https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pR1-Fm-29A&feature=youtu.be

Do you agree with this list and order? if not what changes would you make?

Agree with 1, 2, 4 and 5. Ken Riley should be 3. Riley and Anderson belong in the Hall, Chad not so much.

I'd put Dillon in the top 5 in place of Chad.

I feel like there's someone who should be there instead of Boomer, but can't think of him at the moment.

Munoz, Anderson, Riley, Chad, Dillon

I agree with the picks. But I think Riley ought to be before Chad.

(05-20-2016, 11:45 PM)BengalChris Wrote: Agree with 1, 2, 4 and 5. Ken Riley should be 3. Riley and Anderson belong in the Hall, Chad not so much.

I'd put Dillon in the top 5 in place of Chad.

I feel like there's someone who should be there instead of Boomer, but can't think of him at the moment.

Your thinking about Nick Vigil... He should be #1

I'm thinking it could be argued that Tim Krumrie or Isaac Curtis have a bid to one of those spots.

(05-21-2016, 09:00 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: I'm thinking it could be argued that Tim Krumrie or Isaac Curtis have a bid to one of those spots.

Stats wise it's hard to replace chad for another WR.   That being said he wouldn't be on my list.   I would put james brooks on that list.   But in the same breath it's probably hard to put another RB over Dillon.  

(05-21-2016, 09:31 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Stats wise it's hard to replace chad for another WR.   That being said he wouldn't be on my list.   I would put james brooks on that list.   But in the same breath it's probably hard to put another RB over Dillon.  

Actually when you dig into the stats, it is clearly Curtis was a overall better wr when you adjust for playing in 1970s and 2000s passing league.

Curtis had a clear advantage in YPC and ratio of TDs thrown to catches.  For example I looked at 4 peak years for each player and Curtis averaged 40 percent of all TDs thrown , Chad averaged 28 percent of all TDs thrown.  For career Curtis averaged 17.1 YPC to 14.4 for Chad.

My Top Five would be

Munoz, Anderson, Riley, Curtis, Dillion ( put him on a average team during his career and he would be a HOF)

(05-21-2016, 10:44 AM)Essex Johnson Wrote: Actually when you dig into the stats, it is clearly Curtis was a overall better wr when you adjust for playing in 1970s and 2000s passing league.

Curtis had a clear advantage in YPC and ratio of TDs thrown to catches.  For example I looked at 4 peak years for each player and Curtis averaged 40 percent of all TDs thrown , Chad averaged 28 percent of all TDs thrown.  For career Curtis averaged 17.1 YPC to 14.4 for Chad.

My Top Five would be

Munoz, Anderson, Riley, Curtis, Dillion ( put him on a average team during his career and he would be a HOF)

How so? If you compare Curtis to his peers, he never led his conference in receiving like Chad did (four times) and he was hardly ever in the top 10 in the NFL in receiving. 

Honestly, I think some just hate Chad and don't want to acknowledge his greatness. Also, older doesn't always = better, especially when Chad dominated his era and Curtis did not.

I think Chad Johnson is definitely a top 5 all-time Bengal. Dude was awesome on the field and let's give him bonus points for making it FUN to be a Bengals fan again. The '90s and early 2000s were dreadful until Palmer to Johnson made it fun again.

Eep, only a single guy on there from the Mike Brown era and he's the one we want off it. Anyways, I have to love/hate Boomer Esiason because he's the guy who convinced me when I was a kid to be a Bengals fan when everyone else I knew liked the Steelers.

I would put Dillon on the list ahead of Boomer. Dillon put up yards behind a not great offensive line when everyone on the field knew he was the offense. Imagine what he could have done on a good team...

As for Chad, I think he definitely deserves to be on the list. He led the AFC in receiving yards four times (this was during Marvin Harrison and Peyton Manning's prime) and also led the entire NFL one year. Leader in both receptions and yards for the franchise, no question he should be on this list.

(05-21-2016, 11:44 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: How so? If you compare Curtis to his peers, he never led his conference in receiving like Chad did (four times) and he was hardly ever in the top 10 in the NFL in receiving. 

Honestly, I think some just hate Chad and don't want to acknowledge his greatness. Also, older doesn't always = better, especially when Chad dominated his era and Curtis did not.

I just pointed out why I would take Curtis.. he had a higher YPC and much higher TD ratio... you seem confused, im not comparing them to their peers, im comparing them with the Bengals and their impact at the time.  It is difficult to compare different eras... Is there something wrong with putting Chad 6th, I don;t think that is hating on him, I am just giving you why I believe Curtis should be in top 5.  if you look back at his stats with the league,, he was in top of the league in his core years in YPC, TDs, Receiving Yards so he was one of the top WRs and  he was 1/2 team ALL NFL 3 years not the bum you seem to make him out to be.

(05-21-2016, 05:35 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Your thinking about Nick Vigil... He should be #1

Ah, no. hehe

(05-21-2016, 01:49 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: I just pointed out why I would take Curtis.. he had a higher YPC and much higher TD ratio... you seem confused, im not comparing them to their peers, im comparing them with the Bengals and their impact at the time.  It is difficult to compare different eras... Is there something wrong with putting Chad 6th, I don;t think that is hating on him, I am just giving you why I believe Curtis should be in top 5.  if you look back at his stats with the league,, he was in top of the league in his core years in YPC, TDs, Receiving Yards so he was one of the top WRs and  he was 1/2 team ALL NFL 3 years not the bum you seem to make him out to be.

