Jerry Rice vs Emmitt Smith

CrimsonTider · February 7, 2010 1:57AM

Since both of these greats were elected into the hall in the same class, both are all-time leaders in yardage at their position, and each have three rings, I want to poise two questions to this board.

1. In the overall area of 'greatest player', which one ranks higher?

2. In a fictional draft, who would you draft first and why?

72skywalker · February 7, 2010 2:05AM

In a fictional draft I would always take Jerry Rice over Emmitt especially since many years ago I picked Jerry Rice as my #1 pick in fantasy footbal and everyone laughed at me. I got to the finals and Jerry Rice singlehandedly beat the other guy I was playing. He had something like 3 touchdown and he actually threw for one and had 200+ yards.

I think Jerry is the better player because Emmitt had a great line to block for him and open holes. Don't get me wrong he is a great player but if he had Barry Sanders line he woul not of had all those touchdowns or yards. My humble opinion.

Eddo33 · February 7, 2010 2:06AM

Good question! There is no wrong answer as both were great, but I would take Rice for both questions. For no other reason then I enjoyed watching Rice more growing up. Personally I think Rice had no equal at his position. Emmitt might not even be the best RB during his years as I always felt Sanders was a better RB and more fun to watch. JMO.

shagrotn77 · February 7, 2010 2:07AM

Nothing against Emmitt, but I'd take Rice hands down.

Sportsamerica · February 7, 2010 2:12AM

I too would say Rice in both cases.. Emmitt was good, but I think Barry Sanders if on the cowboys, Sanders would have had higher numbers then Emmitt. Now granted Rice has some HOF Qb's who threw to him.

sportscardtheory · February 7, 2010 2:12AM

Rice all day long. Emmitt Smith is not the best ever running back, but there is no doubt Jerry Rice is the best ever wide receiver.

corvette1340 · February 7, 2010 2:18AM

both were unbelievable at what they did and are no question 2 of the best to ever play. That being said, neither would have achieved what they did without the players around them. Emmitt had a great o-line and several other weapons to open up the running game. Jerry got to catch balls from Montana and Young and was the prime benefactor of the introduction of the west-coast offense.

EDIT: lol, typed all that and didn't even answer the question. I guess I'd have to take Rice but again, it all depends on what players I have surrounding them.

sportscardtheory · February 7, 2010 2:31AM

<< both were unbelievable at what they did and are no question 2 of the best to ever play. That being said, neither would have achieved what they did without the players around them. Emmitt had a great o-line and several other weapons to open up the running game. Jerry got to catch balls from Montana and Young and was the prime benefactor of the introduction of the west-coast offense.

EDIT: lol, typed all that and didn't even answer the question. I guess I'd have to take Rice but again, it all depends on what players I have surrounding them. >>

I have never understood this. If it was only the West Coast system that made Rice great, why didn't any other WR step up and dominate in the system before Rice? The West Coast system was around long before Jerry Rice came along. The 49ers won TWO Super Bowls running a West Coast offense before Jerry Rice was even drafted. And why has no WR ever been as dominant as Jerry Rice since? The West Coast system didn't start and stop with Jerry Rice. If it made him so great, why has no WR come even close to dominating the way he did? Like I said, the West Coast offense did not start and stop at Jerry Rice.

VitoCo1972 · February 7, 2010 2:39AM

I will go against the general opinion here and say that I would take Emmitt. Here's why..

- If I needed 4 yards/carry from anyone who started their career post 1980, I think it's impossible to choose anyone except Emmitt. Barry may have been a better home run hitter, but Emmitt wouldn't lose 3 yards four times in a row trying to break one for 80 (and I loved Sanders too - take nothing away from him)

- If I needed a possession receiver from the same era, I think you have to take Rice - weird to call him that, but playing the West Coast Offense, everyone is pretty much a possession receiver. Rice wasn't a home run hitter either. He thrived in his system.

- But, if you take each guy and put them on a mediocre team that plays a traditional 2 back, 2 WR, 1 TE set. Who makes that team better? I think you have to say Emmitt.

