Barry Sanders - the best RB whose career I saw entirely
halfcentman
Posts: 1,498 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
10 years, each at least 1K yards, 15,269 yards, 5.0 YPC.
Most carries and yardage for losses! (we all know why).
High variance runner.
Made defenders look foolish.
Low key, humble, let his play do the talking, and most importantly:
HANDED THE BALL TO THE REF AFTER TD'S AND ACTED LIKE HE HAD BEEN THERE BEFORE!
----------------------------
I remember someone coming up to me years ago when he was still playing, and said that he was "boring" because he played with little emotion.
My reply was: "Yeah, that's one of the reasons why he is so (expletive) great!"
Most carries and yardage for losses! (we all know why).
High variance runner.
Made defenders look foolish.
Low key, humble, let his play do the talking, and most importantly:
HANDED THE BALL TO THE REF AFTER TD'S AND ACTED LIKE HE HAD BEEN THERE BEFORE!
----------------------------
I remember someone coming up to me years ago when he was still playing, and said that he was "boring" because he played with little emotion.
My reply was: "Yeah, that's one of the reasons why he is so (expletive) great!"
0
Comments
i have little to debate against Barry being the best of all time.
<< <i>SORRY, but until somebody puts up better numbers.......Emmit Smith is the best RB!
Homer call there.
Emmit's supporting cast made things a heckuva lot easier for him. He had holes that a Mack truck could fit through. And before you say it...yeah, I saw almost all the games too.
Emmitt was excellent, but not nearly the best ever. No way.
If he were on the Bills...you wouldn't even be mentioning his name...cause it wouldn't be a homer call.
Bias should be abolished in all rational thinking. Are humans ready for that? LOL.
<< <i>SORRY, but until somebody puts up better numbers.......Emmit Smith is the best RB!
C'mon. Emmitt had *5* seasons where he averaged less than 4 yards per carry, even with that monstrous offensive line. Barry never had even one. Emmitt never topped 1800 yards in a season - Barry did it twice, including one year over 2000. Emmitt topped 5 yards per carry just once in his career. Barry did it for his WHOLE career. The only area where Emmitt was superior was short yardage and that's as much due to bad coaching from the Lions as anything else. When it comes to purely running, Barry was the best of the last 40 years.
Tabe
The debate about Brown is a furious one for sure, but the burning question will always be is how effective would Brown have been against todays monster Defensive players?
Emmitt Smith obviously was blessed with having a great supporting cast around him, far better than Barry Sanders ever had so I say ability wise Sanders edges him out.
<< <i>SORRY, but until somebody puts up better numbers.......Emmit Smith is the best RB!
I like the smiley face at the end of your quote!
Oh, and he averaged 99.8 yards per game.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I cant get the video in here but its worth watching
Played in 12 and 14 game seasons. if all 9 years he played were 16 game seasons, go ahead and add another 25 games or so, which would translate into about another 3000 yards IN STILL ONLY 9 SEASONS! Then, if he woulda played 3-4 more years...
Played with widely split hashmarks, meaning almost all running plays could only go to one side of the field (you dont run pitches/sweeps to the "short side")....defenses knew this, obviously and defended Brown accordingly.
all time leader in yards/carry @ 5.2....Sanders is the only other back to reach 5.0.
only 1 offensive lineman who blocked for Brown has made the HOF (recent addition Gene Hickerson).
I am probably older than most on these boards and I have seen them all 1960 to present, and JB was the best, most dominant player ever at the RB position. He could run through you, he could run around you, or he could run past you....and he never safely ducked out of bounds...
I could go on and on...
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Jim Brown...
Played in 12 and 14 game seasons. if all 9 years he played were 16 game seasons, go ahead and add another 25 games or so, which would translate into about another 3000 yards IN STILL ONLY 9 SEASONS! Then, if he woulda played 3-4 more years...
