I didn't have the heart to tell her that Barry would have been caught from behind on that play. >>
Most likely true Tom. Except of course if the Lions were playing Bucs. Barry only needed one shoe and a floppy sock to beat them. >>
You remember that? You're older than I thought Matt! I think orange just naturally makes you slower. >>
Yep. I remember that like yesterday. Don't recall the exact yardage but I'm pretty sure it was over 50 yards. I can still see the sock flapping as he ran lol.
Living in the Tampa / Saint Petersburg area, I have always been stuck with watching the Bucs on tv. Not so much over the past few seasons though. The games have been blacked out due to not selling out.
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!
LOL, let me guess, you're a Cowboy fan, aren't you?
Are you saying that a great running back can make his lineman up front become better blockers? Are you serious?
Anyone who understands football knows it all starts up front. If your offensive line is a liability, you're not going to be able to effectively run the ball no matter who is in the backfield. Same goes for throwing the ball downfield. If you allow the opposing defensive line to control the line of scrimmage, you don't win football games. Period.
Emmitt Smith was a terrific back, one of the best ever, but I bet even he will tell you that a large part of his success was due to the men up front that cleared the way for him. And playing on one of the best teams of the era certainly didn't hurt, either. Let's not get carried away with all the hyperbole and keep this in perspective.
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>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?
Silly me, I forgot the ridiculous lengths some are always willing to go to in order to try and discredit Emmitt's greatness. DUH?? Yes a team can have more the one impact player. Aikman and Irvin were major impacts on that cowboy team. But it all started and flowed with that running game and Emmitts ability and desire to move the chains at all cost. see below in your comments where you Flip/Flop and try to use the "Impact" of the supporting cast against Emmitt. "So it can't be true of both of them, now can it?" WINK. What planet are you living on?
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.
MININAL POINT? Did you say MINIMAL POINT??? The game of pro Football IS won on 3rd and short! Championships are WON on 3rd and short! Barring a Blowout, I can't thing of a single game ever played in the whole history of AFL/NFL that was not determined at some point by 3rd and short. Barry may have rode the sidelines in favor of a"Short Yardage back", Emmitt was on the field and more likely than not moved the chains to finish teams off. Minimal Point? Its a game of inches
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.
OK, OK Even after the absolutely cooky things youve said, your starting to float into the famous "What if" fantasy world as most do in their last ditch effort to discredit Emmitts greatness. Yes it does help to have other "IMPACT" Players (see above where you are now flip/flopping on that issue). I also guarantee that EVERY defensive scheme was geared up and focus on stopping that Cowboy running game first and foremost. And once in the Playoffs those were the BEST defenses in the league"
He wouldn't. And when they didn't have it. He didn't win anything!
I believe he became the NFL ALL-TIME RUSHING LEADER when the team was in decline. As well DANCING WITH THE STARS CHAMPION. what else ya got?
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.[/q
Again, What planet are you living on? Absoultely the Cowboys had Defense. But do the Cowboys move on in the playoffs without that Memorable and perhaps greatest ever performance against the Giants? Emmitt willed that team to victory with a true grit and guts showing that Ive never seen since. If you think Emmitt Smith was not KEY in those playoff runs to get to those Super Bowls, then you sir are simply not very knowledgable.
Why people try to go out of their way to discredit Emmitt and his greatness is beyond me. I think it has alot to do with him being a Cowboy. And people love to hate the Cowboys. One thing is for certain. You'll never have to resort to the "What if" when making a pitch for Emmitt. Only a fool blinded by hate and contempt can deny Emmitt's decade of dominance and record shattering career as one of the single greatest works ever performed on the gridiron. He was a winner and he made those around him winners.
SO...... Without floating out into the "What if" fairy Tale land. Post me a more acomplished Back in the last 30 years....... I didn't think so..... CASE CLOSED
<< <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!
LOL, let me guess, you're a Cowboy fan, aren't you? Im a football fan, Are you a Cowboy hater?
Are you saying that a great running back can make his lineman up front become better blockers? Are you serious?
Absoultely!! Are you kidding me? Newton credited Emmitt for instilling the winning attitude in them and the confidence that they could WIN, Especially in 1990 after that 1-15 season. Emmitt did give give them the credit due. Anyone who knows football understands that the truely great players offten made those around them better players. Unitas had it. Charlie Waters once said that they had so much confidence Roger Staubach that they truely believed they could always win. No matter what the score or situation. Joe Montana had it, Ask Harris Barton, That rare ablity and leadership that made those around you play many times beyond their means. I believe Emmitt had that effect as well.
Anyone who understands football knows it all starts up front. If your offensive line is a liability, you're not going to be able to effectively run the ball no matter who is in the backfield. Same goes for throwing the ball downfield. If you allow the opposing defensive line to control the line of scrimmage, you don't win football games. Period.
Emmitt Smith was a terrific back, one of the best ever, but I bet even he will tell you that a large part of his success was due to the men up front that cleared the way for him. And playing on one of the best teams of the era certainly didn't hurt, either. Let's not get carried away with all the hyperbole and keep this in perspective. >>
<< <i>Emmitt was an exceptional back. But do you Cowboys fans really believe that you would not have been a great team if you had Barry Sanders, Thurman Thomas, Marcus Allen, or Ricky Watters instead of Emmitt? The Cowboys were so loaded that they would not have missed a beat.
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? >>
Can you produce a back with a more accomplished career in the last 30 years without Spinning a bunch of "What if" propaganda?.......... Thats what I thought.
No "what if" propaganda needed. Here are the numbers as they actually DID occur.
Average Yards Per Carry/Per Reception Average Yards Per Season Rushing/From Scrimmage Sanders 5.0 / 8.3 1526.9 / 1819.0 Smith 4.2 / 6.3 1223.7 / 1438.6
And for the argument that Smith's averages are brought down by the last few years he played, here are the same numbers for Emmitt's ten BEST seasons against Barry's ENTIRE career.
Average Yards Per Carry/Per Reception Average Yards Per Season Rushing/From Scrimmage Sanders 5.0 / 8.3 1526.9 / 1819.0 Smith 4.3 / 6.9 1422.9 / 1680.8
How about their five best seasons each?
Average Yards Per Carry/ Per Reception Average Yards Per Season Rushing/From Scrimmage Sanders 5.5 / 9.9 1707.4 / 2012.2 Smith 4.6 / 7.7 1603.8 / 1948.4
By the way, the 1603.8 / 1948.4 were from 1991-1995, when Emmitt was in his prime with the Cowboys when they were the dominant team in the NFL winning three Super Bowls. Just using those same five seasons (1991-1995), Sanders still managed to lead the NFL in rushing yards per game twice during Emmitt's peak five years. Emmitt's best year in rushing yardage (1773 in 1995) would be Barry's third best season.
So where does Emmitt have an advantage? He has more touchdowns by far (he played for the Cowboys, he should), he has more overall lifetime yards (he played five extra seasons), and he has three Super Bowl rings (again, Cowboys). I rate Emmitt as one of the all-time best. I just rate Barry a notch above.
Bigreddog may be the ultimate homer on these boards, yikes.
I'm not bringing what if's into play...simply pointing out WHY he was able to accomplish those things. Have you ever tried to run the ball with a stiff blocking in front of you?? Not a what if...but a common sense observation.
You are giving him the credit for winning the super bowls, and barry the negative credit. Teams win super bowls, not an individual player. When emmit no longer had all that in place, he never won a super bowl either. So you are very sorely misleading.
You called emmit the heart and soul leader of the team...but you also said the same thing about the qb being that. That can't both be true. So when you say that about TWO people on the team, it just proves my point that teams win titles, not individuals. As a result, anytime you bring the number of championships into your argument on who was better, you look foolish.
IF you don't understand the impact of teammates in winning, and the impact of teammates in individual accomplishments in football. How about you and I play a football game against each other...only I get to pick both of our teammates. Then we will see who has more yards and more wins. TO make it real, we put 10k on the game....THEN you will understand what I am talking about, because the homerism will hit your wallet instead of just your brain.
Oh, and that argument about Jim Brown... how many HOF wide receivers and quarterbacks played with the Cleveland Browns in Jim Brown's years? A young Paul Warfield was there at the end of it. The whole offense was built around Jim Brown and every opponent built their entire defense to stop him. Passing wasn't as wide open as it is now. He averaged 104.3 yards per game rushing. If we give him an Emmitt Smith length career (226 games) that amounts to over 23,500 yards rushing. Again, no comparison...
