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

[AllNRed]

To me, stats don't necessarily mean the better career. For example, and as someone mentioned earlier, Taylor Martinez is going to go down in history with the most offensive yards of any Husker quarterback. I can't look up the stats right now, but my guess is he'll also finish with more touchdown passes, a higher completion percentage and more career wins.

 

But, Frazier won two national titles and was a Heisman finalist. He without question had the better career.

 

If you take all factors into account, I believe Rozier had the better career, even if he didn't have more touchdowns or yards.

I wonder how each would've done if the teams were reversed---if T-Mart played on the 90s teams and Tommie was playing today? We might be speaking of Martinez in a different light.

 

If they played on opposite teams, Bo would have at least 2 Conf Championships. Martinez wouldn't have been the starting QB on Tommie's team. He'd of been back up to Berringer just off the mental aspect alone, not counting his talent at putting the ball on the ground. Honestly, I think he probably would have been playing WR.

[Ulty]

I wonder how each would've done if the teams were reversed---if T-Mart played on the 90s teams and Tommie was playing today? We might be speaking of Martinez in a different light.

 

If they played on opposite teams, Bo would have at least 2 Conf Championships. Martinez wouldn't have been the starting QB on Tommie's team. He'd of been back up to Berringer just off the mental aspect alone, not counting his talent at putting the ball on the ground. Honestly, I think he probably would have been playing WR.

 

I LOL trying to picture Martinez blocking as a WR in Osborne's offense! He probably would have been a DB.

[NUance]

[AllNRed]

I just don't understand the numbers argument. A guy plays 4 and another guy plays 3. The numbers are going to be off. There is no better back than Barry Sanders. He's not the record holder for all things NFL and NCAA though. Numbers only tell part of the story.

 

The numbers are for the career (accomplishments on the field). Personally, I never said that Ron Dayne was a better back than Rozier, I simply stated he had a better career. Some don't know, or understand the difference. Others don't want to understand the difference because unless I say Rozier is the greatest back ever and his career surpasses all who has played before and after him, then I am disrespecting.......

So because Rozier's career was shorter, it wasn't as good? Ahman Green only became the premier starter after LP got suspended. So the ball happened to bounce his way otherwise he backs up LP for a whole season. Still don't understand why some stats give Dayne a better career. You have to look at the whole picture.

 

What the hell? Are you serious? Did I say his career wasn't good? And Ahman Green became the permier starter after the 4 backs in front of him on the depth chart were either supsended or injured. As a true freshman, Green was 5th on the depth chart during the first kickoff. Both what does that have to do with what I said........

 

You don't understand why Dayne's career is better because you don't want to understand it. Let me dumb it down once again.

 

Rozier & Dayne won the same awards by the time they left their programs, with Dayne winning a few more, 2 awards didn't exist when Rozier was playing.

Rozier & Dayne both were consensus All Americans

Rozier & Dayne were both the #1 RB in the NFL draft their final seasons, though Rozier went USFL first.

Only thing separating their career is 1500 yards and 21 TDs.

 

If Rozier scored 21 more TDs than he did, would you say his career is even better. If he ran for 1500 more yards would you say his career was even better. Yes you would. So why is it so much energy is being spent trying to make it seem like another RB who accomplished the same things that Rozier accomplished but ran for more yards and TDs is not a better career. I know this argument would have went this long if Ron Dayne's name was replaced with Rex Burkhead or Marlon Lucky, or Dan Alexander or some other RB who played for NU. No one wants to admit that another back at another school could have had a better career than a Husker who had the best year of all Husker RBs.......I'm not saying he's not a great back. I'm not saying Dayne is a better back.......I simply stated that his career was better and that he deserved to highlight the HOF class as much as anyone else who has.

[AllNRed]

I wonder how each would've done if the teams were reversed---if T-Mart played on the 90s teams and Tommie was playing today? We might be speaking of Martinez in a different light.

 

If they played on opposite teams, Bo would have at least 2 Conf Championships. Martinez wouldn't have been the starting QB on Tommie's team. He'd of been back up to Berringer just off the mental aspect alone, not counting his talent at putting the ball on the ground. Honestly, I think he probably would have been playing WR.

 

I LOL trying to picture Martinez blocking as a WR in Osborne's offense! He probably would have been a DB.

 

If he can't block, he definitely won't tackle....

[ADS]

[Ulty]

What did Rozier accomplish that Dayne did not.

 

He had a 2000 yard season and his teams were National Champioship contenders every year he was on campus. Those were things Dayne cannot claim.

 

To be fair, Ron Dayne's overall durability and the career rushing record are things that Rozier can't claim, and Dayne lifted his team to higher rankings each consecutive year. It's almost a wash, really, but everyone's opinions have been stated. Why keep repeating yourself over and over?

[Ulty]

I wonder how each would've done if the teams were reversed---if T-Mart played on the 90s teams and Tommie was playing today? We might be speaking of Martinez in a different light.

