<< <i>I know the argument against Smith is the talent he played with, especially the Offensive Line but none of them became great until Smith arrived in Dallas in 1990. He was the first to make a Pro Bowl or win any type of award. The Offensive Line was filled with veterans (who weren't exactly standouts) and Smith had already established himself as one of the best backs in the league before either Erik Williams or Larry Allen became a full time starters.
And from 1995 to 1998 Sanders played in an offense that had two WR's with nearly 1,000 yards a piece. >>
Neither one of those WRs was even close to being on the level of Irvin. No to mention the QB disparity between Aikman and the QB du jour in Detroit.
Running backs don't make offensive linemen great. It's the other way around.
Both your sig line and avatar though obviously reveal your biased opinion on this debate, though, so I don't fault you for feeling that way.
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>I know the argument against Smith is the talent he played with, especially the Offensive Line but none of them became great until Smith arrived in Dallas in 1990. He was the first to make a Pro Bowl or win any type of award. The Offensive Line was filled with veterans (who weren't exactly standouts) and Smith had already established himself as one of the best backs in the league before either Erik Williams or Larry Allen became a full time starters.
And from 1995 to 1998 Sanders played in an offense that had two WR's with nearly 1,000 yards a piece. >>
Neither one of those WRs was even close to being on the level of Irvin. No to mention the QB disparity between Aikman and the QB du jour in Detroit.
Running backs don't make offensive linemen great. It's the other way around.
Both your sig line and avatar though obviously reveal your biased opinion on this debate, though, so I don't fault you for feeling that way. >>
I will never fault anyone for saying Smith was better, his toughness is something that alot of people tend to forget like that game against the Giants ( Years ago and had playoff implications ) when Emmitts shoulder got seperated and he stayed in the game and made a HUGE game cliching play. In respect to the comment about Sanders having 2 WR's with nearly 1000 yards a piece well that is because Detroit was not that good and throwing the ball was neccesary, Smith was in alot more games where he was fed the ball to chew up the clock after being ahead.
Smith was an awesome back, no question, I would agree wholeheartedly with that. And he was as tough as they came.
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.
As a Detroit fan and huge Barry Sanders fan, I would take a dozen backs before him. His athletic ability was unmatched, but a good RB can punch a ball through the goal line. Barry could not.
<< <i>As a Detroit fan and huge Barry Sanders fan, I would take a dozen backs before him. His athletic ability was unmatched, but a good RB can punch a ball through the goal line. Barry could not. >>
Barry AVERAGED 11 TDs a season, 5.0 YPC and over 1,500 yards rushing a season over a 10 year career. The point of rushing the football is to get into the end zone and score, whether it's from 1 yard out or 31 yards out. I've never heard of a coach who'd say, "Yeah, that guy is pretty good, but his TD runs are too long; we prefer a guy who scores more 1 yd touchdowns."
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>As a Detroit fan and huge Barry Sanders fan, I would take a dozen backs before him. His athletic ability was unmatched, but a good RB can punch a ball through the goal line. Barry could not. >>
Barry AVERAGED 11 TDs a season, 5.0 YPC and over 1,500 yards rushing a season over a 10 year career. The point of rushing the football is to get into the end zone and score, whether it's from 1 yard out or 31 yards out. I've never heard of a coach who'd say, "Yeah, that guy is pretty good, but his TD runs are too long; we prefer a guy who scores more 1 yd touchdowns." >>
Facts have no place in this tread. Watch it buster
MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>As a Detroit fan and huge Barry Sanders fan, I would take a dozen backs before him. His athletic ability was unmatched, but a good RB can punch a ball through the goal line. Barry could not. >>
Barry AVERAGED 11 TDs a season, 5.0 YPC and over 1,500 yards rushing a season over a 10 year career. The point of rushing the football is to get into the end zone and score, whether it's from 1 yard out or 31 yards out. I've never heard of a coach who'd say, "Yeah, that guy is pretty good, but his TD runs are too long; we prefer a guy who scores more 1 yd touchdowns." >>
But his standard deviation was off the charts in a negative way. Better to pound out a steady 4.0 as Emmitt did that losing three and gaining 12. His number were closer to a receiver than a back.
A thrilling athlete and glad that he was a Lion, but he would not have been my first choice all time in that position. Probably number 11.
<< <i>As a Detroit fan and huge Barry Sanders fan, I would take a dozen backs before him. His athletic ability was unmatched, but a good RB can punch a ball through the goal line. Barry could not. >>
Barry AVERAGED 11 TDs a season, 5.0 YPC and over 1,500 yards rushing a season over a 10 year career. The point of rushing the football is to get into the end zone and score, whether it's from 1 yard out or 31 yards out. I've never heard of a coach who'd say, "Yeah, that guy is pretty good, but his TD runs are too long; we prefer a guy who scores more 1 yd touchdowns." >>
But his standard deviation was off the charts in a negative way. Better to pound out a steady 4.0 as Emmitt did that losing three and gaining 12. His number were closer to a receiver than a back.