<< <i>Oh, and that argument about Jim Brown... how many HOF wide receivers and quarterbacks played with the Cleveland Browns in Jim Brown's years? A young Paul Warfield was there at the end of it. The whole offense was built around Jim Brown and every opponent built their entire defense to stop him. Passing wasn't as wide open as it is now. He averaged 104.3 yards per game rushing. If we give him an Emmitt Smith length career (226 games) that amounts to over 23,500 yards rushing. Again, no comparison... >>
I was with you up until this.
Im not going to repost everything Ive already said but if you read it please come up with a valid argument on how Jim Brown would just smash through Modern era defenses.
<< <i>But it all started and flowed with that running game and Emmitts ability and desire to move the chains at all cost. >>
Actually, no. Every running game starts and flows through the O-Line.
You can continue typing "CASE CLOSED" until your fingers fall off but that doesn't mean that's the case. It may be a closed case from your perspective but to a majority of people that really understand how the game works, not so much.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
How many gifts did Emmitt give his O-Lineman during his career? I know one time he bought them Rolex watches, ask Emmitt how valuable his line was to him
I doubt that Jim Brown would put up the same kinds of numbers, but to think that he wouldn't still be a Hall of Fame calibre back is incorrect. He was an amazing athlete. He went against the best of that era. He also didn't have the type of training and nutrition available to him that the current backs have. Nor did he have the ability to play in such an offensive era. Backs weren't doing what he did. He had Babe Ruth/Wayne Gretzky type numbers. In 1958, he rushed for 1527 yards. The #2 and #3 backs rushed for 1549 yards combined. In 1963, he gained 1863 yards rushing, while the #2 and #3 guys combined for 1859. He was 6'2" and weighed 232 pounds and could run past you or through you. Honestly, I would say he was Adrian Peterson with a bit more bulk. Or maybe a bigger version of Emmitt Smith. Would he be AS dominant? No, of course not. But would he be one of the best backs in the NFL? Absolutely.
<< <i>I doubt that Jim Brown would put up the same kinds of numbers, but to think that he wouldn't still be a Hall of Fame calibre back is incorrect. He was an amazing athlete. He went against the best of that era. He also didn't have the type of training and nutrition available to him that the current backs have. Nor did he have the ability to play in such an offensive era. Backs weren't doing what he did. He had Babe Ruth/Wayne Gretzky type numbers. In 1958, he rushed for 1527 yards. The #2 and #3 backs rushed for 1549 yards combined. In 1963, he gained 1863 yards rushing, while the #2 and #3 guys combined for 1859. He was 6'2" and weighed 232 pounds and could run past you or through you. Honestly, I would say he was Adrian Peterson with a bit more bulk. Or maybe a bigger version of Emmitt Smith. Would he be AS dominant? No, of course not. But would he be one of the best backs in the NFL? Absolutely. >>
Very fair response, I certainly wont argue any of your points.
As for our Cowboy homer...I don't think anybody would argue with you if you said the Cowboys of the 90's were better than the Lions of the 90's. So your notion of Cowboy anti-bias gets thrown out the window right there.
I also don't think anybody would argue with you if you said every single starting player for the Cowboys were better than every single Lions starting player in the 90's...again, no anti Cowboy bias.
But logic and performance preclude most people from agreeing with you that Emmitt was better than Sanders, especially since most of your arguments simply ignore the benefits that Smith had with his teammates, that NO other running back from that era even closely had...let alone Sander's case where he didn't have it remotely as easy.
If you and I had a race on the beach, and you had to run in the sand, while I got to run on the bike path...and I won every time, and then I walked around saying how fast I was and better I was than you...I think you would cite the advantages I had over you, and rightfully so.
When you ignore them in Emmitt's case it just simply smacks of bias.
<< <i>If you and I had a race on the beach, and you had to run in the sand, while I got to run on the bike path...and I won every time, and then I walked around saying how fast I was and better I was than you...I think you would cite the advantages I had over you, and rightfully so. >>
That's way too logical.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
The only this "closed" here is bigreddog's mind when it comes to analyzing football. I love the way he uses the bold face font and all caps to emphasize his points, too, LOL...
And no matter how big your man crush on Smith is, one player does not magically make his offensive linemen better blockers or more adept at opening up holes for Smith to run through. It is a proven fact that Dallas had one of the best and most talented offensive lines in the NFL. They were that good with or without Smith running the rock behind him. It is absurd to believe otherwise. Did Smith's talents complement the talent up front. Yes, certainly. But this isn't basketball where one player can make others around him better. If injuries decimated the O-line in Dallas, you can be sure that Smith would not have been as productive no matter how much you believe he could elevate by apparent osmosis the skill level of those players around him. That kind of hyperbole belongs in an NFL film by Steve Sabol with the sweat dripping down off the facemask and the music crescendoing in the background, LOL..
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.
The title on the thread - the best RB whose career I saw entirely.
My answer would be Barry Sanders too. All things considered. The talent level on the Lions teams he was on doesn't compare to the Cowboys teams. Emmitt as great as he was was very fortunate to land on the Cowboys. Had he played in Detroit his entire career he'd be at 13,000 yards or around 10th overall in NFL history, with a lower yards per carry average, many less TD's, and without a Super Bowl ring. Let's be honest here.
I started watching pro football in 1970.
My top six would be:
Barry Sanders great for 10 seasons, in the top 3 for just about every year he played. OJ Simpson the best RB for five full seasons Walter Payton the best for a couple of seasons, but top five for nearly his entire career. Really only his last season was a dud. Emmitt Smith 10 great years, five weaker years, 3 Super Bowl wins Eric Dickerson dominant his first 4-5 years Earl Campbell ditto
The key word in the thread title is 'best'. OJ had the best individual season ever in 1973 in my opinion. Joe Ferguson was a rookie QB who threw 4 TD's that year. The Bills had no passing game at all. But they had a pretty good young OL and Simpson was just entering his peak years. He averaged 143 yards per game even though the defense knew he was getting the ball. By way, the AFC runner up in rushing that year was HOF'er Larry Csonka who rushed for exactly 1000 yards LESS than OJ did.
To me Jim Brown stands alone as the best RB ever, although I never saw him play a game. I've only seen footage and of course read about his career in many Football books and magazines. It's best to compare same era's. The reason Jim Brown's the best is when you look at his yearly numbers and compare them to the next best running back. Jim Brown blows them away. There's no other runner who's as dominant during his era of playing.
Steve Van Buren might be the only RB who comes close to the same domination at the position and era, except he wasn't at the top for as many years as Jim Brown.
I'd say cardbender has summed it up rather well with regard to greatest RBs of all-time with different measuring gauges..
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 understand what you guys are saying about the O-line. Dallas had probably the best one ever through those years that Emmit had so much success. But isn't the opening in the line just the start of the run? If you watched Smith run you know how good he was at making people miss and his yards after contact was great.
Like cardholder said it's hard to compare runners from different eras. Brown put up huge numbers and played fewer games in a season. Plus he retired to act when he could still play.
That's the problem with career records. I will just say at this point in time Emmit Smith holds the record for total yards rushing and TD's or what ever records he has. And 3 SB rings and a SB MVP.
All of the backs mentioned in this thread were great running backs. And out of all of them Barry Sanders is my least favorite. He didn't know the shortest distance between two points!
And I still say if you defensed him right.....he wouldn't have got the numbers he did.
Hi guys! Its me Homer! Just wanted to drop by and thank all the board experts for everything Ive be learning here!
Ive learned that Everything starts with the O-Line and that with out that, No back can truely have any real success.
So if this be the gosspel, how on Earth did Barry Sanders win four rushing titles and such with a sorry bunch of loser's and no talent people around him as most all Sanders followers always claim?
* How did this oh soooo woeful team manage to make 5 playoff apperances and win two NFC Central division Titles?
* How did this absolutely talentless team in 1991 post a 12-4 record(Best in Team History) win the NFC Central and then clobber Emmitts Cowboys(92 SB Team) 38-6 in the playoffs? (Looks like Saberman would have lost his 10K banking on his little sandlot theory here)
* How did Barry and the NO-TALENT Lions make 4 more playoff apperances (93, 94, 95, 97) including another division title in 1993?