Interesting topic. I'm not married to these thoughts. It's just what came to mind.

itzagoner · February 7, 2010 2:40AM

Emmitt.

better dancer.

Reljac · February 7, 2010 2:42AM

First off, two great athletes. Such class acts compared to some of the dancing attention starved clowns that play today.

In my opinion, Jerry Rice is bigger impact without question. Rice is arguably the best WR to ever play the game. I don't think Emmitt is the best RB to play the game.

In regards to Rice playing with Montana et al, No WR will EVER be great without playing with a good QB. Also, comparably Emmitt played in as great a system, so I think the other surrounding stars are kind of a moot point in this comparison.

In a fictional draft, I'd doubt I'd ever get one of these two, because I'd be spending my early picks on Defense, O-line, and QB. WRs and RBs are the benefactors of stability and strength of these other areas. Yes, even defense (since a good defense allows them time to rest).

corvette1340 · February 7, 2010 2:42AM

<< 

<< both were unbelievable at what they did and are no question 2 of the best to ever play. That being said, neither would have achieved what they did without the players around them. Emmitt had a great o-line and several other weapons to open up the running game. Jerry got to catch balls from Montana and Young and was the prime benefactor of the introduction of the west-coast offense.

EDIT: lol, typed all that and didn't even answer the question. I guess I'd have to take Rice but again, it all depends on what players I have surrounding them. >>

I have never understood this. If it was only the West Coast system that made Rice great, why didn't any other WR step up and dominate in the system before Rice? The West Coast system was around long before Jerry Rice came along. The 49ers won TWO Super Bowls running a West Coast offense before Jerry Rice was even drafted. And why has no WR ever been as dominant as Jerry Rice since? The West Coast system didn't start and stop with Jerry Rice. If it made him so great, why has no WR come even close to dominating the way he did? Like I said, the West Coast offense did not start and stop at Jerry Rice. >>

kindly point to where I said that it was only the west coast offense that made Jerry Rice great.

dtkk49a · February 7, 2010 2:42AM

Jerry Rice is my answer for both questions. I have almost every Rice card ever made.

firstbase23 · February 7, 2010 2:48AM

I would definitely take Jerry Rice over Emmitt Smith. Rice is the greatest ever at his position without question and I don't think Smith was the best running back of his era. I would take Barry Sanders over Smith.

Matt

sportscardtheory · February 7, 2010 2:51AM

<< 

<< 

<< both were unbelievable at what they did and are no question 2 of the best to ever play. That being said, neither would have achieved what they did without the players around them. Emmitt had a great o-line and several other weapons to open up the running game. Jerry got to catch balls from Montana and Young and was the prime benefactor of the introduction of the west-coast offense.

EDIT: lol, typed all that and didn't even answer the question. I guess I'd have to take Rice but again, it all depends on what players I have surrounding them. >>

I have never understood this. If it was only the West Coast system that made Rice great, why didn't any other WR step up and dominate in the system before Rice? The West Coast system was around long before Jerry Rice came along. The 49ers won TWO Super Bowls running a West Coast offense before Jerry Rice was even drafted. And why has no WR ever been as dominant as Jerry Rice since? The West Coast system didn't start and stop with Jerry Rice. If it made him so great, why has no WR come even close to dominating the way he did? Like I said, the West Coast offense did not start and stop at Jerry Rice. >>

kindly point to where I said that it was only the west coast offense that made Jerry Rice great. >>

Okay, so how MUCH of it was Montana/Young and how much of it was the West Coast offense? And if it was Montana/Young that made Jerry Rice great, how come Montana never made anyone else great when Rice wasn't around. And is it circumstantial that Young threw to Rice for nearly his entire starting career and is considered a great? You don't believe Rice made Young a better QB? Who did Young make a great in Tampa Bay? And if you believe the West Coast offense helped make Rice great, would it not have made Montana and Young great as well, thus proving my original point?

CrimsonTider · February 7, 2010 2:57AM

Thanks for the answers. Heres my opinion.

1. Jerry Rice will be consider to be greater than Emmitt

2. I would draft Emmitt over Rice. I prefer a running team over a passing team.

Blackborder · February 7, 2010 3:09AM

<< I will go against the general opinion here and say that I would take Emmitt. Here's why..

