Jump to content

Greatest Runningback of all time?


mdonnelly21

..  

191 members have voted

  1. 1. Greatest Runningback of all time?



Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, ZenoRazon said:

I agree Dickey, then Bennett.

Jesse Owens (30's) is an all time legendary sprinter, even non track fans know about him.  There are HS kids today that will never do anything in the sport who would dust Owens.  Era....is everything in track, everything.

The great USSR sprinter Valery Borzov won the 72 Olympic 100m in 10.14, HSer Trendarvis Friday ran a HS record 10.00 a few years ago. Friday already out of the sport.

BUT.....Bullet Bob Hayes would STILL be the fastest WR in the NFL, yep, faster than Hill.

I get that people from older eras will have more accolades with slower times, but at the end of the day if we are comparing guys speed, era does nothing for me. I'm going with the newer guys like Jeff Demps, Trindon Holliday, and Jacoby Ford over anyone not named Bob Hayes in regards to fastest NFL players ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, tyler735 said:

I get that people from older eras will have more accolades with slower times, but at the end of the day if we are comparing guys speed, era does nothing for me. I'm going with the newer guys like Jeff Demps, Trindon Holliday, and Jacoby Ford over anyone not named Bob Hayes in regards to fastest NFL players ever.

Well if you are going to have Demps then we must have the fastest pro footballer ever, Jim Hines.  He was histories first sub10.00 sprinter, he won the 68 Olympics in 9.95. He caught.....one....pass.

Then there was Willie McGee out of Alcorn who was a Charger, he tied that 9.1 100 yards WR that Hayes ran.

Olympian Ron Brown ran that 10.06 like Hayes,

Olympian Frank Budd ran a 9.2WR.

Yes Demps, Holliday, Ford, would be in any Fastest NFLers talk, then there was 9.91 sprinter Leonard Scott out of Tennessee who trying out for the Steelers, nope,  John Capel a 9.97 cat out of Florida another one who failed in the NFL.

One of my fav trivia questions is this one......

When Bullet Bob Hayes was in the NFL, there were two fellow NFLers that had beaten him.....who?

Gale Sayers older bro Roger was a great sprinter and footballer, he beat Hayes.

 

Edited by ZenoRazon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weren't a lot of those older times run on surfaces that absorbed impact more and essentially slowed runners down?

Back to threads topic: I think Barry Sanders' running style was significantly altered by playing in a run and shoot offense.  If he had played a in a more conventional setup with 2 backs, it could have had positive or negative effects overall, but probably fewer highlight reel runs (maybe better bulk stats, avg's probably down though.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Brown was a freak of nature,  at 6-2 230 pounds with 4.5 speed he was as big as some  D line men.  I hope this can be talked about like mature adults, he didn't face many black athletes in his day, so he always has a huge speed/quicks advantage.

Imagine teams stacked to stop one guy and he STILL averaged 100 yards a game and over 5 yards a carry.

I have no doubts that Jim Brown could play today, obviously not as dominate but could play.

Edited by ZenoRazon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ZenoRazon said:

Jim Brown was a freak of nature,  at 6-2 230 pounds with 4.5 speed he was as big as some  D line men.  I hope this can be talked about like mature adults, he didn't face many black athletes in his day, so he always has a huge speed/quicks advantage.

Please don't talk about race.

Tks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barry Sanders was, without question, extremely gifted, fun to watch and breath taking at times.

But Emmitt Smith MADE that dynasty. The entire offense hinged on his success.

Want proof?

1993- Cowboys just pasted Buffalo in the SB.

Only 9 months later, we couldn't beat them in the regular season and fell to 0 and 2.

Without Smith, Dallas wins ZERO SB a.

Also, Sanders met Smith in the playoffs and won.

Its not like Detroit was a losing team.

Don't make Emmitt  Smith's success all about his supporting cast.

He won at the HS level and College level because of his talent.

Christ, he even won Dancing with the stars!

The guy is a winner and the best there ever was.

Edited by Rtnldave
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Rtnldave said:

Barry Sanders was, without question, extremely gifted, fun to watch and breath taking at times.

But Emmitt Smith MADE that dynasty. The entire offense hinged on his success.

Want proof?

1993- Cowboys just pasted Buffalo in the SB.

Only 9 months later, we couldn't beat them in the regular season and fell to 0 and 2.

Without Smith, Dallas wins ZERO SB a.

Also, Sanders met Smith in the playoffs and won.

Its not like Detroit was a losing team.

Don't make Emmitt  Smith's success all about his supporting cast.

He won at the HS level and College level because of his talent.

Christ, he even won Dancing with the stars!

The guy is a winner and the best there ever was.

