<< <i>Still waiting for someone to log a vote for Barry that isn't from or a fan of Detroit... >>
I'm not logging a vote for anybody, because to be honest I have no idea who the best back was. I always enjoyed watching Barry, but I also think Emmitt tends to be unfairly disparaged by NFL fans. Sure, Emmitt had a fantastic team, but he also played a much tougher schedule (year in and year out) then Barry did, so that mitigates at least part of that difference. I also think a lot of that 'Emmitt couldn't break off the big run' talk is overdone as well, since I seem to remember watching him scamper for all kinds of 40+ yard runs in his prime.
Who was the best? I have no idea. But unlike everyone else in this thread I'm willing to flat out admit that there's no effective metric out there for distinguishing between NFL players of similar ability.
<< <i>Still waiting for someone to log a vote for Barry that isn't from or a fan of Detroit... >>
Who was the best? I have no idea. But unlike everyone else in this thread I'm willing to flat out admit that there's no effective metric out there for distinguishing between NFL players of similar ability, which effectively renders this entire thread as nothing more than a fool's errand. >>
Actually I agree with you guy. Too many variables to take into consideration.
I just thought it was funny to use what you said about Emmitt for Barry
<< <i>Still waiting for someone to log a vote for Barry that isn't from or a fan of Detroit... >>
Who was the best? I have no idea. But unlike everyone else in this thread I'm willing to flat out admit that there's no effective metric out there for distinguishing between NFL players of similar ability, which effectively renders this entire thread as nothing more than a fool's errand. >>
Actually I agree with you guy. Too many variables to take into consideration.
I just thought it was funny to use what you said about Emmitt for Barry >>
It's a fair point. Nobody who isn't from Detroit, or a Detroit fan, has come in on Barry's side, so that's probably somewhat telling... Although I think the bottom line is that Barry and Emmitt were both exceptional backs, and any talent disparity between them was probably negligible. Payton and Brown were 'probably' better than both of them, but again-- unless you can control for all the relevant variables it's silly to advance a position.
<< <i>Still waiting for someone to log a vote for Barry that isn't from or a fan of Detroit... >>
Still waiting for someone to show why the Detroit Lions, the worst franchise in sports, were able to make the playoffs regularly in the 90s without giving an overwhelming amount of credit to Sanders. You can point to a few 100 catch seasons or one Pro Bowl lineman all you want -- similar to the talent the Lions have had this decade. But in the NFL management is what ultimately decides the direction a team will take. And during the 90s that team was able to overcome the worst management possible because of one player
Barry Sanders carried the ball 91 times in playoff games, caught 21 passes and scored ONCE...That's exactly ONE TD in 112 touches..That's 0.89% and that is FACT.
He had one big playoff game (at home) and they still lost..He went 27-169..In his other 5 playoff games (4 of the 5 were losses) he rushed for 217 TOTAL yards on 64 carries..That comes out to 3.4 YPC...
Emmitt scored 21 playoff TDs in 395 touches. That's 5.31% and that is FACT
Barry ran for over 70 yards ONCE in 6 games..Emmitt ran for over 70 yards 14 times in 17 playoff games...Not only did he win 3 Super Bowls, but was a Super Bowl MVP going 30-132 and 2 TDs.
If you are looking for the guy with the biggest overall YPC of the 2 its Barry, no doubt..His long runs more than made up for his negative yardage runs..Emmitt wasn't the highlight reel guy, but slow and steady wins the race sometimes...
Lets relate it to baseball and it really boils down to this...You either value the .330, 20 HR, 100 RBI, 20 steals guy who walks more than he strikes out and is a catalyst for a teams offense more..(Emmitt Smith)
OR
You value the Home Run hitter, batting .265 with 45 HRs and 200 K's...(Barry Sanders)
There's nothing WRONG with favoring either of these type players..To each his own...As home run hitters go, Barry was one of, if not the best...But his HRs never came in the 9th inning or in a playoff game...While Emmitt batted .400 in his playoff games and was the spark to a team that won THREE championships in 4 years...
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Still waiting for someone to show why the Detroit Lions, the worst franchise in sports, were able to make the playoffs regularly in the 90s.............................
...............And during the 90s that team was able to overcome the worst management possible because of one player >>
Teams are measured by championships and Barry's teams never got one. Also, I don't know of any team that won anything let alone a superbowl championship based on the efforts of one player. Football is a team sport and no matter how many times people say it, Barry didn't do it by himself and he would be the first to tell you that.
It's a fair point. Nobody who isn't from Detroit, or a Detroit fan, has come in on Barry's side, so that's probably somewhat telling... Although I think the bottom line is that Barry and Emmitt were both exceptional backs, and any talent disparity between them was probably negligible. Payton and Brown were 'probably' better than both of them, but again-- unless you can control for all the relevant variables it's silly to advance a position. >>
Very well stated, and I agree...These types of debates are fun, and I posted initially based on a recent ESPN article ranking the top 10...The NFL Network runs a Top 10 show every week on a new topic..This week was Top 10 TE's of All-time..John Mackey came in first BTW..In this DEAD ZONE between minicamps and training camp, it's a perfect time to debate the "who's better"..
Like it or not, everyone does it in every sport..Most of the points made by all in this thread are valid points, yet some tend to go over the top as a fan of a particular player and that's understandable as well...
If this debate is hurting anyone's feelings or causing anyone to dislike the game of football then I would advise not to bother reading or posting..It's a fruitless debate as there really is no RIGHT answer but always an interesting play..
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Still waiting for someone to log a vote for Barry that isn't from or a fan of Detroit... >>
Still waiting for someone to show why the Detroit Lions, the worst franchise in sports, were able to make the playoffs regularly in the 90s without giving an overwhelming amount of credit to Sanders. You can point to a few 100 catch seasons or one Pro Bowl lineman all you want -- similar to the talent the Lions have had this decade. But in the NFL management is what ultimately decides the direction a team will take. And during the 90s that team was able to overcome the worst management possible because of one player >>
If you agree that the market for NFL talent is, on the balance, and efficient one (and I do think this, although obviously opinions will vary), then the notion that one management team is patently worse than another borders on nonsensical.
<< <i>Teams are measured by championships and Barry's teams never got one. >>
Exactly
Charles Haley is not the greatest player in football history simply because he won the most Super Bowls
<< <i>Football is a team sport and no matter how many times people say it, Barry didn't do it by himself and he would be the first to tell you that. >>
Emmitt Smith contributed well over 2% to each of the Cowboys Super Bowl despite having about 50 teammates. Barry Sanders contributed significantly more than that to playoff teams. This is exactly what makes him the best running back ever
Emmitt Smith contributed well over 2% to each of the Cowboys Super Bowl despite having about 50 teammates. Barry Sanders contributed significantly more than that to playoff teams. This is exactly what makes him the best running back ever >>
In 1991, the Lions best season during Sanders career, they went 12-4 and made the Conference Championship game.
That season the Lions offense totaled 4,788 yards. Barry Sanders was responsible for 1,855 of them or 38.7%.
1992 was arguable the Cowboys best season with Emmitt. They went 13-3 and won the Super Bowl in a blow out.
That season the Cowboys offense totaled 5,606 yards and Emmitt was responsible for 2,048 of them or 36.5%.
Sorry, but the above quoted post is simply a fabrication and yet another Barry exaggeration.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
You really believe every single rushing yard is determined solely by the man who carries the ball and no other offensive player on the field helps out in any way?
What is it about team sports that we, as fans, absolutely, unequivocally, without concession, refuse to believe that an athlete's raw ability has NOT improved since 1900, 1950, 1980, even 2000, when every single indication in objectively measurable sports demonstrates that we are stronger, faster, quicker, etc.?
Would anyone here stake their lives or swear on their [ ]'s grave that Running Back X could turn the corner on Ray Lewis, Brian Urlacher, Junior Seau, etc., in their prime? Or that Babe Ruth could turn on a Randy Johnson fastball or slider and smack it 500 feet?
If my physicist friends ever succeed in building a time machine, forget going back in time and making millions. I'd bring Babe Ruth to 2008 and see if he could lay wood to a Joel Zumaya fastball.
<< <i>You really believe every single rushing yard is determined solely by the man who carries the ball and no other offensive player on the field helps out in any way? >>
Yeah thats what i think..Come on man..lol
Do you actually think any bum could do what Emmitt did simply because there was talent around him?
You through out the comparison of how much each guy contributed and underscored Smith by saying he contributed "well over 2%" while Barry contributed SO MUCH that it makes him the greatest of all-time.