* How did this shameful team of losers make the 90's one of the most successful decades in Lions history?
Granted Barry was no Emmitt and the Lions were No Cowboys, but the Lions were not quite the Talentless oafs you all like to make them out to be in Barry's Defense.
My Theory? Oh boy, this is going to get really messy! Can't wait for the new names ya come up with for me.
Sanders "Helter Skeelter" running style made it hard to block for him. IF he got into your secondary you had a BIG PROBLEM. He was the best open field runner Ive seen since Gale Sayers. But more often than not his "one step forward / two steps back" approach trying to break the big run was often more of a liablity to the team. Never more so than on crucial 3 and short situations. It is also the reason he lost more yards than any back in NFL hisory (Over 1,100). Fun to Watch, but I don't believe that style of running could ever power a chamionship team simply because it was to inconsistant. Without the Big Run, he was easily contained and shut down by most playoff defenses. I prefer North/South down hill runners for my team.
As if you guys haven't already figured it out, I believe Barry Sanders is the most Over rated Back on the ALL-Time Rushing list. YUP I said it.
Ive learned a few cool things here that I did not know:
* An Offsensive Line can help you win (Hmmm)
* That the Barry/Emmitt debate could be easily solved by some middle aged men in a playground game? who'd a thought? (Hope I get Homer on my Team)
And A few things a simple Homer Like me already knew.
* Barry sanders is no Emmit Smith
* Going into Barry World with The All-Time Rushing King would be hostile.
The Emmitt/Barry debate will always be and thats what makes Football great. Its been fun sparring with you guys.
When I get a bit more time I'll most likely get your blood boiling with my next Lesson: Why Barry Sanders is NO Thurman Thomas! Oh boy! Now I've done it.
Take care guys! Best wishes to you and your families!
Its all good John. It is all in good fun. Detroit wasn't as horrific as they were over the past decade, but they were no comparison to the Cowboys. Yes, they beat them in 1991. That was the first time in the playoffs for the Cowboys in that era. The Lions didn't do that again.
Ive learned that Everything starts with the O-Line
Finally, you're talking sense now..
Edit to add: But please, take off those star-shaped glasses will ya? It will make understanding these basic concepts so much easier..
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.
All the Backs mentioned here are obviously the greatest in the history of the game. Some good spirited ribbing is always fun. Everybody has their personel favorites.
I Love the Cowboys and their rich history. Roger Staubach was my childhood Hero. From Bob Lilly, Lee Roy Jordan to Tony Dorsett and "Too Tall" Jones. The Cowboys will always hold a special place in my heart and childhood. So I will continue to wear the "Star shape glasses" Sorry Grote, I gotta defend the "STAR"
Just like Emmitt did when that no class Terrell Owens disrespected it.
HEY! Did I hear someone mention Bo Jackson??? That guy was not even human! Indeed I want a North/South runner like Bo on my Team for sure! Remember when he destroyed "The Boz"? Bo was a special player. to bad the fluke injury robbed us of what could have been.
<< <i>All the Backs mentioned here are obviously the greatest in the history of the game. Some good spirited ribbing is always fun. Everybody has their personel favorites.
I Love the Cowboys and their rich history. Roger Staubach was my childhood Hero. From Bob Lilly, Lee Roy Jordan to Tony Dorsett and "Too Tall" Jones. The Cowboys will always hold a special place in my heart and childhood. So I will continue to wear the "Star shape glasses" Sorry Grote, I gotta defend the "STAR"
Just like Emmitt did when that no class Terrell Owens disrespected it.
HEY! Did I hear someone mention Bo Jackson??? That guy was not even human! Indeed I want a North/South runner like Bo on my Team for sure! Remember when he destroyed "The Boz"? Bo was a special player. to bad the fluke injury robbed us of what could have been.
>>
I grew up admiring the Cowboys and those same players mentioned, Tony Dorsett was my favorite player for years!
Two things to add, you are 100% correct that all backs mentioned are in their own way the "Best" also agreed that Bo could have been right up there with that combo of power and speed.
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>The title on the thread - the best RB whose career I saw entirely.
My answer would be Barry Sanders too. All things considered. The talent level on the Lions teams he was on doesn't compare to the Cowboys teams. Emmitt as great as he was was very fortunate to land on the Cowboys. Had he played in Detroit his entire career he'd be at 13,000 yards or around 10th overall in NFL history, with a lower yards per carry average, many less TD's, and without a Super Bowl ring. Let's be honest here.
I started watching pro football in 1970.
My top six would be:
Barry Sanders great for 10 seasons, in the top 3 for just about every year he played. OJ Simpson the best RB for five full seasons Walter Payton the best for a couple of seasons, but top five for nearly his entire career. Really only his last season was a dud. Emmitt Smith 10 great years, five weaker years, 3 Super Bowl wins Eric Dickerson dominant his first 4-5 years Earl Campbell ditto
The key word in the thread title is 'best'. OJ had the best individual season ever in 1973 in my opinion. Joe Ferguson was a rookie QB who threw 4 TD's that year. The Bills had no passing game at all. But they had a pretty good young OL and Simpson was just entering his peak years. He averaged 143 yards per game even though the defense knew he was getting the ball. By way, the AFC runner up in rushing that year was HOF'er Larry Csonka who rushed for exactly 1000 yards LESS than OJ did.
To me Jim Brown stands alone as the best RB ever, although I never saw him play a game. I've only seen footage and of course read about his career in many Football books and magazines. It's best to compare same era's. The reason Jim Brown's the best is when you look at his yearly numbers and compare them to the next best running back. Jim Brown blows them away. There's no other runner who's as dominant during his era of playing.
Steve Van Buren might be the only RB who comes close to the same domination at the position and era, except he wasn't at the top for as many years as Jim Brown. >>
* That the Barry/Emmitt debate could be easily solved by some middle aged men in a playground game? who'd a thought? (Hope I get Homer on my Team) John (AKA Homer) >>
LOL.
Experiencing unmerited inequities first hand is usually the most effective way to understand them
How much proof do you have that Barry lost his yards on third and short, rather than third and 8 while trying to make something out of nothing?
A coaching staff that chose not to use him on third and short is not proof...because I saw him do well often in those instances...and near the goal line, when given the ball there.
Looking at one yard touchdown runs, here is what Sanders did.
1989-1992 (4yrs), Sanders had 11 one yard touchdown runs. Their offense as a whole was average, ranking 19,5,9,and 19 in points scored those years.
1993-1998 (6 yrs), Sanders had 1 one yard touchdown run. That isn't because he got bad...but rather a coaching decision to go with the short yardage specialist.
Compare that to Emmitt Smith.
1990-1993 (4yrs), Emmit had 12 one yard touchdown runs. Their offense was moderate-elite ranking 26,7,2, and 2 in points scored those years.
1994-1995 (2yrs), Emmitt had 14 one yard touchdown runs. Their offense was elite ranking 2 and 3 in points scored. They were FEEDING Emmitt TD's those years!
1996-2004 (9 yrs), Emmitt had 20 one yard touchdown runs. Their offense was a mixed bag those years.
Look at Sanders first four years, compared to Emmitt's. THey were about identical in the number of goal line touchdowns. Looking at each of their team's offense, I highly doubt that Detroit was at the goal line more than Dallas was...so most likely, they probably had very similar opportunites.
But, Barry got the rug pulled from under him. He simply was not even given the opportunity anymore. While Emmitt's next two years, the Dallas offense was at it's highest point...and he was given tons of opportunities...and obviously converted them(with help from the line too).
Butt Emmit's next 9 years without the elite offense, he was scoring goal line touchdowns at a rate that was worse than Sanders when Sanders was actually given the ball on the goal line.
So two things come out of this.
1) Barry most likely really wasn't as bad at the goal line than he is perceived to be
2) Anyone that brings up Emmitt's total number of touchdowns is ignoring the fact that his team's overall offense is a GREAT reason why he got those. Looking above, when that offense was no longer great, neither were emmitt's touchdowns!
So for guys that use Touchdowns as a measure of making Emmitt better than Barry...that has no merit.
<< <i>How bad really was Sanders on the goal line?
Looking at one yard touchdown runs, here is what Sanders did.
1989-1992 (4yrs), Sanders had 11 one yard touchdown runs. Their offense as a whole was average, ranking 19,5,9,and 19 in points scored those years.