You have to take the supporting cast into account especially when he had better people around him at every position compared to Sanders. Even if you want to ignore supporting Emmitt Smith only had longevity and TDs over Barry Sanders. In each of their first 10 seasons (all 10 for Barry):

                                                                                    
                                  Rush  Rush Rush Rush Rush Rece Rece Rece Rece Rece
Rk           Player From   To   G  Att   Yds   TD  Y/A  Lng  Rec  Yds   TD  Y/R  Lng
1    Barry Sanders* 1989 1998 153 3062 15269   99  5.0   85  352 2921   10  8.3   66
2     Emmitt Smith* 1990 1999 155 3243 13963  136  4.3   75  442 2728   11  6.2   86

If you look at overlapping years only:

                                                                                    
                                  Rush  Rush Rush Rush Rush Rece Rece Rece Rece Rece
Rk           Player From   To   G  Att   Yds   TD  Y/A  Lng  Rec  Yds   TD  Y/R  Lng
1    Barry Sanders* 1990 1998 138 2782 13799   85  5.0   85  328 2639   10  8.0   66
2     Emmitt Smith* 1990 1998 140 2914 12566  125  4.3   75  415 2609    9  6.3   86

Barry bests him in rushing yards total and average over both spans and more yards receiving and yards per reception receiving. Please show me in there how Emmitt was better.

Edited by skywlker32
tables
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, skywlker32 said:

You have to take the supporting cast into account especially when he had better people around him at every position compared to Sanders. Even if you want to ignore supporting Emmitt Smith only had longevity and TDs over Barry Sanders. In each of their first 10 seasons (all 10 for Barry):

 


                                                                                    
                                  Rush  Rush Rush Rush Rush Rece Rece Rece Rece Rece
Rk           Player From   To   G  Att   Yds   TD  Y/A  Lng  Rec  Yds   TD  Y/R  Lng
1    Barry Sanders* 1989 1998 153 3062 15269   99  5.0   85  352 2921   10  8.3   66
2     Emmitt Smith* 1990 1999 155 3243 13963  136  4.3   75  442 2728   11  6.2   86

 

If you look at overlapping years only:


                                                                                    
                                  Rush  Rush Rush Rush Rush Rece Rece Rece Rece Rece
Rk           Player From   To   G  Att   Yds   TD  Y/A  Lng  Rec  Yds   TD  Y/R  Lng
1    Barry Sanders* 1990 1998 138 2782 13799   85  5.0   85  328 2639   10  8.0   66
2     Emmitt Smith* 1990 1998 140 2914 12566  125  4.3   75  415 2609    9  6.3   86

Barry bests him in rushing yards total and average over both spans and more yards receiving and yards per reception receiving. Please show me in there how Emmitt was better.

Everyone has different criteria of being the best means. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, skywlker32 said:

You have to take the supporting cast into account especially when he had better people around him at every position compared to Sanders. Even if you want to ignore supporting Emmitt Smith only had longevity and TDs over Barry Sanders. In each of their first 10 seasons (all 10 for Barry):

 


                                                                                    
                                  Rush  Rush Rush Rush Rush Rece Rece Rece Rece Rece
Rk           Player From   To   G  Att   Yds   TD  Y/A  Lng  Rec  Yds   TD  Y/R  Lng
1    Barry Sanders* 1989 1998 153 3062 15269   99  5.0   85  352 2921   10  8.3   66
2     Emmitt Smith* 1990 1999 155 3243 13963  136  4.3   75  442 2728   11  6.2   86

 

If you look at overlapping years only:


                                                                                    
                                  Rush  Rush Rush Rush Rush Rece Rece Rece Rece Rece
Rk           Player From   To   G  Att   Yds   TD  Y/A  Lng  Rec  Yds   TD  Y/R  Lng
1    Barry Sanders* 1990 1998 138 2782 13799   85  5.0   85  328 2639   10  8.0   66
2     Emmitt Smith* 1990 1998 140 2914 12566  125  4.3   75  415 2609    9  6.3   86

Barry bests him in rushing yards total and average over both spans and more yards receiving and yards per reception receiving. Please show me in there how Emmitt was better.

Simple, 3 rings. Your definition of greatness relies on stats. Yes, they are important but lest we forget Sanders played in a MUCH weaker division. He saw the likes of GB, Minn, Chic 6 games out of a year. 

Whereas Smith saw NYG, 2 SB titles in the 4 previous years, Wash, 2 SB titles in the 4 previous years and the all time, CLOSE BUT NO CIGAR- GANG GREEN DEFENSE, Iggles.

not to mention after the 1992 and 93 season, Dallas being the SB champs, got the toughest schedules in the league. So Smith had a better supporting cast, yes that's true, but he also face the league's best every season, much more than Sanders.

Now, back to the 3 rings. Perhaps your definition of greatness relies on stats, and they are important to be sure. But I have been saying this since day 1 on this site.

