Since the OP mentioned only 2 players at their positions, no other positions matter for who is better. Not talking about their teammates, but rather, no other WR or RB or QB or K should be in the mix.
Rice was simply better and more productive at his position than Emmitt was at his.
Pretty easy to answer : Jerry Rice over Smith. Knowing of course how their careers turned out. If I had a choice between them as they left college, I might go with the sure thing in Emmitt. You knew what you were drafting with him. Rice playing at a Division two school and not having the best 40 times at the combine, was sort of an unknown quantity at the time. I doubt many foresaw his HOF potential before he hit the NFL. If these GM's did, they never would have let him drop in the first round. He would've been snapped up with one of the first couple of picks at the least.
If I had one pick for these positions:
QB : Montana
RB : Jim Brown
WR : Jerry Rice
Sorry but Emmitt, as great as he was, wouldn't be a top three RB to me. I'd rather have Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, and possibly O.J. Simpson before Smith. But that's me.
I'm willing to take the losses for gain with Barry Sanders for the huge upside of some amazing runs. He was a homerun hitter. If I wanted to churn out 4 yards, I might go with E. Smith or maybe Earl Campbell.
If I wanted a blitz picked up, I'd have my fullback do that dirty work.
<< <i>Barry Sanders also played with 2 offensive lineman that went to multiple ProBowls so lets not make it sound like the guy ran behind a Pop Warner line >>
I think Emmitt made his OL much much better than they were. Both he and Barry were great backs, but Emmitt had more heart, was better near the goal line, picking up blitzes, catching passes and gaining short yardage insteading of losing yards.
<< <i>To me, I guess the best is defined by how much better you are than the second best player at your position. That seems like the only reasonable definition- otherwise we'd be arguing about kickers, who by almost any measure do quite a bit to help their team win (or lose, if you're Scott Norwood). >>
By that logic, kickers could very well surpass QBs. If Montana is infinitesimally better than Unitas, that means the top player at every other position has distanced himself more and is therefore better. Ray Guy and Steve Tasker must be among the very best football players in history
Which is why the impact on the scoreboard and standings is the only true measure. If you replace the best kicker in the league with someone not even good enough to earn a roster spot, it will make a small difference over 16 games. If you replace a merely average starting QB with a practice squad level QB, it will make a huge difference >>
Fine-- then maybe Ray Guy IS the best football player ever. If the distance between him and the second best punter is greater than the distance between the best player at any other position and the second best player at that position, then yes-- I would go with that.
Also, you're making my point for me. You say "if you replace the best kicker in the league with someone not even good enough to earn a roster spot, it will make a small difference over 16 games. If you replace a merely average starting QB with a practice squad level QB, it will make a huge difference." I agree, and the reason I agree is because the delta between the best kicker and the second best kicker-- or a great kicker and a random kicker-- tends to be very small, which is precisely why kickers usually don't enter this discussion. When we discuss 'the best', what we're usually talking about is the extent to which that player has distinguished himself at his position. When we discuss 'valuable', we're discussing the extent to which the team's chances of future success would be impacted by losing that player's services. These are two different concepts.
Edit to add: I'm assuming that the skills needed to excel at any given position are equally difficult to acquire. That is, it's just as difficult to become a great kicker as it is to become a great quarterback. If this assumption is wrong, and certain positions are, by their very nature, more difficult to excel at than other positions, then my definition of 'best' isn't adequate.
<< <i>the reason I agree is because the delta between the best kicker and the second best kicker-- or a great kicker and a random kicker-- tends to be very small >>
When given a near 100 year history the difference between the best and second best at any position will often seem indistinguishable, otherwise we would all be in complete agreement over who the best quarterback or running back in history was. Ray Guy comes to mind as the only player that is anywhere close to unanimous. But when we start making comparisons with the entire league, including all starters and reserves, that's when the separation starts to grow
Consider someone like Adalius Thomas had a chance to be as good at coverage as Steve Tasker, except both the Ravens and Patriots realized it was in their best interest to play him exclusively at linebacker, even if he cannot approach Lawrence Taylor/Ray Lewis levels
And Jerry Rice was a better dance on Dancing with the Stars. Emmitt surprized me how well the big guy could move still, but all he really did was MC Hammer moves the whole time.