1993-1998 (6 yrs), Sanders had 1 one yard touchdown run. That isn't because he got bad...but rather a coaching decision to go with the short yardage specialist.
Compare that to Emmitt Smith.
1990-1993 (4yrs), Emmit had 12 one yard touchdown runs. Their offense was moderate-elite ranking 26,7,2, and 2 in points scored those years.
1994-1995 (2yrs), Emmitt had 14 one yard touchdown runs. Their offense was elite ranking 2 and 3 in points scored. They were FEEDING Emmitt TD's those years!
1996-2004 (9 yrs), Emmitt had 20 one yard touchdown runs. Their offense was a mixed bag those years.
Look at Sanders first four years, compared to Emmitt's. THey were about identical in the number of goal line touchdowns. Looking at each of their team's offense, I highly doubt that Detroit was at the goal line more than Dallas was...so most likely, they probably had very similar opportunites.
But, Barry got the rug pulled from under him. He simply was not even given the opportunity anymore. While Emmitt's next two years, the Dallas offense was at it's highest point...and he was given tons of opportunities...and obviously converted them(with help from the line too).
Butt Emmit's next 9 years without the elite offense, he was scoring goal line touchdowns at a rate that was worse than Sanders when Sanders was actually given the ball on the goal line.
So two things come out of this.
1) Barry most likely really wasn't as bad at the goal line than he is perceived to be
2) Anyone that brings up Emmitt's total number of touchdowns is ignoring the fact that his team's overall offense is a GREAT reason why he got those. Looking above, when that offense was no longer great, neither were emmitt's touchdowns!
So for guys that use Touchdowns as a measure of making Emmitt better than Barry...that has no merit. >>
Interesting, but for this to be considered valid evidence that the two were roughly comparable in short yardage situations I think you need to do two more things:
1) Eliminate the points scored from these TDs from the study. We need to see how good these offenses were when Sanders and Smith didn't get the ball in order to understand how good the offenses were independent of these two backs' efforts.
2) Determine the success rate of the 2nd string backs on each team (Dal. and Det.) and compare those to the success % of the league as a whole.
Personally, I think the whole 'short yardage' argument is without merit. So what, William Perry was a better back than Barry Sanders because his success rate inside the 2 yard line was higher? Or, let's concede that Smith was better at short yardage. So what? That's one aspect of the game, and I'm not even convinced its all that important. Even if Barry Sanders was just terrible in short yardage that isn't particularly damning if you have a bunch of other guys on the team that ARE good with the ball in those spots. Ditto for the 'pass protection' issue. The question isn't 'was Barry worse than Emmit in pass protection'. The question is 'Even if Barry was worse than Emmit in pass protection, does that fully negate the aspects of Barry's game in which he was clearly superior to Emmit'.
It's like saying that J.R. Richard was a better pitcher than Greg Maddux because he had more velocity on his fastball. Well, OK- I think we'll all concede that. But while Richard was certainly better than Maddux in some aspects of pitching, Maddux was one hell of a lot better than Richard in other- and arguably more important-- aspects of pitching. When we compare athletes by compartmentalizing their talents we usually make the mistake of assuming that each of these aspects are equally important, when of course they are not.
For what it's worth, I have no idea if Barry Sanders was a superior back to Emmit Smith. No idea at all. And I say this as someone who has provided unwavering support to the Lions for 25 years. The answer to this question could probably be determined, but I'm sure that anyone looking who insists that Emmit was better because he appeared to be better at some of the secondary duties of a running back is not looking at the whole picture.
I do think that simple study puts the notion to question that Sanders was not an option in short yardage. He actually did fine.
I don't think there is any question that Emmitt was indeed a better short yardage runner...but like you said, that is ONE component, and not necessarily equal to others. Heck, it isn't very hard at all for teams to employ backs who are short yardage specialists. It really isn't THAT hard of a skill for NFL backs....especially with a good O-line.
Not quite so easy to find runners who can churn out 15 yard runs with regularity(especially when the defense knows he is getting the ball).
You are right with the small study, it still does not separate how much the team's offensive line, or overall offense was responsible. Looking at back ups is one way...but their back ups never really played enough to get any kind of meaningful sample. Much like the titles, Emmitt didn't get that number of TD's when his team did not have the surrounding cast making it possible. TO give Emmitt all that credit for those TD's and (laughingly)those titles, is simply unwise and ignorant.
The one thing I want to find is exactly when and where Sanders had his negative yardage runs. People make it out like he routinely turned that Third and one, into Fourth and Four.
Based on what I saw, he had the majority of hs big negative yardage runs when he was in a situation where a small gain would not be of much benefit anyway, so he 'swung for the fences' because losing three yards really wasn't any different than had he gained 1.5.
<< <i>There were also a lot of times where Barry met the ball and a defender at the same time. He did the best he could. >>
In fairness, Barry did have Lomas Brown and Kevin Glover blocking for him, so it's not like the Lions were devoid of talent. It's easy to forget this, since the Lions have sucked so very badly for so very long, but for a while there they had a potent offense and the O-line was a good part of the reason why. They weren't as good as the Cowboys, but they were still a strong team.
To Skin- I agree on all counts, but I think it's hasty to say 'Barry was better than Emmit' until we can make objective measurements on how their relative abilities stacked up against each other, and can properly weight these abilities. Until that time IMO it's most prudent to simply say 'I don't know', because- well, because we don't know. This isn't like the Tim Raines/ Tony Gwynn debate, where anyone who argues that Tony Gwynn was a better player just doesn't get it; it's a debate where not enough meaningful evidence has been compiled for anyone to come to an educated conclusion.
On a parting note, though, I do think it's interesting that Cowboy fans are always quick to point out that Sanders was a liability as a blocker, but those same fans don't say as much when the topic turns to Jim Brown- another man who, to put the matter charitably, was not known for his passion for pass protection.
IF ONLY THEY PLAYED BETTER DEFENSE AGAINST SANDERS?
What about EMMITT ? What if they played better Defense against him? Wouldn't that result in the same thing-LESS YARDS? Please....
Also.....About Bo Jackson...
I still think one of the greatest plays I ever saw (THAT IS WITNESSED) was when Bo Jackson when after a HOME RUN ball and caught it LITERALLY CLIMBING the wall....He ran UP the wall and speared it....! That was just an amazing catch....If I remember right, it was in the All-Star Game.
I still remember Bo Jackson in Spring Training of 1987 in Florida telling a bunch of little kids to "F--- off" when they asked him for an autograph. And the kids weren't being rude either. When Bo went down all I thought was one of those kids just smiling...
<< <i>In fairness, Barry did have Lomas Brown and Kevin Glover blocking for him, so it's not like the Lions were devoid of talent. It's easy to forget this, since the Lions have sucked so very badly for so very long, but for a while there they had a potent offense and the O-line was a good part of the reason why. They weren't as good as the Cowboys, but they were still a strong team. >>
At times, they were very good. In 1990, they were 5th in the league in scoring. In 1991, the best Lions team of the last 40 years, they were 9th. They were using the run 'n' shoot and it was REALLY effective. But they got killed by the Redskins - a really, really, REALLY great Redskins team - and so the Lions changed their offense. Because they were "scoring too fast". They went like 6-10 in 1992.
Often forgotten is that Barry had to deal with terrible coaching for much of his career. Wayne Fontes was horrible - unable to maintain success and constantly changing things that didn't need changing. Not "fixing" Scott Mitchell after 1995 - when the Lions had a ridiculously good offense but bombed in the playoffs - was a big drawback. Bobby Ross was an improvement but not by too much.
The Lions during Barry's tenure were often mediocre, sometimes good (1995), sometimes VERY good (1991) and never terrible. There were no 2008-esque teams when Barry was around.
So, yeah, it's unfair to characterize things as if it were a one-man show when Barry was around. It wasn't.
at this point it would be hard for me to leave Adrian Peterson off of a best running backs of all time list . I feel like he is just like Bo Jackson but has stayed healthier longer. the guy would be an animal in any era. John
<< <i>at this point it would be hard for me to leave Adrian Peterson off of a best running backs of all time list . I feel like he is just like Bo Jackson but has stayed healthier longer. the guy would be an animal in any era. John >>
He runs quite similar to Bo. I mentioned him earlier in the thread and this year could be a huge year for Adrian. The Vikings have (seemingly) improved their receivers and this might open things up for Mr. Peterson.
