+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Cincinnati Bengals / NFL (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Cincinnati-Bengals-NFL)
+--- Forum: JUNGLE NOISE (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-JUNGLE-NOISE)
+--- Thread: Ken Riley and Charles Woodson (/Thread-Ken-Riley-and-Charles-Woodson)
Ken Riley and Charles Woodson - t3r3e3 - 12-22-2015
The Rattler and Woodson are tied for 5th all time in INT's. One is universally seen as a first ballot Hall of Famer. One has never been in serious consideration, although many players with far inferior stats are enshrined in Canton (aka the Ken Anderson conundrum).
What say you?
RE: Ken Riley and Charles Woodson - MrRager - 12-22-2015
There are more than just INTs. I cannot find stats about Ken, but they have the same INTs, but Woodson has over double the TDs, 155 PDs (not recorded for Ken), 33 FF (0 for Ken), 20 sacks (not recorded for Ken), and a TON of tackles (again not recorded for Ken).
For these positions it's hard to look at just the stats so you must look at some accolades. Riley was a one time All-Pro. Woodson has been a three time 1st team All-Pro and an eight time Pro Bowler.
FWIW Woodson also did a little more returning in his day. Basically Woodson's INTs number might not be that high, but the guy did everything well. He wasn't just a pure cover guy, but could blitz and play the run extremely well. I never watched Ken and the only argument in his favor have been the INTs so I cannot say much to his credit. He also won a DPOY.
Finally, he went to the single greatest college football program to ever exist and won the highest accolades a player can receive there. Only defensive player ever to win it.
RE: Ken Riley and Charles Woodson - TheLeonardLeap - 12-22-2015
(12-22-2015, 01:30 AM)MrRager Wrote: There are more than just INTs. I cannot find stats about Ken, but they have the same INTs, but Woodson has over double the TDs, 155 PDs (not recorded for Ken), 33 FF (0 for Ken), 20 sacks (not recorded for Ken), and a TON of tackles (again not recorded for Ken).
For these positions it's hard to look at just the stats so you must look at some accolades. Riley was a one time All-Pro. Woodson has been a three time 1st team All-Pro and an eight time Pro Bowler.
FWIW Woodson also did a little more returning in his day. Basically Woodson's INTs number might not be that high, but the guy did everything well. He wasn't just a pure cover guy, but could blitz and play the run extremely well. I never watched Ken and the only argument in his favor have been the INTs so I cannot say much to his credit. He also won a DPOY.
Finally, he went to the single greatest college football program to ever exist and won the highest accolades a player can receive there. Only defensive player ever to win it.
Forced fumbles also weren't recorded then. Just like sacks, tackles, and passes defensed. It's why the 1970 Bengals have "0" FF, but 26 FR. So there's no point in trying to compare all of those.
Everyone ahead of Ken Riley on the INT list is in the HoF. There's even people behind him on the list in the HoF (LeBeau). Yet Ken Riley has never even been a HoF FINALIST. So yeah, there's shenanigans abound.
Same with Ken Anderson, who was a HELL of a lot better than some other QBs in his era who are already in the HoF. (Joe Namath, Terry Bradshaw)
Apparently they should have either gotten into the media, or been a Steeler. Both get pushed into the HoF over better players.
RE: Ken Riley and Charles Woodson - rfaulk34 - 12-22-2015
(12-22-2015, 01:30 AM)MrRager Wrote: There are more than just INTs. I cannot find stats about Ken, but they have the same INTs, but Woodson has over double the TDs, 155 PDs (not recorded for Ken), 33 FF (0 for Ken), 20 sacks (not recorded for Ken), and a TON of tackles (again not recorded for Ken).
For these positions it's hard to look at just the stats so you must look at some accolades. Riley was a one time All-Pro. Woodson has been a three time 1st team All-Pro and an eight time Pro Bowler.
FWIW Woodson also did a little more returning in his day. Basically Woodson's INTs number might not be that high, but the guy did everything well. He wasn't just a pure cover guy, but could blitz and play the run extremely well. I never watched Ken and the only argument in his favor have been the INTs so I cannot say much to his credit. He also won a DPOY.
Finally, he went to the single greatest college football program to ever exist and won the highest accolades a player can receive there. Only defensive player ever to win it.
Bengals didn't keep team defensive stats until '76 on. From '76 to '83, Riley had: 316 tackles, 98 passes defensed, 1 forced fumble and 10 fumble recoveries.
RE: Ken Riley and Charles Woodson - J24 - 12-22-2015
It's a joke that Ken Riley is not in the Hall of fame.
RE: Ken Riley and Charles Woodson - MrRager - 12-22-2015
(12-22-2015, 02:03 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Forced fumbles also weren't recorded then. Just like sacks, tackles, and passes defensed. It's why the 1970 Bengals have "0" FF, but 26 FR. So there's no point in trying to compare all of those.
Everyone ahead of Ken Riley on the INT list is in the HoF. There's even people behind him on the list in the HoF (LeBeau). Yet Ken Riley has never even been a HoF FINALIST. So yeah, there's shenanigans abound.
Same with Ken Anderson, who was a HELL of a lot better than some other QBs in his era who are already in the HoF. (Joe Namath, Terry Bradshaw)
Apparently they should have either gotten into the media, or been a Steeler. Both get pushed into the HoF over better players.
(12-22-2015, 02:08 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Bengals didn't keep team defensive stats until '76 on. From '76 to '83, Riley had: 316 tackles, 98 passes defensed, 1 forced fumble and 10 fumble recoveries.
I was just saying what I found on PFR. I'm not saying Riley should or shouldn't be in, but trying to explain why Woodson is a lock even though they have the same INTs. The fact they didn't track these stats make it so much harder for a player at that position to get in. Woodson has the stats 100%.
For all of those harping about Riley, why does he only have on 1st team All-Pro? That seems to be the next thing to look at if stats don't explain much. Woodson has three and a DPOY. DPOYs are HUGE to getting in.
I'll agree that Ken should be in because we actually have a plethora of stats that prove that and isn't not like he did zilch in the playoffs
RE: Ken Riley and Charles Woodson - t3r3e3 - 12-22-2015
(12-22-2015, 02:50 AM)MrRager Wrote: I
I was just saying what I found on PFR. I'm not saying Riley should or shouldn't be in, but trying to explain why Woodson is a lock even though they have the same INTs. The fact they didn't track these stats make it so much harder for a player at that position to get in. Woodson has the stats 100%.
For all of those harping about Riley, why does he only have on 1st team All-Pro? That seems to be the next thing to look at if stats don't explain much. Woodson has three and a DPOY. DPOYs are HUGE to getting in.
I'll agree that Ken should be in because we actually have a plethora of stats that prove that and isn't not like he did zilch in the playoffs
All a part of being a Bengals star in the 70's. Pre-cable and Internet shut out guys in small markets, especially when another team in the division was a dynasty. That being said, Riley's (and Anderson's) stats warrant a HoF nod, or at least a strong consideration. For that matter, Isaac Curtis put up far better stats than Lynn Swann, but Swann is a HoF recipient largely off some big game performances and the Super Bowl heroics. Swann's receiving stats are flat weak for a HoF recipient, but he played for a visible team that won a bunch of titles.
And I agree that Woodson is a no doubt 1st ballot HoF guy. It's just laughable that Riley never gets any hint of consideration from the veterans committee, and flat insulting that Anderson doesn't.