Question: Did he contribute more than Walter Payton? And did Walter have a better supporting cast on offense?
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Still waiting for someone to log a vote for Barry that isn't from or a fan of Detroit... >>
Who was the best? I have no idea. But unlike everyone else in this thread I'm willing to flat out admit that there's no effective metric out there for distinguishing between NFL players of similar ability, which effectively renders this entire thread as nothing more than a fool's errand. >>
Actually I agree with you guy. Too many variables to take into consideration.
I just thought it was funny to use what you said about Emmitt for Barry >>
It's a fair point. Nobody who isn't from Detroit, or a Detroit fan, has come in on Barry's side, so that's probably somewhat telling... Although I think the bottom line is that Barry and Emmitt were both exceptional backs, and any talent disparity between them was probably negligible. Payton and Brown were 'probably' better than both of them, but again-- unless you can control for all the relevant variables it's silly to advance a position. >>
I'm not from Detroit nor am I a Lions fan (actually I didn't know there were Lions fans).
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>What is it about team sports that we, as fans, absolutely, unequivocally, without concession, refuse to believe that an athlete's raw ability has NOT improved since 1900, 1950, 1980, even 2000, when every single indication in objectively measurable sports demonstrates that we are stronger, faster, quicker, etc.?
Would anyone here stake their lives or swear on their [ ]'s grave that Running Back X could turn the corner on Ray Lewis, Brian Urlacher, Junior Seau, etc., in their prime? Or that Babe Ruth could turn on a Randy Johnson fastball or slider and smack it 500 feet?
If my physicist friends ever succeed in building a time machine, forget going back in time and making millions. I'd bring Babe Ruth to 2008 and see if he could lay wood to a Joel Zumaya fastball.
/s/ JackWESQ >>
Has anyone here tried to make that point? Who would be the best on the year 2008? On the contrary, I think it is ALL ABOUT what they did against their contemporaries in their own eras that is paramount.
Also, for every they are bigger, stronger, faster NOW argument, there is another side that says the old timers played in an era with low pay, bad medical care, bad playing surfaces, and rules that favored the defense rather than all the help offenses get these days..You have to compare these guys to the other players that also played during their eras. Then you stack up how dominant they were at the time vs. how dominant other players were during THIER time...
To try and put Babe Ruth or Bronko Nagurski to today's game is simply ridiculous. Vice versa for trying to place anyone from 2008 into the 1940's game...
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
After reading all of the posts to this thread, it amazes me how any one who has studied the history of the NFL can compile a list of the top running backs in NFL history and not put Jim Brown at the top of the list. Unfortunately, I was not born until 1971, so I never saw him play live, but being an avid NFL pseudo-historian and a Clevelander who has seen NFL films of him since childhood, to me there is no other name to mention at #1.
Brown dominated the game like no other player....his contempories will support this. He could run through you or run around you. He had the toughness that could match any player...but also the quickness as well. He had modern day size,speed,and strength 30 years before most other players. He was a man amongst boys.
He led the league in rushing in 57,58,59,60,61,63,64 and 65. The only year he did not lead the league in rushing was in 62...due to injury. The only other runner in his era that was in the top two in rushing more than once was Jim Taylor of Green Bay.
I still say it should be broken down by Era if not Decade. I understand the HOF committee or whoever has the "Modern" as after '46 but I 100% disagree with that.
The NFL website is pretty enlightening. You can get the top 5 stat leaders in every category for every season. Analyze the top 5 rushing leaders each year, and its a no brainer the dominance of Jim Brown. All of the other great backs mentioned were #1 a few years, a few years 2 through 5...but none dominated the #1 spot even close to as many times as Jim Brown. Jim Brown could have played in any decade.
I agree Perk that its difficult to compare early to modern players..it was such a different game...so many fewer games in the early years. I think I would use 1955 as the cut-off year as early/modern.
A few have mentioned Lenny Moore in the top 10...I disagree ..he was never in the top 5 in rushing yards...was a great receiver for Unitas....but I wouldn't put him in the top 10 best ever running backs.
Lets all not forget that Jim Brown played when there was only 12 and later 14 games in a season. Had there been 16 game seasons his entire career, and (of course) had he not retired in his prime, there is no telling the numbers he would of put up. In addition, us older fans recall that when he played, the hash marks were wide...so defenses knew that you could only run wide in one direction, making it A LOT easier to defend the sweep. I guess 5.2 (Yards Per Carry) really says it all...NO ONE IS CLOSE TO THE GREAT JIM BROWN!
Successful transactions with FavreFan1971, ffishonn, Davemri, Publius, DavidPuddy, frcarvell, recbball, and many others...
<< <i>After reading all of the posts to this thread, it amazes me how any one who has studied the history of the NFL can compile a list of the top running backs in NFL history and not put Jim Brown at the top of the list. Unfortunately, I was not born until 1971, so I never saw him play live, but being an avid NFL pseudo-historian and a Clevelander who has seen NFL films of him since childhood, to me there is no other name to mention at #1.
Brown dominated the game like no other player....his contempories will support this. He could run through you or run around you. He had the toughness that could match any player...but also the quickness as well. He had modern day size,speed,and strength 30 years before most other players. He was a man amongst boys.
He led the league in rushing in 57,58,59,60,61,63,64 and 65. The only year he did not lead the league in rushing was in 62...due to injury. The only other runner in his era that was in the top two in rushing more than once was Jim Taylor of Green Bay.
my list
#1 Jim Brown everyone else >>
FINALLY more voices of reason...lol
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Here is some perspective for everyone...Emmitt Smith had 4409 carries. At 5.2 YPC (Browns lifetime average)...he would have rushed for 22,927 yards...Any questions?
Successful transactions with FavreFan1971, ffishonn, Davemri, Publius, DavidPuddy, frcarvell, recbball, and many others...
<< <i>I still say it should be broken down by Era if not Decade. I understand the HOF committee or whoever has the "Modern" as after '46 but I 100% disagree with that. >>
Decades are too close/relatively the same in a 10 year period..The smallest blocks I would think would be say 25 years...Maybe do the best RB from 1925-1950, then 1950-1975, and 1975-2000..
Mine:
1925-1950--Steve Van Buren, Bronko Nagurski, Marion Motley 1950-1975--Jim Brown, OJ Simpson, Gale Sayers 1975-2000--Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
RBs with a career 5.0+ YPC (minimum 500 attempts):
Marion Motley 5.7 1946-1955 Bo Jackson 5.4 1987-1990 Spec Sanders 5.4 1946-1950 Bobby Mitchell 5.3 1958-1968 Jim Brown 5.2 1957-1965 Chet Mutryn 5.2 1946-1950 Dan Towler 5.2 1950-1955 Johnny Strzykalski 5.2 1946-1952 Mercury Morris 5.1 1969-1976 Charlie Trippi 5.1 1947-1955 Joe Perry 5.0 1948-1963 Gale Sayers 5.0 1965-1971 Barry Sanders 5.0 1989-1998
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
If comparing eras...hard to imagine a more fearsome weapon than Motley...As important as Graham in helping the Browns to 10 Championship games in a row (7 wins)...
Successful transactions with FavreFan1971, ffishonn, Davemri, Publius, DavidPuddy, frcarvell, recbball, and many others...
Not a top 10'er, but should have been mentioned somewhere in the first few pages of this thread.
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>If comparing eras...hard to imagine a more fearsome weapon than Motley...As important as Graham in helping the Browns to 10 Championship games in a row (7 wins)... >>
He was an absolute BEAST...In todays game it would be the equivalent of 300 lb RB with the speed/quickness of Jerome Bettis...lol..Basically add 3-4 inches and about 50 lbs to Bettis in todays game...Motley was the same size of most D-linemen of his day... 6-1, 232 in 1950!!!!!
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Not a top 10'er, but should have been mentioned somewhere in the first few pages of this thread. >>
Not even a top 50'er..We'd have to start a new thread for guys like Okoye, William Andrews, Chuck Muncie..Maybe list the top 100 of all-time and you'd eventually come up with Okoye's name...He really only had ONE good season, and for as big as he was, the guy was a wuss..He admittedly did not like being hit, and retired in his prime because he hated practice..His 27 fumbles in 1,246 carries is horrendous...
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
A little off the topic, since I don't consider either of these two to be the greatest RB ever, but they were both among the very best of their era. Sadly, both had their careers cut short due to injury when they were well on their respective ways to HOF careers: Billy Sims and William Andrews.
Granted, Sims gets some pub, thanks to his Heismann trophy and Oklahoma Sooner pedigree, but few ever mention Andrews, one in a long line of successful Auburn backs. I just wanted to throw them each a bone.