If he can stay healthy, I think he has a shot at being regarded as the best of all time.
Joe
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Just watched the Barry Sanders "A Football Life" on NFL Network last night. Great show about the stars of the NFL. Check it out if you haven't already.
<< <i>Thanks, but you guys didn't have to remind me how great the team was that Emmit played on. It was the BEST NFL team EVER and since.
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. >>
No one has mentioned Tony Dorsett - he was quite the tailback and inducted in the HOF in 1994.
Enthusiastic collector of British pre-decimal and Canadian decimal circulation coins.
Good call Marty! Dorsett has more rushing yards than all of those guys on that list but Walter Payton.
Granted, all had different lengths of careers so using rushing yards as the sole determining factor isn't valid but Dorsett should be on there somewhere.
Prime vs. prime- Jim Brown all day. Barry #2, Emmitt #3, Payton #4, OJ #5. And if Sweetness had a better supporting cast, he'd be #2 or 3 on that list. jmho
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>Jahvid Best > Barry Sanders
I didn't have the heart to tell her that Barry would have been caught from behind on that play. >>
Most likely true Tom. Except of course if the Lions were playing Bucs. Barry only needed one shoe and a floppy sock to beat them.
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Jahvid Best > Barry Sanders
I didn't have the heart to tell her that Barry would have been caught from behind on that play. >>
Most likely true Tom. Except of course if the Lions were playing Bucs. Barry only needed one shoe and a floppy sock to beat them. >>
You remember that? You're older than I thought Matt! I think orange just naturally makes you slower.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Jahvid Best > Barry Sanders
I didn't have the heart to tell her that Barry would have been caught from behind on that play. >>
Most likely true Tom. Except of course if the Lions were playing Bucs. Barry only needed one shoe and a floppy sock to beat them. >>
You remember that? You're older than I thought Matt! I think orange just naturally makes you slower. >>
Yep. I remember that like yesterday. Don't recall the exact yardage but I'm pretty sure it was over 50 yards. I can still see the sock flapping as he ran lol.
Living in the Tampa / Saint Petersburg area, I have always been stuck with watching the Bucs on tv. Not so much over the past few seasons though. The games have been blacked out due to not selling out.
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
The silly notion that Emmitts line made him better is ridiculous! Emmitt made THEM better.
Barry was the Most spectacular to watch back ever!
LOL, let me guess, you're a Cowboy fan, aren't you?
Are you saying that a great running back can make his lineman up front become better blockers? Are you serious?
Anyone who understands football knows it all starts up front. If your offensive line is a liability, you're not going to be able to effectively run the ball no matter who is in the backfield. Same goes for throwing the ball downfield. If you allow the opposing defensive line to control the line of scrimmage, you don't win football games. Period.
Emmitt Smith was a terrific back, one of the best ever, but I bet even he will tell you that a large part of his success was due to the men up front that cleared the way for him. And playing on one of the best teams of the era certainly didn't hurt, either. Let's not get carried away with all the hyperbole and keep this in perspective.
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.
246 yards in the first half in a bowl game as a freshman.
<< <i>
<< <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?
Silly me, I forgot the ridiculous lengths some are always willing to go to in order to try and discredit Emmitt's greatness. DUH?? Yes a team can have more the one impact player. Aikman and Irvin were major impacts on that cowboy team. But it all started and flowed with that running game and Emmitts ability and desire to move the chains at all cost. see below in your comments where you Flip/Flop and try to use the "Impact" of the supporting cast against Emmitt. "So it can't be true of both of them, now can it?" WINK. What planet are you living on?
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.
MININAL POINT? Did you say MINIMAL POINT??? The game of pro Football IS won on 3rd and short! Championships are WON on 3rd and short! Barring a Blowout, I can't thing of a single game ever played in the whole history of AFL/NFL that was not determined at some point by 3rd and short. Barry may have rode the sidelines in favor of a"Short Yardage back", Emmitt was on the field and more likely than not moved the chains to finish teams off. Minimal Point? Its a game of inches
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.
OK, OK Even after the absolutely cooky things youve said, your starting to float into the famous "What if" fantasy world as most do in their last ditch effort to discredit Emmitts greatness. Yes it does help to have other "IMPACT" Players (see above where you are now flip/flopping on that issue). I also guarantee that EVERY defensive scheme was geared up and focus on stopping that Cowboy running game first and foremost. And once in the Playoffs those were the BEST defenses in the league"
He wouldn't. And when they didn't have it. He didn't win anything!
I believe he became the NFL ALL-TIME RUSHING LEADER when the team was in decline. As well DANCING WITH THE STARS CHAMPION. what else ya got?
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.[/q
Again, What planet are you living on? Absoultely the Cowboys had Defense. But do the Cowboys move on in the playoffs without that Memorable and perhaps greatest ever performance against the Giants? Emmitt willed that team to victory with a true grit and guts showing that Ive never seen since. If you think Emmitt Smith was not KEY in those playoff runs to get to those Super Bowls, then you sir are simply not very knowledgable.
Why people try to go out of their way to discredit Emmitt and his greatness is beyond me. I think it has alot to do with him being a Cowboy. And people love to hate the Cowboys. One thing is for certain. You'll never have to resort to the "What if" when making a pitch for Emmitt. Only a fool blinded by hate and contempt can deny Emmitt's decade of dominance and record shattering career as one of the single greatest works ever performed on the gridiron. He was a winner and he made those around him winners.
SO...... Without floating out into the "What if" fairy Tale land. Post me a more acomplished Back in the last 30 years....... I didn't think so..... CASE CLOSED
<< <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!
LOL, let me guess, you're a Cowboy fan, aren't you?
Im a football fan, Are you a Cowboy hater?
Are you saying that a great running back can make his lineman up front become better blockers? Are you serious?
Absoultely!! Are you kidding me? Newton credited Emmitt for instilling the winning attitude in them and the confidence that they could WIN, Especially in 1990 after that 1-15 season.
Emmitt did give give them the credit due. Anyone who knows football understands that the truely great players offten made those around them better players.
Unitas had it. Charlie Waters once said that they had so much confidence Roger Staubach that they truely believed they could always win. No matter what the score or situation.
Joe Montana had it, Ask Harris Barton, That rare ablity and leadership that made those around you play many times beyond their means. I believe Emmitt had that effect as well.
Anyone who understands football knows it all starts up front. If your offensive line is a liability, you're not going to be able to effectively run the ball no matter who is in the backfield. Same goes for throwing the ball downfield. If you allow the opposing defensive line to control the line of scrimmage, you don't win football games. Period.
Emmitt Smith was a terrific back, one of the best ever, but I bet even he will tell you that a large part of his success was due to the men up front that cleared the way for him. And playing on one of the best teams of the era certainly didn't hurt, either. Let's not get carried away with all the hyperbole and keep this in perspective. >>
<< <i>Emmitt was an exceptional back. But do you Cowboys fans really believe that you would not have been a great team if you had Barry Sanders, Thurman Thomas, Marcus Allen, or Ricky Watters instead of Emmitt? The Cowboys were so loaded that they would not have missed a beat.
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? >>
Can you produce a back with a more accomplished career in the last 30 years without Spinning a bunch of "What if" propaganda?.......... Thats what I thought.
Again CASE CLOSED
Average Yards Per Carry/Per Reception Average Yards Per Season Rushing/From Scrimmage
Sanders 5.0 / 8.3 1526.9 / 1819.0
Smith 4.2 / 6.3 1223.7 / 1438.6
And for the argument that Smith's averages are brought down by the last few years he played, here are the same numbers for Emmitt's ten BEST seasons against Barry's ENTIRE career.
Average Yards Per Carry/Per Reception Average Yards Per Season Rushing/From Scrimmage
Sanders 5.0 / 8.3 1526.9 / 1819.0
Smith 4.3 / 6.9 1422.9 / 1680.8
How about their five best seasons each?
Average Yards Per Carry/ Per Reception Average Yards Per Season Rushing/From Scrimmage
Sanders 5.5 / 9.9 1707.4 / 2012.2
Smith 4.6 / 7.7 1603.8 / 1948.4
By the way, the 1603.8 / 1948.4 were from 1991-1995, when Emmitt was in his prime with the Cowboys when they were the dominant team in the NFL winning three Super Bowls. Just using those same five seasons (1991-1995), Sanders still managed to lead the NFL in rushing yards per game twice during Emmitt's peak five years. Emmitt's best year in rushing yardage (1773 in 1995) would be Barry's third best season.
