Battle of the Hall-of-Famers: Mike Rozier vs. Ron Dayne

[AllNRed]

Ron Dayne ... had a better college career than Mike Rozier, one of our all time greats.

You know who disagrees?

Dayne averaged 5.24 ypc and Rozier averaged 7.15 ypc. Rozier only had 668 carries in his career vs. Dayne's 1220. I know who I'm picking.

Braylon Heard 6.0 ypc

Ameer Abdullah 4.8 ypc

What's your point?

Ron Dayne went first round in the NFL draft.............Mike Rozier went to the USFL before getting a crack at the big league a year later. You know who you are picking.....Well, that's good for you. Personally, you won't do bad with either and I don't want to sound like I'm discrediting anything MR did here, but Dayne just had a better career. Does it offend you when someone suggest that someone else had a better career than a husker great?

How many data points on this one? Do you think this is a valid comparison given the # of carries?

As for the 2nd bolded, nope. I just don't think highly of Dayne at all. Most people don't other than Wisky faithful.

Maybe I should have used Ameer/Rex or Braylon/Imani...........but my point is that the ypc is good to look at but the amount of yards is much more important. No one gets an award for having a bigger ypc average, but total yards could get you some recognition.

And I'm not saying you have to think highly of the guy, I don't know him personally, but his career was amazing and he was one of the best at his position. I didn't mean to turn this into a Rozier vs Dayne thread. I was just stating that it's not insulting to have him headline a HOF class as his career was just as respectable as Roziers and none of us would complain if he highlighted a HOF class.

 

[NUinID]

For some reason the pic won't appear on my work computer, so feel free to explain to me why a man finishing with 4,780 yards and 49 TDs (Mike Rozier) is a better career than a man who finished with 7,125 yards and 71 TDs (Ron Dayne). Yea, Mike had more yards per carry but he still finished with over 1500 yards less than Dayne. That's a better career, obviously no knock on Rozier, but my point is Dayne was a great back and has accomplished as much if not more than one of our all time greats, so it's not insulting to say he "headlines" this years class.

That's not a better career, those are higher stats. Huge difference there.

Rozier played during the Scoring Explosion years and had to share the ball with Turner Gill and Irving Fryar. Gill and Fryar ate up some of Rozier's stats - Gill was a Heisman finalist in his own right - not to mention the fact that Rozier sat in most of the second halfs of the games he played in. Dayne played four years for Wisconsin while Rozier played three for Nebraska. Give Rozier another year and another 200 carries and he easily eclipses Dayne's stats.

Stats is a representation of a players career. I'm suppose to ignore 1500+ more yards more than Rozier's CAREER ENDING RESULTS.

So what he played for 3 years and Dayne played for years. There's nothing in the rules that says each player has to be compared only to players who played the same amount of time. Who's to say that if Rozier played another year after his last he wouldn't have ended up getting injured? I believe he left the Orange Bowl in the 3rd quarter due to an injury didn't he. The fact he had to share the ball with Gill and Fryar doesn't change the facts. Was Dayne the only talent when he played for Wisconsin? It's a team sport, so what.

Fact is, from the time Rozier step on the field as a Husker to the time he walked off the field for the last time as a husker, he didn't cover as much ground as when Dayne first step on the field and the time he stepped off as a Badger for the last time.......Being that the both were RBs and rushing is what they are primarily asked to do, I would think that this fact weighs heavy on how the career is looked at.

Do we have to look at the hardware taken home by each individual by the time they left their respectable schools........I mean wow........if all you are going to argue is a "What if" to support the ypc argument, they we can be hear all day.

I'm going to have to go with Rozier on this one. Just my opinion. Dayne was a power back who wasn't going to beat anyone to the endzone on a long run. I never saw Rozier get caught from behind. Sometimes stats don't tell you who was a better back. LP was a better back than both of them, a terrrible person, but better back. Oh, and if we are going on stats than Monte Ball was better than the both of them also. He scored more TD's chuckleshuffle

 

[AllNRed]

Does it offend you when someone suggest that someone else had a better career than a husker great?

Why do I have to be offended to disagree with you?

I think Ron Dayne was a fine college running back. But you seem to be talking about Rozier as if you never saw him play. I watched both, and there's simply no way I can agree that Dayne was better than Rozier. It's not even close.

