All Time Bengals Team - Day 2, RB - Use this thread!

[bfine32]

Originally Posted by Shake n Blake

If not for Corey, the Bengals would have been the first 0-16 team in history. In 2000 we had the worst passing offense in the modern history of the NFL. Our defense was bad too. Corey pretty much won us 4 games single handedly and saved us from the embarassment of having an 0-16 finish is PBS's first season. When did Brooks ever single-handedly win games for us? He couldn't even lead the team in rushing. Also, Bfine, it's silly to say Brooks had almost as much YFS as Dillon on 400 fewer touches when so much of that yardage came on receptions. Naturally, receptions go for way more yards than carries. Since you value receptions so much, I guess you would also take Warrick Dunn over Corey or Jerome Bettis? Dunn did have a lot of receptions.

You're probably right; catches out of the backfield should be ignored. No need to get testy; as I never said I'd take Brooks over Corey. I simply stated I'm surprised the voting is/was so one-sided and folks that said things such as "not even close", "no contest", ect... may be under valuing what Brooks did on the field.

Take the receptions out and Brooks still averaged almost 1/2 yard per carry than Corey. Sure Brooks had a better line and he made the most of it with a much better average per carry, How many YPC would Dillon get one those teams IDK, but I'd be hard pressed to say it would be "much better" than 4.8

...and why the Hell would I take Warrick Dunn over Corey. Dunn only averaged 4.1 YPC over his career.

[OSUfan]

Originally Posted by Shake n Blake

I would suggest to someone voting for Brooks to take into account that Brooks ran behind the likes of HOFer Anthony Munoz and Max Montoya. One of the best lines of all-time. He also had an MVP QB taking heat off him. Dillon ran behind the likes of Rod Smith and Brilz and had at least 7 different starting QBs during his tenure, most of them terrible. Also, those records you belittle were previously held by Jim Brown. Maybe you're the one who is young and needs to watch some video. Dillon is our all-time leading rusher in spite of all that was working against him. I can't look it up right now, but I'm pretty sure Brooks didn't even lead the team in rushing during the superbowl season. He mostly split carries. So dude wasn't even a full-time back and some of yall are voting him our all-time RB? Really?

So what you are saying is that a Tony Dorsett or a Emmitt Smith is really not worthy of the HOF because they ran behind good Olines or that Jerry Rice ie not worthy of the HOF because he had good OLines and a great QB. Am I getting the translation correct?

You are right Brooks split carries and amassed a large number of yards and TDs while doing so. As I have stated Dillon was a great back but stat wise he could complete separate himself from Brooks and Dillon was getting virtually all of the carries.

I find it ridiculous for anyone to downgrade the contributions that Brooks made to this franchise. Why do people feel it is necessary to downgrade a very good player to try and make another look good?

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Originally Posted by OSUfan

So what you are saying is that a Tony Dorsett or a Emmitt Smith is really not worthy of the HOF because they ran behind good Olines or that Jerry Rice ie not worthy of the HOF because he had good OLines and a great QB. Am I getting the translation correct?

You are right Brooks split carries and amassed a large number of yards and TDs while doing so. As I have stated Dillon was a great back but stat wise he could complete separate himself from Brooks and Dillon was getting virtually all of the carries.

I find it ridiculous for anyone to downgrade the contributions that Brooks made to this franchise. Why do people feel it is necessary to downgrade a very good player to try and make another look good?

I didn't see anybody downgrade Brooks; truth is truth.

And for the "average age," talk, is that your argument as to why Ken Anderson was voted as #1?

Case rested.

[OSUfan]

Originally Posted by Truck_1_0_1_

I didn't see anybody downgrade Brooks; truth is truth.

And for the "average age," talk, is that your argument as to why Ken Anderson was voted as #1?

Case rested.

Sorry you have zero credibility after your comments in the WR poll.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Originally Posted by OSUfan

Sorry you have zero credibility after your comments in the WR poll.

Nice rebutt no-rebutt.

http://boards.bengals.com/showthread.php?t=100291

Where do I have a post?

Keeeeeeep grasping...