<< <i>What is it about team sports that we, as fans, absolutely, unequivocally, without concession, refuse to believe that an athlete's raw ability has NOT improved since 1900, 1950, 1980, even 2000, when every single indication in objectively measurable sports demonstrates that we are stronger, faster, quicker, etc.?
Would anyone here stake their lives or swear on their [ ]'s grave that Running Back X could turn the corner on Ray Lewis, Brian Urlacher, Junior Seau, etc., in their prime? Or that Babe Ruth could turn on a Randy Johnson fastball or slider and smack it 500 feet?
If my physicist friends ever succeed in building a time machine, forget going back in time and making millions. I'd bring Babe Ruth to 2008 and see if he could lay wood to a Joel Zumaya fastball.
/s/ JackWESQ >>
Makes no sense. Velocity hasn't changed all that much since Ruth's era. Now, the slider, the splitter, specialized pitching, etc...that's another story. Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove, and Joe Wood threw as hard as the hardest. Plus, let's not forget, Ruth played a large part of his career in the "dead ball" era. As a whole, athletes are better. Ruth is an exception. He would be dominant still.
Not a top 10'er, but should have been mentioned somewhere in the first few pages of this thread. >>
Not even a top 50'er..We'd have to start a new thread for guys like Okoye, William Andrews, Chuck Muncie..Maybe list the top 100 of all-time and you'd eventually come up with Okoye's name...He really only had ONE good season, and for as big as he was, the guy was a wuss..He admittedly did not like being hit, and retired in his prime because he hated practice..His 27 fumbles in 1,246 carries is horrendous...
Jason >>
True...but a little hard. (After least give me he ranks a little over Barry Foster or William Perry). That one good season (1989...and I would give him two) he beat Bo Jackson in his prime with almost 1500 yds.....and the following year, got a knee injury that never quite went away. He never was the same after that. Still he managed to break a 1000 yards in 1991 and earn his second Pro Bowl appearance. In 1992 injuries forced him to share duties with Barry Foster...getting less carries and more of the goal lines...which means less yards and stats which we enjoy so much. After that he was replaced by Marcus Allen and retired as the Chiefs' all-time rushing leader. He did say he did not like being hit but that was a comment from his last season, so I understand it. You play 3-4 years college and then 5 years pro, a couple of that injured and I would not want to get hit either and would be thinking retirement. I completely understand why Okoye and later, Barry Sanders, left when they did.
I will admit being a Chiefs fan and I am bias remembering the many key plays he made. However, I am sure I am not the only one wondering what if he never got that knee injury. I choose to remember the pre-injury Okoye.....which I can do.
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>What is it about team sports that we, as fans, absolutely, unequivocally, without concession, refuse to believe that an athlete's raw ability has NOT improved since 1900, 1950, 1980, even 2000, when every single indication in objectively measurable sports demonstrates that we are stronger, faster, quicker, etc.?
Would anyone here stake their lives or swear on their [ ]'s grave that Running Back X could turn the corner on Ray Lewis, Brian Urlacher, Junior Seau, etc., in their prime? Or that Babe Ruth could turn on a Randy Johnson fastball or slider and smack it 500 feet?
If my physicist friends ever succeed in building a time machine, forget going back in time and making millions. I'd bring Babe Ruth to 2008 and see if he could lay wood to a Joel Zumaya fastball.
/s/ JackWESQ >>
Makes no sense. Velocity hasn't changed all that much since Ruth's era. Now, the slider, the splitter, specialized pitching, etc...that's another story. Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove, and Joe Wood threw as hard as the hardest. Plus, let's not forget, Ruth played a large part of his career in the "dead ball" era. As a whole, athletes are better. Ruth is an exception. He would be dominant still. >>
But the plays, including the times and how often a running back gets the ball and what he does after he gets it is completely different. They use to pretty always, and I do mean always, run right down the middle, through a couple men, who were trying to literally mane them. There was no such thing as west coast offense or even the nickel defense. The Linebacker pretty much stayed where he was and many times, the QB was the kicker. The game today is nothing like the game then.
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
Good ole' Barry, still making the news after all these years...lol...The "all-time greatest RB" that didn't even love playing football..That #1 ranking I will give to Barry...
Ex-Lions coach Ross: Barry Sanders didn't want to be a leader FREE PRESS STAFF AND NEWS SERVICES • June 19, 2008
Former Lions coach Bobby Ross told petoskeynews.com he didn’t think Hall of Fame running back Barry Sanders loved the game of football or wanted to be a leader.
Ross, 71, speaking at Beyond the Scoreboard Champions of Character Awards Dinner Tuesday at the Emmet County Fairgrounds Community Building, praised Sanders’ ability and work ethic on the field, however, "I don’t know if Barry really loved the game, but he worked hard at it," Ross said. "He did what he was supposed to do. I always wanted him to be a leader, but he didn’t really want that role.
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Here is some perspective for everyone...Emmitt Smith had 4409 carries. At 5.2 YPC (Browns lifetime average)...he would have rushed for 22,927 yards...Any questions? >>
So by this logic, Browns teammate (Mitchell) would have rushed for 23,367. He must have been better than Brown I don't believe that to be true, but again it's an indicator that maybe Cleveland exceled as a team and maybe Brown benefitted more from that than people want to recognize. Maybe they just had such an innovative coach, a great line and potent weapons that it was easier to run there. If Mitchell were given the opportunities that Brown had been given, would we be talking about him instead?
Let's analyze this situation. Wes Welker is a good receiver. He was solid with the Fins, but by no means was he being talked about as a possible HOF caliber player. In his first 2 season while playing with the lowly Fins, he totaled 96 receptions, 1,121 yards and 1 touchdown. Put him on the Patriots and all of a sudden he's all-world. 112 receptions, 1,175 yards and 8 touchdowns. Randy Moss returns from retirement (LOL) to put up some of the biggest numbers of his career. Tom Brady bests every major passing statistic he ever had to that point. The whole team benefitted from bringing in better talent. Sure, the Pats were good before but not 16-0 and running over nearly everyone during the regular season.
<< <i>Good ole' Barry, still making the news after all these years...lol...The "all-time greatest RB" that didn't even love playing football..That #1 ranking I will give to Barry...
Ex-Lions coach Ross: Barry Sanders didn't want to be a leader FREE PRESS STAFF AND NEWS SERVICES • June 19, 2008
Former Lions coach Bobby Ross told petoskeynews.com he didn’t think Hall of Fame running back Barry Sanders loved the game of football or wanted to be a leader.
Ross, 71, speaking at Beyond the Scoreboard Champions of Character Awards Dinner Tuesday at the Emmet County Fairgrounds Community Building, praised Sanders’ ability and work ethic on the field, however, "I don’t know if Barry really loved the game, but he worked hard at it," Ross said. "He did what he was supposed to do. I always wanted him to be a leader, but he didn’t really want that role. >>
Again, you apparently know nothing of the guy. Further, of course Ross would try to put something else on Barry. Ross basically made Barry want to quit. The guy constantly trashed him via the media. He (Ross) just figures if he says crap like this, maybe people will start to think he had nothing to do with Barry wanting to retire. Barry played with passion through most of his career. This guy gave it his all for almost every play. This organization kills players. Have you not seen this historically? High-profile guys come here (usually via the draft) and turn into complete and utter crap. Some of their best players (like Shaun Rogers) try hard for so long and the organization doesn't try to help, so they finally quit trying. Rod came in and started tossing tons of players. He said in one interview that too many players here had a losing mentality. Until the Fords sell this team, they will likely continue to fail. The only true bright spot in this organization over the last 50 years has been Barry. When Barry finally started to realize this organization didn't really care if it won, Ross came in and started his barrage of inbred lunacy. Barry finally broke. But as I mentioned, this guy openly balled during his last game on the sidelines. Doesn't sound like a normal response for a guy that didn't care about this game.
<< <i>Here is some perspective for everyone...Emmitt Smith had 4409 carries. At 5.2 YPC (Browns lifetime average)...he would have rushed for 22,927 yards...Any questions? >>
So by this logic, Browns teammate (Mitchell) would have rushed for 23,367. He must have been better than Brown I don't believe that to be true, but again it's an indicator that maybe Cleveland exceled as a team and maybe Brown benefitted more from that than people want to recognize. Maybe they just had such an innovative coach, a great line and potent weapons that it was easier to run there. If Mitchell were given the opportunities that Brown had been given, would we be talking about him instead? >>
This tells me, just as you keep saying "that you know nothing about the 1960's Browns"...Have you ever actually seen or WATCHED the Browns from that era?