A thrilling athlete and glad that he was a Lion, but he would not have been my first choice all time in that position. Probably number 11. >>
You have ten backs better than Barry all time? Did Dimeman get ahold of your user id and password again?
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>You have ten backs better than Barry all time? Did Dimeman get ahold of your user id and password again? >>
Rather than better, I prefer the term efficient. Object of football is to win games. Lions averaged .500 through Barry's tenure.
Love the guy, he is a class act and an asset to the city when he played there. Trying to win though, I would take Smith, OJ, Payton, Bo or half a dozen players first.
No offense, Glick, but you really have no clue if you believe Barry was reason Lions struggled to win. To the contrary, he was the only reason they even make the playoffs when he was there.
Btw, how many playoff games did the Bills win during O.J.'s tenure there?
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>No offense, Glick, but you really have no clue if you believe Barry was reason Lions struggled to win. To the contrary, he was the only reason they even make the playoffs when he was there.
Btw, how many playoff games did the Bills win during O.J.'s tenure there? >>
No question that the Lions have had many problems, but .500 career seasons with the greatest RB ever?
Barry was great but was not used in goal line formations. That should be a clue to you Grote.
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 would assume zero by the way the question was set up. I watched Barry play virtually every week for his career. Scintillating and exhilarating. Team would have done better though with a top, classic runner.
I would assume zero by the way the question was set up. I watched Barry play virtually every week for his career. Scintillating and exhilarating. Team would have done better though with a top, classic runner. >>
A top, classic runner? You mean one that doesn't avg 5.0 YPC for his career, average 1,500 yds per season over 10 years and score 110 TDs? Who doesn't almost singlehandedly carry his team to postseason play? Do you even watch football?
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>A top, classic runner? You mean one that doesn't avg 5.0 YPC for his career, average 1,500 yds per season over 10 years and score 110 TDs? Who doesn't almost singlehandedly carry his team to postseason play? Do you even watch football? >>
Not since they started wearing pink and handed challenge flags to the coaches.
Watched three NFL games each Sunday and one on Monday though from the 1980's until the mid 2000's. That is when defensive players were allowed to actually tackle and hit the opposition.
Many know more about the game than me, but I am certainly a student of the professional football.
It is easy for me to name Sanders the best ever as a homer, but I cannot. He was the most athletic and enjoyable to watch but give me a top RB that can punch in a TD from 3 yards away like Billy Sims, before the beloved but limited Barry Sanders.
And don't forget all the tats and dreads, too, 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.
It is absolutely ABSURD to rest the blame on Barry for the Lions futility in his tenure, again absolutely ABSURD.
Your Football knowledge is looking non exsistent when statements like that are made, how many Super Bowls did Earl Campbell win? Eric Dickerson? OJ Simpson?
I mean you want to say you think Emmitt was better than fine no biggie but geezuz your argument is flat out wrong, I get the value of a straight ahead runner however 8 defenders in the box stops the runner more times than not, Barry could get hit at the line and turn it into a long gain anytime he touched the ball.
<< <i>It is absolutely ABSURD to rest the blame on Barry for the Lions futility in his tenure, again absolutely ABSURD. >>
I am not blaming Barry for anything. He was no doubt the finest athlete in the history of the game. Problem is his performance was erratic for the position and did not translate well into winning percentage. One man cannot carry a team into the Super Bowl.
Team would have been better off though with a substantial straight ahead runner like Smith.
You fellas want to insult my NFL IQ, that is fine. But putting Barry Sanders at number 11 or so all time out of the hundreds of running backs of the last 50 years is hardly reason to fire up the crucible.....but have way with it anyways.
At no point was there ever a lack of breast awareness. >>
I thought my sig line covered that? >>
Paul, you never fail to let us down, 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.
You fellas want to insult my NFL IQ, that is fine.
Hey, Dimeman agrees with you, so you're in good company! 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.
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. Barry was certainly capable of punching one yard touchdowns in, and he showed it when given the chance.
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.
In the NFL, the average yards gained per passing attempt is close to 7 yards (see link).
Running plays gain an average of 4 yards.......Barry gained 5.
The running game, with a lower production is used for several reasons, mostly though for a consistent performance. The closer a RB is to the average, the better.
Once again, Barry was magnificent, great, superlative and wonderful. His yardage though was inconsistent. Skin makes good points about his goal line production so I will do some more research. A steady 4 yards is better than an inconsistent 5 yards in my book. At that point, passing is the better choice.
Mark, with all due respect, I'm very surprised that you're making the case for Emmitt over Barry. If the roles had been reversed, just imagine what the numbers would look like today.
Comparatively speaking, Barry ran behind an inferior line. Herman Moore was a very good player, no question about it, but he was no Irvin. Rodney Peete and Scott Mitchell were not in the same class as Troy Aikman. If you disagree on any of those points, then I guess we can end things here. If you do agree, however, then I'm confident we can also come to a consensus in regard to the impact a surrounding cast has on schematics. Think defenses weren't locked in on Barry each and every week? Absolutely they were. Think a defensive game plan against the Cowboys placed just as much emphasis on the guy in the backfield? I find it very hard to believe that was ever the case.