Played with widely split hashmarks, meaning almost all running plays could only go to one side of the field (you dont run pitches/sweeps to the "short side")....defenses knew this, obviously and defended Brown accordingly.
all time leader in yards/carry @ 5.2....Sanders is the only other back to reach 5.0.
only 1 offensive lineman who blocked for Brown has made the HOF (recent addition Gene Hickerson).
I am probably older than most on these boards and I have seen them all 1960 to present, and JB was the best, most dominant player ever at the RB position. He could run through you, he could run around you, or he could run past you....and he never safely ducked out of bounds...
I could go on and on... >>
I respect what your saying and agree he was the most dominant player in his own era, but the fact of the matter is Jim Brown would not and could not barrel over todays mammoth defensive players like he did in the 50's and 60's, sure he would be a productive back in todays game but do you honestly think he would do the same against todays players? I think Barry Sanders would have done better in Jim Browns day in comparison to what Jim Brown would do in todays game.
Not to get too off topic but Bronko Nagurski was just as dominant of a player in his day as Brown was and again I would say Nagurski would fair about the same as Brown would- productive but not as good overall as Sanders. Its the style of play that gives Sanders the edge.
<< <i>I respect what your saying and agree he was the most dominant player in his own era >>
I agree 100% Paul .There are so many variables to consider when comparing players from different eras that it makes no sense to do so. Brown played in a different time with weaker competition. I don't know the percentage of white players to african american players back then but it's safe to assume that teams were mostly composed of slower white guys. Brown being a superior athlete made it look like he was super-human against inferior talent. I myself am white so before any thin-skinned member here starts crying about race, think about it. On the whole, if white players are faster and more athletic than african americans would NFL teams mostly be composed of african american players? Sure there are exceptions but not enough to make a difference.
These type of threads always make me laugh. If Emmitt played here or Barry played there. Emmitt had runways to run through on every down and never made anybody miss LOL! Barry never had one hole to run through his entire career and was unstoppable
Fact is, everyone can "what if" this debate to death but it's not going to change anything.
Here's a really good Emmitt/Barry link:
link
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
<< <i>only 1 offensive lineman who blocked for Brown has made the HOF (recent addition Gene Hickerson). >>
HOF offensive linemen for Emmitt Smith and Barry Sanders combined....0.
Sure you can make a case for Lomas Brown for Detroit and Larry Allen for Dallas but it hasn't happened yet.
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
<< <i>
<< <i>I respect what your saying and agree he was the most dominant player in his own era >>
I agree 100% Paul .There are so many variables to consider when comparing players from different eras that it makes no sense to do so. Brown played in a different time with weaker competition. I don't know the percentage of white players to african american players back then but it's safe to assume that teams were mostly composed of slower white guys. Brown being a superior athlete made it look like he was super-human against inferior talent. I myself am white so before any thin-skinned member here starts crying about race, think about it. On the whole, if white players are faster and more athletic than african americans would NFL teams mostly be composed of african american players? Sure there are exceptions but not enough to make a difference.
These type of threads always make me laugh. If Emmitt played here or Barry played there. Emmitt had runways to run through on every down and never made anybody miss LOL! Barry never had one hole to run through his entire career and was unstoppable
Fact is, everyone can "what if" this debate to death but it's not going to change anything.
Here's a really good Emmitt/Barry link:
link >>
First things first. HI MATT!!!
And secondly, I completely agree with everything you say, I am white as well and without question African Americans are in a wide margin are more athletic as a whole in comparison.
Guys -Matt ( Lawnmowerman ) is the BIGGEST Emmitt Smith fan on the planet, you cant get a more "REAL" answer for the debate.
<< <i>
First things first. HI MATT!!!
And secondly, I completely agree with everything you say, I am white as well and without question African Americans are in a wide margin are more athletic as a whole in comparison.
Guys -Matt ( Lawnmowerman ) is the BIGGEST Emmitt Smith fan on the planet, you cant get a more "REAL" answer for the debate. >>
Hi Paul!
I gotta say I loved Barry Sanders. I was saddened to see him walk away. He was a highlight reel waiting to happen each time he touched the ball. Most electrifying rb ever to play.