- If I needed 4 yards/carry from anyone who started their career post 1980, I think it's impossible to choose anyone except Emmitt. Barry may have been a better home run hitter, but Emmitt wouldn't lose 3 yards four times in a row trying to break one for 80 (and I loved Sanders too - take nothing away from him)

- If I needed a possession receiver from the same era, I think you have to take Rice - weird to call him that, but playing the West Coast Offense, everyone is pretty much a possession receiver. Rice wasn't a home run hitter either. He thrived in his system.

- But, if you take each guy and put them on a mediocre team that plays a traditional 2 back, 2 WR, 1 TE set. Who makes that team better? I think you have to say Emmitt.

Interesting topic. I'm not married to these thoughts. It's just what came to mind. >>

I'm getting on board with this analysis. I'll take Emmitt.

DaveP01 · February 7, 2010 3:15AM

Choosing 1 over the other is not a knock on either guy, both are all-time greats

Coming off the Herschel Walker trade, the Emmitt pick came at the perfect time. And it's also a pick that was never made. It's well known that Jimmy Johnson wanted to trade up from pk 21 to 13 to draft James Francis, a Linebacker from Baylor. Thank god for the Bengals who ended up drafting him before Dallas could move up. The Cowboys were able to move up to 17 to grab Emmitt. After the Emmitt pick at 17 there was a run on running backs so Emmitt would definetly been gone if they didn't move up to 17. I remember reading an article where Jimmy Johnson said that if Emmitt was gone he would've drafted Rodney Hampton.

SportsCardCollector · February 7, 2010 3:23AM

I would go along with what many of the folks here have said: that they were both exceptional athletes who truly excelled at their positions. Saying which was greater is liking saying which super hero is superer. They both were great in what they did for their teams.

Having said that, I would have to say that in a fictional draft (the other question the OP asked), I would take Rice before Smith. The reason? Well, as a GM looking at what Emmitt would give me in the years ahead, I see that I would get 21,564 total yards and 175 touchdowns. Jerry, on the other hand, would deliver 23,540 total yards and 208 touchdowns. We could debate the strengths, weaknesses, offenses, etc. of their respective teams all day, but in the end if you look at what they would produce in their careers, I'd draft Jerry Rice.

otwcards · February 7, 2010 3:25AM

I like Rice... It goes great with anything!

TomGshotput · February 7, 2010 3:34AM

Rice and it's not really close

Having Montana and Young throwing to you is not much more of an advantage than running behind the best offensive line in history. But for some reason it always seems Cowboy fans like to take away credit from those lineman by giving too much of it to Smith

DaveP01 · February 7, 2010 3:42AM

I know this Cowboy fan would never take any credit away from that O-line, they were obviously one of the big reasons those teams won in the 90's.

But i also know that in 93 when Emmitt sat out the first 2 games because of a contract dispute they went 0-2 and looked horrible in doing so. Emmitt came back in wk 3 and they went on to become the only team to win a Super Bowl after losing their first 2 games.

SoonerCowboy · February 7, 2010 3:57AM

Flip a coin because it's a win win situation. Anyway Jerry Rice should have been a Cowboy. Just a little trivia:
The Cowboys were set to draft Jerry Rice but SF traded up to get him.......one position a head of Dallas.
Another good reason to hate the 49ers. Just think: Aikman, Smith, Rice, Irvin, Novacek and Johnson.

hookem · February 7, 2010 3:59AM

Emmitt to both.

I am a biased Cowboy fan that had the 49er's break my heart too many times. In addition, I value the RB position more than the WR position.

Sportsamerica · February 7, 2010 4:30AM

<< I will go against the general opinion here and say that I would take Emmitt. Here's why..

- If I needed 4 yards/carry from anyone who started their career post 1980, I think it's impossible to choose anyone except Emmitt. Barry may have been a better home run hitter, but Emmitt wouldn't lose 3 yards four times in a row trying to break one for 80 (and I loved Sanders too - take nothing away from him)

- If I needed a possession receiver from the same era, I think you have to take Rice - weird to call him that, but playing the West Coast Offense, everyone is pretty much a possession receiver. Rice wasn't a home run hitter either. He thrived in his system.

