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

[StPaulHusker]

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.

 

I know it's what you have been saying. I was trying to help you clarify to those who still didn't get it.

[Ulty]

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.

 

You're getting nice and frothy about this, awesome!

 

Bowl game stats were not included in the official numbers until 2002, so Dayne's stats never reflected 2000 yards during any one season. If those numbers were inlcuded, Rozier would be even closer to Dayne when you account for his entire college career. Rozier would have had an amazing 2300 yeard season in 1983 if that were the case, even surrounded by as much talent as he was. If you figure in Rozier's JUCO numbers(1157) and bowl games (340), his career total yards would amount to 6277 on a hell of a lot fewer carries than it took Dayne to reach 7125. (Note: Found different JUCO numebrs for Rozier on different sites. Anywhere between 1157 or 1316. I went with 1157 just to be safe.)

 

That really doesn't change anything in your whole argument, but it shrinks the gap between their numbers, and the 1500 yards difference you keep crowing about is quite false. If you are going to attach unofficial numbers to your boy without doing the same for Rozier, I guess he will look that much better. Why not add in receiving yards and kick return yards? Dayne had 304 of those. Rozier had 665. Add in bowl games, Rozier had 39 more receiving yards. Figuring in JUCO, bowl games, and all-purpose yards, Rozier gets 14 more touchdowns to his total as well. I don't know Ron Dayne's receiving numbers in bowl games or receiving touchdowns, you can look it up if you want.

 

So now, if you are relying so heavily on numbers, Rozier's true career total will have 6981 yards and 63 touchdowns. Dayne has 7429 yards and 71 TDs (plus whatever receiving he may have had in bowl games). That narrows your gap a little doesn't it? Those numbers are reflective of their entire college careers, which you are so hung up on. Not too much difference, with a hell of a lot fewer touches for Rozier, while Rozier's teams enjoyed more success.

 

Now you got me all worked up, dammit. But if you look at all that and still think Dayne's career was that much better, well "that's cute." Just please stop posting the same crap over and over. There are quote functions or copy and paste for that.

[AllNRed]

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.

 

You're getting nice and frothy about this, awesome!

 

Bowl game stats were not included in the official numbers until 2002, so Dayne's stats never reflected 2000 yards during any one season. If those numbers were inlcuded, Rozier would be even closer to Dayne when you account for his entire college career. Rozier would have had an amazing 2300 yeard season in 1983 if that were the case, even surrounded by as much talent as he was. If you figure in Rozier's JUCO numbers(1157) and bowl games (340), his career total yards would amount to 6277 on a hell of a lot fewer carries than it took Dayne to reach 7125. (Note: Found different JUCO numebrs for Rozier on different sites. Anywhere between 1157 or 1316. I went with 1157 just to be safe.)

 

That really doesn't change anything in your whole argument, but it shrinks the gap between their numbers, and the 1500 yards difference you keep crowing about is quite false. If you are going to attach unofficial numbers to your boy without doing the same for Rozier, I guess he will look that much better. Why not add in receiving yards and kick return yards? Dayne had 304 of those. Rozier had 665. Add in bowl games, Rozier had 39 more receiving yards. Figuring in JUCO, bowl games, and all-purpose yards, Rozier gets 14 more touchdowns to his total as well. I don't know Ron Dayne's receiving numbers in bowl games or receiving touchdowns, you can look it up if you want.

 

So now, if you are relying so heavily on numbers, Rozier's true career total will have 6942 yards and 63 touchdowns. Dayne has 7429 yards and 71 TDs (plus whatever receiving he may have had in bowl games). That narrows your gap a little doesn't it? Those numbers are reflective of their entire college careers, which you are so hung up on. Not too much difference, with a hell of a lot fewer touches for Rozier, while Rozier's teams enjoyed more success.

 

Now you got me all worked up, dammit. But if you look at all that and still think Dayne's career was that much better, well "that's cute." Just please stop posting the same crap over and over. There are quote functions or copy and paste for that.

