Jerome Bettis and Art Monk -v- Terrell Davis and Sterling Sharpe (1 Viewer)

[dutch]

You've just payed $4,000,000,000.34 to purchase the moribund Toledo Turds of the NFL. Losing records for the past dozen years, fans wearing plastic bags over their heads at home games, Kenny Mayne spoofing every week on ESPN pregame, the works.

This year you end up with the number one overall pick and select Ben Rothlesberger to lead your team out of the doldrums. With yuor second and third round selections you are destined to take either Bettis/Monk or Davis/Sharpe.

This is based on what we know now of their careers. The offensive line is average to good and the defense is miraculously 16th overall in points and yards allowed every year for the next decade. Money is no object.

Which pair do you choose?

pick.

 

[dutch]

You've just payed $4,000,000,000.34 to purchase the moribund Toledo Turds of the NFL. Losing records for the past dozen years, fans wearing plastic bags over their heads at home games, Kenny Mayne spoofing every week on ESPN pregame, the works.This year you end up with the number one overall pick and select Ben Rothlesberger to lead your team out of the doldrums. With yuor second and third round selections you are destined to take either Bettis/Monk or Davis/Sharpe. This is based on what we know now of their careers. The offensive line is average to good and the defense is miraculously 16th overall in points and yards allowed every year for the next decade. Money is no object.Which pair do you choose? pick.

I go with Davis/Sharpe as they are just too dynamic to pass over. Just think of the mismatches you can create against the opposing defense with those two. Sweet!

 

[gman8343]

Sharpe >>>> Monk

TD >> Bettis

I guess the only question is since both TD and Sharpe's careers were cut short would it be worth having them for a few years over two guys who were very good for a very long time.

I'll take TD/Sharpe.

 

[Sea Bass]

Sharpe >>>> MonkTD >> BettisI guess the only question is since both TD and Sharpe's careers were cut short would it be worth having them for a few years over two guys who were very good for a very long time.I'll take TD/Sharpe.

 

[dutch]

Let me add one final note: since you have qb, rb, wr plus an avg. offensive line, just assume that whichever other three offensive starters you dream up have cloned themselves and are playing both for and against your team.

I think that just about covers all the what-ifs. Carry on.

 

[Ned]

landslide

 

[dutch]

landslide

yep

 

[dutch]

Interesting to me is that you have two HOF locks going against two HOF iffy's, with similar team parameters laid out for both, and then watching where the votes go.

 

[Raider Nation]

I voted Bettis/Monk strictly because of the "knowing what we know now" criteria.

I'll take ten or twelve damn good years over four or five great ones.

More chances to get it done assuming a good team is around them.

 

[Tough As Nails]

Is this a trick question? TD and Sharpe should win this at least 4 to 1.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

based on what we know now of their careers

Begining at TDs 5th season and SSs 8th season... you would have essentially nothing.

Where as you would get almost an additional 10000 yards with Jerome and 6400 yards from Monk.

And thats a long time with my stud QB to play with and I can still add more talent.

And Jeromes first 4 are very good as are Monks first 7. While they may not be as prolific as the other two (very few are) its certainly substantial. Especially considering RBs seem to be among the easiest to replace... and I know for a fact I will have to replace TD after the 4th season.

Ill take Davis and Sharpe to pair with Roeth.

Its just way too much impact and production for the first few years.

But having two guys like Bettis and Monk (both champions) around my team for 13 straight seasons would be terrific.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Interesting to me is that you have two HOF locks going against two HOF iffy's, with similar team parameters laid out for both, and then watching where the votes go.

Who are the two HOF locks? Bettis and Monk? Monk has proven to be anything but a lock for the Hall, and Bettis certainly is not a lock, though I think he will probably make it.

 

[jetpack]

I definitely take Bettis & Monk given the scenario you set up.

1. Davis certainly benefitted from having a HOF QB behind him and an o-line that mastered the cheap chop block. Who knows how he would do behind an average line with a rookie QB behind him and defenses throwing up constant 8 man fronts. I know how Bettis did as a rookie on a lousy Rams team and I know that later on he carried a rookie QB to the AFC Chapionship game. So, I pick Bettis. Besides, in 4 years my coach would have so severely overused Davis in a three year span that he blows his knee out and is done. Now I'm stuck scrambling for a new RB while my old one wastes the next three years trying more aborted comebacks than Sylvester Stallone.

2. I gotta take Monk over Sharpe as my rookie QB needs solid hands at the WR position both to gain confidence and to help loosen up the 8 man fronts. So, Monk becomes my "Hines Ward". Sharpe could also do that, but I'd be concerned I'd never really get a chance to use him that way because I have to hold him back to block so much.

Just my take.

 

[radballs]

Strange hypothesis but if you know going in what they'll provide, I'd much rather have the guys with the better per year production than the long career. TD and Sharpe are always easily replaceable, especially when you know when their respective careers are going to end. And, you would hope that their relative differences between the other two might make the difference.

I still have no idea how this relates to any of these players' respective chances at the HOF.

Do I think TD is a HOFer? Probably not.

Do I think Bettis is a HOFer? Absolutely.

Who would I rather have as a GM drafting either one of them? TD. After he's done with his far superior year to year production, I replace him which is relatively easy to do at the RB position.

Where's the correlation here?

***Not to mention that this doesn't even take into account their respective surrounding talents, coaching, and systems.***

I know this was mentioned but should be reiterated.

 

[Raider Nation]

I still have no idea how this relates to any of these players' respective chances at the HOF.

Do I think TD is a HOFer? Probably not.

Do I think Bettis is a HOFer? Absolutely.

Who would I rather have as a GM drafting either one of them? TD.

Do we KNOW that Bettis would not have also been a beast behind Denver's O-line? Would he have run for 2,000 yards? Probably not. But he was a baaaaaad man once he got running downhill. And TD wasn't the fastest guy in the world, either.

 

[radballs]

This is almost like saying if you're looking at players for next year, would you rather have player A or player B knowing ahead of time what their production will be for the year?

Player A - 160 FP who plays in all 16 games

Player B - 120 FP who only plays in 6 games

Player B has twice the PPG production that A has. This is the guy I would want since I can replace him with a lesser player when he's out and still end up ahead of the game. B only has 75% of A's total year production but 100% more on a per game basis.

Not sure if this example applies across these career examples.

 

[radballs]

I still have no idea how this relates to any of these players' respective chances at the HOF.

Do I think TD is a HOFer? Probably not.

Do I think Bettis is a HOFer? Absolutely.

Who would I rather have as a GM drafting either one of them? TD.

Do we KNOW that Bettis would not have also been a beast behind Denver's O-line? Would he have run for 2,000 yards? Probably not. But he was a baaaaaad man once he got running downhill. And TD wasn't the fastest guy in the world, either.

Not at all disagreeing with you. It appears that we're supposed to assume that they have the same production that they actually had over their careers regardless of their surroundings. Maybe I read the premise incorrectly. In either case, if I'm trying to win the big one over three to four years, I'd take TD in his heyday over Bettis' best years in a heartbeat.