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>the reason I agree is because the delta between the best kicker and the second best kicker-- or a great kicker and a random kicker-- tends to be very small >>
When given a near 100 year history the difference between the best and second best at any position will often seem indistinguishable, otherwise we would all be in complete agreement over who the best quarterback or running back in history was. Ray Guy comes to mind as the only player that is anywhere close to unanimous. But when we start making comparisons with the entire league, including all starters and reserves, that's when the separation starts to grow
Consider someone like Adalius Thomas had a chance to be as good at coverage as Steve Tasker, except both the Ravens and Patriots realized it was in their best interest to play him exclusively at linebacker, even if he cannot approach Lawrence Taylor/Ray Lewis levels >>
Absolutely, Ray Guy is one of them. I think Jerry Rice is probably another, maybe Jim Brown is a third. Deion Sanders might be another.
The problem I have with the idea of best being a function of the extent to which you help your team win is that the notion then immediately becomes biased towards certain positions-- and, moreover, towards certain positions in certain eras-- and that seems unacceptable. Example: Let's just say that Albert Haynesworth is the best player on the Redskins right now. Furthermore, let's say that the NFL will in fact eliminate the three-point stance next year, and that this will greatly decrease the ability of DT's to affect the outcome of the game. Further, let's say that all DT's in the league will be affected equally by this rule. Does this mean that now Albert Haynesworth is suddenly 'not' the best player on the Redskins? The gap between him and the next best DT hasn't changed, and in fact nothing has changed but the rules.
Or, as a thought experiment let's say the NFL was historically played as a two down game instead of a four down game, with teams generally punting if they found themselves in second down. Now punters are on the field, and are the primary agent of action, for almost half of their team's offensive snaps. If the game was constructed in this way, does that mean that Ray Guy could rightfully be considered for title of 'best ever' football player? Nothing about Ray Guy has changed- he hasn't gotten any better. Only the rules have changed in a way that makes his position more crucial.
In the first case, DT's have without question become less valuable. In the second case, punters have become more valuable. But while 'value' must necessarily be biased towards certain positions, the idea of 'best' should not be (IMO).
I know Ray Guy had a great leg, but was he really a great punter? Because there is a difference there. His net yardage isn't that great...you could argue Shane Lechler is on his way to being the best ever. On another post just saw a comparison between Guy and Roby and Landeta...Guy didn't stick out in the comparison.
Edited to add - Rice over Emmitt any day. Like everyone, I would have paid to see Sanders behind that Dallas O-line.
Looking for rare Randy Moss rookies and autos, as well as '97 PMG Red Football cards for my set.
If the three-point stance were banned, we can only guess which DTs tackles will be pushed around a lot more and which will still do an adequate job holding their ground. I agree that even if the DT position offers much less run support overall, it still represents 9% of the defense. Where I disagree is applying these sort of micro-evaluations to an entire 1696 player league or the tens of thousands throughout history
If the difference between Guy and the second best punter is greater than any other position in history, then what happens when Shane Lechler ends up with a career equally great? Does Guy suddenly drop below 40 places in the all-time rankings behind the best ever at every other position?
Very tough to see Sanders being better than Lane or Woodson, let alone with a large difference in greatness
<< <i>I know Ray Guy had a great leg, but was he really a great punter? Because there is a difference there. His net yardage isn't that great...you could argue Shane Lechler is on his way to being the best ever. On another post just saw a comparison between Guy and Roby and Landeta...Guy didn't stick out in the comparison.
Edited to add - Rice over Emmitt any day. Like everyone, I would have paid to see Sanders behind that Dallas O-line. >>
Did you mean this post from me?
