PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Who Was Greater?


FAX
03-09-2011, 08:41 AM
Today's selections are; Bobby Bell or Derrick Thomas.

Bobby:

Seasons (w/Chiefs): 12
Interceptions: 26
Forced Fumbles: 0 (This seems impossible, but it's what the NFL claims.) **
Fumble Recoveries: 15
Touchdowns: 9
Sacks: 0
Tackles: *
Kick Returns: 1 (53 yards)
Super Bowl Appearances: 2
Super Bowl Wins: 1

NOTE: First Chief to be inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

Derrick:

Seasons (w/Chiefs): 11
Interceptions: 1
Forced Fumbles: 45
Fumble Recoveries: 18
Touchdowns: 0
Sacks: 126.5
Tackles: *
Kick Returns: 0
Super Bowl Appearances: 0
Super Bowl Wins: 0

* Tackle stats not available prior to 2001.
** I absolutely do not believe that Bobby Bell never forced a fumble.

Very different players to be sure. And different eras. But, an interesting comparison nonetheless.

By the way, when I was looking at stuff and things, I was fascinated to learn that Willie Lanier was the very first Afro-American to start at MLB in the whole, entire NFL. That says a lot about both Willie and Hank, in my opinion.

FAX

Disclaimers: Sorry if repost.

Donger
03-09-2011, 08:43 AM
I'll have to vote Charlie Sheen.

mlyonsd
03-09-2011, 08:46 AM
I'll have to abstain as well. Both were dominant in their time.

MOhillbilly
03-09-2011, 08:46 AM
Bell
Give me that ol skool hate.

Sofa King
03-09-2011, 08:51 AM
DT


simply because i actually got to watch him play. Damn i miss those defenses.

Old Dog
03-09-2011, 08:56 AM
Bell. Should have a poll included in this one

MOhillbilly
03-09-2011, 08:57 AM
DT wasnt even my favorite player on those 90s Defenses.

I liked smith,phillips,saleaumua,hasty,cherry, better.

FAX
03-09-2011, 09:00 AM
You know, the sacks were exciting and often game-changing. Everybody loves to see a sack. Still, DT sacked Dave Krieg 7 times and we lost that game.

When you think about it, Bell gave his offense back the ball on 41 occasions compared to DT's 19 (based solely on INTs and FRs). Of course, DT probably got a ton of 3rd down sacks, too, which could almost count as a turnover ... except they don't, really, due to field position, TOP, etc.

As much as I love DT, when you think about the overall, career contribution to winning (and playing in Super Bowls), you might have to give the nod to Bell.

He was a monster. Heck fire, he even ran back a kick return.

FAX

FAX
03-09-2011, 09:02 AM
Bell. Should have a poll included in this one

I don't do polls well, sadly, Mr. truebigdog.

If, however, one of our marvelously talented and enthusiastic Mods would like to convert this thread into one, that's fine by me.

FAX THE POLL DEFICIENT

MOhillbilly
03-09-2011, 09:04 AM
That 92-93 D was onfire Bro. We ****in stoned the steelers .I hated that falcon shit but DT caused so much pressure where ever he lined up it gave an excellent oilers team fits.

mlyonsd
03-09-2011, 09:22 AM
The '69 defense was the best KC ever had.

big nasty kcnut
03-09-2011, 09:25 AM
I can't decide.

BigCatDaddy
03-09-2011, 09:27 AM
DT. You could make a damn good arguement that DT was even better then LT, but the NY media machine would never allow that thought.

Phobia
03-09-2011, 09:31 AM
The only thing in common these players really had were Arrowheads on the sides of their helmets and "LB" in their position name. Everything else was different. We might as well compare JJ Birden to Fred Arbanas. That said, if I have to take one give me Bell. He long snapped as well. It was said that he could have played and dominated any position on the field in that era. I happen to believe it too.

Reaper16
03-09-2011, 09:40 AM
I wasn't able to watch Bell play. My gut says to vote for Bell, though.