 

Nice and frothy?.....yet it helped you to make a more applicable response..... You're welcome.

 

If you are worked up over this conversation, that's you're own personal problem. I didn't beg you to read my posts, if you don't like it, don't read it. Skip over every one of my posts, or I'm not sure if this feature is available on this site, but some football forums have a "black list" so that you don't see any of a certain member's posts.......utilize that.

 

And since you responded then lets just look at what you posted.

 

Rozier had 5,445 total all purpose yards. 53 TDs (why should I include his JUCO #s.....his husker career is being discussed. JUCO is against lesser talent)

 

This is including his #s from the bowl games he participated in.

 

That still does not surpass Dayne's #s. Even if he was just 100 yards l and 2 TDs under Dayne, it still wouldn't change the fact that Dayne had a better career. Narrow that gap the best way you can. (Pretty sad argument, IMO,....you want to include JUCO #'s....) I'm glad you are starting to utilize the great creation we know today as google search. But it still doesn't change the facts.

 

Plus, you & others bring up reasons that kept Rozier's #s from being better (talent around him, injuries, etc....) as if there's nothing that kept Dayne from having better #s than he did. I wouldn't expect you to know those reasons as you obviously didn't follow his career as closely as you did Rozier's. Bigdsrip in Post#67 helped out the board to understand that certain factors took Dayne off the field also, yet that post was ignored. Which let's me know that "ignorance is a choice". Step back and listen to the conversation and rebuttals. How do you say that Dayne's stats don't make his career better, but yet you come back with ways of making Rozier's stats better, like adding his JUCO #s...........That's laughable.

 

P.S. Calm down, homie. Drink some water. It's just a football discussion. What else would you have me do in the offseason?

[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.

 

I know it's what you have been saying. I was trying to help you clarify to those who still didn't get it.

 

Yes, I know. I agree with you. I should have put +1 in front of my response.

[StPaulHusker]

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.

 

I know it's what you have been saying. I was trying to help you clarify to those who still didn't get it.

 

Yes, I know. I agree with you. I should have put +1 in front of my response.

 

K

[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.

 

I know it's what you have been saying. I was trying to help you clarify to those who still didn't get it.

 

Yes, I know. I agree with you. I should have put +1 in front of my response.

 

K

Oh, god.......not the "K" response....

[StPaulHusker]

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

[knapplc]

I think the real question here is, how bored are you right now? Anyone interested in a Battle of All-Time College Football Greats?

 

Turns out, I started such a thing about five years ago here on HuskerBoard and never finished it. We could try it again, if there's interest.

 

It is the offseason, you know.

[AllNRed]

I think the real question here is, how bored are you right now? Anyone interested in a Battle of All-Time College Football Greats?

 

Turns out, I started such a thing about five years ago here on HuskerBoard and never finished it. We could try it again, if there's interest.

 

It is the offseason, you know.

 

I'm down. Let's do it....

[beanman]

I'm going to rank the best college RBs since 1970 based on who I think was best in COLLEGE, not just on stats. I prefer the eyeball test vs. just pure stats. Here she goes for my top 20

1. Barry Sanders (don't blame him for being stuck behind Thurman Thomas and for striking while the iron was hot and skipping his senior year)
   
2. Herschel Walker
   
3. Bo Jackson
   
4. Ricky Williams
   
5. Adrian Peterson
   
6. Lawrence Phillips(don't blame him for being crazy. Dude was a stud and if he hadn't gotten into trouble he would have won the Heisman and went on to a solid pro career. No doubt in my mind)
   
7. Mike Rozier
   
8. Ron Dayne
   
9. Reggie Bush
   
10. Billy Sims
    
11. Earl Campbell
    
12. Tony Dorsett
    
13. Marshall Faulk
    
14. LaDainian Tomlinson
    
15. Darren McFadden
    
16. Cedric Benson
    
17. DeAngelo Williams
    
18. Marcus Allen
    
19. Eric Dickerson
    
20. Archie Griffin (yes I know he won the Heisman twice, but I'm not hugely impressed by his numbers or by seeing highlight vids of the guy. Sorry Buckeye fans).
    

