chiefswarpath

Help settle an argument...Non FFB related

Recommended Posts

If you cant tell by my username I am a KC homer and got into an argument today with a co-worker who is a Denver fan. It started off as a conversation about Jamaal Charles being signed by Jax and ended with a friendly Terrell Davis HOF debate. My point was if TD makes it so should Charles. Here are the career stats...and for those who say TD did it in less seasons my argument is TD started balling out year 1 vs JC year 2 and Jamaal lost 3 seasons with injuries. (Granted Davis did most of his in a 4-5 year period) For the record I do not think TD belongs in the HOF.....Debate

 

Jamaal Charles

Att: 1401
Yds: 7556
YPC: 5.4
TD: 44
Rec: 308
Rec Yds: 2586
Rec Tds: 20

 

Terrell Davis
Att: 1655
Yds: 7607
Ypc: 4.6
TD: 60
Rec: 169
Rec Yds: 1280
Rec TDs: 5

Edited by chiefswarpath
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ill put it this way, If you took the names off those stat lists, and I had to pick one to be in the HOF and one not to be... Id pick JC.   Same yards on less carries, less carries and less rushing TD's, but also a dynamic pass catcher. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

remind me, how many superbowl rings does charles have? I forget, how important was he to those victories?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, LordOpie said:

remind me, how many superbowl rings does charles have? I forget, how important was he to those victories?

 

 

That's the first thing I thought about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DMD said:

 

 

That's the first thing I thought about.

+2

 

And don't forget the 2,000 yard rushing season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jamaal Charles

 

 

 

Terrell Davis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  1. Terrell Davis was the beneficiary of a revolutionary new running scheme.  If he had played on a different team, he would not have been great.   Jamaal Charles did it on his own.  And I think the Super Bowl argument is weak sauce.  I think it is argument that can be made in basketball because one player can win championships.  In football and baseball, winning championships is being lucky enough to be on the team.  The one exception in football is that a great quarterback can win a Super Bowl.  So Mike Shanahan and John Elway won those Super Bowls, not TD.  Jamaal Charles is better than TD.  Randy Moss is better than Jerry Rice.  Barry Sanders is better than Emmitt Smith.
  2.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, michaelredd9 said:
  1. Terrell Davis was the beneficiary of a revolutionary new running scheme.  If he had played on a different team, he would not have been great.   Jamaal Charles did it on his own.  And I think the Super Bowl argument is weak sauce.  I think it is argument that can be made in basketball because one player can win championships.  In football and baseball, winning championships is being lucky enough to be on the team.  The one exception in football is that a great quarterback can win a Super Bowl.  So Mike Shanahan and John Elway won those Super Bowls, not TD.  Jamaal Charles is better than TD.  Randy Moss is better than Jerry Rice.  Barry Sanders is better than Emmitt Smith.
  2.  

This whole paragraph is weak sauce. This argument can be made about many  player/coach relationships. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, michaelredd9 said:
  1. Terrell Davis was the beneficiary of a revolutionary new running scheme.  If he had played on a different team, he would not have been great.   Jamaal Charles did it on his own.  And I think the Super Bowl argument is weak sauce.  I think it is argument that can be made in basketball because one player can win championships.  In football and baseball, winning championships is being lucky enough to be on the team.  The one exception in football is that a great quarterback can win a Super Bowl.  So Mike Shanahan and John Elway won those Super Bowls, not TD.  Jamaal Charles is better than TD.  Randy Moss is better than Jerry Rice.  Barry Sanders is better than Emmitt Smith.
  2.  

 

You almost had me, until that last sentence. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, CowboysDiehard said:

 

You almost had me, until that last sentence. 

 

 

Neither TD nor Emmitt had size or speed.  In fact, they both ran 4.7 40s which is very slow for a running back.  Emmitt ran behind one of the best offensive lines in NFL history.  Both running backs had some skills that would have made them good anywhere they played.  But they were great because of the team they landed on.  Both teams would have had a different running back that put up hugh numbers if they didn't have TD or Emmitt.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, michaelredd9 said:

 

Neither TD nor Emmitt had size or speed.  In fact, they both ran 4.7 40s which is very slow for a running back.  Emmitt ran behind one of the best offensive lines in NFL history.  Both running backs had some skills that would have made them good anywhere they played.  But they were great because of the team they landed on.  Both teams would have had a different running back that put up hugh numbers if they didn't have TD or Emmitt.

 

 Nail on the head. Circumstances of your team has more to do with winning championships than anything else. Look at Peyton Manning's last SB win, I believe Tannehil would have won that game on that team.. So yeah, a ring count is a weak argument for stuff like this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lewhite90 said:

 

Look at Peyton Manning's last SB win, I believe Tannehil would have won that game on that team.. So yeah, a ring count is a weak argument for stuff like this. 