FAX
03-09-2011, 09:45 AM
The only thing in common these players really had were Arrowheads on the sides of their helmets and "LB" in their position name. Everything else was different. We might as well compare JJ Birden to Fred Arbanas.

That comes later, Mr. Phobia.

Of course they were different players in different schemes in different eras.

Still, it's interesting to think that, for all the love Chiefs fans have for DT, Bell was, perhaps, a more impactful, well-rounded player. Just look at the difference in INTs, for example. And Super Bowl appearances. I know it sounds like blasphemy to some people.

Bell was simply both physically gifted and likely an over-achiever (selected in the seventh round of the 1963 draft) overall, just a phenomenal athlete. Here's a quote from Hank, "He could play all 22 positions on the field, and play them well."

FAX

FAX
03-09-2011, 10:04 AM
I was thinking about Hank's quote above and started thinking about some other stuff.

It can be argued that DT was successful in the era of "specialization". He was, after all, primarily a pass rusher. Had he been better in coverage, for example, one could reasonably assume that his INT stat would be much, much higher. I'm not certain (maybe somebody could clarify this for me), but I'm also not sure how effective he was against the rush. Tackle stats in those days are non-existent.

That's probably the reason (along with Gretz's incompetence) that it took so long to get him into the HOF ... the impression that he was one-dimensional, I mean.

However, if any coach in the history of the league believed in "specialization" it was Hank Stram. He proved it time and again. Bell, no doubt, was given specific responsibilities in the defense ... just as DT was. Therefore, that particular argument may not prove out very well.

FAX

gblowfish
03-09-2011, 10:19 AM
I believe Bobby Bell was the first outside linebacker selected for the Pro Football HOF. He also played in two super bowls. DT played in ZERO. Bell also was on special teams his whole career, because he was the deep snapper on punts and field goals. He snapped to Thunderfoot Wilson and Jan Stenerud. He was a QB in college. Amazing versatile athlete, and the one of the best linebackers in the AFL. DT was an amazing pass rusher, but not as well rounded as Bell.

FAX
03-09-2011, 10:22 AM
I believe Bobby Bell was the first outside linebacker selected for the Pro Football HOF. He also played in two super bowls. DT played in ZERO. Bell also was on special teams his whole career, because he was the deep snapper on punts and field goals. He snapped to Thunderfoot Wilson and Jan Stenerud. He was a QB in college. Amazing versatile athlete, and the one of the best linebackers in the AFL. DT was an amazing pass rusher, but not as well rounded as Bell.

Do you know on which ballot Bell was elected to the HOF, Mr. gblowfish? He didn't get in on first ballot ... at least, I'm pretty sure he didn't.

FAX

gblowfish
03-09-2011, 10:26 AM
Do you know on which ballot Bell was elected to the HOF, Mr. gblowfish? He didn't get in on first ballot ... at least, I'm pretty sure he didn't.

FAX

Don't know how many ballots, but this is what the Pro Football HOF site says on his bio:

http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.aspx?PLAYER_ID=24

Also, curiously, the only other #58 in the Pro Football HOF besides DT is the Steelers Jack Lambert.

FAX
03-09-2011, 10:31 AM
Well, I thought this would foster some interesting discussion and a few fond memories of great LB play. But, as usual, people like Mr. Phobia are all like, "they're different" and "they're not the same" and "they aren't identical" and stuff which takes the air out of my thread balloon ... as well as stifling and squelching and suppressing interest in my awesome thread idea on the part of reasonably-minded individuals who like football talk.

Oh well, next up; J.J. Birden vs. Fred Arbanas.

FAX

FAX
03-09-2011, 10:32 AM
Don't know how many ballots, but this is what the Pro Football HOF site says on his bio:

http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.aspx?PLAYER_ID=24

Also, curiously, the only other #58 in the Pro Football HOF besides DT is the Steelers Jack Lambert.

