Someone tried to convince me that Barry Sanders is not the greatest

[KDawgCometh]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say it means a lot. Being a running back is very, very hard. Guys like Martin, Bettis, and Smith don't get enough credit for being durable and providing value for a long time.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think they get plenty of credit, but emmitt was very much helped out by having the 16 game schedule while Brown never had more then 14 regular season games and only had that for three years tops. If brown played up to 35 I think emmitt wouldn't be anywhere near brown's record.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]


i think I could name 10 running backs better than emmit smith.

Dorsett
OJ
Brown
Payton
Sanders
Campbell
Dickerson
Marcus Allen
Bo Jackson
Faulk

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad someone mentioned this. Emmitt is just a titch overrated. It's tough to run behind the line he had for so many years. How many all-pros were on it? Not to mention a good passing attack to help open up the run.

My vote goes for Payton.

b

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
Emmitt is just a titch overrated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Emmitt Smith is one of the most underrated players of all time, because football fans think they know more than they really do. It's the "smart" thing to think of Emmitt as overrated.

Hell with that. You know who's overrated? Bo Jackson. Bo was an absolutely electrifying talent... but, hell, he never even ran for 1000 yards once.

Marshall Faulk? The guy has 3 great seaons - and don't get me wrong, they were 3 fantasic season - but he's pretty much made a career out of them. Other than those seasons, he's been pretty pedestrian.

Marcus Allen? Holy hell, the guy had 1985 and a bunch of average years.

Earl Campbell? Ladanian Tomlinson.

OJ Simpson was a beast, so were Eric Dickerson, Jim Brown, Walter Payton, and Barry Sanders.

But some people are going to actually try to say Marshall [censored] Faulk's a better back than Emmitt? C'mon!

[SammyKid11]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Emmitt is just a titch overrated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Emmitt Smith is one of the most underrated players of all time, because football fans think they know more than they really do. It's the "smart" thing to think of Emmitt as overrated.

Hell with that. You know who's overrated? Bo Jackson. Bo was an absolutely electrifying talent... but, hell, he never even ran for 1000 yards once.

Marshall Faulk? The guy has 3 great seaons - and don't get me wrong, they were 3 fantasic season - but he's pretty much made a career out of them. Other than those seasons, he's been pretty pedestrian.

Marcus Allen? Holy hell, the guy had 1985 and a bunch of average years.

Earl Campbell? Ladanian Tomlinson.

OJ Simpson was a beast, so were Eric Dickerson, Jim Brown, Walter Payton, and Barry Sanders.

But some people are going to actually try to say Marshall [censored] Faulk's a better back than Emmitt? C'mon!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I'm with you on this, and I hate the Cowboys (despite, or maybe because of, living in Dallas for the last 8 years). But for someone to provide such a consistent, reliable presence in a backfield for so long...someone who blocked well, someone who got tough first downs, someone who could cut and run with power, and Emmitt was no slouch catching passes either, plus he found the end zone, played hurt, came up big in the playoffs, didn't fumble much for as much as he carried the ball. He certainly is not the most talented RB to ever play the game...but with what he gave the Cowboys for so many years, he can't not be considered one of the 10 greatest RB's of all time. That Dorsett, Faulk, Dickerson, and the like would be mentioned ahead of him is shameful. Even Campbell shouldn't be considered greater, despite the fact that he had a greater impact on the game when he was in his 3-4 year prime. If I'm a GM, I'll take 10 years of regular-greatness over 3-4 years of super-greatness any day. Gives me 6-7 more years to put enough team around it to get a ring.....incidentally, that's exactly what happened with Smith's Cowboys three times and Campbell's Oilers zero times.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Emmitt is just a titch overrated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Emmitt Smith is one of the most underrated players of all time, because football fans think they know more than they really do. It's the "smart" thing to think of Emmitt as overrated.

Hell with that. You know who's overrated? Bo Jackson. Bo was an absolutely electrifying talent... but, hell, he never even ran for 1000 yards once.

Marshall Faulk? The guy has 3 great seaons - and don't get me wrong, they were 3 fantasic season - but he's pretty much made a career out of them. Other than those seasons, he's been pretty pedestrian.

Marcus Allen? Holy hell, the guy had 1985 and a bunch of average years.

Earl Campbell? Ladanian Tomlinson.

OJ Simpson was a beast, so were Eric Dickerson, Jim Brown, Walter Payton, and Barry Sanders.

But some people are going to actually try to say Marshall [censored] Faulk's a better back than Emmitt? C'mon!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I'm with you on this, and I hate the Cowboys (despite, or maybe because of, living in Dallas for the last 8 years). But for someone to provide such a consistent, reliable presence in a backfield for so long...someone who blocked well, someone who got tough first downs, someone who could cut and run with power, and Emmitt was no slouch catching passes either, plus he found the end zone, played hurt, came up big in the playoffs, didn't fumble much for as much as he carried the ball. He certainly is not the most talented RB to ever play the game...but with what he gave the Cowboys for so many years, he can't not be considered one of the 10 greatest RB's of all time. That Dorsett, Faulk, Dickerson, and the like would be mentioned ahead of him is shameful. Even Campbell shouldn't be considered greater, despite the fact that he had a greater impact on the game when he was in his 3-4 year prime. If I'm a GM, I'll take 10 years of regular-greatness over 3-4 years of super-greatness any day. Gives me 6-7 more years to put enough team around it to get a ring.....incidentally, that's exactly what happened with Smith's Cowboys three times and Campbell's Oilers zero times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many backs could've done very well in the Dallas offense when Emmitt was there. Campbell's oilers didn't have near the offense that the cowboys did. Neither did the Oilers have the defense that the cowbowys did that also helped out the offense.