Let me school you just a tad here..Jim Brown was a fullback..In those days, the FB was the workhorse. He was the guy who carried the bulk of the load..For the 60's packers (maybe you are more aware of them since they played your Lions more often) Jim Taylor was the FB and Hornung was the HB..HB's were essentially complimentary players and were used much differently than the primary FBs. Mitchell and Brown shared the backfield for exactly 4 seasons 1958-1961. Jim Brown never carried less than 215 times during any of those seasons..Bobby Mitchell never more than 131..Mitchell was used as the swingback/3rd down back and his game was speed on the outside, running sweeps and counters while the defense was keying on Jim Brown.
The moral of the story is ""If Mitchell were given the opportunities that Brown had been given"", he wouldn't have averaged 5.3 yards per carry in his career. When he was traded to Washington, he was moved to be primarity a WR/Flanker. Although he still ran the ball occasionally, the most carries he got in Washington in a season was 61. He was elected to the HOF because of his performance at WR...
The fact that a player has talent around him does not diminish that players own talent. Vice versa, just because Barry Sanders and Walter Payton had weaker supporting casts, that doesn't in any way make them more talented or better than anyone else. Barry and Walter were great in spite of who was around them..Same for Jim Brown and Emmitt Smith..These guys were great who just so happen to have other great players along side them.
Again, anyone who is ranking Barry Sanders above Jim Brown, to me, it would seem simply doesn't have all of the available information to make that determination. I'm not sure how you make it unless you have all the facts.
The other issue that you seem to skirt is..How do you justify ranking Sanders above Walter Payton? Surely if you witnessed much of Barry's career you also witnessed much of Walter's...The argument about weak supporting cast that Sanders had is not valid in that case, so i'd be interested to hear how you validate it.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Here is some perspective for everyone...Emmitt Smith had 4409 carries. At 5.2 YPC (Browns lifetime average)...he would have rushed for 22,927 yards...Any questions? >>
I just love people that say stuff like this. They live in fantasy land.
"If he did this or he did that. Only if he played more seasons, if he was on a different team" bla bla bla..........
The facts are the facts and history is history. There is no changing that.
If this HAS NOT been overlooked, then I apologize in advance. But I think something, perhaps A LOT of things, has to be said for durability. As fans, we typically pay attention to the "big stars" who play for years and years and years. But I recall the average "life" of a NFL running back is literally a couple of years.
Sure Emmitt had 4409 carries. It's easy to look at that raw figure. But maybe we should view it as Emmitt being able to last long enough to carry the ball 4409 times. Now, I'm not saying that Emmitt is the greatest, but FOUR THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND NINE CARRIES is a lot.
FOOTBALL, perhaps more so than in any other sport, does one single player NOT MAKE THE DIFFERENCE betweening winning and losing. But with, at least, 22 players contributing to a win or loss, the difference between a great running back and a good running back may be negligence. That said, you'll always have your transcendental players (usually quarterbacks). Given that, I'd rather have a good running back for 15-20 years as opposed to a great running back for a couple of years.
It's similar to the Warren Spahn v. Sandy Koufax argument. Great for a couple of years or really good for a twenty plus years. I'd take Spahn.
<< <i>This tells me, just as you keep saying "that you know nothing about the 1960's Browns"...Have you ever actually seen or WATCHED the Browns from that era?
Let me school you just a tad here..Jim Brown was a fullback..In those days, the FB was the workhorse. He was the guy who carried the bulk of the load..For the 60's packers (maybe you are more aware of them since they played your Lions more often) Jim Taylor was the FB and Hornung was the HB..HB's were essentially complimentary players and were used much differently than the primary FBs. Mitchell and Brown shared the backfield for exactly 4 seasons 1958-1961. Jim Brown never carried less than 215 times during any of those seasons..Bobby Mitchell never more than 131..Mitchell was used as the swingback/3rd down back and his game was speed on the outside, running sweeps and counters while the defense was keying on Jim Brown.
The moral of the story is ""If Mitchell were given the opportunities that Brown had been given"", he wouldn't have averaged 5.3 yards per carry in his career. When he was traded to Washington, he was moved to be primarity a WR/Flanker. Although he still ran the ball occasionally, the most carries he got in Washington in a season was 61. He was elected to the HOF because of his performance at WR...
The fact that a player has talent around him does not diminish that players own talent. Vice versa, just because Barry Sanders and Walter Payton had weaker supporting casts, that doesn't in any way make them more talented or better than anyone else. Barry and Walter were great in spite of who was around them..Same for Jim Brown and Emmitt Smith..These guys were great who just so happen to have other great players along side them.
Again, anyone who is ranking Barry Sanders above Jim Brown, to me, it would seem simply doesn't have all of the available information to make that determination. I'm not sure how you make it unless you have all the facts.
The other issue that you seem to skirt is..How do you justify ranking Sanders above Walter Payton? Surely if you witnessed much of Barry's career you also witnessed much of Walter's...The argument about weak supporting cast that Sanders had is not valid in that case, so i'd be interested to hear how you validate it.
Jason >>
I don't recall ever saying I know nothing of the Browns. I've read my share of books and crap on the net, and I've seen quite a lot of video. I don't pretend to know everything about them, but I'm aware of how football was played back then. I said I didn't believe Mitchell was as good as Brown. But nobody can say for sure if he would have had the same success or not if he got more of the load.
I also never said a player having talent around him diminished his own talent. It can, however, magnify it. If a team cannot focus on one to two guys on a big possesion, it's more difficult to stop them. If a team has 4 options that are all comfortable and capable with making big plays on third down, a defense has it's hands full. So for the guy who has more talent around him, it's likely he's going to always be facing a double team or blitzers.
As for ranking players, I have not done so. I never said Barry was better than anyone. I only pointed out that you apparently have lots of misconceptions about his career. You've bought into all of that media hyped crap that comes out now and again when having this particular discussion. For every lost yardage run he had, I can show you 10 where he gained. That's about the norm for most backs. It just has been blown out of proportion because he is all the all-time leader for lost yardage, so everybody thinks he spent half of his career running the wrong way.
<< <i> I only pointed out that you apparently have lots of misconceptions about his career. You've bought into all of that media hyped crap that comes out now and again when having this particular discussion. For every lost yardage run he had, I can show you 10 where he gained. That's about the norm for most backs. It just has been blown out of proportion because he is all the all-time leader for lost yardage, so everybody thinks he spent half of his career running the wrong way. >>
Again, your blowing things a little out of proportion...He is the all-time lost yardage leader because he spent more time in the backfield looking for holes than any other RB I've ever watched...And it wasn't always because there was no hole, it's because he was looking to hit a home run everytime..If yo uwatched him as you say you did, you must have seen this as well...For every person you say UNDERRATES Sanders, there is someone else who OVERRATES him...
I have no misconceptions about Barry. I rank him at the 3rd greatest RB of all-time..Behind Jim Brown, behind Walter Payton, ahead of everyone else. He isn't #1 on my list because of the particular holes in his game that I have pointed out during this thread, but he is #3 because of the amazing open field runner that he was. There are pros and cons to ALL of these RBs. It's simply a matter of balancing the pros VS. the cons and seeing how the stack up based on each of our opinions. When I add it all up, IMO Barry wasn't as good as Brown or Payton...If you think otherwise, you are entitled to that. I haven't tried to change your mind, simply pointing out WHY I think he is 3rd and not 1st..
The fact that many others (media, players, coaches) feel the same as I do simply validates my argument. Same goes for you, there are plenty of Detroit fans out there who feel the same.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>I still say it should be broken down by Era if not Decade. I understand the HOF committee or whoever has the "Modern" as after '46 but I 100% disagree with that. >>
Decades are too close/relatively the same in a 10 year period..The smallest blocks I would think would be say 25 years...Maybe do the best RB from 1925-1950, then 1950-1975, and 1975-2000..
Mine:
1925-1950--Steve Van Buren, Bronko Nagurski, Marion Motley 1950-1975--Jim Brown, OJ Simpson, Gale Sayers 1975-2000--Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith
Jason >>
This will do it for me every time! My thoughts exactly, but again just shows you hard it is to even pick just one guy being the best of 25 years let alone the greatest of all time. There are so many variables to the game that each of these running backs mentioned in this entire thread is right up there and better in some category than others.