 

[Assani Fisher]

I'm shocked by the results so far:

Bettis & Monk [ 7 ] [25.00%]

Davis & Sharpe [ 21 ] [75.00%]

Total Votes: 28

And thats including my vote for Bettis/Monk.

I would much rather have very good players for my team for many years than slightly dominant players for my team for a few years. If Davis or Sharpe were totally dominant, then that would change, but Sharpe was never the #1 WR and Davis was definitely a benefit of the Denver line. The NFL has a lot of luck involved in it. Basically you need to be good enough to make the playoffs and hope that you're lucky enough to get on a roll.

 

[Twilight]

This is a quick SB vs. sustained playoffs question, IMO.

Davis/Sharpe combo are much likelier to get you a Super Bowl Win during their shorter careers, but it will require rebuilding very quickly.

Bettis/Monk are more likely to give you solid production, with no need to worry about filling their positions for years. But with their average production on an average skilled team, it's going to be much tougher to win playoff games.

I'd go for the SB myself, with Davis/Sharpe

 

[Pat Patriot]

I definitely take Bettis & Monk given the scenario you set up.1. Davis certainly benefitted from having a HOF QB behind him and an o-line that mastered the cheap chop block. Who knows how he would do behind an average line with a rookie QB behind him and defenses throwing up constant 8 man fronts. I know how Bettis did as a rookie on a lousy Rams team and I know that later on he carried a rookie QB to the AFC Chapionship game. So, I pick Bettis. Besides, in 4 years my coach would have so severely overused Davis in a three year span that he blows his knee out and is done. Now I'm stuck scrambling for a new RB while my old one wastes the next three years trying more aborted comebacks than Sylvester Stallone.2. I gotta take Monk over Sharpe as my rookie QB needs solid hands at the WR position both to gain confidence and to help loosen up the 8 man fronts. So, Monk becomes my "Hines Ward". Sharpe could also do that, but I'd be concerned I'd never really get a chance to use him that way because I have to hold him back to block so much. Just my take.

When exactly did Bettis carry a rookie QB to the AFC championship game? I think the D did more carrying than anyone else. I would take 5 shots at a Championship with TD/Sharpe as opposed to a team that MIGHT be capable of making the playoffs most years for 13 years.Very rarely was Monk a lead receiver on his team (Gary Clark was the leading receiver more times than Monk) and other than a couple of very good years, Bettis has mostly been mediocre through his career with a ypc under the league average.

 

[Pat Patriot]

I'm shocked by the results so far:Bettis & Monk [ 7 ] [25.00%] Davis & Sharpe [ 21 ] [75.00%] Total Votes: 28 And thats including my vote for Bettis/Monk.I would much rather have very good players for my team for many years than slightly dominant players for my team for a few years. If Davis or Sharpe were totally dominant, then that would change, but Sharpe was never the #1 WR and Davis was definitely a benefit of the Denver line. The NFL has a lot of luck involved in it. Basically you need to be good enough to make the playoffs and hope that you're lucky enough to get on a roll.

Sterling Sharpe was NEVER the #1 receiver? Are you sure? He averaged 85 catches for 1200 yards a season over 7 seasons. Sounds like he was the #1 EVERY year (in reality it looks like he was the #1 in 5 seasons).

 

[Pat Patriot]

I still have no idea how this relates to any of these players' respective chances at the HOF.

Do I think TD is a HOFer? Probably not.

Do I think Bettis is a HOFer? Absolutely.

Who would I rather have as a GM drafting either one of them? TD.

Do we KNOW that Bettis would not have also been a beast behind Denver's O-line? Would he have run for 2,000 yards? Probably not. But he was a baaaaaad man once he got running downhill. And TD wasn't the fastest guy in the world, either.

TD could beat Bettis in a race running backwards.You dont think the Steelers have had some pretty good offensive lines in the past 13 years. Get real.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'm shocked by the results so far:Bettis & Monk [ 7 ] [25.00%] Davis & Sharpe [ 21 ] [75.00%] Total Votes: 28 And thats including my vote for Bettis/Monk.I would much rather have very good players for my team for many years than slightly dominant players for my team for a few years. If Davis or Sharpe were totally dominant, then that would change, but Sharpe was never the #1 WR and Davis was definitely a benefit of the Denver line. The NFL has a lot of luck involved in it. Basically you need to be good enough to make the playoffs and hope that you're lucky enough to get on a roll.

Sterling Sharpe was NEVER the #1 receiver? Are you sure? He averaged 85 catches for 1200 yards a season over 7 seasons. Sounds like he was the #1 EVERY year (in reality it looks like he was the #1 in 5 seasons).

I believe Assani meant #1 in the league, i.e., Sterling Sharpe wasn't Jerry Rice.But that's not worth much. Sharpe was absolutely incredible. He and Ellard were the only receivers to ever outscore Rice (in FF) in his prime (1988, 1992). I'd rather have Sharpe on my team than Monk, and I'd much prefer to see Sharpe get inducted into the HOF than Monk. Much more deserving, IMO.

 

[jetpack]

I definitely take Bettis & Monk given the scenario you set up.1. Davis certainly benefitted from having a HOF QB behind him and an o-line that mastered the cheap chop block. Who knows how he would do behind an average line with a rookie QB behind him and defenses throwing up constant 8 man fronts. I know how Bettis did as a rookie on a lousy Rams team and I know that later on he carried a rookie QB to the AFC Chapionship game. So, I pick Bettis. Besides, in 4 years my coach would have so severely overused Davis in a three year span that he blows his knee out and is done. Now I'm stuck scrambling for a new RB while my old one wastes the next three years trying more aborted comebacks than Sylvester Stallone.2. I gotta take Monk over Sharpe as my rookie QB needs solid hands at the WR position both to gain confidence and to help loosen up the 8 man fronts. So, Monk becomes my "Hines Ward". Sharpe could also do that, but I'd be concerned I'd never really get a chance to use him that way because I have to hold him back to block so much. Just my take.

When exactly did Bettis carry a rookie QB to the AFC championship game? I think the D did more carrying than anyone else. I would take 5 shots at a Championship with TD/Sharpe as opposed to a team that MIGHT be capable of making the playoffs most years for 13 years.Very rarely was Monk a lead receiver on his team (Gary Clark was the leading receiver more times than Monk) and other than a couple of very good years, Bettis has mostly been mediocre through his career with a ypc under the league average.

2004, with 6 100 yard games as a 12 year vet in the last 8 games. Can't tell me that doesn't take the pressure off a rookie qb. You'd be daft. BTW, Bettis averaged 4.8 ypc during his rookie year. So, in this scenario, he's due for ROY honors bro. BTW, if it makes any difference to you, during his prime years (through 2001) he averaged over 4 ypc. That includes the two AWEFUL years with the Rams where he was misused and abused on lousy Ram teams. I think you have an EQUAL chance with a young Bettis to win the ring as you do Davis in this scenario. Plus you don't have to deal with the blown knee after 4 seasons.