For his career Guy punted or was the punter in 207 games and punted 1049 times...his NON-Punting stats:
Rushing- 11 rushes, 43 yards, 0 TDs Passing- 2 for 3, 54 yds, 1 INT, 0 TDs (sacked once for -12 yds)
His punting stats: 1049 punts 42.7 avg 128 Touchbacks (12.2%), 210 times Inside 20 (20.0%) NET average (minus return yards) 35.1
Now, lets compare to say Sean Landeta...All-Decade for the 80's punter...
His punting stats: 1401 punts 43.3 avg 166 touchbacks (11.8%) 381 times Inside 20 (27.2%) NET average (minus return yards) 35.5
Or, how about Reggie Roby, who gets nominated for the HOF every year...
His punting stats: 992 punts 43.3 avg 112 touchbacks (11.3%) 298 times Inside 20 (30.0%) NET average (minus return yards) 36.4
How is Ray Guy better than any of these guys? Roby had the same, if not better, hang time on his booming punts..Both of these guys have better numbers across the board than Guy. This is why he is not in the HOF. The only way a Punter, Special Teamer, Kick returner is ever getting in the HOF is if they are so dominant at the position that they are far and away the greatest of all-time with numbers to prove it. And his 11 rushes and 3 passes over 14 years, I'm sorry those do not sway my opinion.
Nothing other than bad memories and unsubstantiated urban legends say that Ray Guy was the unquestionable greatest Punter ever. He was great, maybe even the best (certainly in the discussion). But he is NOT head and shoulders above all other punters, and not even punters from his own general era as shown above.
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.
Jason (jasp24)...yes, referencing your post on the registry forum. For years Paul Zimmerman on cnnsi threw out multiple arguments against Guy's Hall candidacy as well - I miss reading him. I imagine he would have a huge lovefest for Lechler having arguably the greatest year ever by a punter.
Looking for rare Randy Moss rookies and autos, as well as '97 PMG Red Football cards for my set.
<< <i>Jason (jasp24)...yes, referencing your post on the registry forum. For years Paul Zimmerman on cnnsi threw out multiple arguments against Guy's Hall candidacy as well - I miss reading him. I imagine he would have a huge lovefest for Lechler having arguably the greatest year ever by a punter. >>
Lechler on the stat sheet certainly has to be in the discussion as the greatest ever. IMO, this is another reason why Guy didn't even make the final 15. He's been a finalist, discussed at great length. 2011 is his last year as a modern candidate. Hopefully after he comes off the ballot, the argument will die down and reality will set in. Guy was ONE OF the greatest punters ever, but he does not belong in the HOF. No special teamers do, with the exception of maybe a couple of kickers who scored more points than any other players in history. What's next, greatest longsnapper?
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
Rice was simply better and more productive at his position than Emmitt was at his.
If I had one pick for these positions:
QB : Montana
RB : Jim Brown
WR : Jerry Rice
Sorry but Emmitt, as great as he was, wouldn't be a top three RB to me. I'd rather have Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, and possibly O.J. Simpson before Smith. But that's me.
I'm willing to take the losses for gain with Barry Sanders for the huge upside of some amazing runs. He was a homerun hitter. If I wanted to churn out 4 yards, I might go with E. Smith or maybe Earl Campbell.
If I wanted a blitz picked up, I'd have my fullback do that dirty work.
<< <i>Barry Sanders also played with 2 offensive lineman that went to multiple ProBowls so lets not make it sound like the guy ran behind a Pop Warner line >>
I think Emmitt made his OL much much better than they were. Both he and Barry were great backs, but Emmitt had more heart, was better near the goal line, picking up blitzes, catching passes and gaining short yardage insteading of losing yards.