Durability-Emmitt Smith Astro turf runner-Barry Sanders Grind it out in the mud-Jim Brown Versatility-Gayle Sayers Need a yard for a first down-Earl Cambell
<< <i>Durability-Emmitt Smith Astro turf runner-Barry Sanders Grind it out in the mud-Jim Brown Versatility-Gayle Sayers Need a yard for a first down-Earl Cambell
>>
I would have to put Jim Brown instead of Emmitt under durability..Jim Brown NEVER MISSED A GAME, even with his bruising style..I'd give Emmitt longevity though...
Would also put Jimmy Brown under the "need a yard for first down" as well..He RARELY if ever got stopped for a loss when he was running up the middle/short yardage...I would make Earl Campbell the top "most likely to injury a member of the defense" RB..lol
Most versatile i would give to Marshall Faulk..IMO, the greatest run AND catch RB of all-time..He was an All-Pro quality WR when he split out..
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I gave the versatility to Sayers because he was an excellent return man, Faulk was indeed one of the best but was complimented by the greatest show on turf, when that show started to break down Faulk was not nearly effective- maybe because of his age/knee issues but still.
<< <i>I gave the versatility to Sayers because he was an excellent return man, Faulk was indeed one of the best but was complimented by the greatest show on turf, when that show started to break down Faulk was not nearly effective- maybe because of his age/knee issues but still. >>
Faulk was great with the Colts in the pre-Manning days as well...He was the greatest show on turf..lol
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Comments
<< <i>Still waiting for someone to log a vote for Barry that isn't from or a fan of Detroit... >>
I'm not logging a vote for anybody, because to be honest I have no idea who the best back was. I always enjoyed watching Barry, but I also think Emmitt tends to be unfairly disparaged by NFL fans. Sure, Emmitt had a fantastic team, but he also played a much tougher schedule (year in and year out) then Barry did, so that mitigates at least part of that difference. I also think a lot of that 'Emmitt couldn't break off the big run' talk is overdone as well, since I seem to remember watching him scamper for all kinds of 40+ yard runs in his prime.
Who was the best? I have no idea. But unlike everyone else in this thread I'm willing to flat out admit that there's no effective metric out there for distinguishing between NFL players of similar ability.
<< <i>
<< <i>Still waiting for someone to log a vote for Barry that isn't from or a fan of Detroit... >>
Who was the best? I have no idea. But unlike everyone else in this thread I'm willing to flat out admit that there's no effective metric out there for distinguishing between NFL players of similar ability, which effectively renders this entire thread as nothing more than a fool's errand. >>
Actually I agree with you guy. Too many variables to take into consideration.
I just thought it was funny to use what you said about Emmitt for Barry
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Still waiting for someone to log a vote for Barry that isn't from or a fan of Detroit... >>
Who was the best? I have no idea. But unlike everyone else in this thread I'm willing to flat out admit that there's no effective metric out there for distinguishing between NFL players of similar ability, which effectively renders this entire thread as nothing more than a fool's errand. >>
Actually I agree with you guy. Too many variables to take into consideration.
I just thought it was funny to use what you said about Emmitt for Barry
It's a fair point. Nobody who isn't from Detroit, or a Detroit fan, has come in on Barry's side, so that's probably somewhat telling... Although I think the bottom line is that Barry and Emmitt were both exceptional backs, and any talent disparity between them was probably negligible. Payton and Brown were 'probably' better than both of them, but again-- unless you can control for all the relevant variables it's silly to advance a position.
<< <i>Still waiting for someone to log a vote for Barry that isn't from or a fan of Detroit... >>
Still waiting for someone to show why the Detroit Lions, the worst franchise in sports, were able to make the playoffs regularly in the 90s without giving an overwhelming amount of credit to Sanders. You can point to a few 100 catch seasons or one Pro Bowl lineman all you want -- similar to the talent the Lions have had this decade. But in the NFL management is what ultimately decides the direction a team will take. And during the 90s that team was able to overcome the worst management possible because of one player
He had one big playoff game (at home) and they still lost..He went 27-169..In his other 5 playoff games (4 of the 5 were losses) he rushed for 217 TOTAL yards on 64 carries..That comes out to 3.4 YPC...
Emmitt scored 21 playoff TDs in 395 touches. That's 5.31% and that is FACT
Barry ran for over 70 yards ONCE in 6 games..Emmitt ran for over 70 yards 14 times in 17 playoff games...Not only did he win 3 Super Bowls, but was a Super Bowl MVP going 30-132 and 2 TDs.
If you are looking for the guy with the biggest overall YPC of the 2 its Barry, no doubt..His long runs more than made up for his negative yardage runs..Emmitt wasn't the highlight reel guy, but slow and steady wins the race sometimes...
Lets relate it to baseball and it really boils down to this...You either value the .330, 20 HR, 100 RBI, 20 steals guy who walks more than he strikes out and is a catalyst for a teams offense more..(Emmitt Smith)
OR
You value the Home Run hitter, batting .265 with 45 HRs and 200 K's...(Barry Sanders)
There's nothing WRONG with favoring either of these type players..To each his own...As home run hitters go, Barry was one of, if not the best...But his HRs never came in the 9th inning or in a playoff game...While Emmitt batted .400 in his playoff games and was the spark to a team that won THREE championships in 4 years...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Still waiting for someone to show why the Detroit Lions, the worst franchise in sports, were able to make the playoffs regularly in the 90s.............................
...............And during the 90s that team was able to overcome the worst management possible because of one player >>
Teams are measured by championships and Barry's teams never got one. Also, I don't know of any team that won anything let alone a superbowl championship based on the efforts of one player. Football is a team sport and no matter how many times people say it, Barry didn't do it by himself and he would be the first to tell you that.
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
<< <i>
It's a fair point. Nobody who isn't from Detroit, or a Detroit fan, has come in on Barry's side, so that's probably somewhat telling... Although I think the bottom line is that Barry and Emmitt were both exceptional backs, and any talent disparity between them was probably negligible. Payton and Brown were 'probably' better than both of them, but again-- unless you can control for all the relevant variables it's silly to advance a position. >>
Very well stated, and I agree...These types of debates are fun, and I posted initially based on a recent ESPN article ranking the top 10...The NFL Network runs a Top 10 show every week on a new topic..This week was Top 10 TE's of All-time..John Mackey came in first BTW..In this DEAD ZONE between minicamps and training camp, it's a perfect time to debate the "who's better"..
Like it or not, everyone does it in every sport..Most of the points made by all in this thread are valid points, yet some tend to go over the top as a fan of a particular player and that's understandable as well...
If this debate is hurting anyone's feelings or causing anyone to dislike the game of football then I would advise not to bother reading or posting..It's a fruitless debate as there really is no RIGHT answer but always an interesting play..
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>Still waiting for someone to log a vote for Barry that isn't from or a fan of Detroit... >>
Still waiting for someone to show why the Detroit Lions, the worst franchise in sports, were able to make the playoffs regularly in the 90s without giving an overwhelming amount of credit to Sanders. You can point to a few 100 catch seasons or one Pro Bowl lineman all you want -- similar to the talent the Lions have had this decade. But in the NFL management is what ultimately decides the direction a team will take. And during the 90s that team was able to overcome the worst management possible because of one player >>
If you agree that the market for NFL talent is, on the balance, and efficient one (and I do think this, although obviously opinions will vary), then the notion that one management team is patently worse than another borders on nonsensical.
<< <i>Teams are measured by championships and Barry's teams never got one. >>
Exactly
Charles Haley is not the greatest player in football history simply because he won the most Super Bowls
<< <i>Football is a team sport and no matter how many times people say it, Barry didn't do it by himself and he would be the first to tell you that. >>
Emmitt Smith contributed well over 2% to each of the Cowboys Super Bowl despite having about 50 teammates. Barry Sanders contributed significantly more than that to playoff teams. This is exactly what makes him the best running back ever
<< <i>Sorry to say that of all the backs mentioned, if I'm a coach putting a team together, my LAST choice would be Barry Sanders. >>
and no Steve. I'm not gonna log a vote for Deuce Staley. I could never back a player who used and abused performance enhancing pickle juice.
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
<< <i>
Emmitt Smith contributed well over 2% to each of the Cowboys Super Bowl despite having about 50 teammates. Barry Sanders contributed significantly more than that to playoff teams. This is exactly what makes him the best running back ever >>
In 1991, the Lions best season during Sanders career, they went 12-4 and made the Conference Championship game.
That season the Lions offense totaled 4,788 yards. Barry Sanders was responsible for 1,855 of them or 38.7%.
1992 was arguable the Cowboys best season with Emmitt. They went 13-3 and won the Super Bowl in a blow out.
That season the Cowboys offense totaled 5,606 yards and Emmitt was responsible for 2,048 of them or 36.5%.