 

[Pat Patriot]

I definitely take Bettis & Monk given the scenario you set up.1. Davis certainly benefitted from having a HOF QB behind him and an o-line that mastered the cheap chop block. Who knows how he would do behind an average line with a rookie QB behind him and defenses throwing up constant 8 man fronts. I know how Bettis did as a rookie on a lousy Rams team and I know that later on he carried a rookie QB to the AFC Chapionship game. So, I pick Bettis. Besides, in 4 years my coach would have so severely overused Davis in a three year span that he blows his knee out and is done. Now I'm stuck scrambling for a new RB while my old one wastes the next three years trying more aborted comebacks than Sylvester Stallone.2. I gotta take Monk over Sharpe as my rookie QB needs solid hands at the WR position both to gain confidence and to help loosen up the 8 man fronts. So, Monk becomes my "Hines Ward". Sharpe could also do that, but I'd be concerned I'd never really get a chance to use him that way because I have to hold him back to block so much. Just my take.

When exactly did Bettis carry a rookie QB to the AFC championship game? I think the D did more carrying than anyone else. I would take 5 shots at a Championship with TD/Sharpe as opposed to a team that MIGHT be capable of making the playoffs most years for 13 years.Very rarely was Monk a lead receiver on his team (Gary Clark was the leading receiver more times than Monk) and other than a couple of very good years, Bettis has mostly been mediocre through his career with a ypc under the league average.

2004, with 6 100 yard games as a 12 year vet in the last 8 games. Can't tell me that doesn't take the pressure off a rookie qb. You'd be daft. BTW, Bettis averaged 4.8 ypc during his rookie year. So, in this scenario, he's due for ROY honors bro. BTW, if it makes any difference to you, during his prime years (through 2001) he averaged over 4 ypc. That includes the two AWEFUL years with the Rams where he was misused and abused on lousy Ram teams. I think you have an EQUAL chance with a young Bettis to win the ring as you do Davis in this scenario. Plus you don't have to deal with the blown knee after 4 seasons.

If what you say is true, how come the Steelers with a young Bettis never made the Bowl let alone win it? TD's teams actually won 2 Bowls so we dont have to speculate what his teams would have done.TD had 1200 yrds and 12 TDs in 8 games. For all the credit that Tom Brady gets for a 12-2 playoff record, the Broncos were 8-1 in playoff games when TD played. Bettis, as I have detailed, was basically a bust in the playoffs, again averaging a whopping 3 ypc vs. TD's 5 ypc.I dont think a team would have even close to an equal chance winning a SB with a young Bettis as opposed to a young TD. Not even close.

 

[THEBUTCHER]

DAVIS/SHARPE without question

 

[Sea Bass]

I definitely take Bettis & Monk given the scenario you set up.1. Davis certainly benefitted from having a HOF QB behind him and an o-line that mastered the cheap chop block. Who knows how he would do behind an average line with a rookie QB behind him and defenses throwing up constant 8 man fronts. I know how Bettis did as a rookie on a lousy Rams team and I know that later on he carried a rookie QB to the AFC Chapionship game. So, I pick Bettis. Besides, in 4 years my coach would have so severely overused Davis in a three year span that he blows his knee out and is done. Now I'm stuck scrambling for a new RB while my old one wastes the next three years trying more aborted comebacks than Sylvester Stallone.2. I gotta take Monk over Sharpe as my rookie QB needs solid hands at the WR position both to gain confidence and to help loosen up the 8 man fronts. So, Monk becomes my "Hines Ward". Sharpe could also do that, but I'd be concerned I'd never really get a chance to use him that way because I have to hold him back to block so much. Just my take.

When exactly did Bettis carry a rookie QB to the AFC championship game? I think the D did more carrying than anyone else. I would take 5 shots at a Championship with TD/Sharpe as opposed to a team that MIGHT be capable of making the playoffs most years for 13 years.Very rarely was Monk a lead receiver on his team (Gary Clark was the leading receiver more times than Monk) and other than a couple of very good years, Bettis has mostly been mediocre through his career with a ypc under the league average.

2004, with 6 100 yard games as a 12 year vet in the last 8 games. Can't tell me that doesn't take the pressure off a rookie qb. You'd be daft. BTW, Bettis averaged 4.8 ypc during his rookie year. So, in this scenario, he's due for ROY honors bro. BTW, if it makes any difference to you, during his prime years (through 2001) he averaged over 4 ypc. That includes the two AWEFUL years with the Rams where he was misused and abused on lousy Ram teams. I think you have an EQUAL chance with a young Bettis to win the ring as you do Davis in this scenario. Plus you don't have to deal with the blown knee after 4 seasons.

If what you say is true, how come the Steelers with a young Bettis never made the Bowl let alone win it? TD's teams actually won 2 Bowls so we dont have to speculate what his teams would have done.TD had 1200 yrds and 12 TDs in 8 games. For all the credit that Tom Brady gets for a 12-2 playoff record, the Broncos were 8-1 in playoff games when TD played. Bettis, as I have detailed, was basically a bust in the playoffs, again averaging a whopping 3 ypc vs. TD's 5 ypc.I dont think a team would have even close to an equal chance winning a SB with a young Bettis as opposed to a young TD. Not even close.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

When exactly did Bettis carry a rookie QB to the AFC championship game? I think the D did more carrying than anyone else.

I would take 5 shots at a Championship with TD/Sharpe as opposed to a team that MIGHT be capable of making the playoffs most years for 13 years.

Very rarely was Monk a lead receiver on his team (Gary Clark was the leading receiver more times than Monk) and other than a couple of very good years, Bettis has mostly been mediocre through his career with a ypc under the league average.

You only get 4.After the 4th year, Davis and his knees are essentially done.

And the first year Bettis actually does better then Davis. And Monk barely does better then Sharpe the first year also.

So its likely to be just 3 shots.



http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/DaviTe00.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/BettJe00.htm

 

[dutch]

I still have no idea how this relates to any of these players' respective chances at the HOF.

Do I think TD is a HOFer? Probably not.

Do I think Bettis is a HOFer? Absolutely.

Who would I rather have as a GM drafting either one of them? TD.

Do we KNOW that Bettis would not have also been a beast behind Denver's O-line? Would he have run for 2,000 yards? Probably not. But he was a baaaaaad man once he got running downhill. And TD wasn't the fastest guy in the world, either.

Not at all disagreeing with you. It appears that we're supposed to assume that they have the same production that they actually had over their careers regardless of their surroundings. Maybe I read the premise incorrectly. In either case, if I'm trying to win the big one over three to four years, I'd take TD in his heyday over Bettis' best years in a heartbeat.

