I can and I did.

I think the line's effect on JC is overblown. Part of why Priest was so good behind that line was because he was patient, like Lev Bell.

JC wasn't that kind of runner and while that line was all-world, I'm not sure it makes that much difference. JC was a crease runner, bigger holes weren't going to make him a better back.

That line would have made any back immediately better by a light year.

More important question would be what would Priest do behind Charles’ line? He didn’t do much in Balt because they’re line was merely good.

Look at it through that lens.

The **** they weren’t. Holmes wasn’t getting touched until he hit a safety or CB on a lot of plays. You give that much better angles to JC and he would have been untouchable. Not to mention his ability to change direction was vastly superior to Holmes and even if they did get an angle on him, he would have been more likely to lay a nasty move on them than holmes.

People forget how goddamned good prime Charles was.

This just doesn't even make any sense. Derrick Blaylock averaged 4.6 ypc behind that line

Why did you pick 2012 as JC's best season? 2013 was better and even 2010 could be argued.

Having said that I voted Priest. Watching him work thru the line was a thing of beauty. I think he suffers from recency bias.

Priest, because he never fumbled or got hurt in crucial moments nachos notwithstanding. :D

He fumbled in the No Punt Game against the Colts. I remember being absolutely convinced we were cursed.

Did he? All I remember was the phony PI against Tony G, guess neither was great in that respect. Did it happen because of that bullshit PI?

I remember Charles fumbling in a lot of crucial situations, and the Denver game we had won and he fumbled twice in the last few minutes.

Actually rewatching that game there were many gaffes, we were playing catch up the entire game. We were down 2 TD's most of the game and obviously had our Defense gotten 1 stop it would have been much closer at the end. We got the ball back with 8 seconds left on our own 30. We missed a FG and probably should have went for the 1st down/TD along with Priests long run and gang tackle fumble and Tony G's bullshit PI penalty that cost us a TD. I think they had 1 penalty against them in that game.

I'm more interested in Harvey "Bobblehead" Williams vs. Greg "The Real Deal" Hill. And for the love of God, have you not considered Jesse Haynes vs. Brian Shay? What the "F" people? :)

Jesse Haynes is still coming, he's on the PS i think.

"PS" = PlayStation? That's one old Madden game! :D

This may sound counterintuitive when talking about running backs, but I think more than offensive line it was actually the QB play and overall offensive scheme that benefitted Holmes.

I think that Priest's style would have worked behind Jamaal's line, but I agree with htismaqe that Charles would not have had a huge increase in performance behind the Roaf, Waters, and Shields offensive line.

But Charles had the unfortunate luck of playing under Herm Edwards, Todd Haley, and Romeo Crennel, all before he could benefit from playing for an offensive minded coach.

But what Priest did running the football, catching the football, and his absolute gift for finding the end zone, are the reasons why I vote for Holmes.

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk

I loved watching Priest but Charles was much better. Hell, Charles is a HoF if he could have remained healthy.

Priest had one of the best lines in NFL history. Charles ran behind absolute shit for lines. If Charles had that line he may have averaged 7+ ypc.

Priest ran behind maybe the greatest OL ever assembled. Any decent back puts up great stats behind that OL. Priest was an above average back who benefited from an all time great OL.


Jamaal put up great numbers behind a below average OL.