Sorry, but the above quoted post is simply a fabrication and yet another Barry exaggeration.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Would anyone here stake their lives or swear on their [ ]'s grave that Running Back X could turn the corner on Ray Lewis, Brian Urlacher, Junior Seau, etc., in their prime? Or that Babe Ruth could turn on a Randy Johnson fastball or slider and smack it 500 feet?
If my physicist friends ever succeed in building a time machine, forget going back in time and making millions. I'd bring Babe Ruth to 2008 and see if he could lay wood to a Joel Zumaya fastball.
/s/ JackWESQ
<< <i>You really believe every single rushing yard is determined solely by the man who carries the ball and no other offensive player on the field helps out in any way? >>
Yeah thats what i think..Come on man..lol
Do you actually think any bum could do what Emmitt did simply because there was talent around him?
You through out the comparison of how much each guy contributed and underscored Smith by saying he contributed "well over 2%" while Barry contributed SO MUCH that it makes him the greatest of all-time.
Question: Did he contribute more than Walter Payton? And did Walter have a better supporting cast on offense?
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Still waiting for someone to log a vote for Barry that isn't from or a fan of Detroit... >>
Who was the best? I have no idea. But unlike everyone else in this thread I'm willing to flat out admit that there's no effective metric out there for distinguishing between NFL players of similar ability, which effectively renders this entire thread as nothing more than a fool's errand. >>
Actually I agree with you guy. Too many variables to take into consideration.
I just thought it was funny to use what you said about Emmitt for Barry
It's a fair point. Nobody who isn't from Detroit, or a Detroit fan, has come in on Barry's side, so that's probably somewhat telling... Although I think the bottom line is that Barry and Emmitt were both exceptional backs, and any talent disparity between them was probably negligible. Payton and Brown were 'probably' better than both of them, but again-- unless you can control for all the relevant variables it's silly to advance a position. >>
I'm not from Detroit nor am I a Lions fan (actually I didn't know there were Lions fans).
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>What is it about team sports that we, as fans, absolutely, unequivocally, without concession, refuse to believe that an athlete's raw ability has NOT improved since 1900, 1950, 1980, even 2000, when every single indication in objectively measurable sports demonstrates that we are stronger, faster, quicker, etc.?
Would anyone here stake their lives or swear on their [ ]'s grave that Running Back X could turn the corner on Ray Lewis, Brian Urlacher, Junior Seau, etc., in their prime? Or that Babe Ruth could turn on a Randy Johnson fastball or slider and smack it 500 feet?
If my physicist friends ever succeed in building a time machine, forget going back in time and making millions. I'd bring Babe Ruth to 2008 and see if he could lay wood to a Joel Zumaya fastball.
/s/ JackWESQ >>
Has anyone here tried to make that point? Who would be the best on the year 2008? On the contrary, I think it is ALL ABOUT what they did against their contemporaries in their own eras that is paramount.
Also, for every they are bigger, stronger, faster NOW argument, there is another side that says the old timers played in an era with low pay, bad medical care, bad playing surfaces, and rules that favored the defense rather than all the help offenses get these days..You have to compare these guys to the other players that also played during their eras. Then you stack up how dominant they were at the time vs. how dominant other players were during THIER time...
To try and put Babe Ruth or Bronko Nagurski to today's game is simply ridiculous. Vice versa for trying to place anyone from 2008 into the 1940's game...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Brown dominated the game like no other player....his contempories will support this. He could run through you or run around you. He had the toughness that could match any player...but also the quickness as well. He had modern day size,speed,and strength 30 years before most other players. He was a man amongst boys.
He led the league in rushing in 57,58,59,60,61,63,64 and 65. The only year he did not lead the league in rushing was in 62...due to injury. The only other runner in his era that was in the top two in rushing more than once was Jim Taylor of Green Bay.
my list
#1 Jim Brown
everyone else
View Vintage Football Cards For Sale
I agree Perk that its difficult to compare early to modern players..it was such a different game...so many fewer games in the early years. I think I would use 1955 as the cut-off year as early/modern.
A few have mentioned Lenny Moore in the top 10...I disagree ..he was never in the top 5 in rushing yards...was a great receiver for Unitas....but I wouldn't put him in the top 10 best ever running backs.
View Vintage Football Cards For Sale
<< <i>
<< <i>Sorry to say that of all the backs mentioned, if I'm a coach putting a team together, my LAST choice would be Barry Sanders. >>
and no Steve. I'm not gonna log a vote for Deuce Staley. I could never back a player who used and abused performance enhancing pickle juice.
LOL
But being able to shout "DUUUUUUUCCCE" has to be worth something, shouldn't it?
<< <i>After reading all of the posts to this thread, it amazes me how any one who has studied the history of the NFL can compile a list of the top running backs in NFL history and not put Jim Brown at the top of the list. Unfortunately, I was not born until 1971, so I never saw him play live, but being an avid NFL pseudo-historian and a Clevelander who has seen NFL films of him since childhood, to me there is no other name to mention at #1.
Brown dominated the game like no other player....his contempories will support this. He could run through you or run around you. He had the toughness that could match any player...but also the quickness as well. He had modern day size,speed,and strength 30 years before most other players. He was a man amongst boys.
He led the league in rushing in 57,58,59,60,61,63,64 and 65. The only year he did not lead the league in rushing was in 62...due to injury. The only other runner in his era that was in the top two in rushing more than once was Jim Taylor of Green Bay.
my list
#1 Jim Brown
everyone else >>
FINALLY more voices of reason...lol
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>I still say it should be broken down by Era if not Decade. I understand the HOF committee or whoever has the "Modern" as after '46 but I 100% disagree with that. >>
Decades are too close/relatively the same in a 10 year period..The smallest blocks I would think would be say 25 years...Maybe do the best RB from 1925-1950, then 1950-1975, and 1975-2000..
Mine:
1925-1950--Steve Van Buren, Bronko Nagurski, Marion Motley
1950-1975--Jim Brown, OJ Simpson, Gale Sayers
1975-2000--Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>I guess 5.2 (Yards Per Carry) really says it all...NO ONE IS CLOSE TO THE GREAT JIM BROWN! >>
Bo Jackson and Barry Sanders averaged 5.4 and 5.0 yards per carry, respectively, for their careers.
/s/ JackWESQ
Marion Motley 5.7 1946-1955
Bo Jackson 5.4 1987-1990
Spec Sanders 5.4 1946-1950
Bobby Mitchell 5.3 1958-1968
Jim Brown 5.2 1957-1965
Chet Mutryn 5.2 1946-1950
Dan Towler 5.2 1950-1955
Johnny Strzykalski 5.2 1946-1952
Mercury Morris 5.1 1969-1976
Charlie Trippi 5.1 1947-1955
Joe Perry 5.0 1948-1963
Gale Sayers 5.0 1965-1971
Barry Sanders 5.0 1989-1998
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Not a top 10'er, but should have been mentioned somewhere in the first few pages of this thread.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>If comparing eras...hard to imagine a more fearsome weapon than Motley...As important as Graham in helping the Browns to 10 Championship games in a row (7 wins)... >>
He was an absolute BEAST...In todays game it would be the equivalent of 300 lb RB with the speed/quickness of Jerome Bettis...lol..Basically add 3-4 inches and about 50 lbs to Bettis in todays game...Motley was the same size of most D-linemen of his day... 6-1, 232 in 1950!!!!!
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Christian Okoye
Not a top 10'er, but should have been mentioned somewhere in the first few pages of this thread. >>
Not even a top 50'er..We'd have to start a new thread for guys like Okoye, William Andrews, Chuck Muncie..Maybe list the top 100 of all-time and you'd eventually come up with Okoye's name...He really only had ONE good season, and for as big as he was, the guy was a wuss..He admittedly did not like being hit, and retired in his prime because he hated practice..His 27 fumbles in 1,246 carries is horrendous...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Granted, Sims gets some pub, thanks to his Heismann trophy and Oklahoma Sooner pedigree, but few ever mention Andrews, one in a long line of successful Auburn backs. I just wanted to throw them each a bone.
<< <i>What is it about team sports that we, as fans, absolutely, unequivocally, without concession, refuse to believe that an athlete's raw ability has NOT improved since 1900, 1950, 1980, even 2000, when every single indication in objectively measurable sports demonstrates that we are stronger, faster, quicker, etc.?
Would anyone here stake their lives or swear on their [ ]'s grave that Running Back X could turn the corner on Ray Lewis, Brian Urlacher, Junior Seau, etc., in their prime? Or that Babe Ruth could turn on a Randy Johnson fastball or slider and smack it 500 feet?
