TheBillsWillRiseAgain Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 The key is this season. Charles is considered the better player career wise like Kelly states. Forte has over 1,000 rushing yards more than Charles and over 1,400 more receiving yards than Charles during their careers and they both started in the league in 2008. He also has more touchdowns. I'm not sure what sane coach would choose Charles over Forte. The whole point is that Charles isn't any more of a threat to the Bills' defense in week 10 than Forte was in week 1, and we won that game on the road.
Clippers of Nfl Posted October 30, 2014 Author Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) Forte has over 1,000 rushing yards more than Charles and over 1,400 more receiving yards than Charles during their careers and they both started in the league in 2008. He also has more touchdowns. I'm not sure what sane coach would choose Charles over Forte. The whole point is that Charles isn't any more of a threat to the Bills' defense in week 10 than Forte was in week 1, and we won that game on the road. Wow. I'm surprised by that stat, but I also understand that stat. Jammin Charles is like a much faster Fred Jackson. Very smart and tough. Jamaal charles is a much much better version of Spiller. Homerun ability on any play. Forte is a tough runner. But he's a poor man's Adrian Peterson. Anyway thanks for that stat. I didnt expect that. For a while before Cutler got to Chicago, they were a forte run first pass second team. Long story short. Look at what Charles did to pats*. He's a beast. Edited October 30, 2014 by Clippers of Nfl
Kelly the Dog Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) Forte has over 1,000 rushing yards more than Charles and over 1,400 more receiving yards than Charles during their careers and they both started in the league in 2008. He also has more touchdowns. I'm not sure what sane coach would choose Charles over Forte. The whole point is that Charles isn't any more of a threat to the Bills' defense in week 10 than Forte was in week 1, and we won that game on the road. In Charles first two seasons the Chiefs had Larry Johnson still so Charles didn't start for a while or play all that much. The Bears had no one (Adrian Peterson and Garrett Wolfe). So Forte started right away. Charles also missed an entire season (well 14+ games with a knee injury). That is why he has 1000 less rushing yards. Forte is a better receiver out of the backfield but the Bears just do that more, and Charles is good at it to. Furthermore, the standard for awards in the NFL is the All Pro teams, not to be confused with Pro Bowl. Charles has been first team All Pro twice and second team once. That means writers around the league all think Charles is better. Forte has yet to make it although a lot of people think Forte has been snubbed, and for good reason. And writers of course are often wrong. But the All Pro teams are usually the best players. 3-0 is a significant difference Edited October 30, 2014 by Kelly the Dog
rsherman12 Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 Charles has been injured and has 500 fewer carries than Forte in his career. Charles has averaged more years per carry than Forte every single year.
TheBillsWillRiseAgain Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) As much as I (don't) enjoy arguing which RB on other teams is better, you guys still seem to be missing the point. The whole conversation started with us talking about Charles and if he was head-and-shoulders above the other RBs we've already faced, and that he poses a unique threat when we play the Chiefs next week. He definitely doesn't. Edited October 30, 2014 by TheBillsWillRiseAgain
YoloinOhio Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) Wow. I'm surprised by that stat, but I also understand that stat. Jammin Charles is like a much faster Fred Jackson. Very smart and tough. Jamaal charles is a much much better version of Spiller. Homerun ability on any play. Forte is a tough runner. But he's a poor man's Adrian Peterson. Anyway thanks for that stat. I didnt expect that. For a while before Cutler got to Chicago, they were a forte run first pass second team. Long story short. Look at what Charles did to pats*. He's a beast. actually most RBs (not ours of course) run all over the Pats this year. Edited October 30, 2014 by YoloinOhio
YoloinOhio Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) I think we need a Bye Week GDT for Chefs-Jets for all of us armchair pro scouts to "prepare" for next week... Edited October 30, 2014 by YoloinOhio
TheBillsWillRiseAgain Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 I'm hoping the Jets physically beat the crap out of them.
YoloinOhio Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) I'm hoping the Jets physically beat the crap out of them. As we have seen, the Jets DL is no joke. This is quite possible. Plus they are playing for pride. Edited October 30, 2014 by YoloinOhio
Clippers of Nfl Posted October 30, 2014 Author Posted October 30, 2014 As much as I (don't) enjoy arguing which RB on other teams is better, you guys still seem to be missing the point. The whole conversation started with us talking about Charles and if he was head-and-shoulders above the other RBs we've already faced, and that he poses a unique threat when we play the Chiefs next week. He definitely doesn't. You are underestimating him. Maybe that's why no one agrees with you. He does. He poses a much bigger rb threat than anyone we have faced yet. The only other rb that would have been a bigger rb threat would have been ap from the vikings. Ps. chicago is not a run first team anymore. they are a pass first team. So even Forte was not the biggest threat game 1. Not to be rude, but do you get it now? Kc has 2 awesome rbs and Charles is #1. So yeah, scary. I'm hoping the Jets physically beat the crap out of them. I can agree with you here and I hope you get your wish.