You really think Faulk wouldn't have fourished in the Cowboys offense all those years as well if not better than Emmitt? Remember who he played for before the rams. Indy sucked. Hell, put Ricky Waters in the cowboys offense and see how he'd have done.

Yes, Smith is overrated. He didn't exactly carry that team all on his own. He had alot of all-pro help.

b

[SammyKid11]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Emmitt is just a titch overrated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Emmitt Smith is one of the most underrated players of all time, because football fans think they know more than they really do. It's the "smart" thing to think of Emmitt as overrated.

Hell with that. You know who's overrated? Bo Jackson. Bo was an absolutely electrifying talent... but, hell, he never even ran for 1000 yards once.

Marshall Faulk? The guy has 3 great seaons - and don't get me wrong, they were 3 fantasic season - but he's pretty much made a career out of them. Other than those seasons, he's been pretty pedestrian.

Marcus Allen? Holy hell, the guy had 1985 and a bunch of average years.

Earl Campbell? Ladanian Tomlinson.

OJ Simpson was a beast, so were Eric Dickerson, Jim Brown, Walter Payton, and Barry Sanders.

But some people are going to actually try to say Marshall [censored] Faulk's a better back than Emmitt? C'mon!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I'm with you on this, and I hate the Cowboys (despite, or maybe because of, living in Dallas for the last 8 years). But for someone to provide such a consistent, reliable presence in a backfield for so long...someone who blocked well, someone who got tough first downs, someone who could cut and run with power, and Emmitt was no slouch catching passes either, plus he found the end zone, played hurt, came up big in the playoffs, didn't fumble much for as much as he carried the ball. He certainly is not the most talented RB to ever play the game...but with what he gave the Cowboys for so many years, he can't not be considered one of the 10 greatest RB's of all time. That Dorsett, Faulk, Dickerson, and the like would be mentioned ahead of him is shameful. Even Campbell shouldn't be considered greater, despite the fact that he had a greater impact on the game when he was in his 3-4 year prime. If I'm a GM, I'll take 10 years of regular-greatness over 3-4 years of super-greatness any day. Gives me 6-7 more years to put enough team around it to get a ring.....incidentally, that's exactly what happened with Smith's Cowboys three times and Campbell's Oilers zero times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many backs could've done very well in the Dallas offense when Emmitt was there. Campbell's oilers didn't have near the offense that the cowboys did. Neither did the Oilers have the defense that the cowbowys did that also helped out the offense.

You really think Faulk wouldn't have fourished in the Cowboys offense all those years as well if not better than Emmitt? Remember who he played for before the rams. Indy sucked. Hell, put Ricky Waters in the cowboys offense and see how he'd have done.

Yes, Smith is overrated. He didn't exactly carry that team all on his own. He had alot of all-pro help.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not reading what I'm saying. Of course Emmitt had a lot of help...but Emmitt+Help equaled THREE rings in four years, and he was definitely the star of the show. Marshall Faulk had a lot of help with the Rams and didn't come close to that result. Ricky Watters had a lot of help with the 49'ers and didn't come close to that result. Earl Campbell...no, not a ton of help, and that team did get to the AFC Championship twice. And that's a great achievement...but I already covered Campbell - I'd rather have a guy who can give you regular-great 9 years in a row than someone who can give you super-great for 3 years.

As for putting Faulk or Watters in the Cowboys offense, the point is that you can't. You don't know how that would have gone down...you can't say that their results would have been as good, the same, or better. What you CAN say is that Emmitt's results (3 rings, NFL MVP, Super Bowl MVP, and all-time rushing leader) were really, really good and it's hard to imagine anyone short of the elite doing BETTER than that. Since you can't know, you give props to the guys who have gotten results...you don't speculate and pontificate that you (an amateur, as am I) are such a great judge of theoretical ability that you know someone like Faulk or Watters could have done as well or better.

Anyway...I don't think Emmitt is over or underrated. I think his place in most sports opinions as one of the top 10 we've seen is about right.

[disjunction]

I'm not someone who appreciates great athleticism nearly enough. Maybe it's because I'm not a visual person. Slam dunks, diving catches, big home runs, they're often lost on me.

Barry Sanders sure was fun to watch.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
Many backs could've done very well in the Dallas offense when Emmitt was there.

[/ QUOTE ]

But only one back could've done very well in the Dallas offense for 13 years.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]

Marshall Faulk? The guy has 3 great seaons

[/ QUOTE ]

Wtf do you consider a great season? He had 6 seasons with over 1700 all purpose yards and >10tds. He was considered an elite back when Indy traded him.

You do realize that rbs can come out of the backfield and have an impact on games right?

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Marshall Faulk? The guy has 3 great seaons

[/ QUOTE ]

Wtf do you consider a great season? He had 6 seasons with over 1700 all purpose yards and >10tds. He was considered an elite back when Indy traded him.

You do realize that rbs can come out of the backfield and have an impact on games right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, he only had 5 such seasons.

Let me rephrase my statement:

The guy has 3 fantastic seasons (first 3 years in STL) and one great season (last year in Indy). 1998 is clearly not on the level of 99-01, as he generated the same amount of total yards in around 70 less touches.

His rookie year isn't that great. The averages were nearly identical to 1998, but he had 40 less touches. It's a very solid season out of a feature back but it's not much more. With the number of touches these guys get, 1700 yards isn't some huge, upper-tier number. Last year, 8 guys reached 1700 all purpose yards, including... Domanick Davis.

But you really have to take into account the number of touches a guy gets. Sometimes the guy who had the better year is the one with less yards.