So where does Emmitt have an advantage? He has more touchdowns by far (he played for the Cowboys, he should), he has more overall lifetime yards (he played five extra seasons), and he has three Super Bowl rings (again, Cowboys). I rate Emmitt as one of the all-time best. I just rate Barry a notch above.
CASE CLOSED
I'm not bringing what if's into play...simply pointing out WHY he was able to accomplish those things. Have you ever tried to run the ball with a stiff blocking in front of you?? Not a what if...but a common sense observation.
You are giving him the credit for winning the super bowls, and barry the negative credit. Teams win super bowls, not an individual player. When emmit no longer had all that in place, he never won a super bowl either. So you are very sorely misleading.
You called emmit the heart and soul leader of the team...but you also said the same thing about the qb being that. That can't both be true. So when you say that about TWO people on the team, it just proves my point that teams win titles, not individuals. As a result, anytime you bring the number of championships into your argument on who was better, you look foolish.
IF you don't understand the impact of teammates in winning, and the impact of teammates in individual accomplishments in football. How about you and I play a football game against each other...only I get to pick both of our teammates. Then we will see who has more yards and more wins. TO make it real, we put 10k on the game....THEN you will understand what I am talking about, because the homerism will hit your wallet instead of just your brain.
<< <i>Oh, and that argument about Jim Brown... how many HOF wide receivers and quarterbacks played with the Cleveland Browns in Jim Brown's years? A young Paul Warfield was there at the end of it. The whole offense was built around Jim Brown and every opponent built their entire defense to stop him. Passing wasn't as wide open as it is now. He averaged 104.3 yards per game rushing. If we give him an Emmitt Smith length career (226 games) that amounts to over 23,500 yards rushing. Again, no comparison... >>
I was with you up until this.
Im not going to repost everything Ive already said but if you read it please come up with a valid argument on how Jim Brown would just smash through Modern era defenses.
<< <i>But it all started and flowed with that running game and Emmitts ability and desire to move the chains at all cost. >>
Actually, no. Every running game starts and flows through the O-Line.
You can continue typing "CASE CLOSED" until your fingers fall off but that doesn't mean that's the case. It may be a closed case from your perspective but to a majority of people that really understand how the game works, not so much.
How many gifts did Emmitt give his O-Lineman during his career? I know one time he bought them Rolex watches, ask Emmitt how valuable his line was to him
<< <i>I doubt that Jim Brown would put up the same kinds of numbers, but to think that he wouldn't still be a Hall of Fame calibre back is incorrect. He was an amazing athlete. He went against the best of that era. He also didn't have the type of training and nutrition available to him that the current backs have. Nor did he have the ability to play in such an offensive era. Backs weren't doing what he did. He had Babe Ruth/Wayne Gretzky type numbers. In 1958, he rushed for 1527 yards. The #2 and #3 backs rushed for 1549 yards combined. In 1963, he gained 1863 yards rushing, while the #2 and #3 guys combined for 1859. He was 6'2" and weighed 232 pounds and could run past you or through you. Honestly, I would say he was Adrian Peterson with a bit more bulk. Or maybe a bigger version of Emmitt Smith. Would he be AS dominant? No, of course not. But would he be one of the best backs in the NFL? Absolutely. >>
Very fair response, I certainly wont argue any of your points.
As for our Cowboy homer...I don't think anybody would argue with you if you said the Cowboys of the 90's were better than the Lions of the 90's. So your notion of Cowboy anti-bias gets thrown out the window right there.
I also don't think anybody would argue with you if you said every single starting player for the Cowboys were better than every single Lions starting player in the 90's...again, no anti Cowboy bias.
But logic and performance preclude most people from agreeing with you that Emmitt was better than Sanders, especially since most of your arguments simply ignore the benefits that Smith had with his teammates, that NO other running back from that era even closely had...let alone Sander's case where he didn't have it remotely as easy.
If you and I had a race on the beach, and you had to run in the sand, while I got to run on the bike path...and I won every time, and then I walked around saying how fast I was and better I was than you...I think you would cite the advantages I had over you, and rightfully so.
When you ignore them in Emmitt's case it just simply smacks of bias.
<< <i>If you and I had a race on the beach, and you had to run in the sand, while I got to run on the bike path...and I won every time, and then I walked around saying how fast I was and better I was than you...I think you would cite the advantages I had over you, and rightfully so. >>
That's way too logical.
And no matter how big your man crush on Smith is, one player does not magically make his offensive linemen better blockers or more adept at opening up holes for Smith to run through. It is a proven fact that Dallas had one of the best and most talented offensive lines in the NFL. They were that good with or without Smith running the rock behind him. It is absurd to believe otherwise. Did Smith's talents complement the talent up front. Yes, certainly. But this isn't basketball where one player can make others around him better. If injuries decimated the O-line in Dallas, you can be sure that Smith would not have been as productive no matter how much you believe he could elevate by apparent osmosis the skill level of those players around him. That kind of hyperbole belongs in an NFL film by Steve Sabol with the sweat dripping down off the facemask and the music crescendoing in the background, LOL..
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.
My answer would be Barry Sanders too. All things considered. The talent level on the Lions teams
he was on doesn't compare to the Cowboys teams. Emmitt as great as he was was very fortunate to
land on the Cowboys. Had he played in Detroit his entire career he'd be at 13,000 yards or around
10th overall in NFL history, with a lower yards per carry average, many less TD's, and without a Super Bowl ring.
Let's be honest here.
I started watching pro football in 1970.
My top six would be:
Barry Sanders great for 10 seasons, in the top 3 for just about every year he played.
OJ Simpson the best RB for five full seasons
Walter Payton the best for a couple of seasons, but top five for nearly
his entire career. Really only his last season was a dud.
Emmitt Smith 10 great years, five weaker years, 3 Super Bowl wins
Eric Dickerson dominant his first 4-5 years
Earl Campbell ditto
The key word in the thread title is 'best'.
OJ had the best individual season ever in 1973 in my opinion. Joe Ferguson was a rookie QB
who threw 4 TD's that year. The Bills had no passing game at all. But they
had a pretty good young OL and Simpson was just entering his peak years.
He averaged 143 yards per game even though the defense knew he was getting
the ball. By way, the AFC runner up in rushing that year was HOF'er Larry Csonka
who rushed for exactly 1000 yards LESS than OJ did.
To me Jim Brown stands alone as the best RB ever, although I never saw him play a game.
I've only seen footage and of course read about his career in many Football books and magazines.
It's best to compare same era's. The reason Jim Brown's the best is when you look at
his yearly numbers and compare them to the next best running back. Jim Brown blows
them away. There's no other runner who's as dominant during his era of playing.
Steve Van Buren might be the only RB who comes close to the same domination
at the position and era, except he wasn't at the top for as many years as Jim Brown.
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.
Like cardholder said it's hard to compare runners from different eras. Brown put up huge numbers and played fewer games in a season. Plus he retired to act when he could still play.
That's the problem with career records. I will just say at this point in time Emmit Smith holds the record for total yards rushing and TD's or what ever records he has. And 3 SB rings and a SB MVP.
All of the backs mentioned in this thread were great running backs. And out of all of them Barry Sanders is my least favorite. He didn't know the shortest distance between two points!
And I still say if you defensed him right.....he wouldn't have got the numbers he did.
Ive learned that Everything starts with the O-Line and that with out that, No back can truely have any real success.
So if this be the gosspel, how on Earth did Barry Sanders win four rushing titles and such with a sorry bunch of loser's and
no talent people around him as most all Sanders followers always claim?
* How did this oh soooo woeful team manage to make 5 playoff apperances and win two NFC Central division Titles?
* How did this absolutely talentless team in 1991 post a 12-4 record(Best in Team History) win the NFC Central and then
clobber Emmitts Cowboys(92 SB Team) 38-6 in the playoffs?
(Looks like Saberman would have lost his 10K banking on his little sandlot theory here)
* How did Barry and the NO-TALENT Lions make 4 more playoff apperances (93, 94, 95, 97) including another division title in 1993?
* How did this shameful team of losers make the 90's one of the most successful decades in Lions history?
Granted Barry was no Emmitt and the Lions were No Cowboys, but the Lions were not quite the Talentless oafs you all like to make them out to be in Barry's Defense.