On the other hand, Emmitt was a more complete rb. He could do things Barry couldn't do as well like short yardage or blocking. He could break a long one at any time or he could get the short yardage on the goal line.
Loved them both but they were different in regards to playing style.
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
But that does not take away from Emmit's great running ability. He was a tremendous down hill "scoring" runner. The first defender never got him and he didn't run around like a chicken with his head cut off like Sanders. If teams would have defensed Sanders correctly he wouldn't have put up the numbers he did. STAY HOME.....don't swarm to him so when he reverses........guess what......there's somebody there.
Here is a list of runners besides Emmit that I would rather have than Sanders.
No paticular order:
Marcus Allen
Walter Payton
Gale Sayers
Earl Cambell
Jim Brown
John Riggins
I know I am leaving some out ...... these are just the ones that come to mind. You can have sanders. He should be in those "most over rated" threads.
<< <i>One thing is for sure: Dexter Bussey was better than Robert Newhouse. >>
Bussey was cool - he came to a Pack meeting for my Cub Scout Pack one time and talked, signed autographs, etc. Nice guy.
Tabe
BTW I would take Sanders over Smith
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
I will give credit where credit is do...no matter who they play for. Barry Sanders is just NOT the best RB.
Everybody on my previous list is better plus O.J. and probably some left out.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
Dave
<< <i>I think you could debate forever about who was better, Smith or Sanders, so I have no problem either way. As long as we don't start that "Rafael Septien was a better kicker than Benny Ricardo" nonsense, all's cool with me. >>
LOL Tom!
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
<< <i>You guys crack me up. If Smith wasn't a Cowboy you would be singing his praises! I just don't understand...he ran for power and was hard to stop and has the record for total yards and rushing touchdowns and 3 Super Bowl rings and I think a SB MVP.. >>
So why such a low yds/attempt throughout his career?
Tabe
<< <i>All I can say about Rafael Septien is that it was an automatic 3 points.......45 yds and in. >>
Well of course he was . . . he had a better long snapper and holder than Ricardo ever did. Everything Ricardo did, he had to do on his own.
Emmitt's accomplishments you list were accomplished from the recipe of part him, and part teammates. The fact that he had great teammates gave him a huge advantage to accomplish those things you list...an advanatage other runners simply did not have.
His O-line as a unit was much better than almost all those running backs, and far better than Saners.
You can downplay that as much as you want, and downplay your bias as much as you want...fact is, they are still present.
Tough one for me on the debate between Smith/Sanders. Both are among the best of all time, but had different styles. I think Sanders was a better "runner" but I would take Smith to play on my team.
All Pro defensive lineman Merlin Olson was asked similar question. Jim Brown vs OJ Simpson. He said he was hit so hard by Brown once his entire side went numb, when speaking on Simpson said he had him cornered and lined up and when he went to tackle him he was just GONE.
As someone pointed out JB would have been better now as well with the advances in training and nutrition. He gets my vote for best of all time, but I am old and stupid.
Joe
/ end thread
<< <i>Imma gonna let you finish but Earl Campbell was the greatest of all time.
/ end thread
That's also a tough one to argue against. Earl was the Sebastian Janikowski of running backs (although Earl was not Polish).
Walter Payton, Emmitt, Tomlinson, Brown, Sanders, and OJ did most of these exceptionally well. But one was the best in my opinion.
Walter Payton. I grew up a Packer fan and he could beat us single handed every game. He could do it all, remember he through for 8 TD's in his career. I remember so many huge blocks he would put on a DB or LB. Or when he would run through a guy. Brown did the well too.
I have Payton #1 because that is who I saw.
<< <i>If Jim Brown was on an NFL roster today, I doubt he'd get more than 800 yards in a full season. But, he is in his 70's, so I will cut him some slack. >>
Ah yes, a football variation on Ty Cobb's joke
Tabe
<< <i>I understand people have different opinions which are influenced by what they see in their lifetime. I certainly don't want to insult you bunch of nutjobs but saying Sanders or Smith is even comparable to Brown is like saying Jerry Falwell was a greater religious influence than Jesus Christ.