I'd really love to know how many more times Sanders faced a creeping safety who ultimately created 8 in the box. And to think he still averaged 5.0 for a 10-year career, whereas Emmitt was almost a full yard behind while toting the ball behind a bevy of road-graders. Put Barry on the Cowboys and his numbers would have been even more obscene. Stick Emmitt on the Lions and all of the consistency you covet simply would not have been there.
<< <i>Mark, with all due respect, I'm very surprised that you're making the case for Emmitt over Barry. If the roles had been reversed, just imagine what the numbers would look like today.
Comparatively speaking, Barry ran behind an inferior line. Herman Moore was a very good player, no question about it, but he was no Irvin. Rodney Peete and Scott Mitchell were not in the same class as Troy Aikman. If you disagree on any of those points, then I guess we can end things here. If you do agree, however, then I'm confident we can also come to a consensus in regard to the impact a surrounding cast has on schematics. Think defenses weren't locked in on Barry each and every week? Absolutely they were. Think a defensive game plan against the Cowboys placed just as much emphasis on the guy in the backfield? I find it very hard to believe that was ever the case.
I'd really love to know how many more times Sanders faced a creeping safety who ultimately created 8 in the box. And to think he still averaged 5.0 for a 10-year career, whereas Emmitt was almost a full yard behind while toting the ball behind a bevy of road-graders. Put Barry on the Cowboys and his numbers would have been even more obscene. Stick Emmitt on the Lions and all of the consistency you covet simply would not have been there.
<< <i>I know the argument against Smith is the talent he played with, especially the Offensive Line but none of them became great until Smith arrived in Dallas in 1990. He was the first to make a Pro Bowl or win any type of award. The Offensive Line was filled with veterans (who weren't exactly standouts) and Smith had already established himself as one of the best backs in the league before either Erik Williams or Larry Allen became a full time starters.
And from 1995 to 1998 Sanders played in an offense that had two WR's with nearly 1,000 yards a piece. >>
Neither one of those WRs was even close to being on the level of Irvin. No to mention the QB disparity between Aikman and the QB du jour in Detroit.
Running backs don't make offensive linemen great. It's the other way around.
Both your sig line and avatar though obviously reveal your biased opinion on this debate, though, so I don't fault you for feeling that way. >>
In regards to the comment on the OL I do think there is some truth to it but it is never universally applied. Jim Brown is given a pass for playing with probably the best OL in NFL history and the OL Payton had toward the second half of his career was pretty solid and allowed Neal Anderson to stand out. Even Peterson is some how given a pass when his numbers actually dipped when he had a stable passing game under Favre.
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.
<< <i>I know the argument against Smith is the talent he played with, especially the Offensive Line but none of them became great until Smith arrived in Dallas in 1990. He was the first to make a Pro Bowl or win any type of award. The Offensive Line was filled with veterans (who weren't exactly standouts) and Smith had already established himself as one of the best backs in the league before either Erik Williams or Larry Allen became a full time starters.
And from 1995 to 1998 Sanders played in an offense that had two WR's with nearly 1,000 yards a piece. >>
Neither one of those WRs was even close to being on the level of Irvin. No to mention the QB disparity between Aikman and the QB du jour in Detroit.
Running backs don't make offensive linemen great. It's the other way around.
Both your sig line and avatar though obviously reveal your biased opinion on this debate, though, so I don't fault you for feeling that way. >>
I will never fault anyone for saying Smith was better, his toughness is something that alot of people tend to forget like that game against the Giants ( Years ago and had playoff implications ) when Emmitts shoulder got seperated and he stayed in the game and made a HUGE game cliching play. In respect to the comment about Sanders having 2 WR's with nearly 1000 yards a piece well that is because Detroit was not that good and throwing the ball was neccesary, Smith was in alot more games where he was fed the ball to chew up the clock after being ahead. >>
They might not of been great but the Lions were still pretty efficient throwing the ball & playing in the run & shoot was a good offense for Sanders who liked to space to work with. Even when he finally got his full back and was in a more traditional offense the Lions still worked the ball to their receivers. The Lions might have lacked an Irvin but as a group they were a pretty good group.
Smith did get the opportunity to chew up clock and was good at it but doing that kills ypc. For example, a player like Eddie George could of had a better average if he wasn't used to kill the clock.
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.
<< <i>They might not of been great but the Lions were still pretty efficient throwing the ball & playing in the run & shoot was a good offense for Sanders who liked to space to work with. >>
The June Jones and Mouse Davis run and shoot system ended very early in Sander's career. I agree though that it opened the D and was good for his game.
For the record I'm not calling you out mglick saying you don't know anything about the NFL I see your point although I disagree with it I don't think its a horrible argument, at least your not making a Neanderthal statement like Dimeman saying there are 25 backs better than Sanders!