Close, but the assumption is that the talent level and playing abilities of the individuals named is pretty much 'what you see is what you get'. Put it to you another way, if your rebuiliding a team given the above criteria and someother team offers you Bettis/Monk OR Sharpe/Davis at the beginning of their careers for Rod Smart and JJ Stokes, which offer do you accept?

 

[dutch]

When exactly did Bettis carry a rookie QB to the AFC championship game? I think the D did more carrying than anyone else.

I would take 5 shots at a Championship with TD/Sharpe as opposed to a team that MIGHT be capable of making the playoffs most years for 13 years.

Very rarely was Monk a lead receiver on his team (Gary Clark was the leading receiver more times than Monk) and other than a couple of very good years, Bettis has mostly been mediocre through his career with a ypc under the league average.

You only get 4.After the 4th year, Davis and his knees are essentially done.

And the first year Bettis actually does better then Davis. And Monk barely does better then Sharpe the first year also.

So its likely to be just 3 shots.



http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/DaviTe00.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/BettJe00.htm

Thanks BigSteelThrill, you bring up a good point. The longevity of the palyers careers remains similar to what it was. Bettis and Monk play for a long while while Sharpe and Davis have their careers cut short.Am i missing anything else?

 

[Mungo Burrows]

For the Toledo team, I'd probably take Davis and Sharpe. If I were downstate filling out the Canton team, I'd take the other two in a landslide.

 

[Pat Patriot]

When exactly did Bettis carry a rookie QB to the AFC championship game? I think the D did more carrying than anyone else.

I would take 5 shots at a Championship with TD/Sharpe as opposed to a team that MIGHT be capable of making the playoffs most years for 13 years.

Very rarely was Monk a lead receiver on his team (Gary Clark was the leading receiver more times than Monk) and other than a couple of very good years, Bettis has mostly been mediocre through his career with a ypc under the league average.

You only get 4.After the 4th year, Davis and his knees are essentially done.

And the first year Bettis actually does better then Davis. And Monk barely does better then Sharpe the first year also.

So its likely to be just 3 shots.



http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/DaviTe00.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/BettJe00.htm

Thanks BigSteelThrill, you bring up a good point. The longevity of the palyers careers remains similar to what it was. Bettis and Monk play for a long while while Sharpe and Davis have their careers cut short.Am i missing anything else?

I'll take the 3 legit shots at a championship and start over as opposed to 10 years of either a pipedream or just trying to catch lightning in a bottle.

 

[Iron Mike Tomczak]

Interesting to me is that you have two HOF locks going against two HOF iffy's, with similar team parameters laid out for both, and then watching where the votes go.

Who are the two HOF locks? Bettis and Monk? Monk has proven to be anything but a lock for the Hall, and Bettis certainly is not a lock, though I think he will probably make it.

Only Bettis and and Sharpe do I see in the HOFThat being said Id go with Davis/Sharpe, good for at least a few superbowl Ws and a good probability to repeat (see elways broncs)Bettis and Monk would combine for many good years and capitalized by a Superbowl or two Max

 

[Steelers4Life]

I definitely take Bettis & Monk given the scenario you set up.1. Davis certainly benefitted from having a HOF QB behind him and an o-line that mastered the cheap chop block. Who knows how he would do behind an average line with a rookie QB behind him and defenses throwing up constant 8 man fronts. I know how Bettis did as a rookie on a lousy Rams team and I know that later on he carried a rookie QB to the AFC Chapionship game. So, I pick Bettis. Besides, in 4 years my coach would have so severely overused Davis in a three year span that he blows his knee out and is done. Now I'm stuck scrambling for a new RB while my old one wastes the next three years trying more aborted comebacks than Sylvester Stallone.2. I gotta take Monk over Sharpe as my rookie QB needs solid hands at the WR position both to gain confidence and to help loosen up the 8 man fronts. So, Monk becomes my "Hines Ward". Sharpe could also do that, but I'd be concerned I'd never really get a chance to use him that way because I have to hold him back to block so much. Just my take.

When exactly did Bettis carry a rookie QB to the AFC championship game? I think the D did more carrying than anyone else. I would take 5 shots at a Championship with TD/Sharpe as opposed to a team that MIGHT be capable of making the playoffs most years for 13 years.Very rarely was Monk a lead receiver on his team (Gary Clark was the leading receiver more times than Monk) and other than a couple of very good years, Bettis has mostly been mediocre through his career with a ypc under the league average.

2004, with 6 100 yard games as a 12 year vet in the last 8 games. Can't tell me that doesn't take the pressure off a rookie qb. You'd be daft. BTW, Bettis averaged 4.8 ypc during his rookie year. So, in this scenario, he's due for ROY honors bro. BTW, if it makes any difference to you, during his prime years (through 2001) he averaged over 4 ypc. That includes the two AWEFUL years with the Rams where he was misused and abused on lousy Ram teams. I think you have an EQUAL chance with a young Bettis to win the ring as you do Davis in this scenario. Plus you don't have to deal with the blown knee after 4 seasons.

If what you say is true, how come the Steelers with a young Bettis never made the Bowl let alone win it? TD's teams actually won 2 Bowls so we dont have to speculate what his teams would have done.TD had 1200 yrds and 12 TDs in 8 games. For all the credit that Tom Brady gets for a 12-2 playoff record, the Broncos were 8-1 in playoff games when TD played. Bettis, as I have detailed, was basically a bust in the playoffs, again averaging a whopping 3 ypc vs. TD's 5 ypc.I dont think a team would have even close to an equal chance winning a SB with a young Bettis as opposed to a young TD. Not even close.

As a young RB, Bettis played on teams with Kordell Stewart, Kent Graham, and Mike Tomczak at QB. Do you really need to ask why they never won a SB? Davis was a fantastic RB for a few years, but I'd say he had a slight advantage over Bettis with Elway under center and in a system that turned Olandis Gary into a 1,000 yard RB.People forget how dominant Bettis was when he was younger, and the fact that he played on teams that had no passing games and against defenses that KNEW he was the only weapon the Steelers had make his success even more impressive. As a 12 year vet and playing a major role with Big Ben under center, he was huge in the 2nd half of 2004... he'd have been even better a decade earlier.There's no telling how great he'd have been with a good line and a QB like Roethlisberger under center for a majority of his career, but I certainly wouldn't hesitate to say that either guy would give a similar chance of going to the Super Bowl under the same circumstances in any given year. That fact that Bettis did it for so much longer makes him the easy choice to me.I couldn't disagree more with people who believe Davis and Sharpe would be a much better bet to lead a team to a Super Bowl.

 

[Jous]

Personally, I'd take Bettis and Sharpe....but that's not an option.

(on another note, it is true that Bettis had less of an oppurtunity to win a championship than Davis because of QB play. Davis won one with Elway at QB. Who has Bettis had? He never had a good QB to help him on offense until Roethlisberger was drafted.)