[bfine32]

Originally Posted by Truck_1_0_1_

I didn't see anybody downgrade Brooks; truth is truth.

If I were to mention that Corey Fumbled 28 times in his career, would that be downgrade or truth is truth?

[Lawless_1]

Originally Posted by bfine32

If I were to mention that Corey Fumbled 28 times in his career, would that be downgrade or truth is truth?

No offense but Brooks fumbled 51 times in his career....

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...B/BrooJa00.htm

[bfine32]

Originally Posted by Lawless_1

No offense but Brooks fumbled 51 times in his career....

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...B/BrooJa00.htm

You didn't answer the question.

[Lawless_1]

Originally Posted by bfine32

You didn't answer the question.

It is very true.

But he also had 2,618 carries so on average he fumbled once every 93.5 carries which is not bad at all.

[bfine32]

Originally Posted by Lawless_1

It is very true.

But he also had 2,618 carries so on average he fumbled once every 93.5 carries which is not bad at all.

You didn't answer the question of if I were to point to Corey's numerous fumbles would it be "truth is truth" or would it be downgrading his performance.

[Shake n Blake]

Originally Posted by bfine32

You're probably right; catches out of the backfield should be ignored. No need to get testy; as I never said I'd take Brooks over Corey. I simply stated I'm surprised the voting is/was so one-sided and folks that said things such as "not even close", "no contest", ect... may be under valuing what Brooks did on the field.

Take the receptions out and Brooks still averaged almost 1/2 yard per carry than Corey. Sure Brooks had a better line and he made the most of it with a much better average per carry, How many YPC would Dillon get one those teams IDK, but I'd be hard pressed to say it would be "much better" than 4.8

...and why the Hell would I take Warrick Dunn over Corey. Dunn only averaged 4.1 YPC over his career.

Didn't mean to sound testy, I just enjoy the debate. I just think if you put Dillon on those 80's teams, he could have posted 1500 yards on a yearly basis on 5+ ypc. Just look what he did with his only prime season in NE. Led the NFL in yards per game and was a key reason why the Pats won the superbowl. Just to clarify, I have mass respect for Brooks even though I wasn't old enough to fully appreciate all he did. I heard a lot about the 80's Bengals from my Dad though. He's the type that thinks all the old era players were better, but even he admits that Dillon was the best.

[Shake n Blake]

Originally Posted by OSUfan

So what you are saying is that a Tony Dorsett or a Emmitt Smith is really not worthy of the HOF because they ran behind good Olines or that Jerry Rice ie not worthy of the HOF because he had good OLines and a great QB. Am I getting the translation correct?

You are right Brooks split carries and amassed a large number of yards and TDs while doing so. As I have stated Dillon was a great back but stat wise he could complete separate himself from Brooks and Dillon was getting virtually all of the carries.

I find it ridiculous for anyone to downgrade the contributions that Brooks made to this franchise. Why do people feel it is necessary to downgrade a very good player to try and make another look good?

I wasn't downgrading Brooks for having an awesome line and QB, it's just something you have to consider when comparing different players. This reminds me a bit of the Emmitt Smith/Barry Sanders debate. Barry put up very similar numbers while he was playing, but I place Barry ahead of Emmitt because of who he played for. That's nothing against Smith, but Sanders was posting similar/better numbers on terrible teams. Dillon rushed for 1435 yards (4.6 ypc) on a team that had Akili and Scott Mitchell posting QB ratings around 45. That's amazing really.

[phil413]

No other answer but Dillion. Even if you hated the guy, he was dominant on teams that didn't have much else. Teams played 8 in the box, they gave it to Dillon, he got first downs. I liked watching James Brooks, but put prime Dillon on the 88 squad and the Bengals win a ring.

[OSUfan]

Originally Posted by Truck_1_0_1_

Nice rebutt no-rebutt.

http://boards.bengals.com/showthread.php?t=100291

Where do I have a post?

Keeeeeeep grasping...

Wrong truck my bad. However, does not change your non-fact. Apparently, you have not read the thread and apparently you have not seen Brooks play. Brooks was a great all around back and has the numbers to prove it. He has stats right there with Dillon and did it with considerably less carries.