- But, if you take each guy and put them on a mediocre team that plays a traditional 2 back, 2 WR, 1 TE set. Who makes that team better? I think you have to say Emmitt.

Interesting topic. I'm not married to these thoughts. It's just what came to mind. >>

For the tough yards, I would NOT take Emmitt... I would take a Bettis instead.

I agree Rice was a "move the chains" type receiver, (don't have time to look up how many long balls he caught).

ON a mediocre team, I would rather take the WR, as RB are easier to come by, but there are only a handful of "one of a kind" WR..

MrVintage · February 7, 2010 4:32AM

Its really a win-win situation but I would have to go with Emmitt. People that say Barry Sanders would have been better than Emmitt with the Dallas O-line are crazy!!! Barry had so many carries for losses because he ran side to side instead of uphill. Jerry Rice had Montana and Young throwing him passes but that doesn't take away from what he did and Emmitt having a great O-line doesn't take away from what he did. I can't think of any teams that won Super Bowls because of a dominating WR but there are plenty that have done it with a dominating ground game. Just my opinion.

BigDaddyBowman · February 7, 2010 4:37AM

I would trade my draft pick...to drop down 2 spots and select Jim Brown.

otwcards · February 7, 2010 4:53AM

<< I would trade my draft pick...to drop down 2 spots and select Jim Brown. >>

Jim who?

JasP24 · February 7, 2010 6:14AM

Jerry Rice, not even close.

Draft- Jim Brown..Greatest player in NFL history..

Boopotts · February 7, 2010 6:53AM

<< Jerry Rice, not even close.

Draft- Jim Brown..Greatest player in NFL history.. >>

Why is it that when 'greatest NFL player' discussions come up the talk immediately turns to skill position players? Has anyone ever answered 'Gino Marchetti' or 'Bob Lilly' to one of these questions?

CarsonPalmer · February 7, 2010 7:00AM

jerry rice for me. emmitt smith was very talented but always seemed a bit overrated. i enjoyed nothing better than watching barry sanders run the ball!

otwcards · February 7, 2010 7:09AM

<< 

<< Jerry Rice, not even close.

Draft- Jim Brown..Greatest player in NFL history.. >>

Why is it that when 'greatest NFL player' discussions come up the talk immediately turns to skill position players? Has anyone ever answered 'Gino Marchetti' or 'Bob Lilly' to one of these questions? >>

I would think that given Brown's incredible athletic ability and size, he probably would've been an All-Pro at virtually EVERY position had he been asked to play it. I'm not sure the same could be said for the likes of Deacon Jones, Gino Marchetti, Johnny Unitas, Lawrence Taylor, Dick Butkus and the others that come up when discussing the greatest players of all time...

I will say that I did enjoy going to Gino's (a fast food chain started by Marchetti and a few teammates) before it was sold off to Marriott...

DonnieD · February 7, 2010 7:41AM

I agree with the majority of people that have answered and go with Rice for both. As has been mentioned Rice is unquestionably the best player ever at his position (and I feel he is arguably the greatest player ever at any position). Also mentioned is that while Emmitt was great, he isn't the greatest ever at his position and isn't even the best of his era.

DonnieD · February 7, 2010 7:45AM

<< ... People that say Barry Sanders would have been better than Emmitt with the Dallas O-line are crazy!!! Barry had so many carries for losses because he ran side to side instead of uphill... >>

I find it hard to believe that people can really believe this. Barry Sanders is already better than Emmitt without giving him the advantage of a better surrounding cast. The numbers don't lie, he averaged nearly 20% more yardage per carry and did so on very mediocre teams. He ran east and west as much as he did partly because he was extrememly successful doing it and partly because as often as not he had no where to run. In my opinion Barry Sanders is unquestionably the greatest runner ever, and I'm a Walter Payton fan.

SDSportsFan · February 7, 2010 7:52AM

I'd take Rice every time!