Sorry that's just a little phrase, I say often when I don't understand why a debate is raised over a small comment as if it has no merit......I apologize....on the other board, they know I mean nothing by.....I have to remember I'm a newbie on this board.

When I look at Rozier, I think of a Barry Sanders caliber talent, amazing in everyway regardless of what system/team you would put him on. When I think of Dayne, I think of Emmit Smith, great back, great athlete, but don't necessarily think he would have accomplished as much without the team around, mainly talking about his Oline.

But I'm specifically just talking about careers, what they accomplished before leaving their programs. Emmit Smith finished in front of Barry Sanders, but Barry, IMO, is the better back hands down and had his career went longer I can't imagine Emmit finishing on top statistically, but that's a "what if" argument. Emmit had a better career.

Rozier finished his career a year shorter than Dayne, had a higher ypc average, but he left Lincoln without gaining as many yards as Dayne. And Dayne won every award that Rozier won also. So at the very least, I can say that they were equal, but Dayne has 1500 more yards on his career with 21 more TDs. He's by far, no slouch.

I hate discussions like this because it seems as though I'm discrediting a valued Husker, which in no way am I trying to do that. Especially not one whom I'm spoke with multiple times and respected as he played for us.

 

[knapplc]

When your argument is that Ron Dayne was "better" than Mike Rozier because he has more yards and more touchdowns, yards per carry and number of years played is a HUGE factor in that discussion. HUGE.

Let's look at a few things here. As mentioned above, Rozier has more YPC than Dayne and played three years to Dayne's four. TDs per year are nearly even, with Dayne having an edge, 17.75 per year to Rozier's 17 per year. Close though.

But a more telling stat is this - what percentage of his team's offense was the guy?

Dayne benefited greatly from being the only show in town. During his four seasons at Wiscy he accounted for 45% or greater of their rushing yards three times, not only because he was good (he was) but mostly because they didn't have anything around him. He was the only running back of any caliber they had, and they used him a lot.

In 1996, Dayne's freshman year, he accounted for 55% of their total rushing attempts and 45% of their total rushing/receiving yards from scrimmage. If they'd have had anyone else to use they'd have used them. But they didn't. Here's Dayne's percentage of rushing attempts & yards throughout his career:

Year - Rushing Attempts - Percentage of Total Team Rushing Attempts - All Yards From Scrimmage (Rushing & Receiving) - Percentage of Team's Yards From Scrimmage

Year - ATT - % - ALL YARDS - %

1996 - 325 - 55% - 2,242 - 45%

1997 - 263 - 43% - 1,574 - 35%

1998 - 295 - 49% - 1,570 - 40%

1999 - 337 - 53% - 2,043 - 41%

Now, let's contrast that with Rozier's three years at Nebraska:

Year - ATT - % - ALL YARDS - %

1981 - 151 - 23% - 1,007 - 21%

1982 - 242 - 32% - 1,735 - 28%

1983 - 275 - 38% - 2,254 - 34%

So, what does this tell us? It tells us that Dayne was, by far, the only weapon Wisconsin had. He never accounted for less than 43% of his team's total rushing attempts, while Rozier never accounted for more than 38%. Why? Because Rozier was part of the Scoring Explosion Era at Nebraska, and Rozier had to share carries with other fantastic players.

In Rozier's Sophomore season he wasn't even the top rusher - that honor was held by Roger Craig, who I'd venture to say was also a better running back than Ron Dayne, hardware or no.

Contrast Rozier's Heisman year to Dayne's for an even greater disparity. Dayne had 15% more of his team's total carries than Rozier the year each won their Heismans, yet Rozier gained 211 more total yards and scored nine more TDs.

Go year-by-year and look at their attempts and their results, and each year Rozier eclipses Dayne.

Sophomores: Rozier averaged 6.2 yards per carry to Dayne's 5.5, and Rozier was playing behind Roger Craig.

Juniors: Dayne averaged 5.2 YPC to Rozier's 7.0, and Rozier still had to share carries with Craig parts of the year.