Everybody that has ever played the game on a playground ready to choose up sides. The best of the best. Let's say 24 teams. Everyone is in their prime. I can't fathom a world that Barry wouldn't be the first back taken. Maybe Jim Brown if he was standing next to Barry.
MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
No one game planned for Emmit Smith. He saw 7 man boxes. They had weapons at every offensive position.
Everyone game planned for Barry yet his numbers are incredible. Barry had 8 or 9 guys in the box against him on nearly every play.
MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>Third and two late in a big game. Random team. Who would you rather hand the ball off to, Sanders, Smith, Campbell or Payton?
I rest my case! >>
You have no case as has been clearly and plainly illustrated to most anyone but you and Dimeman.
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>Third and two late in a big game. Random team. Who would you rather hand the ball off to, Sanders, Smith, Campbell or Payton?
I rest my case! >>
Using your logic, Smith since he has the lowest Yards Per Carry amongst that group. You should have given us a back who averaged exactly 2 yards per carry so we could have picked him instead.
Mj
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>Mark, with all due respect, I'm very surprised that you're making the case for Emmitt over Barry. If the roles had been reversed, just imagine what the numbers would look like today.
Comparatively speaking, Barry ran behind an inferior line. Herman Moore was a very good player, no question about it, but he was no Irvin. Rodney Peete and Scott Mitchell were not in the same class as Troy Aikman. If you disagree on any of those points, then I guess we can end things here. If you do agree, however, then I'm confident we can also come to a consensus in regard to the impact a surrounding cast has on schematics. Think defenses weren't locked in on Barry each and every week? Absolutely they were. Think a defensive game plan against the Cowboys placed just as much emphasis on the guy in the backfield? I find it very hard to believe that was ever the case.
I'd really love to know how many more times Sanders faced a creeping safety who ultimately created 8 in the box. And to think he still averaged 5.0 for a 10-year career, whereas Emmitt was almost a full yard behind while toting the ball behind a bevy of road-graders. Put Barry on the Cowboys and his numbers would have been even more obscene. Stick Emmitt on the Lions and all of the consistency you covet simply would not have been there.
My two. >>
Thanks Stephen, I don't have to type all that now.
The only thing I would add is that "inferior line" leaves the door open for a slightly inferior line. It's a drastic difference. I'd put the early '90s cowboy lines up against any in history, while I'd hesitate to put the Sanders era lions lines up against the top 10 in any given nfl season. I also don't remember the best TE who played with Sanders, but Jay Novacek needs to be mentioned as yet another 5 time pro-bowl weapon that defenses needed to account for.
To bigdcards: "you are right" - cpamike "That is correct" -grote15
<< <i>Mark, with all due respect, I'm very surprised that you're making the case for Emmitt over Barry. If the roles had been reversed, just imagine what the numbers would look like today.
Comparatively speaking, Barry ran behind an inferior line. Herman Moore was a very good player, no question about it, but he was no Irvin. Rodney Peete and Scott Mitchell were not in the same class as Troy Aikman. If you disagree on any of those points, then I guess we can end things here. If you do agree, however, then I'm confident we can also come to a consensus in regard to the impact a surrounding cast has on schematics. Think defenses weren't locked in on Barry each and every week? Absolutely they were. Think a defensive game plan against the Cowboys placed just as much emphasis on the guy in the backfield? I find it very hard to believe that was ever the case.
I'd really love to know how many more times Sanders faced a creeping safety who ultimately created 8 in the box. And to think he still averaged 5.0 for a 10-year career, whereas Emmitt was almost a full yard behind while toting the ball behind a bevy of road-graders. Put Barry on the Cowboys and his numbers would have been even more obscene. Stick Emmitt on the Lions and all of the consistency you covet simply would not have been there.
My two. >>
Thanks Stephen, I don't have to type all that now.
The only thing I would add is that "inferior line" leaves the door open for a slightly inferior line. It's a drastic difference. I'd put the early '90s cowboy lines up against any in history, while I'd hesitate to put the Sanders era lions lines up against the top 10 in any given nfl season. I also don't remember the best TE who played with Sanders, but Jay Novacek needs to be mentioned as yet another 5 time pro-bowl weapon that defenses needed to account for. >>
Sanders had no Moose Johnston blocking for him, either. No wonder he scored so many short range TDs!! 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.
<< <i>You have no case as has been clearly and plainly illustrated to most anyone but you and Dimeman. >>
Of course we have absolutes in sports. No debate over whether Wilt or Jordan or now LeBron is the best roundball player of all time. It is of course settled whether Tiger or Jack was the best at golf. We know that Gretzky was better than Gordie. Barry over Hank and Willie. Ali over Larry Holmes and Serena over Martina.
Any time we suggest a list of the top 5 quarterbacks, ten names come up.
But of course Barry Sanders was undoubtedly, without debate, the head and shoulders absolute best running back in the history of the game. Who could be so dense as myself and Dimeman to appreciate his talent yet discount his value as he was a non traditional runner. Why would anyone with an IQ above three question why this master of the game was taken out for goal line plays which is the time that you put in your best back.
