 tiers ahead of everyone else around today at his position. Bavaro was tougher though. Gronk would get his ass kicked by '86 Bavaro.
What about peak Harry Carson? Is a beast run stopping MLB even in this discussion for today's league against monsters at the OLB and receiving positions?
But my reason for choosing Banks is that the offense was the eigth rated offense in the entire NFL last year and the defense was dead last in totality and in just about every category as well. If the defense was simply middle of the road they probably make a playoff run if not get into the playoffs.
The need is greater on defense then it is on offense and a linebacker with the chops Banks had would only make them that much better. And lord knows they have not a had a linebacker the likes of Banks in what seems forever.
Ive rewatched the 86 playoff run recently. Bavaro was a great player, but Banks was in another universe. Single handedly mauled the 49er offense.
In the 85 and 86 playoffs, he was ridiculous.
I would love for the Giants to have a linebacker like that now - JPP is nice, but the Giants sorely NEED another dominant presence in that front 7. It's what they had really from the year Osi was drafted straight through his and Tucks departure.
I was hoping Floyd could be that guy. :(
Bavaro's success was as much about the lack of anywhere else to throw the ball as it was to his own skill as a receiver.
And oh, what a fantastic blocker as well!
But honestly, in this offense? He wouldn't hit 1,000 yards. He would certainly be a dramatic improvement at TE, but there ARE other places to throw the ball on this team.
An impact Linebacker would be more valuable than an impact TE for 2016, plain and simple.
Bavaro wasn't just a lumbering big guy. He could run and he could plant and get open. He would be an exceptional pass catching TE in today's NFL.
Quote:
of my favorite Giants of all time.
However, you pose the question, which one I'd add to the team. So I'd have to go Banks because I think we have enough offensive weapons to win another ring. Our problem has been defense and adding a player like Banks would have a bigger overall impact on the team.
+1
He is my favorite!!
Bavaro wasn't just a lumbering big guy. He could run and he could plant and get open. He would be an exceptional pass catching TE in today's NFL.
It's too bad he had knee issues after about 5 years.
He went on to Philly, never the same.
I loved the way the guy played though, damn toughness
he brought that team, it was just great to watch.
Meanwhile Banks is criminally underrated. One pro bowl? Unreal. Banks is the best defender arguably in Giants playoff history for his 85-86 performance. And while far more mortal in 90 he was still a solid contributor.
Belichick knows a few things about the TE position. Look up what he says about Bavaro. Overrated isn't a word to use. Not close.
I'll say Bavarro, just because you saw how pronounced his impact was in a solid, but unspectacular offense. You might wonder how good Banks would've been in a more pedestrian defense.
That's all I got.
Which is possible. Im not talking Mike Alstott overrated here. He simply merits more praise than many other Giants on that team.
First of all, the Giant offense, in spite of what people here say, was a pretty top shelf offense in the mid 80s. Ball control was the gameplan in 86, but Simms rang up the passing quite often between 84-86. Even the receivers were not as bad as they statistically project. Manuel was hurt most of the year but he would have put up good numbers. They went committee and they weren't throwing a lot given the way they were winning.
There were a lot of great players on that team.
When you consider guys like George Martin, Leonard Marshall, Bart Oates, Mo Carthon, Mark Collins and others are fairly underrated and not spoken about as frequently as bavaro that is the context Im making the statement.
To those who did not see that team Banks #s makes him exceptionally underrated. Madden thought he was going to be better than LT.
Manuel was really the only dangerous wide receiver of the lot, but he was injured in 86'. That opened the door for Bavaro - when Manuel came back healthy in 88', HE had the 1000 yard season, Bavaro's numbers dropping in kind.
86' was a run first unit - phenomenal blockers, Joe Morris was a fantastic, powerful back and that was his best season. And Bavaro FEASTED on teams bringing the extra safety into the box.
The best full season in modern-era Giants history.
14-2.
I just don't see how anybody can say Bavaro is overrated. He was a HOF player. Injuries didn't allow him to do it long enough to get in. That's the only thing that prevented Bavaro in HOF. There are plenty of players in he HOF that weren't as good as Bavaro.
If he he played today he would be an elite offensive weapon. There was nothing missing from his game. And that is NOT overrating him.
Banks
Banks
Consider banks vs Bavaro a Montana vs young style debate. Young is arguably a bit underrated and even better than Montana. Montana is a legend yet people who know football realize he had a noodle arm compared to elway and Marino and was largely a product of the Walsh system.
Young had he played on the 81-90 niners would probably have won as much. Had Montana run into the 92-95 boys and the favor packers probably would have won less.
It's a splitting hairs argument-- maybe ''over ranked' is the better term for what I'm saying.
Now, when considering our putrid defense and lbs today, banks is a no brainer vast upgrade to this team. Bavaro improves the overall passing offense but not as dramatically as banks would this d.
Obviously I agree with your point about accuracy and his overall greatness. heres a question: would you rather have Montana or LT?
Most lists rank Montana as the best overall player or two--him and rice often top the list, although people say Tom B often nowadays.