Everyone continues to play the rest of the team card. Brooks made plenty of plays and extended plays with his ability. Not too mention he was a much better receiver out of the backfield. To downgrade what Brooks accomplished because of who he played with is crazy.

The HOF is filled with players that had great supporting casts.

[shaolinghost]

Originally Posted by OSUfan

Wrong truck my bad. However, does not change your non-fact. Apparently, you have not read the thread and apparently you have not seen Brooks play. Brooks was a great all around back and has the numbers to prove it. He has stats right there with Dillon and did it with considerably less carries.

Everyone continues to play the rest of the team card. Brooks made plenty of plays and extended plays with his ability. Not too mention he was a much better receiver out of the backfield. To downgrade what Brooks accomplished because of who he played with is crazy.

The HOF ie filled with players that had great supporting casts.

You continue to ignore the rest of the team, and significantly downplay supporting casts when it is at the very least a contributing factor to the overall success of an individual player.

Brooks had the luxury of being on a team with an excellent HC and OC. With that, came an MVP QB, a great line with a HOF LT, and an above average receiving corp. Teams weren't keyed on Brooks like they were Dillon since the rest of the offense was highly respected by other teams, which was a huge factor.

WTS, I'm not going to deny that he was right up there with Dillon as far as numbers are concerned, and Brooks is a great back in his own right, but Dillon proved he could be the bell cow and produce on a team where he was head and shoulders better than anyone else on the offense, and the only player other teams game-planned against.

[OSUfan]

Originally Posted by shaolinghost

You continue to ignore the rest of the team, and significantly downplay supporting casts when it is at the very least a contributing factor to the overall success of an individual player.

Brooks had the luxury of being on a team with an excellent HC and OC. With that, came an MVP QB, a great line with a HOF LT, and an above average receiving corp. Teams weren't keyed on Brooks like they were Dillon since the rest of the offense was highly respected by other teams, which was a huge factor.

WTS, I'm not going to deny that he was right up there with Dillon as far as numbers are concerned, and Brooks is a great back in his own right, but Dillon proved he could be the bell cow and produce on a team where he was head and shoulders better than anyone else on the offense, and the only player other teams game-planned against.

Ok let's not ignore the supporting cast and let's really look at this argument. I believe some who are believing the support cast are going to be kind of shocked at the outcome:

1997 -

Willie Anderson
Rich Braham (LG)
Ken Blackmon
Boomer
Jeff Blake
Tony McGee
Carl Pickens
Darnay Scott
Kevin Sargent
Joe Walter

Not buying in '97 that he did it on his own with no blocking and no one else to game plan for.

1998-

Neil O'Donnell (15 TD/4 INT)
Carl Pickens
Darnay Scott
Tony McGee
Kevin Sargent
Rich Braham (LG)
Ken Blackmon
Willie Anderson

Still Not buying it.

1999-

Jeff Blake
Carl Pickens
Darnay Scott
Tony McGee
Rich Braham
Willie Anderson

Will concede that LT and RG needed help. WRs strong and a very mobile strong armed QB.

2000-

This was probably the worst supporting cast he had.

2001-

Jon Kitna
Lorenzo Neal
Darnay Scott
Peter Warrick
Tony McGee
Richmond Webb
Rich Braham (C)
Mike Goff
Willie Anderson
Nick Luchey
Chad Johnson

2002-
Jon Kitna
Lorenzo Neal
Chad Johnson
Peter Warrick
Matt Schobel
Rich Braham
Mike Goff
Willie Anderson
Levi Jones
Nick Luchey

2003-

Jon Kitna
Jeremi Johnson
Chad Johnson
Peter Warrick
Reggie Kelly
Levi Jones
Eric Steinbach
Rich Braham
Mike Goff
Willie Anderson
Rudi Johnson


So now let's here how terrible all of those players were. I will give 1999 and 2000 as weak years for supporting cast. Outside of that.......nope not buying it. So really do you want to stick with he played for a bunch of teams that was void of talent outside Dillon and that he had no other players with him that had to be game planned for?