<< <i>
<< <i>To me, I guess the best is defined by how much better you are than the second best player at your position. That seems like the only reasonable definition- otherwise we'd be arguing about kickers, who by almost any measure do quite a bit to help their team win (or lose, if you're Scott Norwood). >>
By that logic, kickers could very well surpass QBs. If Montana is infinitesimally better than Unitas, that means the top player at every other position has distanced himself more and is therefore better. Ray Guy and Steve Tasker must be among the very best football players in history
Which is why the impact on the scoreboard and standings is the only true measure. If you replace the best kicker in the league with someone not even good enough to earn a roster spot, it will make a small difference over 16 games. If you replace a merely average starting QB with a practice squad level QB, it will make a huge difference >>
Fine-- then maybe Ray Guy IS the best football player ever. If the distance between him and the second best punter is greater than the distance between the best player at any other position and the second best player at that position, then yes-- I would go with that.
Also, you're making my point for me. You say "if you replace the best kicker in the league with someone not even good enough to earn a roster spot, it will make a small difference over 16 games. If you replace a merely average starting QB with a practice squad level QB, it will make a huge difference." I agree, and the reason I agree is because the delta between the best kicker and the second best kicker-- or a great kicker and a random kicker-- tends to be very small, which is precisely why kickers usually don't enter this discussion. When we discuss 'the best', what we're usually talking about is the extent to which that player has distinguished himself at his position. When we discuss 'valuable', we're discussing the extent to which the team's chances of future success would be impacted by losing that player's services. These are two different concepts.
Edit to add: I'm assuming that the skills needed to excel at any given position are equally difficult to acquire. That is, it's just as difficult to become a great kicker as it is to become a great quarterback. If this assumption is wrong, and certain positions are, by their very nature, more difficult to excel at than other positions, then my definition of 'best' isn't adequate.
team close to getting into the playoffs and beyond - ya take Rice
<< <i>the reason I agree is because the delta between the best kicker and the second best kicker-- or a great kicker and a random kicker-- tends to be very small >>
When given a near 100 year history the difference between the best and second best at any position will often seem indistinguishable, otherwise we would all be in complete agreement over who the best quarterback or running back in history was. Ray Guy comes to mind as the only player that is anywhere close to unanimous. But when we start making comparisons with the entire league, including all starters and reserves, that's when the separation starts to grow
Consider someone like Adalius Thomas had a chance to be as good at coverage as Steve Tasker, except both the Ravens and Patriots realized it was in their best interest to play him exclusively at linebacker, even if he cannot approach Lawrence Taylor/Ray Lewis levels
2. Jerry Rice
And Jerry Rice was a better dance on Dancing with the Stars. Emmitt surprized me how well the big guy could move still, but all he really did was MC Hammer moves the whole time.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>
<< <i>the reason I agree is because the delta between the best kicker and the second best kicker-- or a great kicker and a random kicker-- tends to be very small >>
When given a near 100 year history the difference between the best and second best at any position will often seem indistinguishable, otherwise we would all be in complete agreement over who the best quarterback or running back in history was. Ray Guy comes to mind as the only player that is anywhere close to unanimous. But when we start making comparisons with the entire league, including all starters and reserves, that's when the separation starts to grow
Consider someone like Adalius Thomas had a chance to be as good at coverage as Steve Tasker, except both the Ravens and Patriots realized it was in their best interest to play him exclusively at linebacker, even if he cannot approach Lawrence Taylor/Ray Lewis levels >>
Absolutely, Ray Guy is one of them. I think Jerry Rice is probably another, maybe Jim Brown is a third. Deion Sanders might be another.
The problem I have with the idea of best being a function of the extent to which you help your team win is that the notion then immediately becomes biased towards certain positions-- and, moreover, towards certain positions in certain eras-- and that seems unacceptable. Example: Let's just say that Albert Haynesworth is the best player on the Redskins right now. Furthermore, let's say that the NFL will in fact eliminate the three-point stance next year, and that this will greatly decrease the ability of DT's to affect the outcome of the game. Further, let's say that all DT's in the league will be affected equally by this rule. Does this mean that now Albert Haynesworth is suddenly 'not' the best player on the Redskins? The gap between him and the next best DT hasn't changed, and in fact nothing has changed but the rules.