So, he ended his career in '74 and was elected in '83. That's 9 years or thereabouts.

When, I wonder, are HOF candidates eligible? Is if 5 years, or something like that?

FAX

RedNeckRaider
03-09-2011, 10:35 AM
So, he ended his career in '74 and was elected in '83. That's 9 years or thereabouts.

When, I wonder, are HOF candidates eligible? Is if 5 years, or something like that?

FAX

Correct 5 years~

gblowfish
03-09-2011, 10:35 AM
It sometimes takes longer to get old AFL players selected, and sometimes they never get selected at all.

It's a crime that Otis Taylor is not in the HOF. Also, Ed Budde, Jim Tyrer and Johnny Robinson should all get consideration.

MOhillbilly
03-09-2011, 10:36 AM
How about some 80s/90s/00s, era D- tackles at some point.

RedNeckRaider
03-09-2011, 10:36 AM
I believe Bobby Bell was the first outside linebacker selected for the Pro Football HOF. He also played in two super bowls. DT played in ZERO. Bell also was on special teams his whole career, because he was the deep snapper on punts and field goals. He snapped to Thunderfoot Wilson and Jan Stenerud. He was a QB in college. Amazing versatile athlete, and the one of the best linebackers in the AFL. DT was an amazing pass rusher, but not as well rounded as Bell.

That sums up my thoughts~

FAX
03-09-2011, 10:37 AM
How about some 80s/90s/00s, era D- tackles at some point.

That's a great idea. I was looking at the comparison of Buck and somebody like Neil Smith, for example. Or Culp and Saleaumua, maybe.

I'll need to check with Mr. Phobia first, though.

FAX

FAX
03-09-2011, 10:39 AM
It sometimes takes longer to get old AFL players selected, and sometimes they never get selected at all.

It's a crime that Otis Taylor is not in the HOF. Also, Ed Budde, Jim Tyrer and Johnny Robinson should all get consideration.

You are absolutely correct on all those. It's a crime.

FAX

RedNeckRaider
03-09-2011, 10:42 AM
It sometimes takes longer to get old AFL players selected, and sometimes they never get selected at all.

It's a crime that Otis Taylor is not in the HOF. Also, Ed Budde, Jim Tyrer and Johnny Robinson should all get consideration.

The HOF is nothing more than a popularity contest. The list of those not in that should be is long and one could argue that there is a pretty hefty list of those in that should not be~

FAX
03-09-2011, 10:44 AM
The HOF is nothing more than a popularity contest. The list of those not in that should be is long and one could argue that there is a pretty hefty list of those in that should not be~

That's an interesting statement right there, Mr. RedNeckRaider. Which current members are, in your view, undeserving of HOF status, I wonder?

FAX

MOhillbilly
03-09-2011, 10:44 AM
O. Taylor not bein in the HOF is flat out bullshit.

RedNeckRaider
03-09-2011, 10:47 AM
That's an interesting statement right there, Mr. RedNeckRaider. Which current members are, in your view, undeserving of HOF status, I wonder?

FAX

I am a little busy but will post an answer when I have some time. Lynn Swan and Broadway joe are 2 that jump to mind quickly. Both in noway deserve the honor. One for making some pretty catches and the other for making a prediction~

Radar Chief
03-09-2011, 10:54 AM
I was thinking about Hank's quote above and started thinking about some other stuff.

It can be argued that DT was successful in the era of "specialization". He was, after all, primarily a pass rusher. Had he been better in coverage, for example, one could reasonably assume that his INT stat would be much, much higher. I'm not certain (maybe somebody could clarify this for me), but I'm also not sure how effective he was against the rush. Tackle stats in those days are non-existent.

As I recall it that was one of the knocks on DT. His first step was to head up field so opposing teams would game plan at least a few run plays that went straight at him because at least half the time he would take himself out of the play.

gblowfish
03-09-2011, 11:11 AM
That's an interesting statement right there, Mr. RedNeckRaider. Which current members are, in your view, undeserving of HOF status, I wonder?