[Shake n Blake]

So really do you want to stick with he played for a bunch of teams that was void of talent outside Dillon and that he had no other players with him that had to be game planned for?[/quote]

Yes, those were poor supporting casts. I'm assuming you just looked at old rosters and picked out names you recognized, cuz Braham and Joe Walter were backups on those teams. The Bengals started at least 7 different QBs during Dillon's 7 years here. You bring up Neil O'Donnell? Dude didn't throw many picks, but he didn't move the offense either. Blake only started maybe 16 games total with Dillon. MB was steadily trying to find the next big QB. Pickens was injured and really a shell of himself by the late 90's. Kitna was a bum until 2003. Warrick was a bust. Scott was never a #1 wr. Luchey and Goff? Ugh. Is this the best you got?

[OSUfan]

Originally Posted by Shake n Blake

So really do you want to stick with he played for a bunch of teams that was void of talent outside Dillon and that he had no other players with him that had to be game planned for?

Yes, those were poor supporting casts. I'm assuming you just looked at old rosters and picked out names you recognized, cuz Braham and Joe Walter were backups on those teams. The Bengals started at least 7 different QBs during Dillon's 7 years here. You bring up Neil O'Donnell? Dude didn't throw many picks, but he didn't move the offense either. Blake only started maybe 16 games total with Dillon. MB was steadily trying to find the next big QB. Pickens was injured and really a shell of himself by the late 90's. Kitna was a bum until 2003. Warrick was a bust. Scott was never a #1 wr. Luchey and Goff? Ugh. Is this the best you got?[/quote]

So now let's here how terrible all of those players were. I will give 1999 and 2000 as weak years for supporting cast

Gee....you seemed to leave this part of my statement out so I thought I would carry it over.

So Braham was a backup on those teams? You are sure he did not start at LG? I notice you did not have anything to say about Ken Blackmon who was another good OG and while you try to downgrade Goff it may be noted that he was a good starter here and left in FA and had several very good years as well with San Diego.

However, back to the starters and not starters:

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...997_roster.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...998_roster.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...999_roster.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...000_roster.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...001_roster.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...002_roster.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...003_roster.htm

Oddly enough and contrary to your statement you will find that Rich Braham is a starter on each and every of those teams.

So Pickens was drafted in 1992 but by 1997 he was a shell of himself? LMAO.

Kitna...'99- 3300+ yards, 2000- 2600+ yards, 2001- 3200+ yards, 2002- 3000+ yards.

Nick Luchey was a very good FB while he was with this franchise and would have loved to have seen him stay here.

Scott....what the hell does Scott not being the #1 WR have to do with anything? He was an outstanding #2 WR and last time I checked the #2 WR was part of the supporting cast. So you would not have considered TJ to be a good WR since he was not ever the #1?

Sorry your argument is rather weak.

[Shake n Blake]

@ OSU: I don't have the luxury of being able to look it up on PFR, but from what I remember, Braham was mostly a backup and spot starter until maybe 2000 or so. How many starts did he have back then? The reason I said Scott was not a #1 is because we were using him as such from 2000-01. Luchey was garbage. He had one big fluke game running the ball. Other than that, he was usually hurt and certainly wasn't a good blocking FB. Goff wasn't good here, so we have to agree to disagree on that. If Dillon were surrounded with talent as you suggest, then why was the offense so bad?? As for Pickens, he never came close to his 94-96 numbers after 96. He had one more (barely) 1000 yard season (only 5 scores). He was not the same. Suggesting that Dillon was surrounded by an excellent cast is laughable. We haven't even touched on the coaching yet.

[OSUfan]

Originally Posted by Shake n Blake

@ OSU: I don't have the luxury of being able to look it up on PFR, but from what I remember, Braham was mostly a backup and spot starter until maybe 2000 or so. How many starts did he have back then? The reason I said Scott was not a #1 is because we were using him as such from 2000-01. Luchey was garbage. He had one big fluke game running the ball. Other than that, he was usually hurt and certainly wasn't a good blocking FB. Goff wasn't good here, so we have to agree to disagree on that. If Dillon were surrounded with talent as you suggest, then why was the offense so bad?? As for Pickens, he never came close to his 94-96 numbers after 96. He had one more (barely) 1000 yard season (only 5 scores). He was not the same. Suggesting that Dillon was surrounded by an excellent cast is laughable. We haven't even touched on the coaching yet.