BTW I would take Sanders over Smith >>
I love how you "Old Timers" tend to be stubborn in their beliefs, I also find it quite humorous that you refer to us as nutjobs yet you truly believe that Jim Brown ( Who was bigger than the majority of the lineman in his day) Would just smash through players like Suh, Wilfork, Urlacher, Willis ( To name a few) and just tear apart modern day defenses
<< <i>
<< <i>I understand people have different opinions which are influenced by what they see in their lifetime. I certainly don't want to insult you bunch of nutjobs but saying Sanders or Smith is even comparable to Brown is like saying Jerry Falwell was a greater religious influence than Jesus Christ.
BTW I would take Sanders over Smith >>
I love how you "Old Timers" tend to be stubborn in their beliefs, I also find it quite humorous that you refer to us as nutjobs yet you truly believe that Jim Brown ( Who was bigger than the majority of the lineman in his day) Would just smash through players like Suh, Wilfork, Urlacher, Willis ( To name a few) and just tear apart modern day defenses
"Old Timer" eh? Well, see here whippersnapper....
You do have a point. I suppose Jim Brown will be the greatest ever in my world even if a new guy comes along and smashes all rushing records, dragging tacklers down the field.
BTW Sanders and Smith didn't face these defenders either. And if Jim Brown played today he would be the dominate running back in the game.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I understand people have different opinions which are influenced by what they see in their lifetime. I certainly don't want to insult you bunch of nutjobs but saying Sanders or Smith is even comparable to Brown is like saying Jerry Falwell was a greater religious influence than Jesus Christ.
BTW I would take Sanders over Smith >>
I love how you "Old Timers" tend to be stubborn in their beliefs, I also find it quite humorous that you refer to us as nutjobs yet you truly believe that Jim Brown ( Who was bigger than the majority of the lineman in his day) Would just smash through players like Suh, Wilfork, Urlacher, Willis ( To name a few) and just tear apart modern day defenses
"Old Timer" eh? Well, see here whippersnapper....
You do have a point. I suppose Jim Brown will be the greatest ever in my world even if a new guy comes along and smashes all rushing records, dragging tacklers down the field.
BTW Sanders and Smith didn't face these defenders either. And if Jim Brown played today he would be the dominate running back in the game. >>
"Whippersnapper" Hehehe touche my friend-all in good humor
Sanders and Smith didnt face the defenders I mentioned but comparable players though, my point being is that they were MUCH smaller than the lineman and Linebackers unlike Brown, and please understand Im not saying Brown could NOT play in todays game as I Know he could Im just not believing he would do the same thing as he did in his day.
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
<< <i>Jahvid Best > Barry Sanders
The silly notion that Emmitts line made him better is ridiculous! Emmitt made THEM better.
Barry was the Most spectacular to watch back ever! But he couldn't move the chains on short yardage and often was not even in the game in those crucial situations.
He was unable to carry a team in crunch time. Unlike Emmitt who made all the plays in crunch time. Emmitt was also a far superior Blocker and reciever.
By far a more complete back. The Cowboys are like the Yankees. Very hated by those that are not fans and I think that factors in with many non-Cowboy fans not giving Emmitt his due. People forget that the Cowboys lost 15 games in 1989. The arrival of Emmitt Smith in 1990 was what turned the tables for the Cowboys. Emmitts timely game winning runs is what made the Cowboys belive they could win. Great backs make teams great and none were greater than Emmitts Impact on that Team. The Cowboys don't win three championships with Barry Sanders sitting on the sidelines on third and short and third and Goal.
Top five:
Jim Brown
Gale Sayers
OJ Simpson
Earl Campbell
Emmitt Smith
<< <i>Jahvid Best > Barry Sanders
You funny Matt. When Best broke the 88 yarder, my wife (who I didn't even think knew who Barry Sanders was) said "wow that guy's fast, he looks like Barry Sanders". I didn't have the heart to tell her that Barry would have been caught from behind on that play.