Comments
<< <i>I know the argument against Smith is the talent he played with, especially the Offensive Line but none of them became great until Smith arrived in Dallas in 1990. He was the first to make a Pro Bowl or win any type of award. The Offensive Line was filled with veterans (who weren't exactly standouts) and Smith had already established himself as one of the best backs in the league before either Erik Williams or Larry Allen became a full time starters.
And from 1995 to 1998 Sanders played in an offense that had two WR's with nearly 1,000 yards a piece. >>
Neither one of those WRs was even close to being on the level of Irvin. No to mention the QB disparity between Aikman and the QB du jour in Detroit.
Running backs don't make offensive linemen great. It's the other way around.
Both your sig line and avatar though obviously reveal your biased opinion on this debate, though, so I don't fault you for feeling that way.
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>
<< <i>I know the argument against Smith is the talent he played with, especially the Offensive Line but none of them became great until Smith arrived in Dallas in 1990. He was the first to make a Pro Bowl or win any type of award. The Offensive Line was filled with veterans (who weren't exactly standouts) and Smith had already established himself as one of the best backs in the league before either Erik Williams or Larry Allen became a full time starters.
And from 1995 to 1998 Sanders played in an offense that had two WR's with nearly 1,000 yards a piece. >>
Neither one of those WRs was even close to being on the level of Irvin. No to mention the QB disparity between Aikman and the QB du jour in Detroit.
Running backs don't make offensive linemen great. It's the other way around.
Both your sig line and avatar though obviously reveal your biased opinion on this debate, though, so I don't fault you for feeling that way. >>
I will never fault anyone for saying Smith was better, his toughness is something that alot of people tend to forget like that game against the Giants ( Years ago and had playoff implications ) when Emmitts shoulder got seperated and he stayed in the game and made a HUGE game cliching play. In respect to the comment about Sanders having 2 WR's with nearly 1000 yards a piece well that is because Detroit was not that good and throwing the ball was neccesary, Smith was in alot more games where he was fed the ball to chew up the clock after being ahead.
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>As a Detroit fan and huge Barry Sanders fan, I would take a dozen backs before him. His athletic ability was unmatched, but a good RB can punch a ball through the goal line. Barry could not. >>
Barry AVERAGED 11 TDs a season, 5.0 YPC and over 1,500 yards rushing a season over a 10 year career. The point of rushing the football is to get into the end zone and score, whether it's from 1 yard out or 31 yards out. I've never heard of a coach who'd say, "Yeah, that guy is pretty good, but his TD runs are too long; we prefer a guy who scores more 1 yd touchdowns."
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>
<< <i>As a Detroit fan and huge Barry Sanders fan, I would take a dozen backs before him. His athletic ability was unmatched, but a good RB can punch a ball through the goal line. Barry could not. >>
Barry AVERAGED 11 TDs a season, 5.0 YPC and over 1,500 yards rushing a season over a 10 year career. The point of rushing the football is to get into the end zone and score, whether it's from 1 yard out or 31 yards out. I've never heard of a coach who'd say, "Yeah, that guy is pretty good, but his TD runs are too long; we prefer a guy who scores more 1 yd touchdowns." >>
Facts have no place in this tread. Watch it buster
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>
<< <i>As a Detroit fan and huge Barry Sanders fan, I would take a dozen backs before him. His athletic ability was unmatched, but a good RB can punch a ball through the goal line. Barry could not. >>
Barry AVERAGED 11 TDs a season, 5.0 YPC and over 1,500 yards rushing a season over a 10 year career. The point of rushing the football is to get into the end zone and score, whether it's from 1 yard out or 31 yards out. I've never heard of a coach who'd say, "Yeah, that guy is pretty good, but his TD runs are too long; we prefer a guy who scores more 1 yd touchdowns." >>
But his standard deviation was off the charts in a negative way. Better to pound out a steady 4.0 as Emmitt did that losing three and gaining 12. His number were closer to a receiver than a back.
A thrilling athlete and glad that he was a Lion, but he would not have been my first choice all time in that position. Probably number 11.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>As a Detroit fan and huge Barry Sanders fan, I would take a dozen backs before him. His athletic ability was unmatched, but a good RB can punch a ball through the goal line. Barry could not. >>
Barry AVERAGED 11 TDs a season, 5.0 YPC and over 1,500 yards rushing a season over a 10 year career. The point of rushing the football is to get into the end zone and score, whether it's from 1 yard out or 31 yards out. I've never heard of a coach who'd say, "Yeah, that guy is pretty good, but his TD runs are too long; we prefer a guy who scores more 1 yd touchdowns." >>
But his standard deviation was off the charts in a negative way. Better to pound out a steady 4.0 as Emmitt did that losing three and gaining 12. His number were closer to a receiver than a back.
A thrilling athlete and glad that he was a Lion, but he would not have been my first choice all time in that position. Probably number 11. >>
You have ten backs better than Barry all time? Did Dimeman get ahold of your user id and password again?