1997 Rich Braham 16 games started - LG

1998 Rich Braham 12 games started - LG

1999 Rich Braham 16 games started - C

2000 Rich Braham 9 games started - C

2001 Rich Braham 16 games started - C

2002 Rich Braham 15 games started - C

2003 Rich Braham 15 games started - C

Actually took over the starting job at LG in 1996 starting all 16 games. Anything else?

Mike Goff was not good here? Did he go to San Diego and all of a sudden just turn good? The guy played from '98 until 2009 with 154 NFL starts. Apparently someone thought he was pretty good.

[OSUfan]

Originally Posted by Shake n Blake

@ OSU: I don't have the luxury of being able to look it up on PFR, but from what I remember, Braham was mostly a backup and spot starter until maybe 2000 or so. How many starts did he have back then? The reason I said Scott was not a #1 is because we were using him as such from 2000-01. Luchey was garbage. He had one big fluke game running the ball. Other than that, he was usually hurt and certainly wasn't a good blocking FB. Goff wasn't good here, so we have to agree to disagree on that. If Dillon were surrounded with talent as you suggest, then why was the offense so bad?? As for Pickens, he never came close to his 94-96 numbers after 96. He had one more (barely) 1000 yard season (only 5 scores). He was not the same. Suggesting that Dillon was surrounded by an excellent cast is laughable. We haven't even touched on the coaching yet.

Hmmm...........yet oddly enough Pickens is one of the top 3 WRs on the board All-Time Bengals team. So you are saying this is because he had 2 good seasons?

[shaolinghost]

Originally Posted by OSUfan

Hmmm...........yet oddly enough Pickens is one of the top 3 WRs on the board All-Time Bengals team. So you are saying this is because he had 2 good seasons?

He had 3 great seasons, 94-96, and yes, I think that may be a reason why he's on the poll.


94-96: 46starts, 270rec, 3541yards, 40tds, 75.3ypg
92-93, 97-99: 64starts, 260rec, 3306yards, 23tds, 46.4ypg

So let's see, from 94-96 Pickens' average season was: 90rec, 1180yards, 13tds
Here's his average season from the rest of his Bengal career: 52rec, 661yards, 5tds

Pickens went from an elite receiver to an average second receiver. He's like the Palmer of the receiver corp; great for a couple seasons, average to slightly below the rest. He wasn't that big of a factor during Dillon's time here.

[Shake n Blake]

Originally Posted by OSUfan

1997 Rich Braham 16 games started - LG

1998 Rich Braham 12 games started - LG

1999 Rich Braham 16 games started - C

2000 Rich Braham 9 games started - C

2001 Rich Braham 16 games started - C

2002 Rich Braham 15 games started - C

2003 Rich Braham 15 games started - C

Actually took over the starting job at LG in 1996 starting all 16 games. Anything else?

Mike Goff was not good here? Did he go to San Diego and all of a sudden just turn good? The guy played from '98 until 2009 with 154 NFL starts. Apparently someone thought he was pretty good.

I don't think Braham found his niche til he moved to center. Goff became a better player in SD. You've never heard of a player improving after changing scenery? You have not really adressed QB play. Are you honestly going to say Dillon generally had good QB play during his tenure? If so, you would instantly show your bias against Dillon. The only year he got good QB play was 2003. Also, what of the terrible coaches? Coslet and Lebeau? I can't believe you're arguing this. All because Corey spoke out against your Dad.

[Shake n Blake]

I can at least respect the people that voted Brooks, even though I think they're wrong. I'd really love to hear from the 3 people that voted for Rudi. That's ridiculous.

[ElkValleyBengal]

I can accept that Dillon wins this poll handily, but I will ask you this. If you're down by 7 with two minutes left in the game and you have the ball at your own 20, who do you want in the backfield? Also, I think that line Dillon ran behind was underrated in their run blocking abilities. I think we all know in hindsight how good Braham and Anderson were.