FAX

I don't know about RedNeckRaider, but Milkman said in a thread a few weeks back that he thought Lenny Dawson should never have been inducted into the HOF. I strongly disagree, but different people have different standards.

Tyrer would have been selected, but he murdered his wife then committed suicide with his kids in the house a couple years after he was out of football.

Ed Budde played guard, and just isn't a well known name. But he was terrific.

I've never understood why Otis Taylor has been overlooked. His health is very bad, and I hope they don't do a Buck O'Neil on him and make him die before induction.

FAX
03-09-2011, 11:16 AM
As I recall it that was one of the knocks on DT. His first step was to head up field so opposing teams would game plan at least a few run plays that went straight at him because at least half the time he would take himself out of the play.

In his defense, I would have to say that Marty was no complete moron and DT's responsibilities were probably to, first and foremost, go after the enemy quarterback. He was, after all, one of the best in history at just that.

I could be mistaken, of course, but I imagine that they watched a lot of film together over the years and, if Marty wanted him to hold his ground against the run, he would have happily done so.

On the other hand, maybe he just couldn't help himself.

FAX

MOhillbilly
03-09-2011, 11:17 AM
I am a little busy but will post an answer when I have some time. Lynn Swan and Broadway joe are 2 that jump to mind quickly. Both in noway deserve the honor. One for making some pretty catches and the other for making a prediction~

Tommy McDonald,James Lofton.

FAX
03-09-2011, 11:22 AM
I don't know about RedNeckRaider, but Milkman said in a thread a few weeks back that he thought Lenny Dawson should never have been inducted into the HOF. I strongly disagree, but different people have different standards.

Tyrer would have been selected, but he murdered his wife then committed suicide with his kids in the house a couple years after he was out of football.

Ed Budde played guard, and just isn't a well known name. But he was terrific.

I've never understood why Otis Taylor has been overlooked. His health is very bad, and I hope they don't do a Buck O'Neil on him and make him die before induction.

I don't see why Lenny wouldn't belong. The mere fact that he quarterbacked in the first SB ever seems reason enough to memorialize the guy.

As for Tyrer, I don't see why murder and suicide should be cause for omission. He was probably suffering from brain damage due to his playing days, after all.

Budde definitely belongs and Otis, as well. The fact that Otis isn't in the HOF is a freaking abomination, frankly.

FAX

Rain Man
03-09-2011, 11:40 AM
I don't see why Lenny wouldn't belong. The mere fact that he quarterbacked in the first SB ever seems reason enough to memorialize the guy.

As for Tyrer, I don't see why murder and suicide should be cause for omission. He was probably suffering from brain damage due to his playing days, after all.

Budde definitely belongs and Otis, as well. The fact that Otis isn't in the HOF is a freaking abomination, frankly.

FAX


Otis isn't in and Fred The Cheater Biletnikoff is. If I could fix either that or the Palestinian situation, I'd fix that.


On the initial question, it's like asking which child I love the most. I can't decide that. I hate all children equally, just like I love all Chiefs Hall of Famers equally. I suspect that if I had to draft one, I'd draft Bell first. He could do it all.