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>You have ten backs better than Barry all time? Did Dimeman get ahold of your user id and password again? >>
Rather than better, I prefer the term efficient. Object of football is to win games. Lions averaged .500 through Barry's tenure.
Love the guy, he is a class act and an asset to the city when he played there. Trying to win though, I would take Smith, OJ, Payton, Bo or half a dozen players first.
Btw, how many playoff games did the Bills win during O.J.'s tenure there?
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>No offense, Glick, but you really have no clue if you believe Barry was reason Lions struggled to win. To the contrary, he was the only reason they even make the playoffs when he was there.
Btw, how many playoff games did the Bills win during O.J.'s tenure there? >>
No question that the Lions have had many problems, but .500 career seasons with the greatest RB ever?
Barry was great but was not used in goal line formations. That should be a clue to you Grote.
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>You didn't answer my question, Glick. >>
I would assume zero by the way the question was set up. I watched Barry play virtually every week for his career. Scintillating and exhilarating. Team would have done better though with a top, classic runner.
<< <i>
<< <i>You didn't answer my question, Glick. >>
I would assume zero by the way the question was set up. I watched Barry play virtually every week for his career. Scintillating and exhilarating. Team would have done better though with a top, classic runner. >>
A top, classic runner? You mean one that doesn't avg 5.0 YPC for his career, average 1,500 yds per season over 10 years and score 110 TDs? Who doesn't almost singlehandedly carry his team to postseason play? Do you even watch football?
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>A top, classic runner? You mean one that doesn't avg 5.0 YPC for his career, average 1,500 yds per season over 10 years and score 110 TDs? Who doesn't almost singlehandedly carry his team to postseason play? Do you even watch football? >>
Not since they started wearing pink and handed challenge flags to the coaches.
Watched three NFL games each Sunday and one on Monday though from the 1980's until the mid 2000's. That is when defensive players were allowed to actually tackle and hit the opposition.
Many know more about the game than me, but I am certainly a student of the professional football.
It is easy for me to name Sanders the best ever as a homer, but I cannot. He was the most athletic and enjoyable to watch but give me a top RB that can punch in a TD from 3 yards away like Billy Sims, before the beloved but limited Barry Sanders.
.....and oh!
Back to you, Grote.
And don't forget all the tats and dreads, too, 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.
<< <i>I forgot...darn breast awareness thing. >>
My bad. I am sure that womans issues are first and foremost on Ray Rice and the other abusers minds, that NFL features each week.
What did he get, a 2 week suspension? Goodell messed up that one bad.
Your Football knowledge is looking non exsistent when statements like that are made, how many Super Bowls did Earl Campbell win? Eric Dickerson? OJ Simpson?
I mean you want to say you think Emmitt was better than fine no biggie but geezuz your argument is flat out wrong, I get the value of a straight ahead runner however 8 defenders in the box stops the runner more times than not, Barry could get hit at the line and turn it into a long gain anytime he touched the ball.
<< <i>I forgot...darn breast awareness thing >>
At no point was there ever a lack of breast awareness.
Edit: to thank perdog for getting the perkies on top and bottom of this post.
<< <i>
<< <i>I forgot...darn breast awareness thing >>
At no point was there ever a lack of breast awareness. >>
I thought my sig line covered that?
<< <i>It is absolutely ABSURD to rest the blame on Barry for the Lions futility in his tenure, again absolutely ABSURD. >>
I am not blaming Barry for anything. He was no doubt the finest athlete in the history of the game. Problem is his performance was erratic for the position and did not translate well into winning percentage. One man cannot carry a team into the Super Bowl.
Team would have been better off though with a substantial straight ahead runner like Smith.
You fellas want to insult my NFL IQ, that is fine. But putting Barry Sanders at number 11 or so all time out of the hundreds of running backs of the last 50 years is hardly reason to fire up the crucible.....but have way with it anyways.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I forgot...darn breast awareness thing >>
At no point was there ever a lack of breast awareness. >>
I thought my sig line covered that?
Paul, you never fail to let us down, 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.
Hey, Dimeman agrees with you, so you're in good company! 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.
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. Barry was certainly capable of punching one yard touchdowns in, and he showed it when given the chance.
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.
Running plays gain an average of 4 yards.......Barry gained 5.
The running game, with a lower production is used for several reasons, mostly though for a consistent performance. The closer a RB is to the average, the better.
Once again, Barry was magnificent, great, superlative and wonderful. His yardage though was inconsistent. Skin makes good points about his goal line production so I will do some more research. A steady 4 yards is better than an inconsistent 5 yards in my book. At that point, passing is the better choice.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Comparatively speaking, Barry ran behind an inferior line. Herman Moore was a very good player, no question about it, but he was no Irvin. Rodney Peete and Scott Mitchell were not in the same class as Troy Aikman. If you disagree on any of those points, then I guess we can end things here. If you do agree, however, then I'm confident we can also come to a consensus in regard to the impact a surrounding cast has on schematics. Think defenses weren't locked in on Barry each and every week? Absolutely they were. Think a defensive game plan against the Cowboys placed just as much emphasis on the guy in the backfield? I find it very hard to believe that was ever the case.