<< <i>Emmitt Smith was the heart and soul of that Cowboy team. His determination to win was unmatched.
The silly notion that Emmitts line made him better is ridiculous! Emmitt made THEM better.
Barry was the Most spectacular to watch back ever! But he couldn't move the chains on short yardage and often was not even in the game in those crucial situations.
He was unable to carry a team in crunch time. Unlike Emmitt who made all the plays in crunch time. Emmitt was also a far superior Blocker and reciever.
By far a more complete back. The Cowboys are like the Yankees. Very hated by those that are not fans and I think that factors in with many non-Cowboy fans not giving Emmitt his due. People forget that the Cowboys lost 15 games in 1989. The arrival of Emmitt Smith in 1990 was what turned the tables for the Cowboys. Emmitts timely game winning runs is what made the Cowboys belive they could win. Great backs make teams great and none were greater than Emmitts Impact on that Team. The Cowboys don't win three championships with Barry Sanders sitting on the sidelines on third and short and third and Goal.
Top five:
Jim Brown
Gale Sayers
OJ Simpson
Earl Campbell
Emmitt Smith >>
With all due respect, you and others have said a similar thing about Troy Aikman and his impact on the Cowboys. The above can't be true of both of them, now can it?
As for third and short...you make too big a deal about that. That is mostly a coaching error. Also, that is why teams employ short yardage backs. It is an extremely minimal point. The key point is that yes, that line, and supporting cast forcing the defenses to protect the other facets of the game, did have a huge impact on Emmitt's production. I'd like to see Emmitt win Superbowls, and exceed in crunch time as you say it, if his team had a weak passing game and he had to run against defenses geared just to stop him.
He wouldn't. And when they didn't have it. He didn't win anything!
I also laugh at you giving him the credit for the super bowls. He never won one without a top flight defense either. So stop acting as if he gets the credit, and Sanders the blame, when their supporting casts were different in monumental proportions.
Here is my argument for Barry Sanders over Emmitt Smith: If the Cowboys come to the line for first and ten at the 20 with Harper and Irvin split out to the sides, Jay Novacek at tight end, and Aikman, Moose, and Emmitt in the backfield, where do you key your defense? You can't stack the line, because Michael Irvin and Alvin Harper are both gamebreakers. For several years, Novacek was one of the top tight ends in football, so you have to account for him as well. Moose is good for 40-50 catches out of the backfield, so you can't ignore him either. And Aikman is a HOF quarterback too. And the line is full of studs. So Emmitt quite often is running against defenses that are spread out. Also, the Dallas defense is shutting down opponents, so the Cowboys are rarely in a situation in which they have to throw.
Sanders in the same situation, gets a very different scenario. The line is mediocre at best, aside from Lomas Brown. The quarterback changes from year to year, if not from game to game. At various points the Lions have a few decent receivers (Moore, Morton, Perriman), but none of these guys would start over the duo of Irvin and Harper. And the Lions defense is mediocre to average, so they are frequently playing from behind. Defenses stack the box against Detroit and dare them to run. And they still run, because they have no other weapons. All they have is Barry. One would think that his average per carry would be much lower using that logic. Nope. Just the opposite. His average per carry is almost a yard per carry better than Emmitt Smith. And as a receiver, his average is over two yards per reception better.
This is taking nothing away from Emmitt Smith. He was a durable, talented back. But he had a huge advantage over Barry Sanders and yet got outperformed. Had Sanders not retired and played as long as Emmitt, is there any doubt that Sanders would be the #1 all-time rusher? Smith is only 3086 yards ahead of Sanders, yet played FIVE more years and got 1347 MORE carries than Sanders. If Barry got those 1347 carries, he would only have to average 2.3 yards per carry to be #1. This is the equivalent of having Jim Thome play another eight years and then when he is ahead of Babe Ruth claiming that Thome is a better home run hitter than Ruth because he has more home runs. Put Emmitt Smith on the Lions and Barry Sanders on the Cowboys. Do you really think Emmitt Smith would have taken the Lions to the Super Bowl and still be the #1 guy?