 

[Pat Patriot]

I definitely take Bettis & Monk given the scenario you set up.1. Davis certainly benefitted from having a HOF QB behind him and an o-line that mastered the cheap chop block. Who knows how he would do behind an average line with a rookie QB behind him and defenses throwing up constant 8 man fronts. I know how Bettis did as a rookie on a lousy Rams team and I know that later on he carried a rookie QB to the AFC Chapionship game. So, I pick Bettis. Besides, in 4 years my coach would have so severely overused Davis in a three year span that he blows his knee out and is done. Now I'm stuck scrambling for a new RB while my old one wastes the next three years trying more aborted comebacks than Sylvester Stallone.2. I gotta take Monk over Sharpe as my rookie QB needs solid hands at the WR position both to gain confidence and to help loosen up the 8 man fronts. So, Monk becomes my "Hines Ward". Sharpe could also do that, but I'd be concerned I'd never really get a chance to use him that way because I have to hold him back to block so much. Just my take.

When exactly did Bettis carry a rookie QB to the AFC championship game? I think the D did more carrying than anyone else. I would take 5 shots at a Championship with TD/Sharpe as opposed to a team that MIGHT be capable of making the playoffs most years for 13 years.Very rarely was Monk a lead receiver on his team (Gary Clark was the leading receiver more times than Monk) and other than a couple of very good years, Bettis has mostly been mediocre through his career with a ypc under the league average.

2004, with 6 100 yard games as a 12 year vet in the last 8 games. Can't tell me that doesn't take the pressure off a rookie qb. You'd be daft. BTW, Bettis averaged 4.8 ypc during his rookie year. So, in this scenario, he's due for ROY honors bro. BTW, if it makes any difference to you, during his prime years (through 2001) he averaged over 4 ypc. That includes the two AWEFUL years with the Rams where he was misused and abused on lousy Ram teams. I think you have an EQUAL chance with a young Bettis to win the ring as you do Davis in this scenario. Plus you don't have to deal with the blown knee after 4 seasons.

If what you say is true, how come the Steelers with a young Bettis never made the Bowl let alone win it? TD's teams actually won 2 Bowls so we dont have to speculate what his teams would have done.TD had 1200 yrds and 12 TDs in 8 games. For all the credit that Tom Brady gets for a 12-2 playoff record, the Broncos were 8-1 in playoff games when TD played. Bettis, as I have detailed, was basically a bust in the playoffs, again averaging a whopping 3 ypc vs. TD's 5 ypc.I dont think a team would have even close to an equal chance winning a SB with a young Bettis as opposed to a young TD. Not even close.

As a young RB, Bettis played on teams with Kordell Stewart, Kent Graham, and Mike Tomczak at QB. Do you really need to ask why they never won a SB? Davis was a fantastic RB for a few years, but I'd say he had a slight advantage over Bettis with Elway under center and in a system that turned Olandis Gary into a 1,000 yard RB.People forget how dominant Bettis was when he was younger, and the fact that he played on teams that had no passing games and against defenses that KNEW he was the only weapon the Steelers had make his success even more impressive. As a 12 year vet and playing a major role with Big Ben under center, he was huge in the 2nd half of 2004... he'd have been even better a decade earlier.There's no telling how great he'd have been with a good line and a QB like Roethlisberger under center for a majority of his career, but I certainly wouldn't hesitate to say that either guy would give a similar chance of going to the Super Bowl under the same circumstances in any given year. That fact that Bettis did it for so much longer makes him the easy choice to me.I couldn't disagree more with people who believe Davis and Sharpe would be a much better bet to lead a team to a Super Bowl.

Talk about revisionist history. Like the Steelers never had a good line when Bettis was there. I dont know how you can call a guy dominant when he is averaging between 3.6 and 3.9 ypc year after year.Bettis had chances to lead his team to a Super Bowl. The Steelers were favored and at home when the Broncos came to town in 1997. Bettis had a good game but TD was better.2001 Bettis had a chance to lead his team to a SB. Steelers were favored by 9 over the Pats. He went for 8 yards on 9 carries.2004 Bettis had a chance to lead his team to a SB. Bettis went for 64 yards on 17 carries.2005 Bettis had a chance to lead his team to a SB. Bettis went for 39 yards on 14 carries.

 

[Jous]

I definitely take Bettis & Monk given the scenario you set up.1. Davis certainly benefitted from having a HOF QB behind him and an o-line that mastered the cheap chop block. Who knows how he would do behind an average line with a rookie QB behind him and defenses throwing up constant 8 man fronts. I know how Bettis did as a rookie on a lousy Rams team and I know that later on he carried a rookie QB to the AFC Chapionship game. So, I pick Bettis. Besides, in 4 years my coach would have so severely overused Davis in a three year span that he blows his knee out and is done. Now I'm stuck scrambling for a new RB while my old one wastes the next three years trying more aborted comebacks than Sylvester Stallone.2. I gotta take Monk over Sharpe as my rookie QB needs solid hands at the WR position both to gain confidence and to help loosen up the 8 man fronts. So, Monk becomes my "Hines Ward". Sharpe could also do that, but I'd be concerned I'd never really get a chance to use him that way because I have to hold him back to block so much. Just my take.

When exactly did Bettis carry a rookie QB to the AFC championship game? I think the D did more carrying than anyone else. I would take 5 shots at a Championship with TD/Sharpe as opposed to a team that MIGHT be capable of making the playoffs most years for 13 years.Very rarely was Monk a lead receiver on his team (Gary Clark was the leading receiver more times than Monk) and other than a couple of very good years, Bettis has mostly been mediocre through his career with a ypc under the league average.

2004, with 6 100 yard games as a 12 year vet in the last 8 games. Can't tell me that doesn't take the pressure off a rookie qb. You'd be daft. BTW, Bettis averaged 4.8 ypc during his rookie year. So, in this scenario, he's due for ROY honors bro. BTW, if it makes any difference to you, during his prime years (through 2001) he averaged over 4 ypc. That includes the two AWEFUL years with the Rams where he was misused and abused on lousy Ram teams. I think you have an EQUAL chance with a young Bettis to win the ring as you do Davis in this scenario. Plus you don't have to deal with the blown knee after 4 seasons.

If what you say is true, how come the Steelers with a young Bettis never made the Bowl let alone win it? TD's teams actually won 2 Bowls so we dont have to speculate what his teams would have done.TD had 1200 yrds and 12 TDs in 8 games. For all the credit that Tom Brady gets for a 12-2 playoff record, the Broncos were 8-1 in playoff games when TD played. Bettis, as I have detailed, was basically a bust in the playoffs, again averaging a whopping 3 ypc vs. TD's 5 ypc.I dont think a team would have even close to an equal chance winning a SB with a young Bettis as opposed to a young TD. Not even close.