If my physicist friends ever succeed in building a time machine, forget going back in time and making millions. I'd bring Babe Ruth to 2008 and see if he could lay wood to a Joel Zumaya fastball.
/s/ JackWESQ >>
Makes no sense. Velocity hasn't changed all that much since Ruth's era. Now, the slider, the splitter, specialized pitching, etc...that's another story. Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove, and Joe Wood threw as hard as the hardest. Plus, let's not forget, Ruth played a large part of his career in the "dead ball" era. As a whole, athletes are better. Ruth is an exception. He would be dominant still.
<< <i>
<< <i>Christian Okoye
Not a top 10'er, but should have been mentioned somewhere in the first few pages of this thread. >>
Not even a top 50'er..We'd have to start a new thread for guys like Okoye, William Andrews, Chuck Muncie..Maybe list the top 100 of all-time and you'd eventually come up with Okoye's name...He really only had ONE good season, and for as big as he was, the guy was a wuss..He admittedly did not like being hit, and retired in his prime because he hated practice..His 27 fumbles in 1,246 carries is horrendous...
Jason >>
True...but a little hard. (After least give me he ranks a little over Barry Foster or William Perry). That one good season (1989...and I would give him two) he beat Bo Jackson in his prime with almost 1500 yds.....and the following year, got a knee injury that never quite went away. He never was the same after that. Still he managed to break a 1000 yards in 1991 and earn his second Pro Bowl appearance. In 1992 injuries forced him to share duties with Barry Foster...getting less carries and more of the goal lines...which means less yards and stats which we enjoy so much. After that he was replaced by Marcus Allen and retired as the Chiefs' all-time rushing leader. He did say he did not like being hit but that was a comment from his last season, so I understand it. You play 3-4 years college and then 5 years pro, a couple of that injured and I would not want to get hit either and would be thinking retirement. I completely understand why Okoye and later, Barry Sanders, left when they did.
I will admit being a Chiefs fan and I am bias remembering the many key plays he made. However, I am sure I am not the only one wondering what if he never got that knee injury. I choose to remember the pre-injury Okoye.....which I can do.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>
<< <i>What is it about team sports that we, as fans, absolutely, unequivocally, without concession, refuse to believe that an athlete's raw ability has NOT improved since 1900, 1950, 1980, even 2000, when every single indication in objectively measurable sports demonstrates that we are stronger, faster, quicker, etc.?
Would anyone here stake their lives or swear on their [ ]'s grave that Running Back X could turn the corner on Ray Lewis, Brian Urlacher, Junior Seau, etc., in their prime? Or that Babe Ruth could turn on a Randy Johnson fastball or slider and smack it 500 feet?
If my physicist friends ever succeed in building a time machine, forget going back in time and making millions. I'd bring Babe Ruth to 2008 and see if he could lay wood to a Joel Zumaya fastball.
/s/ JackWESQ >>
Makes no sense. Velocity hasn't changed all that much since Ruth's era. Now, the slider, the splitter, specialized pitching, etc...that's another story. Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove, and Joe Wood threw as hard as the hardest. Plus, let's not forget, Ruth played a large part of his career in the "dead ball" era. As a whole, athletes are better. Ruth is an exception. He would be dominant still. >>
But the plays, including the times and how often a running back gets the ball and what he does after he gets it is completely different. They use to pretty always, and I do mean always, run right down the middle, through a couple men, who were trying to literally mane them. There was no such thing as west coast offense or even the nickel defense. The Linebacker pretty much stayed where he was and many times, the QB was the kicker. The game today is nothing like the game then.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
Ex-Lions coach Ross: Barry Sanders didn't want to be a leader
FREE PRESS STAFF AND NEWS SERVICES • June 19, 2008
Former Lions coach Bobby Ross told petoskeynews.com he didn’t think Hall of Fame running back Barry Sanders loved the game of football or wanted to be a leader.
Ross, 71, speaking at Beyond the Scoreboard Champions of Character Awards Dinner Tuesday at the Emmet County Fairgrounds Community Building, praised Sanders’ ability and work ethic on the field, however, "I don’t know if Barry really loved the game, but he worked hard at it," Ross said. "He did what he was supposed to do. I always wanted him to be a leader, but he didn’t really want that role.
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Here is some perspective for everyone...Emmitt Smith had 4409 carries. At 5.2 YPC (Browns lifetime average)...he would have rushed for 22,927 yards...Any questions? >>
So by this logic, Browns teammate (Mitchell) would have rushed for 23,367. He must have been better than Brown
Let's analyze this situation. Wes Welker is a good receiver. He was solid with the Fins, but by no means was he being talked about as a possible HOF caliber player. In his first 2 season while playing with the lowly Fins, he totaled 96 receptions, 1,121 yards and 1 touchdown. Put him on the Patriots and all of a sudden he's all-world. 112 receptions, 1,175 yards and 8 touchdowns. Randy Moss returns from retirement (LOL) to put up some of the biggest numbers of his career. Tom Brady bests every major passing statistic he ever had to that point. The whole team benefitted from bringing in better talent. Sure, the Pats were good before but not 16-0 and running over nearly everyone during the regular season.
<< <i>Good ole' Barry, still making the news after all these years...lol...The "all-time greatest RB" that didn't even love playing football..That #1 ranking I will give to Barry...
Ex-Lions coach Ross: Barry Sanders didn't want to be a leader
FREE PRESS STAFF AND NEWS SERVICES • June 19, 2008
Former Lions coach Bobby Ross told petoskeynews.com he didn’t think Hall of Fame running back Barry Sanders loved the game of football or wanted to be a leader.
Ross, 71, speaking at Beyond the Scoreboard Champions of Character Awards Dinner Tuesday at the Emmet County Fairgrounds Community Building, praised Sanders’ ability and work ethic on the field, however, "I don’t know if Barry really loved the game, but he worked hard at it," Ross said. "He did what he was supposed to do. I always wanted him to be a leader, but he didn’t really want that role. >>
Again, you apparently know nothing of the guy. Further, of course Ross would try to put something else on Barry. Ross basically made Barry want to quit. The guy constantly trashed him via the media. He (Ross) just figures if he says crap like this, maybe people will start to think he had nothing to do with Barry wanting to retire. Barry played with passion through most of his career. This guy gave it his all for almost every play. This organization kills players. Have you not seen this historically? High-profile guys come here (usually via the draft) and turn into complete and utter crap. Some of their best players (like Shaun Rogers) try hard for so long and the organization doesn't try to help, so they finally quit trying. Rod came in and started tossing tons of players. He said in one interview that too many players here had a losing mentality. Until the Fords sell this team, they will likely continue to fail. The only true bright spot in this organization over the last 50 years has been Barry. When Barry finally started to realize this organization didn't really care if it won, Ross came in and started his barrage of inbred lunacy. Barry finally broke. But as I mentioned, this guy openly balled during his last game on the sidelines. Doesn't sound like a normal response for a guy that didn't care about this game.
<< <i>
<< <i>Here is some perspective for everyone...Emmitt Smith had 4409 carries. At 5.2 YPC (Browns lifetime average)...he would have rushed for 22,927 yards...Any questions? >>
So by this logic, Browns teammate (Mitchell) would have rushed for 23,367. He must have been better than Brown
This tells me, just as you keep saying "that you know nothing about the 1960's Browns"...Have you ever actually seen or WATCHED the Browns from that era?
Let me school you just a tad here..Jim Brown was a fullback..In those days, the FB was the workhorse. He was the guy who carried the bulk of the load..For the 60's packers (maybe you are more aware of them since they played your Lions more often) Jim Taylor was the FB and Hornung was the HB..HB's were essentially complimentary players and were used much differently than the primary FBs. Mitchell and Brown shared the backfield for exactly 4 seasons 1958-1961. Jim Brown never carried less than 215 times during any of those seasons..Bobby Mitchell never more than 131..Mitchell was used as the swingback/3rd down back and his game was speed on the outside, running sweeps and counters while the defense was keying on Jim Brown.
The moral of the story is ""If Mitchell were given the opportunities that Brown had been given"", he wouldn't have averaged 5.3 yards per carry in his career. When he was traded to Washington, he was moved to be primarity a WR/Flanker. Although he still ran the ball occasionally, the most carries he got in Washington in a season was 61. He was elected to the HOF because of his performance at WR...
The fact that a player has talent around him does not diminish that players own talent. Vice versa, just because Barry Sanders and Walter Payton had weaker supporting casts, that doesn't in any way make them more talented or better than anyone else. Barry and Walter were great in spite of who was around them..Same for Jim Brown and Emmitt Smith..These guys were great who just so happen to have other great players along side them.