RedNeckRaider
03-09-2011, 04:05 PM
Broadway Joe
Passing Rushing
Year Team G Att. Comp. Pct. Yds. TD Int Rating No. Yds. Avg. TD
1965 New York Jets 13 340 164 48.2 2220 18 15 68.8 8 19 2.4 0
1966 New York Jets 14 471 232 49.3 3379 19 27 62.6 6 42 7.0 2
1967 New York Jets 14 491 258 52.5 4007 26 28 73.8 6 14 2.3 0
1968 New York Jets 14 380 187 49.2 3147 15 17 72.1 5 11 2.2 2
1969 New York Jets 14 361 185 51.2 2734 19 17 74.3 11 33 3.0 2
1970 New York Jets 5 179 90 50.3 1259 5 12 54.7 1 -1 -1.0 0
1971 New York Jets 4 59 28 47.5 537 5 6 68.2 3 -1 -0.3 0
1972 New York Jets 13 324 162 50 2816 19 21 72.5 6 8 1.3 0
1973 New York Jets 6 133 68 51.1 966 5 6 68.7 1 -2 -2.0 0
1974 New York Jets 14 361 191 52.9 2616 20 22 69.4 8 1 0.1 1
1975 New York Jets 14 326 157 48.2 2286 15 28 51 10 6 0.6 0
1976 New York Jets 11 230 114 49.6 1090 4 16 39.9 2 5 2.5 0
1977 Los Angeles 4 107 50 46.7 606 3 5 54.5 4 5 1.3 0
Career Total 140 3762 1886 50.1 27663 173 220 65.5 71 140 2.0 7
Additional Career Statistics: Fumble Recovery for TD: 1

Len Dawson
Passing Rushing
Year Team G Att. Comp. Pct. Yds. TD Int Rating No. Yds. Avg. TD
1957 Pittsburgh 3 4 2 50 25 0 0 69.8 3 31 10.3 0
1958 Pittsburgh 4 6 1 16.7 11 0 2 0 2 -1 -0.5 0
1959 Pittsburgh 12 7 3 42.9 60 1 0 113.1 4 20 5 0
1960 Cleveland 2 13 8 61.5 23 0 0 65.9 1 0 0 0
1961 Cleveland 7 15 7 46.7 85 1 3 47.2 1 -10 -10 0
1962 Dallas (AFL) 14 310 189 61 2759 29 17 98.3 38 252 6.6 3
1963 Kansas City 14 352 190 54 2389 26 19 77.5 37 272 7.4 2
1964 Kansas City 14 354 199 56.2 2879 30 18 89.9 40 89 2.2 2
1965 Kansas City 14 305 163 53.4 2262 21 14 81.3 43 142 3.3 2
1966 Kansas City 14 284 159 56 2527 26 10 101.7 24 167 7 0
1967 Kansas City 14 357 206 57.7 2651 24 17 83.7 20 68 3.4 0
1968 Kansas City 14 224 131 58.5 2109 17 9 98.6 20 40 2 0
1969 Kansas City 9 166 98 59 1323 9 13 69.9 1 3 3 0
1970 Kansas City 14 262 141 53.8 1876 13 14 71 11 46 4.2 0
1971 Kansas City 14 301 167 55.5 2504 15 13 81.6 12 24 2 0
1972 Kansas City 14 305 175 57.4 1835 13 12 72.8 15 75 5 0
1973 Kansas City 8 101 66 65.3 725 2 5 72.4 6 40 6.7 0
1974 Kansas City 14 235 138 58.7 1573 7 13 65.8 11 28 2.5 0
1975 Kansas City 12 140 93 66.4 1095 5 4 90 5 7 1.4 0
Career Total 211 3741 2136 57.1 28,711 239 183 82.6 294 1293 4.4 9

Yes I think Len Dawson has the numbers to be in, and when compared to Broadway it is not even close. That said when I think of great QBs he is way down the list. I also still get a chuckle when I hear "Lenny the cool" As I have said before Len Dawson faced "the cool" one time and got his ass handed to him. I know it is a KC thing but everyone else knows Bart Starr was "The cool". I will chip away as I have time at the Hall of Popularity~

Phobia
03-09-2011, 04:09 PM
That's a great idea. I was looking at the comparison of Buck and somebody like Neil Smith, for example. Or Culp and Saleaumua, maybe.

I'll need to check with Mr. Phobia first, though.

FAX

All systems go, Mr. FAX.