It's far easier for a receiver to have an impact on their team, as long as they have a decent quarterback throwing to them. Running backs are too dependent on their offensive line and other blockers opening holes for them.

Having a great receiver gives a team a better chance of getting to the Super Bowl, than a great running back does. I think you have to look no further than Walter Payton, Barry Sanders Eric Dickerson and LaDainian Tomlinson to see this. How many Super Bowls did they get to? One (Payton). Then look at all the teams that have gone to the Super Bowl without a "premier" running back.

Steve

TomGshotput · February 7, 2010 7:56AM

<< Why is it that when 'greatest NFL player' discussions come up the talk immediately turns to skill position players? Has anyone ever answered 'Gino Marchetti' or 'Bob Lilly' to one of these questions? >>

Because to have team with effective tackling, you would need at least five very good players; to have a team with effective throwing, you need one guy

By shutting down an entire side of the field Deion Sanders could turn almost any group of defensive backs into an effective pass coverage unit; by shutting down his side of the field, the tackle opposite John Hannah still needed to hold his own. . .

Those are the type of skills that separate the merely very good from the best in history. The elite quarterback will almost always be more valuable than anyone else. The elite running back or pass rusher will usually have more value than the elite blocker or tackler

Rice v Smith: The difference between Rice and the second best receiver in history is about the same as the second best receiver and the 10th best; there is no way Smith is the best running back ever, can't see him any higher than fourth either ... Marshall Faulk is definitely closer to Smith than any receiver is to Rice

Blacklabelsociety · February 7, 2010 7:56AM

Tony Dorsett

dfr52 · February 7, 2010 8:05AM

I agree that it is a win-win situation but I would go w/ Smith. Kind of funny that the "great" Cowboys OL didn't become dominant till Smith came along. In fact none of the offensive players were Pro Bowlers till Smith arrived (who happened to make the Pro Bowl his rookie year). Who really made who?

TomGshotput · February 7, 2010 8:07AM

<< Its really a win-win situation but I would have to go with Emmitt. People that say Barry Sanders would have been better than Emmitt with the Dallas O-line are crazy!!! >>

He didn't just play behind a less line, he played on the worst franchise in sports. And single handily turned them into a playoff team. In his 10 year career the Detroit Lions had five winning seasons. It might take them 40 years to reach that number without him. Like people who take away from the greatness of that Dallas line by giving Smith too much credit, not giving Sanders the credit he deserves for those years is taking away too much ineptitude from that franchise

Boopotts · February 7, 2010 8:08AM

<< 

<< Why is it that when 'greatest NFL player' discussions come up the talk immediately turns to skill position players? Has anyone ever answered 'Gino Marchetti' or 'Bob Lilly' to one of these questions? >>

Because to have team with effective tackling, you would need at least five very good players; to have a team with effective throwing, you need one guy

By shutting down an entire side of the field Deion Sanders could turn almost any group of defensive backs into an effective pass coverage unit; by shutting down his side of the field, the tackle opposite John Hannah still needed to hold his own. . .

Those are the type of skills that separate the merely very good from the best in history. The elite quarterback will almost always be more valuable than anyone else. The elite running back or pass rusher will usually have more value than the elite blocker or tackler

Rice v Smith: The difference between Rice and the second best receiver in history is about the same as the second best receiver and the 10th best; there is no way Smith is the best running back ever, can't see him any higher than fourth either ... Marshall Faulk is definitely closer to Smith than any receiver is to Rice >>

That's fine, if we're talking 'valuable'. But we're not- we're talking the 'best', which is entirely different. There is no reason on Earth why the an All-World DE couldn't play on a line with three scrubs and still not be the best player in the world. If he's not recognized as the best then that's a problem with the metrics used to evaluate talent- the player is not at fault.

SDSportsFan · February 7, 2010 8:12AM

<< That's fine, if we're talking 'valuable'. But we're not- we're talking the 'best', which is entirely different. There is no reason on Earth why the an All-World DE couldn't play on a line with three scrubs and still not be the best player in the world. If he's not recognized as the best then that's a problem with the metrics used to evaluate talent- the player is not at fault. >>

That's true; however, if that All-World DE isn't getting any help from his linemates, all the opposing offensive linemen have to do is double-team him, and it makes it twice as difficult for him to show what he is capable of.