As a young RB, Bettis played on teams with Kordell Stewart, Kent Graham, and Mike Tomczak at QB. Do you really need to ask why they never won a SB? Davis was a fantastic RB for a few years, but I'd say he had a slight advantage over Bettis with Elway under center and in a system that turned Olandis Gary into a 1,000 yard RB.People forget how dominant Bettis was when he was younger, and the fact that he played on teams that had no passing games and against defenses that KNEW he was the only weapon the Steelers had make his success even more impressive. As a 12 year vet and playing a major role with Big Ben under center, he was huge in the 2nd half of 2004... he'd have been even better a decade earlier.There's no telling how great he'd have been with a good line and a QB like Roethlisberger under center for a majority of his career, but I certainly wouldn't hesitate to say that either guy would give a similar chance of going to the Super Bowl under the same circumstances in any given year. That fact that Bettis did it for so much longer makes him the easy choice to me.I couldn't disagree more with people who believe Davis and Sharpe would be a much better bet to lead a team to a Super Bowl.

Talk about revisionist history. Like the Steelers never had a good line when Bettis was there. I dont know how you can call a guy dominant when he is averaging between 3.6 and 3.9 ypc year after year.Bettis had chances to lead his team to a Super Bowl. The Steelers were favored and at home when the Broncos came to town in 1997. Bettis had a good game but TD was better.2001 Bettis had a chance to lead his team to a SB. Steelers were favored by 9 over the Pats. He went for 8 yards on 9 carries.2004 Bettis had a chance to lead his team to a SB. Bettis went for 64 yards on 17 carries.2005 Bettis had a chance to lead his team to a SB. Bettis went for 39 yards on 14 carries.

Pittsburgh would have won the game in 1997 against Denver had it not been for Kordell Stewarts' terrible interceptions, especially the ones in the endzone. You can't say that because of poor QB play that Bettis was the one who "failed to get his team to the SuperBowl."In 2001, the AFC title game was his first game back from an injury, and there was speculation before and after the game that he should have never played in the first place because he was never 100%.In 2004 the beginning of the game was so disastrous for Pittsburgh that they really didn't even have a chance to get the running game going because they were forced to pass so early. Although I won't use that as the whole excuse, because Bettis did have some trouble getting going early on himself. Props to New England's defense.2005 they got to the SuperBowl, and his stats weren't high because he was old and was reduced to being a role player behind Willie Parker. No shame in that, can't stay good your entire career unless you retire early.Jerome Bettis did have some good offensive lines in Pittsburgh, but until 2004 he really had almost no help from the QB position other than 97 and 01, when Kordell had a couple solid seasons. But still, Kordell was nothing compared to Elway, and for msot of Bettis' career the team was plagued from a terrible passing game. You're not going to put up huge stats when opposing teams know you can't pass the ball, because they stack the line a lot more often. Teams couldn't stack the line against Davis nearly as much because of Elway at QB.Was Bettis better than Davis? I don't know. But I think it's very, very likely that his stats would have been better than they were if he had Elway as his QB.

 

[Steelers4Life]

I definitely take Bettis & Monk given the scenario you set up.1. Davis certainly benefitted from having a HOF QB behind him and an o-line that mastered the cheap chop block. Who knows how he would do behind an average line with a rookie QB behind him and defenses throwing up constant 8 man fronts. I know how Bettis did as a rookie on a lousy Rams team and I know that later on he carried a rookie QB to the AFC Chapionship game. So, I pick Bettis. Besides, in 4 years my coach would have so severely overused Davis in a three year span that he blows his knee out and is done. Now I'm stuck scrambling for a new RB while my old one wastes the next three years trying more aborted comebacks than Sylvester Stallone.2. I gotta take Monk over Sharpe as my rookie QB needs solid hands at the WR position both to gain confidence and to help loosen up the 8 man fronts. So, Monk becomes my "Hines Ward". Sharpe could also do that, but I'd be concerned I'd never really get a chance to use him that way because I have to hold him back to block so much. Just my take.

When exactly did Bettis carry a rookie QB to the AFC championship game? I think the D did more carrying than anyone else. I would take 5 shots at a Championship with TD/Sharpe as opposed to a team that MIGHT be capable of making the playoffs most years for 13 years.Very rarely was Monk a lead receiver on his team (Gary Clark was the leading receiver more times than Monk) and other than a couple of very good years, Bettis has mostly been mediocre through his career with a ypc under the league average.

2004, with 6 100 yard games as a 12 year vet in the last 8 games. Can't tell me that doesn't take the pressure off a rookie qb. You'd be daft. BTW, Bettis averaged 4.8 ypc during his rookie year. So, in this scenario, he's due for ROY honors bro. BTW, if it makes any difference to you, during his prime years (through 2001) he averaged over 4 ypc. That includes the two AWEFUL years with the Rams where he was misused and abused on lousy Ram teams. I think you have an EQUAL chance with a young Bettis to win the ring as you do Davis in this scenario. Plus you don't have to deal with the blown knee after 4 seasons.

If what you say is true, how come the Steelers with a young Bettis never made the Bowl let alone win it? TD's teams actually won 2 Bowls so we dont have to speculate what his teams would have done.TD had 1200 yrds and 12 TDs in 8 games. For all the credit that Tom Brady gets for a 12-2 playoff record, the Broncos were 8-1 in playoff games when TD played. Bettis, as I have detailed, was basically a bust in the playoffs, again averaging a whopping 3 ypc vs. TD's 5 ypc.I dont think a team would have even close to an equal chance winning a SB with a young Bettis as opposed to a young TD. Not even close.

As a young RB, Bettis played on teams with Kordell Stewart, Kent Graham, and Mike Tomczak at QB. Do you really need to ask why they never won a SB? Davis was a fantastic RB for a few years, but I'd say he had a slight advantage over Bettis with Elway under center and in a system that turned Olandis Gary into a 1,000 yard RB.People forget how dominant Bettis was when he was younger, and the fact that he played on teams that had no passing games and against defenses that KNEW he was the only weapon the Steelers had make his success even more impressive. As a 12 year vet and playing a major role with Big Ben under center, he was huge in the 2nd half of 2004... he'd have been even better a decade earlier.There's no telling how great he'd have been with a good line and a QB like Roethlisberger under center for a majority of his career, but I certainly wouldn't hesitate to say that either guy would give a similar chance of going to the Super Bowl under the same circumstances in any given year. That fact that Bettis did it for so much longer makes him the easy choice to me.I couldn't disagree more with people who believe Davis and Sharpe would be a much better bet to lead a team to a Super Bowl.

Talk about revisionist history. Like the Steelers never had a good line when Bettis was there. I dont know how you can call a guy dominant when he is averaging between 3.6 and 3.9 ypc year after year.Bettis had chances to lead his team to a Super Bowl. The Steelers were favored and at home when the Broncos came to town in 1997. Bettis had a good game but TD was better.2001 Bettis had a chance to lead his team to a SB. Steelers were favored by 9 over the Pats. He went for 8 yards on 9 carries.2004 Bettis had a chance to lead his team to a SB. Bettis went for 64 yards on 17 carries.2005 Bettis had a chance to lead his team to a SB. Bettis went for 39 yards on 14 carries.

