I personally hated the Ki Jana pick. He was a bust -- even when healthy. He broke no tackles. I've never seen a RB go down as easily. One hit... Down. Any kind of contact and he hit the turf. The odds of a small back like him making it in the NFL was abysmal. I still remember a graphic that showed how many RB with his height and weight making it in the NFL. I knew then.

(08-17-2015, 10:43 PM)EatonFan Wrote: I personally hated the Ki Jana pick.  He was a bust -- even when healthy.  He broke no tackles.  I've never seen a RB go down as easily.  One hit... Down.  Any kind of contact and he hit the turf.  The odds of a small back like him making it in the NFL was abysmal.  I still remember a graphic that showed how many RB with his height and weight making it in the NFL.  I knew then.

You must have him confused with someone else. Ki-Jana Carter was listed at 232 lbs when he was drafted.

He was a big, powerful, fast RB with great burst and quickness who was a load to bring down in college. He had massive thighs and easily ran through tackles.

Don't know where you got the idea he was a small back. Like I said, you must be confused.

(08-17-2015, 10:50 PM)Joe Pong Wrote: You must have him confused with someone else.  Ki-Jana Carter was listed at 232 lbs when he was drafted.

He was a big, powerful, fast RB with great burst and quickness who was a load to bring down in college. He had massive thighs and easily ran through tackles.

Don't know where you got the idea he was a small back. Like I said, you must be confused.

I watched him play in the NFL.  He went down like a sack of garbage. He was 5' 10" (small). He was about 220lbs which is a bit bigger than I remember, but he played like a 7th rounder. He had speed but went down via arm tackles.

(08-17-2015, 10:59 PM)EatonFan Wrote: I watched him play in the NFL.  He went down like a sack of garbage.  He was 5' 10" (small).  He was about 220lbs which is a bit bigger than I remember, but he played like a 7th rounder.  He had speed but went down via arm tackles.

Yes, nobody is arguing he wasn't the same player after the injury.

And as for size, as a comparison, Emmitt Smith was 5'9" 210 lbs. Ki-Jana was 5'10" and about 230 lbs. to say he was small is just silly. He was a big, fast, powerful RB before the injury.

(08-17-2015, 11:21 PM)Joe Pong Wrote: Yes, nobody is arguing he wasn't the same player after the injury.

And as for size, as a comparison, Emmitt Smith was 5'9" 210 lbs. Ki-Jana was 5'10" and about 230 lbs. to say he was small is just silly. He was a big, fast, powerful RB before the injury.

Whatever.  He SUCKED.

(08-17-2015, 11:32 PM)EatonFan Wrote: Whatever.  He SUCKED.

I love when fans compare scrubs to all time HOF greats. Ki Jana and Emmitt Smith, lol. They are so similar.

Hey, Tony Gonzalez and Jermaine Gresham are both 6 foot 5 and 250 lbs.

(08-17-2015, 11:42 PM)Blake2Pickens Wrote: I love when fans compare scrubs to all time HOF greats. Ki Jana and Emmitt Smith, lol.  They are so similar.

Hey, Tony Gonzalez and Jermaine Gresham are both 6 foot 5 and 250 lbs.

If someone said Jermaine Gresham wasn't any good because he was too small, that would be an equally stupid statement.

The guy said Carter wasn't any good because he was too small. That's just a stupid statement. You actually agree Carter was too small?

Anyone who thinks that has no credibility.

The guy had 1144 yards for his career. He was 5'10". He had a grand total of 1 game of 100 yards. I watched him play every game as a Bengal. Dude just did not have it. Granted I was off on his weight, but his numbers and his career were awful. He was the poster child for a bust along with Akili Smith.

Given the choice between those two I'd have to give it to Akili, but Carter is a solid #2.

There was a thread on the old boards, following one of the recent playoff losses, asking if the season that had just finished was 'the most disappointed you've been as a Bengals fan'.

My reply was that for me, the 1995 season, specifically Ki-Jana's knee exploding like a party popper on the $^&$ing Silverdome turf, was far worse. As was pointed out earlier, that team could have made the playoffs that year without Ki-Jana with a handful of lucky bounces here and there, with him...who knows?

They went 7-9 with Dave Shula as the HC and Bruce Coslet as the OC! Think about that for a second, they went 7-9 almost in spite of their coaching staff while missing their starting HB and 1st pick in the draft! For a 90's Bengals team that's insanity!

I never thought, dreamed, nor remember any comparisons to Bo, in hindsight it fits in more ways than one I guess, two supreme specimens at HB cut down by career altering injuries.

I never thought of Ki-Jana as a bust. Akili Smith was a bust. Ki-Jana, and more recently for us David Pollack, get injury exemptions. They're not busts, they're casualties.

(08-18-2015, 12:25 AM)Ravage Wrote: There was a thread on the old boards, following one of the recent playoff losses, asking if the season that had just finished was 'the most disappointed you've been as a Bengals fan'.

My reply was that for me, the 1995 season, specifically Ki-Jana's knee exploding like a party popper on the $^&$ing Silverdome turf, was far worse. As was pointed out earlier, that team could have made the playoffs that year without Ki-Jana with a handful of lucky bounces here and there, with him...who knows?

They went 7-9 with Dave Shula as the HC and Bruce Coslet as the OC! Think about that for a second, they went 7-9 almost in spite of their coaching staff while missing their starting HB and 1st pick in the draft! For a 90's Bengals team that's insanity!

I never thought, dreamed, nor remember any comparisons to Bo, in hindsight it fits in more ways than one I guess, two supreme specimens at HB cut down by career altering injuries.