I'd really love to know how many more times Sanders faced a creeping safety who ultimately created 8 in the box. And to think he still averaged 5.0 for a 10-year career, whereas Emmitt was almost a full yard behind while toting the ball behind a bevy of road-graders. Put Barry on the Cowboys and his numbers would have been even more obscene. Stick Emmitt on the Lions and all of the consistency you covet simply would not have been there.
My two.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
I will say that I would gladly have Jimmy Johnson coaching the Lions over Wayne Fontes and Bobby Ross.
<< <i>Mark, with all due respect, I'm very surprised that you're making the case for Emmitt over Barry. If the roles had been reversed, just imagine what the numbers would look like today.
Comparatively speaking, Barry ran behind an inferior line. Herman Moore was a very good player, no question about it, but he was no Irvin. Rodney Peete and Scott Mitchell were not in the same class as Troy Aikman. If you disagree on any of those points, then I guess we can end things here. If you do agree, however, then I'm confident we can also come to a consensus in regard to the impact a surrounding cast has on schematics. Think defenses weren't locked in on Barry each and every week? Absolutely they were. Think a defensive game plan against the Cowboys placed just as much emphasis on the guy in the backfield? I find it very hard to believe that was ever the case.
I'd really love to know how many more times Sanders faced a creeping safety who ultimately created 8 in the box. And to think he still averaged 5.0 for a 10-year career, whereas Emmitt was almost a full yard behind while toting the ball behind a bevy of road-graders. Put Barry on the Cowboys and his numbers would have been even more obscene. Stick Emmitt on the Lions and all of the consistency you covet simply would not have been there.
My two. >>
Very well said.
I rest my case!
<< <i>
<< <i>I know the argument against Smith is the talent he played with, especially the Offensive Line but none of them became great until Smith arrived in Dallas in 1990. He was the first to make a Pro Bowl or win any type of award. The Offensive Line was filled with veterans (who weren't exactly standouts) and Smith had already established himself as one of the best backs in the league before either Erik Williams or Larry Allen became a full time starters.
And from 1995 to 1998 Sanders played in an offense that had two WR's with nearly 1,000 yards a piece. >>
Neither one of those WRs was even close to being on the level of Irvin. No to mention the QB disparity between Aikman and the QB du jour in Detroit.
Running backs don't make offensive linemen great. It's the other way around.
Both your sig line and avatar though obviously reveal your biased opinion on this debate, though, so I don't fault you for feeling that way. >>
In regards to the comment on the OL I do think there is some truth to it but it is never universally applied. Jim Brown is given a pass for playing with probably the best OL in NFL history and the OL Payton had toward the second half of his career was pretty solid and allowed Neal Anderson to stand out. Even Peterson is some how given a pass when his numbers actually dipped when he had a stable passing game under Favre.
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.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I know the argument against Smith is the talent he played with, especially the Offensive Line but none of them became great until Smith arrived in Dallas in 1990. He was the first to make a Pro Bowl or win any type of award. The Offensive Line was filled with veterans (who weren't exactly standouts) and Smith had already established himself as one of the best backs in the league before either Erik Williams or Larry Allen became a full time starters.
And from 1995 to 1998 Sanders played in an offense that had two WR's with nearly 1,000 yards a piece. >>
Neither one of those WRs was even close to being on the level of Irvin. No to mention the QB disparity between Aikman and the QB du jour in Detroit.
Running backs don't make offensive linemen great. It's the other way around.
Both your sig line and avatar though obviously reveal your biased opinion on this debate, though, so I don't fault you for feeling that way. >>
I will never fault anyone for saying Smith was better, his toughness is something that alot of people tend to forget like that game against the Giants ( Years ago and had playoff implications ) when Emmitts shoulder got seperated and he stayed in the game and made a HUGE game cliching play. In respect to the comment about Sanders having 2 WR's with nearly 1000 yards a piece well that is because Detroit was not that good and throwing the ball was neccesary, Smith was in alot more games where he was fed the ball to chew up the clock after being ahead. >>
They might not of been great but the Lions were still pretty efficient throwing the ball & playing in the run & shoot was a good offense for Sanders who liked to space to work with. Even when he finally got his full back and was in a more traditional offense the Lions still worked the ball to their receivers. The Lions might have lacked an Irvin but as a group they were a pretty good group.
Smith did get the opportunity to chew up clock and was good at it but doing that kills ypc. For example, a player like Eddie George could of had a better average if he wasn't used to kill the clock.
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.
<< <i>They might not of been great but the Lions were still pretty efficient throwing the ball & playing in the run & shoot was a good offense for Sanders who liked to space to work with. >>
The June Jones and Mouse Davis run and shoot system ended very early in Sander's career. I agree though that it opened the D and was good for his game.