Seniors (Heisman): Rozier averages 7.8 yards every time he rushes the ball, while Dayne gets 6.0. Dayne scores 20 TDs, 44% of his team's total scoring that year, while Rozier easily beats him with 29 - yet that was only 35% of his team's scoring.

Even having to share the ball with some of college football's all-time-greats, Rozier's stats are clearly superior to Dayne's, and it's not even close. Dayne played with nobody special. Rozier played in the same backfield as Roger Craig for 2/3 of his career and with fellow Heisman Trophy finalist Turner Gill his Senior season.

And bear in mind through all of this - these are just statistics. They mean nothing compared to actually watching either guy run the ball. Go look at each guy's career highlights at their respective colleges. Post that here, if you want. It'll only prove my point even further.

If someone wants to claim Ron Dayne is better than Mike Rozier... OK. Just don't expect to be taken seriously.

 

[NUinID]

When your argument is that Ron Dayne was "better" than Mike Rozier because he has more yards and more touchdowns, yards per carry and number of years played is a HUGE factor in that discussion. HUGE.

Let's look at a few things here. As mentioned above, Rozier has more YPC than Dayne and played three years to Dayne's four. TDs per year are nearly even, with Dayne having an edge, 17.75 per year to Rozier's 17 per year. Close though.

But a more telling stat is this - what percentage of his team's offense was the guy?

Dayne benefited greatly from being the only show in town. During his four seasons at Wiscy he accounted for 45% or greater of their rushing yards three times, not only because he was good (he was) but mostly because they didn't have anything around him. He was the only running back of any caliber they had, and they used him a lot.

In 1996, Dayne's freshman year, he accounted for 55% of their total rushing attempts and 45% of their total rushing/receiving yards from scrimmage. If they'd have had anyone else to use they'd have used them. But they didn't. Here's Dayne's percentage of rushing attempts & yards throughout his career:

Year - Rushing Attempts - Percentage of Total Team Rushing Attempts - All Yards From Scrimmage (Rushing & Receiving) - Percentage of Team's Yards From Scrimmage

Year - ATT - % - ALL YARDS - %

1996 - 325 - 55% - 2,242 - 45%

1997 - 263 - 43% - 1,574 - 35%

1998 - 295 - 49% - 1,570 - 40%

1999 - 337 - 53% - 2,043 - 41%

Now, let's contrast that with Rozier's three years at Nebraska:

Year - ATT - % - ALL YARDS - %

1981 - 151 - 23% - 1,007 - 21%

1982 - 242 - 32% - 1,735 - 28%

1983 - 275 - 38% - 2,254 - 34%

So, what does this tell us? It tells us that Dayne was, by far, the only weapon Wisconsin had. He never accounted for less than 43% of his team's total rushing attempts, while Rozier never accounted for more than 38%. Why? Because Rozier was part of the Scoring Explosion Era at Nebraska, and Rozier had to share carries with other fantastic players.

In Rozier's Sophomore season he wasn't even the top rusher - that honor was held by Roger Craig, who I'd venture to say was also a better running back than Ron Dayne, hardware or no.

Contrast Rozier's Heisman year to Dayne's for an even greater disparity. Dayne had 15% more of his team's total carries than Rozier the year each won their Heismans, yet Rozier gained 211 more total yards and scored nine more TDs.

Go year-by-year and look at their attempts and their results, and each year Rozier eclipses Dayne.

Sophomores: Rozier averaged 6.2 yards per carry to Dayne's 5.5, and Rozier was playing behind Roger Craig.

Juniors: Dayne averaged 5.2 YPC to Rozier's 7.0, and Rozier still had to share carries with Craig parts of the year.

Seniors (Heisman): Rozier averages 7.8 yards every time he rushes the ball, while Dayne gets 6.0. Dayne scores 20 TDs, 44% of his team's total scoring that year, while Rozier easily beats him with 29 - yet that was only 35% of his team's scoring.

Even having to share the ball with some of college football's all-time-greats, Rozier's stats are clearly superior to Dayne's, and it's not even close. Dayne played with nobody special. Rozier played in the same backfield as Roger Craig for 2/3 of his career and with fellow Heisman Trophy finalist Turner Gill his Senior season.