My Theory? Oh boy, this is going to get really messy! Can't wait for the new names ya come up with for me.
Sanders "Helter Skeelter" running style made it hard to block for him. IF he got into your secondary you had a BIG PROBLEM. He was the best open field runner Ive seen since Gale Sayers. But more often than not his "one step forward / two steps back" approach trying to break the big run was often more of a liablity to the team. Never more so than on crucial 3 and short situations. It is also the reason he lost more yards than any back in NFL hisory (Over 1,100).
Fun to Watch, but I don't believe that style of running could ever power a chamionship team simply because it was to inconsistant. Without the Big Run, he was easily contained and shut down by most playoff defenses. I prefer North/South down hill runners for my team.
As if you guys haven't already figured it out, I believe Barry Sanders is the most Over rated Back on the ALL-Time Rushing list. YUP I said it.
Ive learned a few cool things here that I did not know:
* An Offsensive Line can help you win (Hmmm)
* That the Barry/Emmitt debate could be easily solved by some middle aged men in a playground game? who'd a thought? (Hope I get Homer on my Team)
And A few things a simple Homer Like me already knew.
* Barry sanders is no Emmit Smith
* Going into Barry World with The All-Time Rushing King would be hostile.
The Emmitt/Barry debate will always be and thats what makes Football great. Its been fun sparring with you guys.
When I get a bit more time I'll most likely get your blood boiling with my next Lesson: Why Barry Sanders is NO Thurman Thomas! Oh boy! Now I've done it.
Take care guys! Best wishes to you and your families!
John (AKA Homer)
Finally, you're talking sense now..
Edit to add: But please, take off those star-shaped glasses will ya? It will make understanding these basic concepts so much easier..
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.
Everybody has their personel favorites.
I Love the Cowboys and their rich history. Roger Staubach was my childhood Hero. From Bob Lilly, Lee Roy Jordan to Tony Dorsett and "Too Tall" Jones.
The Cowboys will always hold a special place in my heart and childhood. So I will continue to wear the "Star shape glasses" Sorry Grote, I gotta defend the "STAR"
Just like Emmitt did when that no class Terrell Owens disrespected it.
HEY! Did I hear someone mention Bo Jackson??? That guy was not even human! Indeed I want a North/South runner like Bo on my Team for sure!
Remember when he destroyed "The Boz"? Bo was a special player. to bad the fluke injury robbed us of what could have been.
<< <i>All the Backs mentioned here are obviously the greatest in the history of the game. Some good spirited ribbing is always fun.
Everybody has their personel favorites.
I Love the Cowboys and their rich history. Roger Staubach was my childhood Hero. From Bob Lilly, Lee Roy Jordan to Tony Dorsett and "Too Tall" Jones.
The Cowboys will always hold a special place in my heart and childhood. So I will continue to wear the "Star shape glasses" Sorry Grote, I gotta defend the "STAR"
Just like Emmitt did when that no class Terrell Owens disrespected it.
HEY! Did I hear someone mention Bo Jackson??? That guy was not even human! Indeed I want a North/South runner like Bo on my Team for sure!
Remember when he destroyed "The Boz"? Bo was a special player. to bad the fluke injury robbed us of what could have been.
I grew up admiring the Cowboys and those same players mentioned, Tony Dorsett was my favorite player for years!
Two things to add, you are 100% correct that all backs mentioned are in their own way the "Best" also agreed that Bo could have been right up there with that combo of power and speed.
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>The title on the thread - the best RB whose career I saw entirely.
My answer would be Barry Sanders too. All things considered. The talent level on the Lions teams
he was on doesn't compare to the Cowboys teams. Emmitt as great as he was was very fortunate to
land on the Cowboys. Had he played in Detroit his entire career he'd be at 13,000 yards or around
10th overall in NFL history, with a lower yards per carry average, many less TD's, and without a Super Bowl ring.
Let's be honest here.
I started watching pro football in 1970.
My top six would be:
Barry Sanders great for 10 seasons, in the top 3 for just about every year he played.
OJ Simpson the best RB for five full seasons
Walter Payton the best for a couple of seasons, but top five for nearly
his entire career. Really only his last season was a dud.
Emmitt Smith 10 great years, five weaker years, 3 Super Bowl wins
Eric Dickerson dominant his first 4-5 years
Earl Campbell ditto
The key word in the thread title is 'best'.
OJ had the best individual season ever in 1973 in my opinion. Joe Ferguson was a rookie QB
who threw 4 TD's that year. The Bills had no passing game at all. But they
had a pretty good young OL and Simpson was just entering his peak years.
He averaged 143 yards per game even though the defense knew he was getting
the ball. By way, the AFC runner up in rushing that year was HOF'er Larry Csonka
who rushed for exactly 1000 yards LESS than OJ did.
To me Jim Brown stands alone as the best RB ever, although I never saw him play a game.
I've only seen footage and of course read about his career in many Football books and magazines.
It's best to compare same era's. The reason Jim Brown's the best is when you look at
his yearly numbers and compare them to the next best running back. Jim Brown blows
them away. There's no other runner who's as dominant during his era of playing.
Steve Van Buren might be the only RB who comes close to the same domination
at the position and era, except he wasn't at the top for as many years as Jim Brown. >>
BEST REPLY OF THE THREAD!
<< <i>Hi guys! Its me Homer!
* That the Barry/Emmitt debate could be easily solved by some middle aged men in a playground game? who'd a thought? (Hope I get Homer on my Team)
John (AKA Homer) >>
LOL.
Experiencing unmerited inequities first hand is usually the most effective way to understand them
How much proof do you have that Barry lost his yards on third and short, rather than third and 8 while trying to make something out of nothing?
A coaching staff that chose not to use him on third and short is not proof...because I saw him do well often in those instances...and near the goal line, when given the ball there.
Looking at one yard touchdown runs, here is what Sanders did.
1989-1992 (4yrs), Sanders had 11 one yard touchdown runs. Their offense as a whole was average, ranking 19,5,9,and 19 in points scored those years.
1993-1998 (6 yrs), Sanders had 1 one yard touchdown run. That isn't because he got bad...but rather a coaching decision to go with the short yardage specialist.
Compare that to Emmitt Smith.
1990-1993 (4yrs), Emmit had 12 one yard touchdown runs. Their offense was moderate-elite ranking 26,7,2, and 2 in points scored those years.
1994-1995 (2yrs), Emmitt had 14 one yard touchdown runs. Their offense was elite ranking 2 and 3 in points scored. They were FEEDING Emmitt TD's those years!
1996-2004 (9 yrs), Emmitt had 20 one yard touchdown runs. Their offense was a mixed bag those years.
Look at Sanders first four years, compared to Emmitt's. THey were about identical in the number of goal line touchdowns. Looking at each of their team's offense, I highly doubt that Detroit was at the goal line more than Dallas was...so most likely, they probably had very similar opportunites.
But, Barry got the rug pulled from under him. He simply was not even given the opportunity anymore. While Emmitt's next two years, the Dallas offense was at it's highest point...and he was given tons of opportunities...and obviously converted them(with help from the line too).
Butt Emmit's next 9 years without the elite offense, he was scoring goal line touchdowns at a rate that was worse than Sanders when Sanders was actually given the ball on the goal line.
So two things come out of this.
1) Barry most likely really wasn't as bad at the goal line than he is perceived to be
2) Anyone that brings up Emmitt's total number of touchdowns is ignoring the fact that his team's overall offense is a GREAT reason why he got those. Looking above, when that offense was no longer great, neither were emmitt's touchdowns!
So for guys that use Touchdowns as a measure of making Emmitt better than Barry...that has no merit.
<< <i>How bad really was Sanders on the goal line?
Looking at one yard touchdown runs, here is what Sanders did.
1989-1992 (4yrs), Sanders had 11 one yard touchdown runs. Their offense as a whole was average, ranking 19,5,9,and 19 in points scored those years.
1993-1998 (6 yrs), Sanders had 1 one yard touchdown run. That isn't because he got bad...but rather a coaching decision to go with the short yardage specialist.
Compare that to Emmitt Smith.
1990-1993 (4yrs), Emmit had 12 one yard touchdown runs. Their offense was moderate-elite ranking 26,7,2, and 2 in points scored those years.
1994-1995 (2yrs), Emmitt had 14 one yard touchdown runs. Their offense was elite ranking 2 and 3 in points scored. They were FEEDING Emmitt TD's those years!
