Ring of Honor Ceremony

[spidey]

(10-05-2021, 05:03 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: Kitna didn't have a good year with un until '03; Chad has 2 seasons (as I mentioned above) with dogshit and a 3rd, though he wasn't in peak form (clearly) and he was hurt for a few games.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/cin/2001.htm
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/cin/2002.htm
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/cin/2008.htm

And people still aren't understanding that Curtis wasn't up to the level of his peers, whereas Chad was ABOVE 99% of his peers. Just acknowledge that.

And again, you have provided no stats to beef up your argument, none.

Less than 26 attempts a game?

Browns, 31.2 attempts in 1952. Their opponents? 29 attempts per game.
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/cle/1952.htm

Colts, 31.3 attempts in 1961.
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/clt/1961.htm

Vikings, 29.8 attempts in 1966.
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/min/1966.htm

Now, these are 3 teams I picked at random, who had more than 26 attempts per game, decades before Curtis was even in the league.

In Curtis' best year, 1975, the Bengals had 30.9 attempts a game.
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/cin/1975.htm

How is it that each reason that is brought up, gets blown out of the water? Or how is it, that when talking about the EXACT player, on the EXACT team he played on, your reasoning still gets debunked?

I don't know why people just can't accept that the guy was not at the level of others; there's bias from the word go, on the Curtis 1st people, but come on, you're just as bad as Fred in this case, with his manipulation and distortion of stats.

You're trying to compare 2 different eras of football.  One where it was legal to maul a wide receiver down the field and destroy a qb vs the era where if you touch the receiver outside of 5 yards, there's a flag.  The rules have been adjusted to the offense because touchdowns bring viewership.  There is no denying that so your stats do not tell the whole story.

I would choose Curtis over Chad everyday and not think twice about it.  Curtis was not only the better receiver but also the better Bengal.  He didn't throw temper tantrums or demand to be traded during his time unlike Chad.  I love Chad but he wouldn't have those stats in the 70's/80's either.  

I suggest you watch some games from those times so you can have a better understanding of how the game was played back then.