There's not going to be any debating Bettis with you, I'm sure. You have your mind made up, and you can twist around whatever numbers you want to support it. You don't like the Steelers, you don't like Bettis. The fact is that Bettis was a dominant force on a power running team for a decade. People only think of him at 260 pounds in his 13th year... go back and look at some footage of him from the mid to late 90's.Sure, Bettis had some good offensive lines. I'm pretty sure Davis did too. The difference is that while Bettis carried offenses with passing attacks led by Stewart, Tomczak, and Maddox, Davis spent his only 4 good years with one of the greatest QBs ever to play. Defenses knew that Bettis was the Steelers' offense, and he was still productive year after year after year. I wish the Steelers would've gotten a good QB before Bettis was ready to retire.In 1997, it was the difference between Elway and Stewart that decided the game, certainly not Davis and Bettis. Bettis was still hurt and shouldn't have played in 2001, and if you believe it was Bettis that cost them the 2004 game and not Big Ben's worn-out-rookie mistakes, I'll just let you believe it. Nevermind how dominant Bettis was in the 2nd half of 2004 when most had already written him off. And in 2005, he was a role player behind Parker, which is all that should be expected of a bruising back at that age.

 

[Sea Bass]

56-26

One Art Monk fan and 25 Steeler homers?

 

[David Yudkin]

The Steelers OL had multiple Pro Bowlers for Bettis to run behind (although not all at once): Dermontti Dawson, Alan Faneca, Jeff Hartings, and Marvel Smith. Davis had Gary Zimmerman, Tom Nalen, and Tony Jones as Pro Bowl lineman. Looks close to a wash in my book.

Bettis also had several years with one (sometimes two) 1,000 yard receivers in the lineup including Charles Johnson, Yancey Thigpen, Plaxico Burress, and Hines Ward. It's not like there was no one to catch the ball. And like Davis, Bettis benefitted from playing on a team that ran the ball extensively.

True, Denver did put up better passing numbers overall, but I'm not really buying the entire defense keying on Bettis argument.

Bettis had 9 seasons with a ypc 3.8 or lower including 4 years of 3.5 or less. Pre knee injuries, Davis had a 4.8 ypc through his first 4 seasons. IMO, Davis did more in his prime than Bettis did for almost his entire career.

 

[Pickle Rody]

FWIW - IMO - I'd rather have a super stud RB for 3-4 yrs and a super stud TE for 3-4 yrs over those career HOF players. Davis & Sharpe were by far the cream of the crop at their positions at the time they were playing.

NO, I'm not a Denver homer, in fact don't really care for them, just my opinion.

 

[David Yudkin]

FWIW - IMO - I'd rather have a super stud RB for 3-4 yrs and a super stud TE for 3-4 yrs over those career HOF players. Davis & Sharpe were by far the cream of the crop at their positions at the time they were playing.NO, I'm not a Denver homer, in fact don't really care for them, just my opinion.

STERLING Sharpe = WR (GB)SHANNON Sharpe = TE (DEN + BAL)

 

[radballs]

The whole premise is a bit twisted. It makes no difference whether someone would rather take or draft one duo or the other versus their chances of getting into the HOF. The correlation isn't very strong between the two.

 

[Ghost Rider]

The fact is that Bettis was a dominant force on a power running team for a decade.

That is one of the biggest homer comments I have ever seen. A dominant force on a power running team for a decade? Since I assume you are talking about his tenure with the Steelers...-Bettis only went over the 1,000 mark 6 times in his 10 seasons there. -Bettis averaged 3.8 YPC or less in 7 of those 10 seasons. -Bettis only finished in the top 10 in the NFL in rushing in 3 of his 10 seasons in Pittsburgh. Let's get serious here. I am sure you will say that people like me and Pat Patriot already have our minds made up and are not gonna change them, but the same can be said for a homer like you. The difference is our opinions are based on the numbers and on having seen Bettis play for all of his career, while yours is tainted by watching Bettis play through black and yellow tinted glasses.

The Steelers OL had multiple Pro Bowlers for Bettis to run behind (although not all at once): Dermontti Dawson, Alan Faneca, Jeff Hartings, and Marvel Smith. Davis had Gary Zimmerman, Tom Nalen, and Tony Jones as Pro Bowl lineman. Looks close to a wash in my book.Bettis also had several years with one (sometimes two) 1,000 yard receivers in the lineup including Charles Johnson, Yancey Thigpen, Plaxico Burress, and Hines Ward. It's not like there was no one to catch the ball. And like Davis, Bettis benefitted from playing on a team that ran the ball extensively.True, Denver did put up better passing numbers overall, but I'm not really buying the entire defense keying on Bettis argument.Bettis had 9 seasons with a ypc 3.8 or lower including 4 years of 3.5 or less. Pre knee injuries, Davis had a 4.8 ypc through his first 4 seasons. IMO, Davis did more in his prime than Bettis did for almost his entire career.

And I am not a Steelers hater by any means, either, Steelers4Life.

 

[Steelers4Life]

The fact is that Bettis was a dominant force on a power running team for a decade.

That is one of the biggest homer comments I have ever seen. A dominant force on a power running team for a decade? Since I assume you are talking about his tenure with the Steelers...-Bettis only went over the 1,000 mark 6 times in his 10 seasons there. -Bettis averaged 3.8 YPC or less in 7 of those 10 seasons. -Bettis only finished in the top 10 in the NFL in rushing in 3 of his 10 seasons in Pittsburgh. Let's get serious here. I am sure you will say that people like me and Pat Patriot already have our minds made up and are not gonna change them, but the same can be said for a homer like you. The difference is our opinions are based on the numbers and on having seen Bettis play for all of his career, while yours is tainted by watching Bettis play through black and yellow tinted glasses.

The Steelers OL had multiple Pro Bowlers for Bettis to run behind (although not all at once): Dermontti Dawson, Alan Faneca, Jeff Hartings, and Marvel Smith. Davis had Gary Zimmerman, Tom Nalen, and Tony Jones as Pro Bowl lineman. Looks close to a wash in my book.Bettis also had several years with one (sometimes two) 1,000 yard receivers in the lineup including Charles Johnson, Yancey Thigpen, Plaxico Burress, and Hines Ward. It's not like there was no one to catch the ball. And like Davis, Bettis benefitted from playing on a team that ran the ball extensively.True, Denver did put up better passing numbers overall, but I'm not really buying the entire defense keying on Bettis argument.Bettis had 9 seasons with a ypc 3.8 or lower including 4 years of 3.5 or less. Pre knee injuries, Davis had a 4.8 ypc through his first 4 seasons. IMO, Davis did more in his prime than Bettis did for almost his entire career.

And I am not a Steelers hater by any means, either, Steelers4Life.