Steve

dfr52 · February 7, 2010 8:15AM

<< 

<< Its really a win-win situation but I would have to go with Emmitt. People that say Barry Sanders would have been better than Emmitt with the Dallas O-line are crazy!!! >>

He didn't just play behind a less line, he played on the worst franchise in sports. And single handily turned them into a playoff team. In his 10 year career the Detroit Lions had five winning seasons. It might take them 40 years to reach that number without him. Like people who take away from the greatness of that Dallas line by giving Smith too much credit, not giving Sanders the credit he deserves for those years is taking away too much ineptitude from that franchise >>

The Lions also won more games and went to the playoffs the year after Sanders retired.

TomGshotput · February 7, 2010 8:17AM

<< That's fine, if we're talking 'valuable'. But we're not- we're talking the 'best', which is entirely different >>

How is best not defined by how much you help your team win? Lilly and Marchetti were great, their skills just helped their teams slightly less than Taylor or Deacon Jones no matter who the others on the line were

And all four are behind a few QBs

DaveP01 · February 7, 2010 8:18AM

Barry Sanders also played with 2 offensive lineman that went to multiple ProBowls so lets not make it sound like the guy ran behind a Pop Warner line

DaveP01 · February 7, 2010 8:21AM

And nobody is mentioning that there's more to the position than just running the ball . If you were a Qb who would you want picking up a blitzing linebacker, Emmitt or Barry ? Emmitt was also a better reciever out of the backfield and was never taken out of the game on short yardage situations like Sanders was

ElToroLoco · February 7, 2010 8:29AM

I'd take Jerry Rice, Brett Favre and Marshall Faulk.

Boopotts · February 7, 2010 10:00AM

<< 

<< That's fine, if we're talking 'valuable'. But we're not- we're talking the 'best', which is entirely different >>

How is best not defined by how much you help your team win? Lilly and Marchetti were great, their skills just helped their teams slightly less than Taylor or Deacon Jones no matter who the others on the line were

And all four are behind a few QBs >>

To me, I guess the best is defined by how much better you are than the second best player at your position. That seems like the only reasonable definition- otherwise we'd be arguing about kickers, who by almost any measure do quite a bit to help their team win (or lose, if you're Scott Norwood).

Also, to be clear, I'm not arguing for Marchetti or Lilly. I'm just trying to point out what I think it a bias towards skill position players when these types of discussions arise.

markj111 · February 7, 2010 1:28PM

Is this a trick question? Rice. Not close.

Blacklabelsociety · February 7, 2010 1:34PM

If Barry wouldnt had retired early, he would hold all of the records.

sportscardtheory · February 7, 2010 1:36PM

<< 

<< Jerry Rice, not even close.

Draft- Jim Brown..Greatest player in NFL history.. >>

Why is it that when 'greatest NFL player' discussions come up the talk immediately turns to skill position players? Has anyone ever answered 'Gino Marchetti' or 'Bob Lilly' to one of these questions? >>

Probably the same reasons as when people talk about no-hitters and perfect games but only talk about the pitcher, while usually ignoring the catchers. Right or not, it's just how it is.

TomGshotput · February 7, 2010 3:17PM

<< To me, I guess the best is defined by how much better you are than the second best player at your position. That seems like the only reasonable definition- otherwise we'd be arguing about kickers, who by almost any measure do quite a bit to help their team win (or lose, if you're Scott Norwood). >>

By that logic, kickers could very well surpass QBs. If Montana is infinitesimally better than Unitas, that means the top player at every other position has distanced himself more and is therefore better. Ray Guy and Steve Tasker must be among the very best football players in history

Which is why the impact on the scoreboard and standings is the only true measure. If you replace the best kicker in the league with someone not even good enough to earn a roster spot, it will make a small difference over 16 games. If you replace a merely average starting QB with a practice squad level QB, it will make a huge difference

Jerry Rice vs Emmitt Smith

Comments