Options
Rank these running backs in their prime
PowderedH2O
Posts: 2,443 ✭✭
in Sports Talk
Three running backs from the 1970's. One of them had a longer career and eventually became a HOFer, but the other two guys had several excellent seasons in the decade that might show that they were as good in their primes. So, rank Franco Harris, Chuck Foreman, and Lydell Mitchell. If you could take the best three or four year stint from each player (not counting what their teams did, just the player), who was the best?
For me it is: 1. Chuck Foreman. 2. Lydell Mitchell. 3. Franco Harris
Am I wrong? If so, convince me with your intelligent and courteous argument.
For me it is: 1. Chuck Foreman. 2. Lydell Mitchell. 3. Franco Harris
Am I wrong? If so, convince me with your intelligent and courteous argument.
Successful dealings with shootybabitt, LarryP, Doctor K, thedutymon, billsgridirongreats, fattymacs, shagrotn77, pclpads, JMDVM, gumbyfan, itzagoner, rexvos, al032184, gregm13, californiacards3, mccardguy1, BigDaddyBowman, bigreddog, bobbyw8469, burke23, detroitfan2, drewsef, jeff8877, markmac, Goldlabels, swartz1, blee1, EarlsWorld, gseaman25, kcballboy, jimrad, leadoff4, weinhold, Mphilking, milbroco, msassin, meteoriteguy, rbeaton and gameusedhoop.
0
Comments
Actually pretty close between Mitchell and Foreman. I grew up a Vikings fan and remember when they drafted Chuck, had never heard of him, but he was a great running back, maybe not so good on the "up the middle" runs but he was a graceful and very fast RB. I never saw much of Mitchell and was surprised at how many passes he caught!
Of course I also remember Franco Harris destroying the Vikings in the super bowl and he did have the nice long career.
Now we will wait for a certain pea brained idiot to chime in!!!!!
Joe
foreman
mitchell
<< <i>Harris
foreman
mitchell >>
This is the correct answer.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Please elaborate on why you think Franco's peak years were better than the others.
Joe
Erik
Mitchell may have been the better of the three from 1975-77. He had over 1700 yards from scrimmage all three years, foreman had two of three over 1700 and a 1400, Harris never had a year above 1477.
For peak performance, I am changing my mind to;
Mitchell
Foreman
Harris
Overall career it's not even close Harris was a STUD, he just didn't catch many passes. He didn't need to with the receivers Pittsburgh had.
<< <i>If you look at Harris' years from 75-79 he fumbled about 8 times a year and he had the fewest "touches" of all three players, about 300 per year (he fumbled 11 times in 79). Foreman did have one bad year (75) with 12 fumbles, but he averaged about 9 fumbles in his big years while he was getting about 330 touches (353 touches in 1975). Mitchell seems to be the guy who hung onto the ball, he averaged 360 touches in his big years and fumbled about 5 times a year. THAT'S IMPRESSIVE!
Mitchell may have been the better of the three from 1975-77. He had over 1700 yards from scrimmage all three years, foreman had two of three over 1700 and a 1400, Harris never had a year above 1477.
For peak performance, I am changing my mind to;
Mitchell
Foreman
Harris
Overall career it's not even close Harris was a STUD, he just didn't catch many passes. He didn't need to with the receivers Pittsburgh had. >>
This is the correct answer
<< <i>
Please elaborate on why you think Franco's peak years were better than the others.
Joe >>
The rings
<< <i>
<< <i>
Please elaborate on why you think Franco's peak years were better than the others.
Joe >>
The rings
That's just silly. Why do people want to mix individual rankings with TEAM accomplishments? Doesn't make ANY sense.
OP said NOT counting on what their teams did.
Last year Adrian Peterson was the greatest running back of all time. Every defensive coordinator planned for Peterson and he shredded them. I don't know how many receiving yards and don't care. I'm thinking Faulk or Tomlinson may have had more yards from scrimmage in one of their years; but who cares.
By the way....Foreman was a good player.
<< <i>I'll take Franco. I want a running back to run. I don't need all these other stats about receiving. >>
Why wouldn't you? Wouldn't a yard gained through the air be as valuable as a yard gained on the ground? That being said I think Franco was the best of the lot.
<< <i>Last year Adrian Peterson was the greatest running back of all time. Every defensive coordinator planned for Peterson and he shredded them. I don't know how many receiving yards and don't care. I'm thinking Faulk or Tomlinson may have had more yards from scrimmage in one of their years; but who cares.
Greatest of all time? It was indeed an amazing year, but I would take Chris Johnson's 2009 campaign where he had over 2500 yards or LDT's 2006 run where he caught over 100 balls, had over 1800 rushing yards and over 500 receiving yards, rushed for 28 TDs and caught 3 more.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
Please elaborate on why you think Franco's peak years were better than the others.
Joe >>
The rings
That's just silly. Why do people want to mix individual rankings with TEAM accomplishments? Doesn't make ANY sense.
OP said NOT counting on what their teams did. >>
True, but super bowl MVP is an individual award.
<< <i>It was the greatest single season by a RB in my opinion. He had the entire team on his back and still came through. I would not even compare Johnson and Peterson. Peterson is a power back with tremendous speed. >>
Who did CJ2K have on his team that year? Vince Young and Kerry Collins were his QBs, who combined for 3000 yards, 55% completion percentage, and 16 TDs vs 15 INTs.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
Please elaborate on why you think Franco's peak years were better than the others.
Joe >>
The rings
That's just silly. Why do people want to mix individual rankings with TEAM accomplishments? Doesn't make ANY sense.
OP said NOT counting on what their teams did. >>
True, but super bowl MVP is an individual award. >>
Yes it is, however in looking at what the OP has posted, I used regular season totals. Perhaps "powdered" would like to chime in here to clarify.