I don't have time to get into this today, but this is the kind of analysis you get only from looking at stats.For Bettis' entire career with the Steelers, he was the only threat the Steelers had until Big Ben took over it 2004, and in the 2nd half of 2004, even at an advanced age and after years of punishment, Bettis was fantastic. People want to throw around the names Charles Johnson and Yancey Thigpen like they took the pressure off the running game, but the fact is that Bettis always faced 8 and 9 men in the box and took all the punishment that went with it - and he kept on going. Why? Because of Stewart, Tomczak, Graham, and Maddox, none of them had the respect of the defense no matter who was out wide. He was a big, bruising, ball control back, and his job was made more difficult by the shortcomings of the passing game. But if you would've watched him play regularly in his prime, it would've given you a greater appreciation for what he did.People have discounted what Bettis accomplished for a while now, calling him a compiler or whatever. That's fine, and it's true that I've watched him through Black and Gold glasses. However, there's a reason he's a lock for the HOF and it's not only because he finished so high on the NFL all-time rushing lists. His peers know how much he accomplished and how great a RB he was, and in the end, that's what matters. The fact that I watched every game he played as a Steelers doesn't influence my opinion, because there have been several Steelers who were viewed as far better players than I ever thought they were.

 

[Pat Patriot]

The fact is that Bettis was a dominant force on a power running team for a decade.

That is one of the biggest homer comments I have ever seen. A dominant force on a power running team for a decade? Since I assume you are talking about his tenure with the Steelers...-Bettis only went over the 1,000 mark 6 times in his 10 seasons there. -Bettis averaged 3.8 YPC or less in 7 of those 10 seasons. -Bettis only finished in the top 10 in the NFL in rushing in 3 of his 10 seasons in Pittsburgh. Let's get serious here. I am sure you will say that people like me and Pat Patriot already have our minds made up and are not gonna change them, but the same can be said for a homer like you. The difference is our opinions are based on the numbers and on having seen Bettis play for all of his career, while yours is tainted by watching Bettis play through black and yellow tinted glasses.

The Steelers OL had multiple Pro Bowlers for Bettis to run behind (although not all at once): Dermontti Dawson, Alan Faneca, Jeff Hartings, and Marvel Smith. Davis had Gary Zimmerman, Tom Nalen, and Tony Jones as Pro Bowl lineman. Looks close to a wash in my book.Bettis also had several years with one (sometimes two) 1,000 yard receivers in the lineup including Charles Johnson, Yancey Thigpen, Plaxico Burress, and Hines Ward. It's not like there was no one to catch the ball. And like Davis, Bettis benefitted from playing on a team that ran the ball extensively.True, Denver did put up better passing numbers overall, but I'm not really buying the entire defense keying on Bettis argument.Bettis had 9 seasons with a ypc 3.8 or lower including 4 years of 3.5 or less. Pre knee injuries, Davis had a 4.8 ypc through his first 4 seasons. IMO, Davis did more in his prime than Bettis did for almost his entire career.

And I am not a Steelers hater by any means, either, Steelers4Life.

:X I don't have time to get into this today, but this is the kind of analysis you get only from looking at stats.For Bettis' entire career with the Steelers, he was the only threat the Steelers had until Big Ben took over it 2004, and in the 2nd half of 2004, even at an advanced age and after years of punishment, Bettis was fantastic. People want to throw around the names Charles Johnson and Yancey Thigpen like they took the pressure off the running game, but the fact is that Bettis always faced 8 and 9 men in the box and took all the punishment that went with it - and he kept on going. Why? Because of Stewart, Tomczak, Graham, and Maddox, none of them had the respect of the defense no matter who was out wide. He was a big, bruising, ball control back, and his job was made more difficult by the shortcomings of the passing game. But if you would've watched him play regularly in his prime, it would've given you a greater appreciation for what he did.People have discounted what Bettis accomplished for a while now, calling him a compiler or whatever. That's fine, and it's true that I've watched him through Black and Gold glasses. However, there's a reason he's a lock for the HOF and it's not only because he finished so high on the NFL all-time rushing lists. His peers know how much he accomplished and how great a RB he was, and in the end, that's what matters. The fact that I watched every game he played as a Steelers doesn't influence my opinion, because there have been several Steelers who were viewed as far better players than I ever thought they were.

You must have been watching all of those Steelers games with blinders on. Bettis regularly saw 8 and 9 men in the box? You are out of your mind. I am not a Steelers hater but I do dislike Bettis and always thought him overrated. He was a self promoter and for awhile the Pats played the Steelers regularly in the playoffs and watching him strut after every 2 yard gain made me sick. In an 8 year stretch, the Pats played the Steelers 4 times in the playoffs and Bettis went for 182 yards on 64 carries. Less than 3 ypc yet that didnt stop him from strutting around after every carry.The Steelers made the playoffs 6 of 10 years with Bettis and had 3 home AFC Championship games. Not once did Bettis "carry" the Steelers to the Bowl.It is well known that Big Ben spit the bit in the 2004 AFC Championship game but if you watched the game you know that it was Bettis' inability to convert 4th and 1 early in the game that set the tone for the day. Inconsiquential maybe but Bettis fumbled on that 4th down carry as well. Many Patriot players commented that they knew they had the Steelers number after that play.

 

[cobalt_27]

Is this a trick question? TD and Sharpe should win this at least 4 to 1.

20:1 would be more appropriate.People should lose their FBG privileges if they voted Bettis/Monk and didn't give, at minimum, a reasonable explanation for it, like the one Raidernation gave above yours. Otherwise, there is absolutely no excuse for posting on this board and knowing so little about football talent.

 

[Jous]

One of the truly elite Bettis isn't, but he's still one of the greats at RB. He'll be in the Hall of Fame, so don't try to twist things around to make it seem like he was a mediocre RB.

I guess if I had to choose who was better between Davis and Bettis when both were healthy and in their primes, I'll take Davis. That's not a knock on Bettis, because if Davis remained healthy he would be an absolute no-brainer for the HOF, and would have possibly been remembered as the greatest RB of all time.

 

[Jous]

Is this a trick question? TD and Sharpe should win this at least 4 to 1.

20:1 would be more appropriate.People should lose their FBG privileges if they voted Bettis/Monk and didn't give, at minimum, a reasonable explanation for it, like the one Raidernation gave above yours. Otherwise, there is absolutely no excuse for posting on this board and knowing so little about football talent.

I voted for Bettis/Monk just because they were around longer, and thus having great production longer...giving you more chances to get to and win a SuperBowl.

 

[cobalt_27]

Is this a trick question? TD and Sharpe should win this at least 4 to 1.

20:1 would be more appropriate.People should lose their FBG privileges if they voted Bettis/Monk and didn't give, at minimum, a reasonable explanation for it, like the one Raidernation gave above yours. Otherwise, there is absolutely no excuse for posting on this board and knowing so little about football talent.

I voted for Bettis/Monk just because they were around longer, and thus having great production longer...giving you more chances to get to and win a SuperBowl.

And, this is the rationale that RN used, and is really the only justifiable answer for taking BM. By any other metric, though (like who's the better tandem), TD and SS were clearly better at their respective positions.