 

 

 I do think that Peyton's first ring is an example of a football player winning a ring single-handedly.  It is a rare occurrence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lewhite90 said:

 Nail on the head. Circumstances of your team has more to do with winning championships than anything else. Look at Peyton Manning's last SB win, I believe Tannehil would have won that game on that team.. So yeah, a ring count is a weak argument for stuff like this. 

You have no idea how important Peyton was to my broncos. His brains won it for us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1140 rushing / 12 TDs in playoffs adding on is why Davis is a HOF & Charles is going to be in that "Best not in the HOF" group"   (unless he adds some productive time going forward)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pro Football Reference has a section labeled Similar players, look at those listed for each of these guys. Players in the HOF have a * next to their name, none with HOF for Charles, lots of Robert Smith, McCoy, Addai, Tiki, Duece, etc. But for TD I see guys like Dorsett, Barry, LT, Emmitt, Payton, Marcus, OJ, Leroy Kelly, Dickerson many times. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, michaelredd9 said:
  1. Terrell Davis was the beneficiary of a revolutionary new running scheme.  If he had played on a different team, he would not have been great.   Jamaal Charles did it on his own.  And I think the Super Bowl argument is weak sauce.  I think it is argument that can be made in basketball because one player can win championships.  In football and baseball, winning championships is being lucky enough to be on the team.  The one exception in football is that a great quarterback can win a Super Bowl.  So Mike Shanahan and John Elway won those Super Bowls, not TD.  Jamaal Charles is better than TD.  Randy Moss is better than Jerry Rice.  Barry Sanders is better than Emmitt Smith.
  2.  

Was just talking about this with some friends yesterday - the success of a RB depends on many factors outside of the control of the RB. As a current example, just take a look at David Johnson under Arians and David Johnson now. Not every RB can be great under all circumstances. 

 

The one point I'll disagree with is that you can't take TD out of those super bowl wins. He was an integral part of the team.

 

To the original argument, TD>Charles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, michaelredd9 said:
  1. Barry Sanders is better than Emmitt Smith.
  2.  

 

Enjoy your timeout.

 

:lock:  

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, michaelredd9 said:
  1.  Barry Sanders is better than Emmitt Smith.
  2.  
 

 

Bo Jackson > both

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To settle your argument..... it is a moot (or as they say here - mute) point. Neither belongs in the hall.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lewhite90 said:

 Nail on the head. Circumstances of your team has more to do with winning championships than anything else. Look at Peyton Manning's last SB win, I believe Tannehil would have won that game on that team.. So yeah, a ring count is a weak argument for stuff like this. 

It depends on your standards for the HOF. If people believe ONLY stats should count, then that's one perspective. I believe it's the total package and TD has that. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, michaelredd9 said:

 

Neither TD nor Emmitt had size or speed.  In fact, they both ran 4.7 40s which is very slow for a running back.  Emmitt ran behind one of the best offensive lines in NFL history.  Both running backs had some skills that would have made them good anywhere they played.  But they were great because of the team they landed on.  Both teams would have had a different running back that put up hugh numbers if they didn't have TD or Emmitt.

 

 

I thought we already covered about Emmitt being the GOAT. And it is a common misconception that Emmitt succeeded because of his O-line.  His blockers and Daryl Johnson said it was just as much of a case of him making them better. Emmitt played for 15 years and turned well over 1000 yards per season as long as he was healthy.  In 1993, Emmitt averaged 5.3 YPC but Lincoln Coleman (3.9) and Derrick Lassic (3.6) weren't remotely as good and they did not have the 8-man fronts. In 1992, when Emmitt ran for 4.6, Curvin Richards had a 3.6. In 1991, Emmitt was 4.3 and Daryl Johnson (the #2 best back) was 3.2 YPC. It carries through his many, many, many, many  years of service to the NFL, HOF and really the world as we know it.

 

Now that we've finally had that decided, who would be #2? What part of Texas was he from? Adrian Peterson/Palestine, Texas? Ladanian Tomlinson/Waco, Texas? Eric Dickerson/Sealy, Texas? Earl Campbell/Tyler, Texas?

 

Yeah. Probably Earl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry DMD but you are so incorrect. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, knows that Jim Brown is the GOAT and that Sweetness is 2nd.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm close to agreeing with Sky in all things, but Barry San... Nah, I agree with Sky. Damn if it's not close though. 

 

I'll tell you what, I'm as big as Emmitt Smith fan as anyone starting from Florida. But Smith goes no higher than 4th in my book. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EE.JPG.0ae53d8ef267dde36bc878a4db797d16.JPG

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Lewhite90 said:

 Nail on the head. Circumstances of your team has more to do with winning championships than anything else. Look at Peyton Manning's last SB win, I believe Tannehil would have won that game on that team.. So yeah, a ring count is a weak argument for stuff like this. 

No better example than Leg Blount.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.