Everybody that has ever played the game on a playground ready to choose up sides. The best of the best. Let's say 24 teams. Everyone is in their prime. I can't fathom a world that Barry wouldn't be the first back taken. Maybe Jim Brown if he was standing next to Barry.
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Everyone game planned for Barry yet his numbers are incredible. Barry had 8 or 9 guys in the box against him on nearly every play.
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>Third and two late in a big game. Random team. Who would you rather hand the ball off to, Sanders, Smith, Campbell or Payton?
I rest my case! >>
You have no case as has been clearly and plainly illustrated to most anyone but you and Dimeman.
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>Third and two late in a big game. Random team. Who would you rather hand the ball off to, Sanders, Smith, Campbell or Payton?
I rest my case! >>
Using your logic, Smith since he has the lowest Yards Per Carry amongst that group. You should have given us a back who averaged exactly 2 yards per carry so we could have picked him instead.
Mj
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>Mark, with all due respect, I'm very surprised that you're making the case for Emmitt over Barry. If the roles had been reversed, just imagine what the numbers would look like today.
Comparatively speaking, Barry ran behind an inferior line. Herman Moore was a very good player, no question about it, but he was no Irvin. Rodney Peete and Scott Mitchell were not in the same class as Troy Aikman. If you disagree on any of those points, then I guess we can end things here. If you do agree, however, then I'm confident we can also come to a consensus in regard to the impact a surrounding cast has on schematics. Think defenses weren't locked in on Barry each and every week? Absolutely they were. Think a defensive game plan against the Cowboys placed just as much emphasis on the guy in the backfield? I find it very hard to believe that was ever the case.
I'd really love to know how many more times Sanders faced a creeping safety who ultimately created 8 in the box. And to think he still averaged 5.0 for a 10-year career, whereas Emmitt was almost a full yard behind while toting the ball behind a bevy of road-graders. Put Barry on the Cowboys and his numbers would have been even more obscene. Stick Emmitt on the Lions and all of the consistency you covet simply would not have been there.
My two. >>
Thanks Stephen, I don't have to type all that now.
The only thing I would add is that "inferior line" leaves the door open for a slightly inferior line. It's a drastic difference. I'd put the early '90s cowboy lines up against any in history, while I'd hesitate to put the Sanders era lions lines up against the top 10 in any given nfl season. I also don't remember the best TE who played with Sanders, but Jay Novacek needs to be mentioned as yet another 5 time pro-bowl weapon that defenses needed to account for.
<< <i>
<< <i>Mark, with all due respect, I'm very surprised that you're making the case for Emmitt over Barry. If the roles had been reversed, just imagine what the numbers would look like today.
Comparatively speaking, Barry ran behind an inferior line. Herman Moore was a very good player, no question about it, but he was no Irvin. Rodney Peete and Scott Mitchell were not in the same class as Troy Aikman. If you disagree on any of those points, then I guess we can end things here. If you do agree, however, then I'm confident we can also come to a consensus in regard to the impact a surrounding cast has on schematics. Think defenses weren't locked in on Barry each and every week? Absolutely they were. Think a defensive game plan against the Cowboys placed just as much emphasis on the guy in the backfield? I find it very hard to believe that was ever the case.
I'd really love to know how many more times Sanders faced a creeping safety who ultimately created 8 in the box. And to think he still averaged 5.0 for a 10-year career, whereas Emmitt was almost a full yard behind while toting the ball behind a bevy of road-graders. Put Barry on the Cowboys and his numbers would have been even more obscene. Stick Emmitt on the Lions and all of the consistency you covet simply would not have been there.
My two. >>
Thanks Stephen, I don't have to type all that now.
The only thing I would add is that "inferior line" leaves the door open for a slightly inferior line. It's a drastic difference. I'd put the early '90s cowboy lines up against any in history, while I'd hesitate to put the Sanders era lions lines up against the top 10 in any given nfl season. I also don't remember the best TE who played with Sanders, but Jay Novacek needs to be mentioned as yet another 5 time pro-bowl weapon that defenses needed to account for. >>
Sanders had no Moose Johnston blocking for him, either. No wonder he scored so many short range TDs!! 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.
<< <i>You have no case as has been clearly and plainly illustrated to most anyone but you and Dimeman. >>
Of course we have absolutes in sports. No debate over whether Wilt or Jordan or now LeBron is the best roundball player of all time. It is of course settled whether Tiger or Jack was the best at golf. We know that Gretzky was better than Gordie. Barry over Hank and Willie. Ali over Larry Holmes and Serena over Martina.
Any time we suggest a list of the top 5 quarterbacks, ten names come up.
But of course Barry Sanders was undoubtedly, without debate, the head and shoulders absolute best running back in the history of the game. Who could be so dense as myself and Dimeman to appreciate his talent yet discount his value as he was a non traditional runner. Why would anyone with an IQ above three question why this master of the game was taken out for goal line plays which is the time that you put in your best back.
Ohhhhh the humanity.