LiveSteam
03-09-2011, 04:11 PM
The only thing in common these players really had were Arrowheads on the sides of their helmets and "LB" in their position name. Everything else was different. We might as well compare JJ Birden to Fred Arbanas. That said, if I have to take one give me Bell. He long snapped as well. It was said that he could have played and dominated any position on the field in that era. I happen to believe it too.

this

milkman
03-09-2011, 07:29 PM
I've talked about this before.

Bobby Bell lined up at DE in his rookie season, but in his second season, because of Bell's unreal athletic ability, Stram came up with the stack defense, and depending on down and distance, Bell lined up at either DE or LB.

When he lined up at LB, the Chiefs effectively became the first professional team to utilize a 34 defense.

At LB, he was one of the best cover backers in football, had the strength to take on and shed blockers, and the speed to get aroud the edge as a pass rusher.

In short, he was one of the most complete and versatile DE/LBs to ever play the game.

In his third season, he became a fulltime LB.

He was a physical, hard nosed tackler, and is also believed to have over 80 sacks in his career, though he rushed the passer, on average, fewer than 5 times a game after converting to LB fulltime.

I loved DT.

He brought an energy and emotion to the Chiefs that they needed.

But Bell is one of the most underrated players in Pro Football history.

Willie Lanier is my favorite all time player, but if I were building a team from scratch, the first LB I'm taking, above all others throughout the NFL, is Bell.

He was the most versatile, complete player to ever play the position.

MagicHef
03-09-2011, 08:33 PM
If you get 53 yards on the first kick you return, how do you never return a kick again?

milkman
03-09-2011, 08:35 PM
If you get 53 yards on the first kick you return, how do you never return a kick again?

It was an onside kick, and Bobby had a free run to the end zone, basically.

He had the speed to stay ahead of chasers.

RJ
03-09-2011, 08:35 PM
Bobby Bell. Did everything well, usually the best athlete on the field.

stevieray
03-09-2011, 09:01 PM
Mr.Bell, not even close...could prolly play every position on the field.

Phobia
03-09-2011, 09:02 PM
Bobby Bell. Did everything well, usually the best athlete on the field.

Plus, he's a much better driver.

Hog Farmer
03-09-2011, 09:21 PM
Dt was horrible his last two years before he broke his neck and had a poor attitude. I'm going with Eric Berry

Rain Man
03-09-2011, 09:34 PM
While I love DT, it should also be noted that it took him 20 years longer to get into the Hall of Fame than it did Bobby Bell. Twenty years. That says it all right there.

Phobia
03-09-2011, 09:44 PM
While I love DT, it should also be noted that it took him 20 years longer to get into the Hall of Fame than it did Bobby Bell. Twenty years. That says it all right there.

I've posted 3 or 4 times on this thread and really this is what I was trying to say all along. You were concise and simplistic. You should make a poll or something.

RedThat
03-09-2011, 10:03 PM
Personally, I've never seen Bell play. But from the sounds of it, he seems like one of those multi-dimensional/utility type of players that can contribute to your team in many ways.

While DT may have been a more superb passrusher than Bell, Bell was probably a lot better in many other phases of the game. Overall, it just sounds like he was the better player.

Son of Logical
03-09-2011, 10:17 PM
While I love DT, it should also be noted that it took him 20 years longer to get into the Hall of Fame than it did Bobby Bell. Twenty years. That says it all right there.

20 years? DT is my favorite player ever. With that said, Bobby Bell from what I have read was an absolute unstoppable force as an OLB. He could do it all, and the more complete player is greater.

RJ
03-09-2011, 10:20 PM
20 years? DT is my favorite player ever. With that said, Bobby Bell from what I have read was an absolute unstoppable force as an OLB. He could do it all, and the more complete player is greater.


Hard to believe, I know.

milkman
03-09-2011, 10:22 PM
Personally, I've never seen Bell play. But from the sounds of it, he seems like one of those multi-dimensional/utility type of players that can contribute to your team in many ways.

While DT may have been a more superb passrusher than Bell, Bell was probably a lot better in many other phases of the game. Overall, it just sounds like he was the better player.