1996-2004 (9 yrs), Emmitt had 20 one yard touchdown runs. Their offense was a mixed bag those years.
Look at Sanders first four years, compared to Emmitt's. THey were about identical in the number of goal line touchdowns. Looking at each of their team's offense, I highly doubt that Detroit was at the goal line more than Dallas was...so most likely, they probably had very similar opportunites.
But, Barry got the rug pulled from under him. He simply was not even given the opportunity anymore. While Emmitt's next two years, the Dallas offense was at it's highest point...and he was given tons of opportunities...and obviously converted them(with help from the line too).
Butt Emmit's next 9 years without the elite offense, he was scoring goal line touchdowns at a rate that was worse than Sanders when Sanders was actually given the ball on the goal line.
So two things come out of this.
1) Barry most likely really wasn't as bad at the goal line than he is perceived to be
2) Anyone that brings up Emmitt's total number of touchdowns is ignoring the fact that his team's overall offense is a GREAT reason why he got those. Looking above, when that offense was no longer great, neither were emmitt's touchdowns!
So for guys that use Touchdowns as a measure of making Emmitt better than Barry...that has no merit. >>
Interesting, but for this to be considered valid evidence that the two were roughly comparable in short yardage situations I think you need to do two more things:
1) Eliminate the points scored from these TDs from the study. We need to see how good these offenses were when Sanders and Smith didn't get the ball in order to understand how good the offenses were independent of these two backs' efforts.
2) Determine the success rate of the 2nd string backs on each team (Dal. and Det.) and compare those to the success % of the league as a whole.
Personally, I think the whole 'short yardage' argument is without merit. So what, William Perry was a better back than Barry Sanders because his success rate inside the 2 yard line was higher? Or, let's concede that Smith was better at short yardage. So what? That's one aspect of the game, and I'm not even convinced its all that important. Even if Barry Sanders was just terrible in short yardage that isn't particularly damning if you have a bunch of other guys on the team that ARE good with the ball in those spots. Ditto for the 'pass protection' issue. The question isn't 'was Barry worse than Emmit in pass protection'. The question is 'Even if Barry was worse than Emmit in pass protection, does that fully negate the aspects of Barry's game in which he was clearly superior to Emmit'.
It's like saying that J.R. Richard was a better pitcher than Greg Maddux because he had more velocity on his fastball. Well, OK- I think we'll all concede that. But while Richard was certainly better than Maddux in some aspects of pitching, Maddux was one hell of a lot better than Richard in other- and arguably more important-- aspects of pitching. When we compare athletes by compartmentalizing their talents we usually make the mistake of assuming that each of these aspects are equally important, when of course they are not.
For what it's worth, I have no idea if Barry Sanders was a superior back to Emmit Smith. No idea at all. And I say this as someone who has provided unwavering support to the Lions for 25 years. The answer to this question could probably be determined, but I'm sure that anyone looking who insists that Emmit was better because he appeared to be better at some of the secondary duties of a running back is not looking at the whole picture.
I do think that simple study puts the notion to question that Sanders was not an option in short yardage. He actually did fine.
I don't think there is any question that Emmitt was indeed a better short yardage runner...but like you said, that is ONE component, and not necessarily equal to others. Heck, it isn't very hard at all for teams to employ backs who are short yardage specialists. It really isn't THAT hard of a skill for NFL backs....especially with a good O-line.
Not quite so easy to find runners who can churn out 15 yard runs with regularity(especially when the defense knows he is getting the ball).
You are right with the small study, it still does not separate how much the team's offensive line, or overall offense was responsible. Looking at back ups is one way...but their back ups never really played enough to get any kind of meaningful sample. Much like the titles, Emmitt didn't get that number of TD's when his team did not have the surrounding cast making it possible. TO give Emmitt all that credit for those TD's and (laughingly)those titles, is simply unwise and ignorant.
The one thing I want to find is exactly when and where Sanders had his negative yardage runs. People make it out like he routinely turned that Third and one, into Fourth and Four.
Based on what I saw, he had the majority of hs big negative yardage runs when he was in a situation where a small gain would not be of much benefit anyway, so he 'swung for the fences' because losing three yards really wasn't any different than had he gained 1.5.
He sure did connect a lot though too
<< <i>There were also a lot of times where Barry met the ball and a defender at the same time. He did the best he could. >>
In fairness, Barry did have Lomas Brown and Kevin Glover blocking for him, so it's not like the Lions were devoid of talent. It's easy to forget this, since the Lions have sucked so very badly for so very long, but for a while there they had a potent offense and the O-line was a good part of the reason why. They weren't as good as the Cowboys, but they were still a strong team.
To Skin- I agree on all counts, but I think it's hasty to say 'Barry was better than Emmit' until we can make objective measurements on how their relative abilities stacked up against each other, and can properly weight these abilities. Until that time IMO it's most prudent to simply say 'I don't know', because- well, because we don't know. This isn't like the Tim Raines/ Tony Gwynn debate, where anyone who argues that Tony Gwynn was a better player just doesn't get it; it's a debate where not enough meaningful evidence has been compiled for anyone to come to an educated conclusion.
On a parting note, though, I do think it's interesting that Cowboy fans are always quick to point out that Sanders was a liability as a blocker, but those same fans don't say as much when the topic turns to Jim Brown- another man who, to put the matter charitably, was not known for his passion for pass protection.
IF ONLY THEY PLAYED BETTER DEFENSE AGAINST SANDERS?
What about EMMITT ? What if they played better Defense against him?
Wouldn't that result in the same thing-LESS YARDS? Please....
Also.....About Bo Jackson...
I still think one of the greatest plays I ever saw (THAT IS WITNESSED)
was when Bo Jackson when after a HOME RUN ball and caught it
LITERALLY CLIMBING the wall....He ran UP the wall and speared it....!
That was just an amazing catch....If I remember right, it was in the All-Star Game.
Tony
KalineFan
<< <i>In fairness, Barry did have Lomas Brown and Kevin Glover blocking for him, so it's not like the Lions were devoid of talent. It's easy to forget this, since the Lions have sucked so very badly for so very long, but for a while there they had a potent offense and the O-line was a good part of the reason why. They weren't as good as the Cowboys, but they were still a strong team. >>
At times, they were very good. In 1990, they were 5th in the league in scoring. In 1991, the best Lions team of the last 40 years, they were 9th. They were using the run 'n' shoot and it was REALLY effective. But they got killed by the Redskins - a really, really, REALLY great Redskins team - and so the Lions changed their offense. Because they were "scoring too fast". They went like 6-10 in 1992.
Often forgotten is that Barry had to deal with terrible coaching for much of his career. Wayne Fontes was horrible - unable to maintain success and constantly changing things that didn't need changing. Not "fixing" Scott Mitchell after 1995 - when the Lions had a ridiculously good offense but bombed in the playoffs - was a big drawback. Bobby Ross was an improvement but not by too much.
The Lions during Barry's tenure were often mediocre, sometimes good (1995), sometimes VERY good (1991) and never terrible. There were no 2008-esque teams when Barry was around.
So, yeah, it's unfair to characterize things as if it were a one-man show when Barry was around. It wasn't.
Tabe
. I feel like he is just like Bo Jackson but has stayed healthier longer. the guy would be an animal in any era.
John
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS
<< <i>at this point it would be hard for me to leave Adrian Peterson off of a best running backs of all time list
. I feel like he is just like Bo Jackson but has stayed healthier longer. the guy would be an animal in any era.
John >>
He runs quite similar to Bo. I mentioned him earlier in the thread and this year could be a huge year for Adrian. The Vikings have (seemingly) improved their receivers and this might open things up for Mr. Peterson.
If he can stay healthy, I think he has a shot at being regarded as the best of all time.
Joe
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
<< <i>Happy birthday Barry! >>
Not only the best pure athlete in the history of the Motor City, but the classiest gentleman that the town has ever known.
<< <i>Thanks, but you guys didn't have to remind me how great the team was that Emmit played on. It was the BEST NFL team EVER and since.
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. >>
No one has mentioned Tony Dorsett - he was quite the tailback and inducted in the HOF in 1994.
Granted, all had different lengths of careers so using rushing yards as the sole determining factor isn't valid but Dorsett should be on there somewhere.
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
RIP Mom- 1932-2012