And bear in mind through all of this - these are just statistics. They mean nothing compared to actually watching either guy run the ball. Go look at each guy's career highlights at their respective colleges. Post that here, if you want. It'll only prove my point even further.

If someone wants to claim Ron Dayne is better than Mike Rozier... OK. Just don't expect to be taken seriously.

Boom Baby

 

[HuskerNationNick]

Year - ATT - % - ALL YARDS - %

1996 - 325 - 55% - 2,242 - 45%

1997 - 263 - 43% - 1,574 - 35%

1998 - 295 - 49% - 1,570 - 40%

1999 - 337 - 53% - 2,043 - 41%

Now, let's contrast that with Rozier's three years at Nebraska:

Year - ATT - % - ALL YARDS - %

1981 - 151 - 23% - 1,007 - 21%

1982 - 242 - 32% - 1,735 - 28%

1983 - 275 - 38% - 2,254 - 34%

So, what does this tell us? It tells us that Dayne was, by far, the only weapon Wisconsin had. He never accounted for less than 43% of his team's total rushing attempts, while Rozier never accounted for more than 38%. Why? Because Rozier was part of the Scoring Explosion Era at Nebraska, and Rozier had to share carries with other fantastic players.

In Rozier's Sophomore season he wasn't even the top rusher - that honor was held by Roger Craig, who I'd venture to say was also a better running back than Ron Dayne, hardware or no.

Contrast Rozier's Heisman year to Dayne's for an even greater disparity. Dayne had 15% more of his team's total carries than Rozier the year each won their Heismans, yet Rozier gained 211 more total yards and scored nine more TDs.

Go year-by-year and look at their attempts and their results, and each year Rozier eclipses Dayne.

Sophomores: Rozier averaged 6.2 yards per carry to Dayne's 5.5, and Rozier was playing behind Roger Craig.

Juniors: Dayne averaged 5.2 YPC to Rozier's 7.0, and Rozier still had to share carries with Craig parts of the year.

Seniors (Heisman): Rozier averages 7.8 yards every time he rushes the ball, while Dayne gets 6.0. Dayne scores 20 TDs, 44% of his team's total scoring that year, while Rozier easily beats him with 29 - yet that was only 35% of his team's scoring.

Even having to share the ball with some of college football's all-time-greats, Rozier's stats are clearly superior to Dayne's, and it's not even close. Dayne played with nobody special. Rozier played in the same backfield as Roger Craig for 2/3 of his career and with fellow Heisman Trophy finalist Turner Gill his Senior season.

And bear in mind through all of this - these are just statistics. They mean nothing compared to actually watching either guy run the ball. Go look at each guy's career highlights at their respective colleges. Post that here, if you want. It'll only prove my point even further.

If someone wants to claim Ron Dayne is better than Mike Rozier... OK. Just don't expect to be taken seriously.

 

[skersfan]

I would say Rozier was the better back, but you have to take into consideration, like Knapplc said. Dayne was their offense, every time they ran the ball, Dayne got the ball, where as with Rozier, who had a pretty good Oline also, there was the element of surprise. Would Rozier, been as durable as Dayne, would have he done a lot better, who knows. But Ron Dayne deserves every honor he gets, I would certainly liked to have had him line up as a Husker.

I would take Mike first, but Dayne was very very close to being as good.

 

[Apathy]

Ron Dayne was a beast of a man when in Madison. Almost 6400 total yards for a college career, Heisman and two Rose Bowl MVP, amongst many other awards he took in '99. I'm not sure why it's so insulting. He had a better college career than Mike Rozier, one of our all time greats.

You provide stats and I'll provide a highlight reel

 

[MichiganDad3]

Ron Dayne went first round in the NFL draft.............Mike Rozier went to the USFL before getting a crack at the big league a year later.

Out of curiosity, do you know why Rozier went to the USFL first? He was, without question, the best running back coming out of college that year and would have been drafted top three, if not #1 overall that year. So why go to the USFL? Do you know?

He went to the USFL for a huge payday.

http://articles.latimes.com/1985-08-11/sports/sp-2912_1_mike-rozier

Congratulation Tommy! It is about time the greatest college QB in history was put in the HOF.

