Chargers By The (Jersey) Numbers: #24

by John (obviousman) on Jul 5, 2009 4:21 PM PDT in Chargers By The (Jersey) Numbers Comment 6 comments

Sorry if I can't give every San Diego Chargers player who has ever worn #24 their due, but I'm busy and there are a ton of them. Eighteen to be exact and it's not a group that's particularly strong in terms of talent or at least career performance. The full list and nominees are after the jump.

Anthony Anderson, S
Fakhir Brown, CB
Kern Carson, RB
Jesse Chatman, RB
Cletis Gordon, CB
Aaron Hayden, RB
Luther Hayes, WR
Keith Kinderman, RB
Lester Lyles, S
Miles McPherson, S
Glyn Milburn, WR/KR
Erric Pegram, RB
Kevin Scott, RB
Ken Taylor, CB
Ron Walker, RB
Joe Washington, RB

Runner-Up

via www.beckett.com

Stanley Richard, FS. "The Sheriff" was a good player who, not unlike most of his teammates, had a career year in 1994 to help the Chargers in their run to the Super Bowl. In that season he matched or exceeded his career highs in interceptions (4), touchdowns (2) and forced fumbles (1). That season he also collected 79 tackles and returned one of his interceptions for a 99 yard touchdown (the longest interception return of his career by more than 50 yards). Following the Super Bowl run, Richard signed with the Washington Redskins and continued to be what he was. He was a healthy, consistent free safety in both San Diego and Washington. That's a tough position to stay healthy and consistent.

The Winner

via www.beckett.com

Bob Howard, CB. Howard started playing college ball at Cal Poly SLO and was good enough to transfer and earn a starting spot at SDSU, a team that happened to be coached by Don Coryell. In 1967, the Chargers took Howard in the second round of the AFL/NFL Draft. He spent his first 8 seasons with the Bolts, intercepting 21 passes and recovering 9 fumbles during that time.

Similar to Stanley Richard, Bob Howard built a reputation for consistency. He stayed on the field and he delivered good numbers. Neither player made a Pro Bowl or won an MVP award. One player doesn't stand over all of the others that have worn #24. However, I'm giving this one to Howard because he spent twice as much time in San Diego as did Richard. Also, although it shouldn't count...the fact that he played for Coryell and at SDSU helped him a bit. Unfortunately, Howard died last year at the age of 63. He left behind his wife, Barbara, and his three children.

Your winner, and somebody who proved that consistency and hard work is just as good as talent, Bob Howard.

0 recs | Comment 6 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I would have picked the Sheriff

… from among that group. The stats don’t show it, but Stanley was a solid hitter too, well no where near as good as Rodney Harrison.

But this is another case where we have a pretty even match between players of different eras. I my mind tie goes to the guy who made it to the Super Bowl.

by Trendsearcher on Jul 5, 2009 4:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I know

I struggled with the decision, but I have a hard time naming winners that have spent less than 5 years with the team unless they were absolute game-changers. Was Richard a game-changer? Not really. He wasn’t Pro Bowl level, he was just a good player that excelled on a good team in ’94. The shortness of his tenure, and the fact that he chased the money out of town immediately after the Super Bowl, left a sour taste in my mouth with picking The Sherriff as the winner.

"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock

by John (obviousman) on Jul 5, 2009 6:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Difficult call for sure

But by that standard the modern era player with free agency, and age-bias among teams (yes I said it!) is at a disadvantage. Guys like Natrone Means (3 years) and Marion Butts(4 years) had very short careers with the Chargers, but I consider them to be more than worthy.

As far as my comment about age-bias, it seems to me that in this modern era teams really burn through the players. They sign them to rookie contracts, and cut them once they hit the journeyman level. We saw it illustrated well in the age survey John provided a few weeks ago. The team has a select few mature players, surrounded by a majority of younger players. Financially it makes a lot of sense. It would be an interesting Human Resourses question to study and determine if the is a significant difference between eras.

by Trendsearcher on Jul 5, 2009 10:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Means played 5 years

don’t forget that he came back :-).

While I see your point, my philosophy while doing this is to try to find a great player for every number. Most great players are not let go at the end of their rookie deals. The age post I did showed that the Chargers have been smart in selecting which players to sign after the rookie deal and have been good at drafting young talent to replace other players whose price-tag exceeds their talents.

"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock

by John (obviousman) on Jul 6, 2009 3:58 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

I see the approach as good and bad

From the team’s perspective focus on youth is very strategic financially. And there is a greater chance that players with 4 or few years in the NFL are going to have accumulated injuries to cope with. Plus they have the rookie physical exams and combines to have a some confidence that the young guys are healthy. The teams take a risk about whether each individual can play at the pro level, but the law of averages works in their favor. A few guys may not pan out, but generally many will.

From the player’s perspective I don’t think it is such a great deal. Basically unless you can show yourself as a marquee talent (say top 5 in the league) within three years you are done. Maybe the journeyman player picks up a second year contract, but I bet few finish them (as Matt Welhelm is soon to find out). Welhelm can perform as well as the rookies, he is just not in that top five group of players at his position. In fact I think he can play better than most of the LB’s that have come into the game in the last few years. Unfortunately the system right now appears to have a bias towards younger and cheaper players.

It is an intriguing question from many perspectives. The NFL and its CBA are pretty much the only professional option for players. Older players with skills superior to younger players find themselves obstructed. Performance metrics are almost impossible to define. And so much hinges on the amount of reps a player gets. At the end of the day it is very hard to decide if a Lou Bush performs better than a Matt Welhelm, or a Welhelm better than an Antwon Applewhite. Even though the comparison of players would be an imperfect science, the contract patterns of the teams is not.

It should be pretty easy to compare the ages of roosters before and after the salary cap CBA. My hypothesis is that NFL teams (in general) are younger now, than before the salary cap.

by Trendsearcher on Jul 6, 2009 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, the guy who went to the SB went as a spectator

Dude just watched Steve Young throw six TD passes.

I’m not sure exactly what Richard’s coverage responsibilities were in regard to each one of them, and I haven’t watched that game for many years, but I just remember Rice and the rest of the 49’ers being WIDE open running through the secondary all day.

I don't know whether I prefer Astroturf to grass. I never smoked Astroturf.

JOE NAMATH

by theGEN3RAL on Jul 6, 2009 7:51 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs