Dan 66 Posted November 1, 2010 Okay, before any of you get yourselves tied up in knots, I concede that this is a little tongue-in-cheek. But not too much. I took a lot of crap for suggesting that Adrian Peterson was a better #1 overall pick than Chris Johnson, a discussion that seems ludicrous at the moment, if only because it would be unfair to Peterson. But I want to defend another comparison. Several dared to Jamaal Charles in the same sentence with Chris Johnson, and were summarily (and expectedly) ridiculed for the notion. After all, Johnson is a 2000+yd. runner, and Charles is a back-up. Soooooo . . . I thought I'd do a little digging, in light of Mr. Charles' most recent performance. RUSHING YARDS Chris Johnson - 721 . . . . per game - 90.1 . . . per carry - 4.1 (178 att, 22.2/gm) Jamaal Charles - 666 . . . per games - 95.1 . . . per carry - 6.5 (103 att, 14.7/gm) The advantage for the amazing Johnson must be in receiving, then. RECEIVING STATISTICS Chris Johnson - 22 rec, 90 yds (4.1 avg) Remember, 8 games Jamaal Charles - 16 rec, 191 yds (11.9 avg) 7 games TOUCHDOWNS Chris Johnson - 8 Jamaal Charles - 2 Sweet! A category that Johnson excels in. Of course, this isn't surprising, since his coach actually wants to see him on the field and excelling. Of course, if Charles were perhaps a little more talented, and were at least as good as Thomas Jones, he could improve on that number. But Charles is "inexperienced, unreliable, and has a bad habit of putting the ball on the ground. FUMBLES Chris Johnson - 3 Fumbles, 2 Lost Jamaal Charles - 1 Fumble, 1 Lost Incidentally, Thomas Jones is clearly better than both of these guys. Have fun, folks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cuda1337 1 Posted November 1, 2010 Okay, before any of you get yourselves tied up in knots, I concede that this is a little tongue-in-cheek. But not too much. I took a lot of crap for suggesting that Adrian Peterson was a better #1 overall pick than Chris Johnson, a discussion that seems ludicrous at the moment, if only because it would be unfair to Peterson. But I want to defend another comparison. Several dared to Jamaal Charles in the same sentence with Chris Johnson, and were summarily (and expectedly) ridiculed for the notion. After all, Johnson is a 2000+yd. runner, and Charles is a back-up. Soooooo . . . I thought I'd do a little digging, in light of Mr. Charles' most recent performance. RUSHING YARDS Chris Johnson - 721 . . . . per game - 90.1 . . . per carry - 4.1 (178 att, 22.2/gm) Jamaal Charles - 666 . . . per games - 95.1 . . . per carry - 6.5 (103 att, 14.7/gm) The advantage for the amazing Johnson must be in receiving, then. RECEIVING STATISTICS Chris Johnson - 22 rec, 90 yds (4.1 avg) Remember, 8 games Jamaal Charles - 16 rec, 191 yds (11.9 avg) 7 games TOUCHDOWNS Chris Johnson - 8 Jamaal Charles - 2 Sweet! A category that Johnson excels in. Of course, this isn't surprising, since his coach actually wants to see him on the field and excelling. Of course, if Charles were perhaps a little more talented, and were at least as good as Thomas Jones, he could improve on that number. But Charles is "inexperienced, unreliable, and has a bad habit of putting the ball on the ground. FUMBLES Chris Johnson - 3 Fumbles, 2 Lost Jamaal Charles - 1 Fumble, 1 Lost Incidentally, Thomas Jones is clearly better than both of these guys. Have fun, folks. Jamaal Charles is a tremendous talent. His coaching staff knows it. They also know they have another very good, reliable veteran on the team. Why not use them both? Keep them both happy? Give the defenses two guys to prepare for instead of one? Keep them fresh, so they both have maximum explosiveness in the game. Charles is dynamite in a bottle. But he won't often get more than 20 carries in a game. There is no reason to wear him down like that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Houston Texans 10 Posted November 1, 2010 Okay, before any of you get yourselves tied up in knots, I concede that this is a little tongue-in-cheek. But not too much. I took a lot of crap for suggesting that Adrian Peterson was a better #1 overall pick than Chris Johnson, a discussion that seems ludicrous at the moment, if only because it would be unfair to Peterson. But I want to defend another comparison. Several dared to Jamaal Charles in the same sentence with Chris Johnson, and were summarily (and expectedly) ridiculed for the notion. After all, Johnson is a 2000+yd. runner, and Charles is a back-up. Soooooo . . . I thought I'd do a little digging, in light of Mr. Charles' most recent performance. RUSHING YARDS Chris Johnson - 721 . . . . per game - 90.1 . . . per carry - 4.1 (178 att, 22.2/gm) Jamaal Charles - 666 . . . per games - 95.1 . . . per carry - 6.5 (103 att, 14.7/gm) The advantage for the amazing Johnson must be in receiving, then. RECEIVING STATISTICS Chris Johnson - 22 rec, 90 yds (4.1 avg) Remember, 8 games Jamaal Charles - 16 rec, 191 yds (11.9 avg) 7 games TOUCHDOWNS Chris Johnson - 8 Jamaal Charles - 2 Sweet! A category that Johnson excels in. Of course, this isn't surprising, since his coach actually wants to see him on the field and excelling. Of course, if Charles were perhaps a little more talented, and were at least as good as Thomas Jones, he could improve on that number. But Charles is "inexperienced, unreliable, and has a bad habit of putting the ball on the ground. FUMBLES Chris Johnson - 3 Fumbles, 2 Lost Jamaal Charles - 1 Fumble, 1 Lost Incidentally, Thomas Jones is clearly better than both of these guys. Have fun, folks. Johnson is more valuable than Charles, especially while T Jones is taking touches in KC. Look at Johnson's 1st year in Tennessee, and compare it to Charles this year with Jones in town. Johnson (2008) 1st 7 games: 122 carries, 626 yards, 5.13 YPC, 18 rec, 92 yards, 5 total TDs Charles (2010) 1st 7 games: 106 carries, 666 yards, 6.47 YPC, 16 catches, 191 yards 2 total TDs The numbers are similar. We also know (from last season) that Charles CAN carry the full load, just as we know that Johnson can do it. In 2008, White limited Johnson's production, and in 2010 Jones is limited Charles'. As long as Jones is in KC, Johnson is more valuable. If Jones is no longer there, then the discussion becomes more complicated. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MTSkiBum 1,626 Posted November 1, 2010 The only hope that the chiefs have of making the playoffs is with a healthy jamal charles. Under which scenario is charles more likely to be seriously injured: 100 touches over the remaining 9 games or 150 touches over the remaining 9 games. It looks like the coaching staff does not want the goose that lays the golden eggs to get injured. So they are overprotecting him by running him just enough to win. I guarantee you that Haley knows that Charles is head and shoulders better than Thomas Jones. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmbryant09 1 Posted November 1, 2010 Jamaal Charles is a tremendous talent. His coaching staff knows it. They also know they have another very good, reliable veteran on the team. Why not use them both? Keep them both happy? Give the defenses two guys to prepare for instead of one? Keep them fresh, so they both have maximum explosiveness in the game. Charles is dynamite in a bottle. But he won't often get more than 20 carries in a game. There is no reason to wear him down like that. Well put. I think the coaching staff is starting to notice how wide the gap is in talent between Jones & Charles (like why Charles was the main guy against Indy a few weeks ago). To the OP - I was one of those people putting Jamaal Charles in the same sentence with Chris Johnson. At the end of last season, and all off-season...I kept telling people that he's the real deal. And to the doubters, I simply posted a video with some of JC's highlights...and those haters became silent. I still think Chris Johnson is slightly more gifted, perhaps better vision, but if you stripped JC of his Cheifs' jersey, you'd swear you were watching the Titans...he's that good. It's actually quite amusing how some people (RayLewisLimoDriver - I'm talking about you) were are actually convinced that Thomas Jones is still a better RB. But I guess we won't be hearing from those people anytime soon...at least not until Jones out-produces Charles once this season. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan 66 Posted November 1, 2010 Well put. I think the coaching staff is starting to notice how wide the gap is in talent between Jones & Charles (like why Charles was the main guy against Indy a few weeks ago). To the OP - I was one of those people putting Jamaal Charles in the same sentence with Chris Johnson. At the end of last season, and all off-season...I kept telling people that he's the real deal. And to the doubters, I simply posted a video with some of JC's highlights...and those haters became silent. I still think Chris Johnson is slightly more gifted, perhaps better vision, but if you stripped JC of his Cheifs' jersey, you'd swear you were watching the Titans...he's that good. It's actually quite amusing how some people (RayLewisLimoDriver - I'm talking about you) were are actually convinced that Thomas Jones is still a better RB. But I guess we won't be hearing from those people anytime soon...at least not until Jones out-produces Charles once this season. I know you were. As was I. I didn't put up a highlight reel, though. I never contended that Jones should get no carries. I was happy he went there, and I was already a Charles owner. But the split is ridiculous, and people's rationalization of it has been more so. But beyond that, the point is that the comparison between Charles and Johnson is completely fair. If anything, the posts in here prove my point. Johnson's situation makes him "more reliable," but certainly not better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Puddleglum 0 Posted November 1, 2010 JC is now #1 in yards per carry (by almost a full yard) and #1 in yards per catch among RBs. So there's no question he deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as any RB in the league. If he had 2-3 more TDs to his name everyone would be talking about him. But I don't blame the Chiefs for running him in a timeshare, TJ is having a nice season in his own right, coming in at #12 in yards per carry. It's a good situation for them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmbryant09 1 Posted November 1, 2010 I know you were. As was I. I didn't put up a highlight reel, though. I never contended that Jones should get no carries. I was happy he went there, and I was already a Charles owner. But the split is ridiculous, and people's rationalization of it has been more so. But beyond that, the point is that the comparison between Charles and Johnson is completely fair. If anything, the posts in here prove my point. Johnson's situation makes him "more reliable," but certainly not better. Yeah - I wasn't too worried about T. Jones either, although he's stolen/taken much more than I could have imagined from JC. But as long as Charles is getting 100-150 yards per game with the occasional score, I don't really care what the split is. It is unfortunate that Charles won't get 25 carries per game this season, because it's pretty clear that he'd get 2,000 yards. But at least we know he'll be fresh/injury free throughout the season (knock on wood), as his schedule is ridiculously easy. To those who drafted Charles in the 3rd round, enjoy the benefits Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nadnewob 1 Posted November 1, 2010 I have been telling anyone that will listen that Charles is Chris Johnson in a red jersey. They guy is electric. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