 

[AllNRed]

Ron Dayne was a beast of a man when in Madison. Almost 6400 total yards for a college career, Heisman and two Rose Bowl MVP, amongst many other awards he took in '99. I'm not sure why it's so insulting. He had a better college career than Mike Rozier, one of our all time greats.

You provide stats and I'll provide a highlight reel

Highlights are just that.......highlights. No one highlights faults or less than desirable plays, even if their are few. Stats are what has happened. The conclusion. Turnovers are in stats, so are penalties..... So, you providing a highlight reel will do nothing but entertain me as I love watching Rozier running over the Big 8, but it doesn't effect this conversation.

 

[AllNRed]

Dayne benefited greatly from being the only show in town. During his four seasons at Wiscy he accounted for 45% or greater of their rushing yards three times, not only because he was good (he was) but mostly because they didn't have anything around him. He was the only running back of any caliber they had, and they used him a lot.

Why should this be a knock on him. That makes no sense. I agree with your point and stats provided, but because he is a big part of their production doesn't make him any less great than a RB whom has other weapons around him. I would think that if a RB is the only weapon, then defenses will line up to take him out of the game, thus limiting the rest of the offense. Yet, he was still able to have a great career.

Again you are still throwing out these "what ifs" that didn't manifest physically to prove your point. Yes, Mike had great athletes around him which took away from his production a bit. Yes, he had one less year. But the fact is, by the time he left NU, he accomplished almost the same things that Ron did, excluding a couple awards and 1500 yards & 21 TDs.............Normally around 10 RBs gain 1500 yards in a season in college football and maybe 5 RBs will cross the goal line more than 20 times. Meaning he had one extra great year than Rozier was able to have. Why is that a fault?

I get it, Rozier is a better back, I don't necessarily disagree with that. But my original point is that Dayne's career was better. Is that because of an extra year, maybe so, but it was still a better a career.

 

[GSG]

Rozier >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ron Dayne

 

[knapplc]

Dayne benefited greatly from being the only show in town. During his four seasons at Wiscy he accounted for 45% or greater of their rushing yards three times, not only because he was good (he was) but mostly because they didn't have anything around him. He was the only running back of any caliber they had, and they used him a lot.

Why should this be a knock on him. That makes no sense. I agree with your point and stats provided, but because he is a big part of their production doesn't make him any less great than a RB whom has other weapons around him. I would think that if a RB is the only weapon, then defenses will line up to take him out of the game, thus limiting the rest of the offense. Yet, he was still able to have a great career.

Again you are still throwing out these "what ifs" that didn't manifest physically to prove your point. Yes, Mike had great athletes around him which took away from his production a bit. Yes, he had one less year. But the fact is, by the time he left NU, he accomplished almost the same things that Ron did, excluding a couple awards and 1500 yards & 21 TDs.............Normally around 10 RBs gain 1500 yards in a season in college football and maybe 5 RBs will cross the goal line more than 20 times. Meaning he had one extra great year than Rozier was able to have. Why is that a fault?

I get it, Rozier is a better back, I don't necessarily disagree with that. But my original point is that Dayne's career was better. Is that because of an extra year, maybe so, but it was still a better a career.

The only thing - the ONLY thing - Ron Dayne has over Mike Rozier is the fact that he ran for more yards and scored more total touchdowns. Because that is the ONLY THING that Dayne has an advantage in, it is entirely germane to show that the ONLY REASON Dayne has that statistical advantage is that he was given the ball more. That naturally begs the question, why was he given the ball more? Answer: They didn't have anyone else.

Whether you like the stats I provided or not is irrelevant. The fact is, Rozier did more every time he touched the ball than Dayne.

If you ONLY define "better" by having more yards total in a career, then Taylor Martinez had a better career than Tommie Frazier. Are you sure you want to make that argument?

 

[Count 'Bility]

If you ONLY define "better" by having more yards total in a career, then Taylor Martinez had a better career than Tommie Frazier. Are you sure you want to make that argument?

Well technically........................

Never shoulda took Rozier out of that '83 Minnesota game at the end of the 1st quarter. You'da thunk rushing records.

 

[StPaulHusker]

Rozier is without a doubt the superior RB between the 2. Apply the stats appropriately and it's not even close. Ron Dayne SHOULD highlight this years class but to say he was better than Rozier is crazy.