Taylor ends up somewhere between 4-6. Personally, LT could play on any d in history and be the best player on it. Meanwhile Montana could be replaced by Rodgers, Young and others and their success would probably be similar.
So to my point, it's possible to be overrated without it being a slight to a player and their ability and greatness.
On the other hand, our LBs remain a motley crew, until and unless proven otherwise. Banks would dramatically upgrade that bunch, providing sideline to sideline skills our current bunch almost certainly lacks.
That is such horse shit. It was not "magnified" by the lack of talent at WR. Just the opposite. It's just so far off base about the value Bavaro brought to a team.
In today's NFL, a 2 way TE and ass kicker like Bavaro would add a ton to any team
X Meadowlander makes same point--in 1988 Bavaros numbers took a permanent hit. Giants had Manuel and started using Baker and his emphasis in the offense was lessened. Still great but not as critical as he was.
And Bavaro's ceiling - which was right around 86 - was a little higher than Banks'. I now consider him the the Gronk of the good-ol-days, when power mattered as much as speed.
Bavaro was a truly dominant player in 86 and 87. His peak was too short to be a hall of famer, but so was Banks quite honestly so it's a moot point.
Here's where I will throw a bit of a wrench--Bavaro is brought up far more than many others on that team. As I said earlier, over ranked is the best term perhaps -- see my earlier posts.
Banks had an insane peak too and his overall career had a more consistent run, kind of, but Bavaro was so good there for a bit. Not even close? You're just not paying attention to how good Bavaro was.
Honestly I still can't get past that guys like MArshall, Banks, Oates and Bavaro get absolutely no HOF talk. Ever. Why? MArshall was a top 3/4 DE for a long long time. He really never had a bad year until 90 and then he went bananas in that postseason yet again. The guy made pro bowls and helped his defense beat up on legendary teams in legendary moments. He put up great stats for his career. He won TWO rings! How does this guy not even get a whiff? Same with Banks.
To me there are two athletes in this town that are sort of overrated only because they are almost like black holes that suck in all the adulation and respect which subsequently impact the rest of the teams they played for. And those two players are Lawrence Taylor and Derek Jeter. These players are so beloved and respected, and rightfully so, that it almost corrupts the fans and media perception of some of their respective teammates. LT was so good guys like Banks and MArshall just went along for the ride. That's so unfair. If those guys didn't hold up their end the Giants don't win NFL titles. That's why they are HOF caliber players.
The TE position is criminally under appreciated. Not enough TEs in Canton and only now will a few more get in but based solely on their receiving numbers--IE Gonzo and Gates.
From 79'-81', Simms was sacked 123 times. During that same period, Montana was sacked 41 times.
When Simms came back from injury to take the reins in 84, he was sacked 55 times. In 85, 52. In 86, he still got sacked 45 times.
I simply cannot imagine Joe Montana being able to withstand that without his arms and legs flying off.
And Bavaro was definitely not better than Jerry Rice or Lawrence Taylor. So this is what Im talking about when you can overrate a great player like Bavaro. Was Bavaro better than Eric Dickerson or Walter Payton or Ronnie Lott as well? Thats dubious.
Otherwise Im largely in agreement with what you posted.
Bavaro was a little closer, but his smash mouth style didn't afford him the durability he needed to get in. Quite a shame
Quite frankly Phil needs to get in first. His excellence was longer than Banks or Bavaro even if his peak wasn't as high and being the #1 color commentator for 15 plus years with CBS (even though he has stunk recently) helps Phil's HOF case quite a bit.
Quote:
You are way off on the AA of both. Banks would be a 4 down LB. Never off the field. Could move him inside too.
Bavaro wasn't just a lumbering big guy. He could run and he could plant and get open. He would be an exceptional pass catching TE in today's NFL.
.
It's too bad he had knee issues after about 5 years.
He went on to Philly, never the same.
I loved the way the guy played though, damn toughness
he brought that team, it was just great to watch.
IIRC, he came out of college with knee issues. I am pretty sure he was a 4th round draft choice and a reporter asked other coaches about Bavaro and why they didn't pick him before that. I think it was Bill Walsh or Tom Landry who said.
"We loved Bavaro coming out of college but, we just underestimated his tolerance for pain"
I love that quote.
And Bavaro was definitely not better than Jerry Rice or Lawrence Taylor. So this is what Im talking about when you can overrate a great player like Bavaro. Was Bavaro better than Eric Dickerson or Walter Payton or Ronnie Lott as well? Thats dubious.
Otherwise Im largely in agreement with what you posted.
Gronk is next to all the elite players. He's RIGHT there with Miller and Watt. Gronk impacts the game as much as anyone. He's as good a TE to come along since Bavaro. The guy does everything at a high level and in crunch time his impact is even greater. 4th down with 20 seconds left and pats are in the red zone? They are going to Gronk and winning. The guy's an absolute beast. Don't tell me Tom Brady. I don't care. Gronk helps Brady as much as BRady helps Gronk.