Bell was an elite pass rusher.

He simply wasn't used to the extent that DT was.

They didn't keep sack stats back then, but, again, he was believed to have gotten more than 80 sacks, even though he was only sent after the QB an average of no more than about 5 times a game throughout his career after being moved to OLB fulltime in his third season.

FAX
03-09-2011, 10:25 PM
One of our most valued and intelligent posters sent me a PM graciously pointing out an error I may have made in the stats.

Does anybody remember DT scoring a touchdown? When I looked over the NFL stats, I didn't see one ... but after thinking about it, I have a vague memory of him scoring.

Anybody else recall that?

FAX

Son of Logical
03-09-2011, 10:26 PM
Hard to believe, I know.

DT became eligible in 2005 and was elected in 2010. So it took him 5 years. Not sure where the 20 years comes from.

Son of Logical
03-09-2011, 10:27 PM
One of our most valued and intelligent posters sent me a PM graciously pointing out an error I may have made in the stats.

Does anybody remember DT scoring a touchdown? When I looked over the NFL stats, I didn't see one ... but after thinking about it, I have a vague memory of him scoring.

Anybody else recall that?

FAX

Didn't he have a suck/fumble/TD? I also thought the stat that he didn't score a TD seems wrong.

FAX
03-09-2011, 10:29 PM
Bell was an elite pass rusher.

He simply wasn't used to the extent that DT was.

They didn't keep sack stats back then, but, again, he was believed to have gotten more than 80 sacks, even though he was only sent after the QB an average of no more than about 5 times a game throughout his career after being moved to OLB fulltime in his third season.

I see no reason why Bell wouldn't have been an excellent pass rusher. He possessed both phenomenal speed and strength. Give him half a gap and he would be in the quarterback's face before you could say, "Bring in the stretcher."

FAX

FAX
03-09-2011, 10:30 PM
Didn't he have a suck/fumble/TD? I also thought the stat that he didn't score a TD seems wrong.

It's kind of strange. NFL stats don't show a touchdown. Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly?

http://www.nfl.com/players/derrickthomas/careerstats?id=THO103054

FAX

RJ
03-09-2011, 10:36 PM
It's kind of strange. NFL stats don't show a touchdown. Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly?

http://www.nfl.com/players/derrickthomas/careerstats?id=THO103054

FAX


http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/T/ThomDe01.htm


Four career TD's. all on fumbles.

Son of Logical
03-09-2011, 10:37 PM
It's kind of strange. NFL stats don't show a touchdown. Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly?

http://www.nfl.com/players/derrickthomas/careerstats?id=THO103054

FAX

Well that stat page also shows that he did not have any forced fumbles; which we all know is incorrect.

FAX
03-09-2011, 10:39 PM
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/T/ThomDe01.htm

Thanks, Mr. RJ. I should have sourced my stats from PFR in the first place.

NFL doesn't post the FR touchdowns for some reason? The ignorant bastards.

DT had 4 TDs off fumble recoveries. My bad.

I shall now punish myself by drinking an entire glass of vodka and orange juice with a lime squeeze.

FAX

FAX
03-09-2011, 10:42 PM
Well that stat page also shows that he did not have any forced fumbles; which we all know is incorrect.

NFL stats are, apparently, a bad haircut and a quart of chunky, green vomit.

I should have dug deeper before starting my cool thread idea. I expect Mr. Phobia to steal all my casino cash at any moment.

FAX

RJ
03-09-2011, 10:42 PM
Thanks, Mr. RJ. I should have sourced my stats from PFR in the first place.

NFL doesn't post the FR touchdowns for some reason? The ignorant bastards.

DT had 4 TDs off fumble recoveries. My bad.

I shall now punish myself by drinking an entire glass of vodka and orange juice with a lime squeeze.

FAX


That should teach you a proper lesson.

FAX
03-09-2011, 10:45 PM
You know what's interesting?