I never thought of Ki-Jana as a bust. Akili Smith was a bust. Ki-Jana, and more recently for us David Pollack, get injury exemptions. They're not busts, they're casualties.

In the last 24 yars, only one rb has been taken #1. Ki Jana. No shock, the team that drafted him has not won a playoff game over the same 24 years.

Longest playoff win drought in the NFL. Moves like drafting Carter are contributing factors to this.

(08-18-2015, 12:18 AM)EatonFan Wrote: The guy had 1144 yards for his career.  He was 5'10".  He had a grand total of 1 game of 100 yards.  I watched him play every game as a Bengal.  Dude just did not have it.  Granted I was off on his weight, but his numbers and his career were awful.  He was the poster child for a bust along with Akili Smith.

Given the choice between those two I'd have to give it to Akili, but Carter is a solid #2.

Not a single person has ever said Ki-Jana Carter was a great NFL player or that he had a great NFL career. You're acting like you have some great insight telling everyone that he wasn't very good.

What's ridiculous is that you're saying the reason he wasn't very good is because he was so small and nobody that size can have success.

That's like someone saying the reason Jamarcus Russell wasn't a good NFL QB is because he didn't have a strong enough arm. And they knew he wasn't going to be any good because he lacks arm strength.

(08-18-2015, 12:39 AM)Blake2Pickens Wrote: In the last 24 yars, only one rb has been taken #1.  Ki Jana.  No shock,  the team that drafted him has not won a playoff game over the same 24 years.

Longest playoff win drought in the NFL.   Moves like drafting Carter are contributing factors to this.

And in the previous 18 seasons, 5 RB's had been selected 1st overall. The NFL has changed. Taking a RB didn't cause the Bengals to fail. Taking a RB who shredded his ACL on bad turf contributed to the failures of the 90's, but that was bad luck.

Mike Brown has made plenty of dumb decisions. Taking Ki-Jana wasn't one of them. Someone with the name "Blake2Pickens" should know how desperately we needed a RB back then.

(08-17-2015, 11:32 PM)EatonFan Wrote: Whatever.  He SUCKED.

Wow, I'm embarrassed for you. 

The guy did not suck, not at all. The guy was an elite RB coming out of college, a guy who had the chance to really be a great back, and ends up having a horrific injury that at the time, the treatment for wasn't as good as today. An ACL injury to a back in 95, was not something you came back from easily. 

To say Carter sucked, is just incompetence. To say he was injury prone, and his career was cut short, and that we never saw what he could have been, those are valid statements.

Wow. Such hate for K-J.

(08-18-2015, 12:56 AM)Joe Pong Wrote: Not a single person has ever said Ki-Jana Carter was a  great NFL player or that he had a great NFL career. You're acting like you have some great insight telling everyone that he wasn't very good.

What's ridiculous is that you're saying the reason he wasn't very good is because he was so small and nobody that size can have success.

That's like someone saying the reason Jamarcus Russell wasn't a good NFL QB is because he didn't have a strong enough arm. And they knew he wasn't going to be any good because he lacks arm strength.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth.  I said that the odds are against it.  Small RB typically have short careers in the NFL.  I didn't like the pick then and I still don't.  

(08-18-2015, 02:56 AM)Murdock2420 Wrote: Wow, I'm embarrassed for you. 

The guy did not suck, not at all. The guy was an elite RB coming out of college, a guy who had the chance to really be a great back, and ends up having a horrific injury that at the time, the treatment for wasn't as good as today. An ACL injury to a back in 95, was not something you came back from easily. 

To say Carter sucked, is just incompetence. To say he was injury prone, and his career was cut short, and that we never saw what he could have been, those are valid statements.

I watched his college tape.  His line opened gaping holes that trucks could go through.  He had no vision and went down pretty much on first contact in the NFL.  You can say what you want.  I have my opinion.  I'm embarrassed for you too.

(08-17-2015, 03:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry about that thing with your mom, but you really need to grow up and get over it.

Everyone who watched Carter play in college thought he was destined to be a great NFL back.

LOL

(08-17-2015, 10:11 PM)Blake2Pickens Wrote: The Bengals went 1 and 7 in their first 8 games in 95.

You think that team was good? Their end of the year qb, boomer, chose to go work for ABC over coming back for the 96 season.

That was the 1997 team.  The 1995 team started 2-0, finished 7-9 and had a good offense that would have been that much better with a healthy Carter.  Forgive me for interjecting actual facts into your lunacy.

(08-18-2015, 12:18 AM)EatonFan Wrote: The guy had 1144 yards for his career.  He was 5'10".  He had a grand total of 1 game of 100 yards.  I watched him play every game as a Bengal.  Dude just did not have it.  Granted I was off on his weight, but his numbers and his career were awful.  He was the poster child for a bust along with Akili Smith.

Given the choice between those two I'd have to give it to Akili, but Carter is a solid #2.

He was injured and missed an entire year before he played a game for the Bengals.

That was the problem.

But the fact that you claimed he was too small proves you don't really have a very good memory.  

(08-17-2015, 10:43 PM)EatonFan Wrote:   I still remember a graphic that showed how many RB with his height and weight making it in the NFL.  I knew then.

You bhave to have him confused with someone else.  A list of backs the same size as Carter would have include many of the greatest of all time.  He was 5'10, 220.  Here are backs smaller than that

Walter Payton
Barry Sanders
Emmitt Smith
Joe Morris
Thurman Thomas
Marshall Faulk
Floyd Little
James Brooks
Otis Armstrong
Earnest Byner
Wilbert Montgomery
Terry Allen
Mercury Morris
Robert newhouse
Gregg Pruitt
Mike Rozier
Wendell Tyler
Joe Washington