ChiefsPlanet Mobile
View Poll Results: Who was a better LB for the Chiefs ?
Anthony Davis 22 66.67%
Marvcus Patton 11 33.33%
Voters: 33. You may not vote on this poll
Page 4 of 5
< 1234 5 >
Nzoner's Game Room>In their prime who was the better Middle Linebacker for the Chiefs ?
royr17 09:26 PM 03-02-2005
OK, I need your help in settling a disagreement with a fellow member.

He claims Anthony Davis was a beter LB for the Chiefs than Marvcus Patton.

Need your opinons.


Poll coming.
[Reply]
Hammock Parties 11:07 PM 03-02-2005
Originally Posted by ROYC75:
Do you always feel you are right when you chat or IM him about all of this BS ?
Uh...HE BROUGHT IT UP.

Roy asked for my opinion, so I gave it. Then he called me a moron and asked me to post this poll. I said I didn't give a shit, and if he wanted to, he could do it. So he did.
[Reply]
C-Mac 11:10 PM 03-02-2005
Sure would be nice if there were some accurate stats from both players because the answer lies within.
I would be shocked if Patton's numbers wasnt double Davis's
[Reply]
Hammock Parties 11:12 PM 03-02-2005
Originally Posted by C-Mac:
Sure would be nice if there were some accurate stats from both players because the answer lies within.
I would be shocked if Patton's numbers wasnt double Davis's
The only stat I can really find is where the defenses they were on ranked during their tenure. Davis kicks Patton's ass in that area. Of course now that we find out that Davis was never a Chief MLB, I'm not really sure how significant that is.

Patton was nothing special here for the most part, though. He was basically a black Mike Maslowski (although at least Maz had the season where he recorded 160 tackles. Patton broke 100 tackles just once in his career and never as a Chief).
[Reply]
C-Mac 11:22 PM 03-02-2005
Originally Posted by gochiefs:
The only stat I can really find is where the defenses they were on ranked during their tenure. Davis kicks Patton's ass in that area. Of course now that we find out that Davis was never a Chief MLB, I'm not really sure how significant that is.
This really means nothing, otherwise that would open the door for a lot of good players to be over-looked and bad players to be over-rated.

Originally Posted by gochiefs:
Patton was nothing special here for the most part, though. He was basically a black Mike Maslowski
Agreed, but neither was Davis.
[Reply]
Hammock Parties 11:24 PM 03-02-2005
Originally Posted by C-Mac:
This really means nothing, otherwise that would open the door for a lot of good players to be over-looked and bad players to be over-rated.



Agreed, but neither was Davis.
At least Davis has the status of those Chief defenses to hang his hat on. Patton really has nothing.
[Reply]
jspchief 11:29 PM 03-02-2005
Originally Posted by C-Mac:
Sure would be nice if there were some accurate stats from both players because the answer lies within.
I would be shocked if Patton's numbers wasnt double Davis's
Ask and you shall receive...
Marvcus Patton

Anthony Davis

Although it's apples and oranges. MLBs are always going to get more tackles.
[Reply]
C-Mac 11:34 PM 03-02-2005
Originally Posted by gochiefs:
At least Davis has the status of those Chief defenses to hang his hat on. Patton really has nothing.
At least Davis has the status of those Chiefs defenders Derrick Thomas, Neil Smith, Dan Saleamua and Leslie Oneil to hang his hat on. Patton really had no one.
Look, Patton was a good solid player through his whole career, but Davis never quite reached that same plateau. Thats why the stats would sway this whole discussion.
[Reply]
Hammock Parties 11:39 PM 03-02-2005
Originally Posted by C-Mac:
Look, Patton was a good solid player through his whole career, but Davis never quite reached that same plateau.
Then why did he never play on a good defense? And several shitty ones?

We're only talking about their careers as Chiefs here, as well. At least that was the way it was put to me.
[Reply]
C-Mac 11:39 PM 03-02-2005
Originally Posted by jspchief:
Ask and you shall receive...
Marvcus Patton

Anthony Davis

Although it's apples and oranges. MLBs are always going to get more tackles.
Nice work jspchief :-)

Well there you go, let the spinning begin.
[Reply]
C-Mac 11:49 PM 03-02-2005
Originally Posted by gochiefs:
Then why did he never play on a good defense? And several shitty ones?

We're only talking about their careers as Chiefs here, as well. At least that was the way it was put to me.
I guess you could ask the same of Barry Sanders.
[Reply]
Hammock Parties 11:49 PM 03-02-2005
Originally Posted by C-Mac:
I guess you could ask the same of Barry Sanders.
Barry Sanders played on quite a few good OFFENSES.
[Reply]
C-Mac 12:04 AM 03-03-2005
Originally Posted by gochiefs:
Barry Sanders played on quite a few good OFFENSES.
It will go down in history that Barry Sanders played many years with a lot of poorly talented offensive teamates.
[Reply]
Hammock Parties 12:06 AM 03-03-2005
Originally Posted by C-Mac:
It will go down in history that Barry Sanders played many years with a lot of poorly talented offensive teamates.
He had a couple of good players in Herman Moore and some other receivers, but by and large you are correct. Sanders carried those offenses.

Patton never carried a defense.
[Reply]
PastorMikH 12:11 AM 03-03-2005
I can't believe Scanlon hasn't been mentioned in the thread yet.:-)
[Reply]
C-Mac 12:17 AM 03-03-2005
Originally Posted by gochiefs:
He had a couple of good players in Herman Moore and some other receivers, but by and large you are correct. Sanders carried those offenses.

Patton never carried a defense.
I never compared the two in that manner.
I was just trying to reason with you on why Patton could still be better than Davis while never playing on a great defense.
[Reply]
Page 4 of 5
< 1234 5 >
Up