Moon caves. But what's also interesting is the fact that the NFL says that "tackle" stats are unavailable prior to 2001. Yet, PFR has them for Bobby Bell.

What's that all about?

FAX

Phobia
03-09-2011, 10:47 PM
NFL stats are, apparently, a bad haircut and a quart of chunky, green vomit.

I should have dug deeper before starting my cool thread idea. I expect Mr. Phobia to steal all my casino cash at any moment.

FAX

At least if you're expecting it this time it won't hurt so badly.

I think that vodka, OJ, & lime sounds pretty good right now but I might just have beer if I can't find OJ in the fridge.

Rain Man
03-10-2011, 12:02 AM
I shall now punish myself by drinking an entire glass of vodka and orange juice with a lime squeeze.

FAX


Don't do it, man! Don't do it!


Oh, wait. Lime squeeze. Antifreeze. They sound the same, they're both green, I got them mixed up.

cdcox
03-10-2011, 12:08 AM
You know what's interesting?

Moon caves. But what's also interesting is the fact that the NFL says that "tackle" stats are unavailable prior to 2001. Yet, PFR has them for Bobby Bell.

What's that all about?

FAX

Pro-Football-Reference does not show any tackle stats for Bobby Bell. Are you looking at the AV column? That stands for "approximate value" which is a concocted stat used to rank players across eras, and has nothing to do with tackles.

Rain Man
03-10-2011, 12:32 AM
Pro-Football-Reference does not show any tackle stats for Bobby Bell. Are you looking at the AV column? That stands for "approximate value" which is a concocted stat used to rank players across eras, and has nothing to do with tackles.

Don't stop him, man. He's on a roll.

FAX
03-10-2011, 07:01 AM
Pro-Football-Reference does not show any tackle stats for Bobby Bell. Are you looking at the AV column? That stands for "approximate value" which is a concocted stat used to rank players across eras, and has nothing to do with tackles.

ROFL

I was about halfway through my punishment when I thought I saw that. I'm beginning to think I'm not a real, serious stat guy person.

FAX THE TOTALLY CONFOUNDED

Merrifish
03-10-2011, 01:22 PM
Thomas all the way

DJ's left nut
03-10-2011, 01:27 PM
Better player? Almost assuredly Bobby Bell.

But who would I take? DT.

Ultimately, I think I can find a guy that gives me 80% of what Bobby Bell did fairly easily if I go with DT. But if I go with Bell, it would be much more difficult to find a competent pass-rusher that could come even close to generating the kind of havok that Thomas could.

So if you have two defenses, one with Bobby Bell and an average edge rusher, the other with DT and an average Sam 'Backer, I think the defense with DT is just a little bit better. If nothing else, it would be much MUCH more aggressive, and that's the kind of D I favor.

Edge in overall ability - Bell. But the scarcity of DT's sklll-set makes me vote for him when it gets right down to it.

milkman
03-10-2011, 10:18 PM
Better player? Almost assuredly Bobby Bell.

But who would I take? DT.

Ultimately, I think I can find a guy that gives me 80% of what Bobby Bell did fairly easily if I go with DT. But if I go with Bell, it would be much more difficult to find a competent pass-rusher that could come even close to generating the kind of havok that Thomas could.

So if you have two defenses, one with Bobby Bell and an average edge rusher, the other with DT and an average Sam 'Backer, I think the defense with DT is just a little bit better. If nothing else, it would be much MUCH more aggressive, and that's the kind of D I favor.

Edge in overall ability - Bell. But the scarcity of DT's sklll-set makes me vote for him when it gets right down to it.

Once again, you people are confused.

Bell was an elite pass rusher who was simply not used as extensively as a pass rusher as DT.

His rookie season, as a DE, he had what would have been counted as a sack in today's NFL 12 times in 14 games.

Had Bell played in this era, I have no doubt he would have accumulated sack numbers equal to or greater than DT.