 

If they played on opposite teams, Bo would have at least 2 Conf Championships. Martinez wouldn't have been the starting QB on Tommie's team. He'd of been back up to Berringer just off the mental aspect alone, not counting his talent at putting the ball on the ground. Honestly, I think he probably would have been playing WR.

 

I LOL trying to picture Martinez blocking as a WR in Osborne's offense! He probably would have been a DB.

 

If he can't block, he definitely won't tackle....

 

Oh, yeah, there's that. He probably just would have sat and then transferred to Kentucky or Northern Iowa instead.

[Ulty]

If Rozier scored 21 more TDs than he did, would you say his career is even better. If he ran for 1500 more yards would you say his career was even better. Yes you would. So why is it so much energy is being spent trying to make it seem like another RB who accomplished the same things that Rozier accomplished but ran for more yards and TDs is not a better career. I know this argument would have went this long if Ron Dayne's name was replaced with Rex Burkhead or Marlon Lucky, or Dan Alexander or some other RB who played for NU. No one wants to admit that another back at another school could have had a better career than a Husker who had the best year of all Husker RBs.......I'm not saying he's not a great back. I'm not saying Dayne is a better back.......I simply stated that his career was better and that he deserved to highlight the HOF class as much as anyone else who has.

 

So, list of all time best running backs in CFB history, ranked by quality of career, not by most talented:

 

1. Mike Rozier

2. Rex Burkhead

3. Marlon Lucky

4. Dan Alexander

.....

39+. Ron Dayne

 

That's more like it.

[HuskyBadger]

What did Rozier accomplish that Dayne did not.

 

He had a 2000 yard season and his teams were National Champioship contenders every year he was on campus. Those were things Dayne cannot claim.

 

To be fair, Ron Dayne's overall durability and the career rushing record are things that Rozier can't claim, and Dayne lifted his team to higher rankings each consecutive year. It's almost a wash, really, but everyone's opinions have been stated. Why keep repeating yourself over and over?

 

Actually Dayne ran for 2109 yds as a freshman and 2034 as a senior if we count the bowl games; and Rozier's Husker teams were obviously superior in talent to the Badger teams Dayne played on -- so I don't know if its fair to knock Dayne for UW not being National Title contenders every year.

 

Rozier's '83 season is bonkers good though -- two great backs.

[ADS]

This sums up this thread better than words can, +1 my friend.

[AllNRed]

What did Rozier accomplish that Dayne did not.

 

He had a 2000 yard season and his teams were National Champioship contenders every year he was on campus. Those were things Dayne cannot claim.

 

To be fair, Ron Dayne's overall durability and the career rushing record are things that Rozier can't claim, and Dayne lifted his team to higher rankings each consecutive year. It's almost a wash, really, but everyone's opinions have been stated. Why keep repeating yourself over and over?

 

2109 is what he rushed in 1996 (as a freshman). 2034 is what he rushed for in 1999 (his Heisman Sr. Year). It's not hard to at least google information before responding so that you at least sound like you know what you were talking about. And the fact that Nebraska contended for national titles each of the three years Rozier was hear only proves he had a better team. In case you haven't been paying attention, everyone pointed out how much talent he had around him which took away from his production. And even though they contended for national titles each of the 3 seasons, how many national championships did they win......being there doesn't automatically make you better than the next RB. Adrian Peterson was the best RB in the NFL this year and yet Ray Rice was on the team team that WON the Super Bowl.

 

And I didn't even factor in Dayne's durability. I keep repeating myself because I continuously notice ignorant statements repeat by a different poster, regardless of how many times it was stated before that poster joined the conversation. I would have to repeat a thing if comprehension didn't lack as much in this conversation.

[AllNRed]

If Rozier scored 21 more TDs than he did, would you say his career is even better. If he ran for 1500 more yards would you say his career was even better. Yes you would. So why is it so much energy is being spent trying to make it seem like another RB who accomplished the same things that Rozier accomplished but ran for more yards and TDs is not a better career. I know this argument would have went this long if Ron Dayne's name was replaced with Rex Burkhead or Marlon Lucky, or Dan Alexander or some other RB who played for NU. No one wants to admit that another back at another school could have had a better career than a Husker who had the best year of all Husker RBs.......I'm not saying he's not a great back. I'm not saying Dayne is a better back.......I simply stated that his career was better and that he deserved to highlight the HOF class as much as anyone else who has.

 

So, list of all time best running backs in CFB history, ranked by quality of career, not by most talented:

 

1. Mike Rozier

2. Rex Burkhead

3. Marlon Lucky

4. Dan Alexander

.....

39+. Ron Dayne

 

That's more like it.

that's cute.

[StPaulHusker]

Dayne had a better STATISTICAL career. Rozier is the better RB. Is this fair enough?

[AllNRed]

Dayne had a better STATISTICAL career. Rozier is the better RB. Is this fair enough?

 

This is all I've been saying. No need to place STATISTICAL before career, because a career is stats.