Ken Riley and Charles Woodson

[MrRager]

(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