Not confused at all. You said that Chad is not statistically superior to Curtis because Chad played in a more pass friendly era.  The easy way to tell who was more dominant regardless of era or rules is to compare both Chad and Curtis to their peers.  Chad dominated his era.  Curtis did not.

Chad was a 6x pro bowler and 2x first team all-pro.
Curtis was a 4x pro bowler.

Chad placed top 10 in catches 3 times.
Curtis placed top 10 in catches 0 times.

Chad placed top 10 in yards 5 times.
Curtis placed top 10 in yards 2 times.

Chad placed top 10 in TDs 3 times.
Curtis placed top 10 in TDs 4 times.

Comparing them to their peers (which eliminates "era" from the discussion), Chad beats Curtis in every possible category other than TDs, where Curtis has only a slight edge. I'm not saying that Curtis is a "bum". I'm just showing how Chad was more dominant than Curtis. 

Munoz

Anderson

Riley

Boomer

Krumrie

Curtis

Brooks

Dillon

(05-21-2016, 07:25 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Not confused at all. You said that Chad is not statistically superior to Curtis because Chad played in a more pass friendly era.  The easy way to tell who was more dominant regardless of era or rules is to compare both Chad and Curtis to their peers.  Chad dominated his era.  Curtis did not.

Chad was a 6x pro bowler and 2x first team all-pro.
Curtis was a 4x pro bowler.

Chad placed top 10 in catches 3 times.
Curtis placed top 10 in catches 0 times.

Chad placed top 10 in yards 5 times.
Curtis placed top 10 in yards 2 times.

Chad placed top 10 in TDs 3 times.
Curtis placed top 10 in TDs 4 times.

Comparing them to their peers (which eliminates "era" from the discussion), Chad beats Curtis in every possible category other than TDs, where Curtis has only a slight edge. I'm not saying that Curtis is a "bum". I'm just showing how Chad was more dominant than Curtis. 

Well lets look what you left out

Curtis placed top 10 in YPC 5 times ( lead league once and came in second once(  
Chad placed top 10 in YPC 0 times.

What hurts Curtis is he stopped being a starter the last few years of his career but here is  something that I feel is amazing stat when you look at six years of Curtis prime years.   Curtis caught over 41 percent of all the TD's thrown during those  6 years for the Bengals compare that to Chad who caught 31 percent of all the TDs thrown during 6 of his prime years which is still a good number.


I thought I would try to compare those numbers to a couple peers comparable to Curtis and Chad during six prime seasons

Curtis 41 percent, Carmichael 38 percent, Branch 37 percent

Chad  31 percent,  Ward 38 percent, Harrison 38 percent and Holt 45 percent.


In the end I think there is a good argument for Curtis over Chad especially when you look at their prime years as starters and the impact they had for their team but really either one could be in top 5, so im going to go 5 Curtis and 5A Chad..lol

(05-21-2016, 10:54 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: Well lets look what you left out

Curtis placed top 10 in YPC 5 times ( lead league once and came in second once(  
Chad placed top 10 in YPC 0 times.

What hurts Curtis is he stopped being a starter the last few years of his career but here is  something that I feel is amazing stat when you look at six years of Curtis prime years.   Curtis caught over 41 percent of all the TD's thrown during those  6 years for the Bengals compare that to Chad who caught 31 percent of all the TDs thrown during 6 of his prime years which is still a good number.


I thought I would try to compare those numbers to a couple peers comparable to Curtis and Chad during six prime seasons

Curtis 41 percent, Carmichael 38 percent, Branch 37 percent

Chad  31 percent,  Ward 38 percent, Harrison 38 percent and Holt 45 percent.

In the end I think there is a good argument for Curtis over Chad especially when you look at their prime years as starters and the impact they had for their team but really either one could be in top 5, so im going to go 5 Curtis and 5A Chad..lol

Actually, I know you're mistaken on that because I saw Chad in the top 10 in that category a few times. I just didn't list that stat because people rarely bring up yards per catch when talking about best WRs. Otherwise, I guess we'd be talking about Flipper Anderson being the best WR of all-time, not Jerry Rice.

Obviously we'll just have to disagree. Chad dominated his peers in what most consider to be the most important categories (catches, yards, TDs), while Curtis did not. Curtis had good TD and YPC numbers, but so did Chad. 

So sure, you can make an argument for Curtis being the best and most dominant WR in Bengals history. It's just not a very good argument. 

Can't quibble too much with the list. Brooks, Dillon, Curtis, Krumrie, and/or Reggie Williams could have replaced Chad and/or Boomer and you wouldn't get much argument from me.

Does anyone else feel that Willie Anderson belongs in the argument of All-Time top 5?

He was considered the top RT of his era.

If I recall correctly, he held a record for consecutive snaps without a holding call that was broken because he latched onto and tackled a DE that jumped offsides a full second before the snap and was about to kill Carson.

I always felt that a rule change was in order for that scenario so the OL is not penalized for physically protecting a player from injury.

It's hard to make comparisons between the skill guys and the grinders as to who is more deserving (except in the case of Munoz) it seems it is at least worth considering.