Or, as a thought experiment let's say the NFL was historically played as a two down game instead of a four down game, with teams generally punting if they found themselves in second down. Now punters are on the field, and are the primary agent of action, for almost half of their team's offensive snaps. If the game was constructed in this way, does that mean that Ray Guy could rightfully be considered for title of 'best ever' football player? Nothing about Ray Guy has changed- he hasn't gotten any better. Only the rules have changed in a way that makes his position more crucial.
In the first case, DT's have without question become less valuable. In the second case, punters have become more valuable. But while 'value' must necessarily be biased towards certain positions, the idea of 'best' should not be (IMO).
Edited to add - Rice over Emmitt any day. Like everyone, I would have paid to see Sanders behind that Dallas O-line.
If the difference between Guy and the second best punter is greater than any other position in history, then what happens when Shane Lechler ends up with a career equally great? Does Guy suddenly drop below 40 places in the all-time rankings behind the best ever at every other position?
Very tough to see Sanders being better than Lane or Woodson, let alone with a large difference in greatness
<< <i>I know Ray Guy had a great leg, but was he really a great punter? Because there is a difference there. His net yardage isn't that great...you could argue Shane Lechler is on his way to being the best ever. On another post just saw a comparison between Guy and Roby and Landeta...Guy didn't stick out in the comparison.
Edited to add - Rice over Emmitt any day. Like everyone, I would have paid to see Sanders behind that Dallas O-line. >>
Did you mean this post from me?
For his career Guy punted or was the punter in 207 games and punted 1049 times...his NON-Punting stats:
Rushing- 11 rushes, 43 yards, 0 TDs
Passing- 2 for 3, 54 yds, 1 INT, 0 TDs (sacked once for -12 yds)
His punting stats:
1049 punts
42.7 avg
128 Touchbacks (12.2%),
210 times Inside 20 (20.0%)
NET average (minus return yards) 35.1
Now, lets compare to say Sean Landeta...All-Decade for the 80's punter...
His punting stats:
1401 punts
43.3 avg
166 touchbacks (11.8%)
381 times Inside 20 (27.2%)
NET average (minus return yards) 35.5
Or, how about Reggie Roby, who gets nominated for the HOF every year...
His punting stats:
992 punts
43.3 avg
112 touchbacks (11.3%)
298 times Inside 20 (30.0%)
NET average (minus return yards) 36.4
How is Ray Guy better than any of these guys? Roby had the same, if not better, hang time on his booming punts..Both of these guys have better numbers across the board than Guy. This is why he is not in the HOF. The only way a Punter, Special Teamer, Kick returner is ever getting in the HOF is if they are so dominant at the position that they are far and away the greatest of all-time with numbers to prove it. And his 11 rushes and 3 passes over 14 years, I'm sorry those do not sway my opinion.
Nothing other than bad memories and unsubstantiated urban legends say that Ray Guy was the unquestionable greatest Punter ever. He was great, maybe even the best (certainly in the discussion). But he is NOT head and shoulders above all other punters, and not even punters from his own general era as shown above.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Jason (jasp24)...yes, referencing your post on the registry forum. For years Paul Zimmerman on cnnsi threw out multiple arguments against Guy's Hall candidacy as well - I miss reading him. I imagine he would have a huge lovefest for Lechler having arguably the greatest year ever by a punter. >>
Lechler on the stat sheet certainly has to be in the discussion as the greatest ever. IMO, this is another reason why Guy didn't even make the final 15. He's been a finalist, discussed at great length. 2011 is his last year as a modern candidate. Hopefully after he comes off the ballot, the argument will die down and reality will set in. Guy was ONE OF the greatest punters ever, but he does not belong in the HOF. No special teamers do, with the exception of maybe a couple of kickers who scored more points than any other players in history. What's next, greatest longsnapper?
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.