Again, anyone who is ranking Barry Sanders above Jim Brown, to me, it would seem simply doesn't have all of the available information to make that determination. I'm not sure how you make it unless you have all the facts.
The other issue that you seem to skirt is..How do you justify ranking Sanders above Walter Payton? Surely if you witnessed much of Barry's career you also witnessed much of Walter's...The argument about weak supporting cast that Sanders had is not valid in that case, so i'd be interested to hear how you validate it.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Here is some perspective for everyone...Emmitt Smith had 4409 carries. At 5.2 YPC (Browns lifetime average)...he would have rushed for 22,927 yards...Any questions? >>
I just love people that say stuff like this. They live in fantasy land.
"If he did this or he did that. Only if he played more seasons, if he was on a different team" bla bla bla..........
The facts are the facts and history is history. There is no changing that.
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
<< <i>Emmitt Smith had 4409 carries. >>
If this HAS NOT been overlooked, then I apologize in advance. But I think something, perhaps A LOT of things, has to be said for durability. As fans, we typically pay attention to the "big stars" who play for years and years and years. But I recall the average "life" of a NFL running back is literally a couple of years.
Sure Emmitt had 4409 carries. It's easy to look at that raw figure. But maybe we should view it as Emmitt being able to last long enough to carry the ball 4409 times. Now, I'm not saying that Emmitt is the greatest, but FOUR THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND NINE CARRIES is a lot.
FOOTBALL, perhaps more so than in any other sport, does one single player NOT MAKE THE DIFFERENCE betweening winning and losing. But with, at least, 22 players contributing to a win or loss, the difference between a great running back and a good running back may be negligence. That said, you'll always have your transcendental players (usually quarterbacks). Given that, I'd rather have a good running back for 15-20 years as opposed to a great running back for a couple of years.
It's similar to the Warren Spahn v. Sandy Koufax argument. Great for a couple of years or really good for a twenty plus years. I'd take Spahn.
/s/ JackWESQ
<< <i>This tells me, just as you keep saying "that you know nothing about the 1960's Browns"...Have you ever actually seen or WATCHED the Browns from that era?
Let me school you just a tad here..Jim Brown was a fullback..In those days, the FB was the workhorse. He was the guy who carried the bulk of the load..For the 60's packers (maybe you are more aware of them since they played your Lions more often) Jim Taylor was the FB and Hornung was the HB..HB's were essentially complimentary players and were used much differently than the primary FBs. Mitchell and Brown shared the backfield for exactly 4 seasons 1958-1961. Jim Brown never carried less than 215 times during any of those seasons..Bobby Mitchell never more than 131..Mitchell was used as the swingback/3rd down back and his game was speed on the outside, running sweeps and counters while the defense was keying on Jim Brown.
The moral of the story is ""If Mitchell were given the opportunities that Brown had been given"", he wouldn't have averaged 5.3 yards per carry in his career. When he was traded to Washington, he was moved to be primarity a WR/Flanker. Although he still ran the ball occasionally, the most carries he got in Washington in a season was 61. He was elected to the HOF because of his performance at WR...
The fact that a player has talent around him does not diminish that players own talent. Vice versa, just because Barry Sanders and Walter Payton had weaker supporting casts, that doesn't in any way make them more talented or better than anyone else. Barry and Walter were great in spite of who was around them..Same for Jim Brown and Emmitt Smith..These guys were great who just so happen to have other great players along side them.
Again, anyone who is ranking Barry Sanders above Jim Brown, to me, it would seem simply doesn't have all of the available information to make that determination. I'm not sure how you make it unless you have all the facts.
The other issue that you seem to skirt is..How do you justify ranking Sanders above Walter Payton? Surely if you witnessed much of Barry's career you also witnessed much of Walter's...The argument about weak supporting cast that Sanders had is not valid in that case, so i'd be interested to hear how you validate it.
Jason >>
I don't recall ever saying I know nothing of the Browns. I've read my share of books and crap on the net, and I've seen quite a lot of video. I don't pretend to know everything about them, but I'm aware of how football was played back then. I said I didn't believe Mitchell was as good as Brown. But nobody can say for sure if he would have had the same success or not if he got more of the load.
I also never said a player having talent around him diminished his own talent. It can, however, magnify it. If a team cannot focus on one to two guys on a big possesion, it's more difficult to stop them. If a team has 4 options that are all comfortable and capable with making big plays on third down, a defense has it's hands full. So for the guy who has more talent around him, it's likely he's going to always be facing a double team or blitzers.
As for ranking players, I have not done so. I never said Barry was better than anyone. I only pointed out that you apparently have lots of misconceptions about his career. You've bought into all of that media hyped crap that comes out now and again when having this particular discussion. For every lost yardage run he had, I can show you 10 where he gained. That's about the norm for most backs. It just has been blown out of proportion because he is all the all-time leader for lost yardage, so everybody thinks he spent half of his career running the wrong way.
<< <i>
I only pointed out that you apparently have lots of misconceptions about his career. You've bought into all of that media hyped crap that comes out now and again when having this particular discussion. For every lost yardage run he had, I can show you 10 where he gained. That's about the norm for most backs. It just has been blown out of proportion because he is all the all-time leader for lost yardage, so everybody thinks he spent half of his career running the wrong way. >>
Again, your blowing things a little out of proportion...He is the all-time lost yardage leader because he spent more time in the backfield looking for holes than any other RB I've ever watched...And it wasn't always because there was no hole, it's because he was looking to hit a home run everytime..If yo uwatched him as you say you did, you must have seen this as well...For every person you say UNDERRATES Sanders, there is someone else who OVERRATES him...
I have no misconceptions about Barry. I rank him at the 3rd greatest RB of all-time..Behind Jim Brown, behind Walter Payton, ahead of everyone else. He isn't #1 on my list because of the particular holes in his game that I have pointed out during this thread, but he is #3 because of the amazing open field runner that he was. There are pros and cons to ALL of these RBs. It's simply a matter of balancing the pros VS. the cons and seeing how the stack up based on each of our opinions. When I add it all up, IMO Barry wasn't as good as Brown or Payton...If you think otherwise, you are entitled to that. I haven't tried to change your mind, simply pointing out WHY I think he is 3rd and not 1st..
The fact that many others (media, players, coaches) feel the same as I do simply validates my argument. Same goes for you, there are plenty of Detroit fans out there who feel the same.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>I still say it should be broken down by Era if not Decade. I understand the HOF committee or whoever has the "Modern" as after '46 but I 100% disagree with that. >>
Decades are too close/relatively the same in a 10 year period..The smallest blocks I would think would be say 25 years...Maybe do the best RB from 1925-1950, then 1950-1975, and 1975-2000..
Mine:
1925-1950--Steve Van Buren, Bronko Nagurski, Marion Motley
1950-1975--Jim Brown, OJ Simpson, Gale Sayers
1975-2000--Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith
Jason >>
This will do it for me every time! My thoughts exactly, but again just shows you hard it is to even pick just one guy being the best of 25 years let alone the greatest of all time. There are so many variables to the game that each of these running backs mentioned in this entire thread is right up there and better in some category than others.
Astro turf runner-Barry Sanders
Grind it out in the mud-Jim Brown
Versatility-Gayle Sayers
Need a yard for a first down-Earl Cambell
<< <i>Durability-Emmitt Smith
Astro turf runner-Barry Sanders
Grind it out in the mud-Jim Brown
Versatility-Gayle Sayers
Need a yard for a first down-Earl Cambell
I would have to put Jim Brown instead of Emmitt under durability..Jim Brown NEVER MISSED A GAME, even with his bruising style..I'd give Emmitt longevity though...
Would also put Jimmy Brown under the "need a yard for first down" as well..He RARELY if ever got stopped for a loss when he was running up the middle/short yardage...I would make Earl Campbell the top "most likely to injury a member of the defense" RB..lol
Most versatile i would give to Marshall Faulk..IMO, the greatest run AND catch RB of all-time..He was an All-Pro quality WR when he split out..
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>I gave the versatility to Sayers because he was an excellent return man, Faulk was indeed one of the best but was complimented by the greatest show on turf, when that show started to break down Faulk was not nearly effective- maybe because of his age/knee issues but still. >>
Faulk was great with the Colts in the pre-Manning days as well...He was the greatest show on turf..lol
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>We will revisit this thread once L.T is done- he will end up with much better numbers than Faulk... >>
I think that may be true. But I would not be surprised if L.T. ended up ringless, e.g., no Super Bowl victories.
/s/ JackWESQ