 

What do you guys think? Am I way off or what?

[knapplc]

I would agree with Sanders at #1. You could flip a coin between Herschel and Bo. I'd put Lawrence Phillips and AP ahead of Ricky Williams, and you could flip a coin for which goes first between the two. Rozier I'd put ahead of Williams, too.

 

I tend to think Dayne is so high on the list based on this conversation. I wouldn't put him ahead of Marshall Faulk, Reggie Bush, LaDanian Tomlinson or Archie Grifffin (who should be in the top ten - that's a huge mistake). You could put Archie in the top ten somewhere and basically close your eyes and pick the last ten.

[AllNRed]

When you go by just the "eye test", how I interpret that is you are pretty much looking for the sweet moves on the field with an occasional trucking.....no top 20 would be identical depending on what each fan likes to see in their backs....I'll take a stab at it though.

 

I agree with your #1 pick.

 

1. Barry Sanders

2. Bo Jackson

3. Hershel Walker

4. Adrian Peterson

5. Lawrence Phillips

6. Mike Rozier

7. Ricky Williams

8. Reggie Bush

9. Ron Dayne

10. Marcus Dupree

11. Tony Dorsett

12. Earl Campbell

13. Ahman Green

14. O.J. Simpson

15. LaDainian Tomlinson

16. Archie Griffin

17. LaMichael James

18. Cedric Benson

19. Billy Sims

20. Darren McFadden

 

Pretty much my top 5 is solidly put in order 6-12 can jumble around a bit. 13-17 have to be in my top 20 but can switch places with each other. 18-20 can be replaced depending on the weather by a few other great backs in history.

[beanman]

I would agree with Sanders at #1. You could flip a coin between Herschel and Bo. I'd put Lawrence Phillips and AP ahead of Ricky Williams, and you could flip a coin for which goes first between the two. Rozier I'd put ahead of Williams, too.

 

I tend to think Dayne is so high on the list based on this conversation. I wouldn't put him ahead of Marshall Faulk, Reggie Bush, LaDanian Tomlinson or Archie Grifffin (who should be in the top ten - that's a huge mistake). You could put Archie in the top ten somewhere and basically close your eyes and pick the last ten.

 

You really think Archie was that good? Or was he just fortunate that there was no one else that was real worthy of the Heisman then? I can only go off of video highlights I've seen of him since I wasn't born yet. I just don't see him being as talented as the others I guess....

[Enhance]

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.

I've mentioned this argument before. I think Martinez' athletic skill set is no different (if not better) than Frazier's. Martinez is without question the faster of the two (in their prime), he'll be a statistically better thrower, have more career rushing yards and have more career offensive yards. Most will agree that Frazier was the better leader, and he certainly had fewer fumbling problems. But, you throw Martinez on that 1995 team, I think we're still title contenders and eventual champions. I legitimately think Martinez has been a great quarterback in his time but has suffered from a lack of talent around him to be successful, both from an offensive and defensive stand point.

[Enhance]

Martinez & Frazier is a bit of a reach. Frazier accomplished so many things that Martinez has not. All Martinez has is stats. No championship, no All American status, no national awards. No comparison.

From an overall career stand point, yes. Specifically, the two national titles, Heisman Trophy finalist and career win/loss percentage.

 

Statistically, however, Martinez will end up being the better quarterback than Frazier. Martinez will end his career with more total offensive yards (by far), more individual passing/rushing yards, more rushing and passing touchdowns, more career starts, and possibly more career wins. By the end of 2013, Martinez very well could be in the 'elite' category of Nebraska football players with how many records he has broken and could potentially break.

 

While you're right that Martinez doesn't have Frazier's resume, he is by no means a slouch. A comparison between the two (purely from an athletic and statistical stand point) is more than fair, imho.

 

Of course, when it's all said and done, I will still say Frazier had the better career because of those titles and his overall importance to the Husker program. Very similar to how I believe Rozier had the better career in comparison to Dayne.