TheBillsWillRiseAgain Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 You are underestimating him. Maybe that's why no one agrees with you. There seem to be only 2 of you that disagree. No I still don't agree that Charles is some kind of superstar we need to worry about more than we worried about Matt Forte or Arian Foster.
Kelly the Dog Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 There seem to be only 2 of you that disagree. No I still don't agree that Charles is some kind of superstar we need to worry about more than we worried about Matt Forte or Arian Foster. Foster was on one leg. He shouldn't have even played in that game.
TheBillsWillRiseAgain Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 If anything he concerns me LESS than those two because he's more of a threat on the ground than through the air and the Bills have been a lot more stout against the run than the screen game this season.
Kelly the Dog Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 If anything he concerns me LESS than those two because he's more of a threat on the ground than through the air and the Bills have been a lot more stout against the run than the screen game this season. You mean except that in games they start, Charles has more yards rushing per game, better YPC by a lot, scores more Tds and is a lot faster?
Clippers of Nfl Posted October 30, 2014 Author Posted October 30, 2014 If anything he concerns me LESS than those two because he's more of a threat on the ground than through the air and the Bills have been a lot more stout against the run than the screen game this season. Jamaal charles concerns you LESS than Foster when he played us even though foster was not 100% (he almost didnt even play the game...) You gotta hear yourself. 2-1 bud let it go. Im sure if we polled it (not going to), It would be more like 2000-3. You would be outnumbered big time. I gave you a plus 1 on the more yardage forte over charles, but that's it. It's widely know that charles is by far more explosive than Forte. Forte is not that kind of runner to begin with. He's a power back. If you have a stout line, you can at least neutralize a rb like that. I cant say that about foster. Foster is equally explosive as Charles. Foster was injured though. Therefore, I didnt fear him at all. Jamaal is a whole other beast. He's #1 in yards per rush in NFL HISTORY!!!! Better than Jim, Barry, all the greats. Yes, he's better than all those. You make it seem like he's a wimp olive oil. Dude c'mon.
TheBillsWillRiseAgain Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 Jesus Christ you people will argue anything. Ok whatever you say man. So what will the excuse be when Charles doesn't tear the Bills up in week 10? I mean if he's that much better of a player than the other RBs we've played this season. Isn't that we were talking about in the first place?
Kelly the Dog Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) Jesus Christ you people will argue anything. Ok whatever you say man. So what will the excuse be when Charles doesn't tear the Bills up in week 10? I mean if he's that much better of a player than the other RBs we've played this season. Isn't that we were talking about in the first place? A one game sample is nothing. I think the way the Bills are playing right now, at home, they can shut him down. But saying a healthy Jamaal Charles is not a scary player to defense is lunacy IMO. It's consensus opinion except for you that he is one of the scariest players in the league. Edited October 30, 2014 by Kelly the Dog
boyst Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 The Bears do have and have had consistently good WR's for a while which can be taken in to consideration as him not being the only target but also could be a reason he gets open easier - having to defend down the field against Jeffrey and whoever else I am brain farting at WR is a lot different then Dwayne Bowe.
TheBillsWillRiseAgain Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 A one game sample is nothing. I think the way the Bills are playing right now, at home, they can shut him down. But saying a healthy Jamaal Charles is not a scary player to defense is lunacy IMO. It's consensus opinion except for you that he is one of the scariest players in the league. Consensus opinion because you and one other guy keep saying he's head-and-shoulders better than Forte? Ok.... Again you keep missing the point. Who cares if a one game sample is small? Why would I care about who is better between Forte and Charles after week 10? The one game sample is ALL that matters, and in that one game sample Charles isn't going to pose any more of a threat than Forte did.
Kelly the Dog Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) Consensus opinion because you and one other guy keep saying he's head-and-shoulders better than Forte? Ok.... Consensus opinion because he's twice first team All Pro and once second team. That is the measurement, although no measurement or award is perfect. But that is the standard in the NFL. And if you look at that team every year, it's hard to argue with it as faulty, although obviously there are guys some think belong there and others don't. And it's self-evident that in one game, a great back is not going to be treated as a bigger threat than another great back. Unless you think a coach is going to tell his players "Hey, we have been watching tape and we think Matt Forte is clearly better than Jamaal Charles, so you guys don't have to prepare as hard for the Chiefs as you did for the Bears." So yes, I agree with you, Charles doesn't pose a bigger threat than Matt Forte, who is clearly a great player. Edited October 30, 2014 by Kelly the Dog
Recommended Posts