Stats= talent.

Greatness = how you use that talent to overcome adversity, achieve and ultimately be the best.

There is absolutely, indisputably, and in all other ways NO possible way Dallas wins even 1 SB without E. Smith. Notta, Zilch, None.

He blocked better than Barry, was a better WR than Barry  and played the RB position better than ANY other back I had ever seen in my lifetime or on film.

That includes everything, not just yardage and TD's (which he owns the most anyway).

So when I say Emmitt Smith was the greatest RB of all time, I am looking at way more than yards per carry or TD's etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barry Sanders had seven seasons where he gained over 1400 yards rushing yards, Smith only had five.

Sanders had eight seasons where he had a 4.5 or better avg per carry, Smith only had three.

So ...make that....SOOOOOOOOO many times there was Emmitt four yards down the field before having to do anything, while Barry had to find some escape.

Barry Sanders a far superior "runner" than Emmitt Smth,  When Barry got the ball you were......here we go.....that wasn't Emmitt Smith.

But, no RB ever dominated an era like Jim Brown, he was on a whole other level.

Edited by ZenoRazon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Rtnldave said:

Simple, 3 rings. Your definition of greatness relies on stats. Yes, they are important but lest we forget Sanders played in a MUCH weaker division. He saw the likes of GB, Minn, Chic 6 games out of a year. 

Whereas Smith saw NYG, 2 SB titles in the 4 previous years, Wash, 2 SB titles in the 4 previous years and the all time, CLOSE BUT NO CIGAR- GANG GREEN DEFENSE, Iggles.

not to mention after the 1992 and 93 season, Dallas being the SB champs, got the toughest schedules in the league. So Smith had a better supporting cast, yes that's true, but he also face the league's best every season, much more than Sanders.

Now, back to the 3 rings. Perhaps your definition of greatness relies on stats, and they are important to be sure. But I have been saying this since day 1 on this site.

Stats= talent.

Greatness = how you use that talent to overcome adversity, achieve and ultimately be the best.

There is absolutely, indisputably, and in all other ways NO possible way Dallas wins even 1 SB without E. Smith. Notta, Zilch, None.

He blocked better than Barry, was a better WR than Barry  and played the RB position better than ANY other back I had ever seen in my lifetime or on film.

That includes everything, not just yardage and TD's (which he owns the most anyway).

So when I say Emmitt Smith was the greatest RB of all time, I am looking at way more than yards per carry or TD's etc.

No, the 3 rings means that he was a very good running back on a great TEAM. It annoys me enough to use SBs to measure QBs, but to then translate it to RBs is maddening with how reliant a RB is on the rest of the team. The reason Sanders' teams were worse? Let's look at the QBs he played with (any QB with more than 2 starts in a season):

Bob Gagliano, Rodney Peete, Erik Kramer, Andre Ware, Scott Mitchell, Dave Krieg, Don Majkowskim, Charlie Batch, Frank Reich

Please tell me where in there is a QB that was even remotely close to Troy Aikman.

How about team defense (rankings in points allowed)?2

19th, 26th, 11th, 20th, 15th, 19th, 14th, 22th, 10th, 24th

That is top half of the league in defense 3 times (1 barely top 10 defense). For the record half of Sanders' career they had a top 10 offense with nothing else around him.

Greatness is producing at a high level. Talent is the potential to be great. Using players, Sanders is great, Bo Jackson may have had more talent.

Get out of here with the team accolades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, skywlker32 said:

No, the 3 rings means that he was a very good running back on a great TEAM. It annoys me enough to use SBs to measure QBs, but to then translate it to RBs is maddening with how reliant a RB is on the rest of the team. The reason Sanders' teams were worse? Let's look at the QBs he played with (any QB with more than 2 starts in a season):

Bob Gagliano, Rodney Peete, Erik Kramer, Andre Ware, Scott Mitchell, Dave Krieg, Don Majkowskim, Charlie Batch, Frank Reich

Please tell me where in there is a QB that was even remotely close to Troy Aikman.

How about team defense (rankings in points allowed)?2

19th, 26th, 11th, 20th, 15th, 19th, 14th, 22th, 10th, 24th

That is top half of the league in defense 3 times (1 barely top 10 defense). For the record half of Sanders' career they had a top 10 offense with nothing else around him.

Greatness is producing at a high level. Talent is the potential to be great. Using players, Sanders is great, Bo Jackson may have had more talent.

Get out of here with the team accolades.

In 1995 both Kramer and Mitchell were better than Aikman.  Majkowski was better in 1989.  Aikman is in the HOF because he QBed a team to 3 Super Bowl victories.  The Cowboys won 3 Super Bowls because they had Emmitt Smith and a good defense.

 

Also, Charlie Batch from 1998-2000 is about equal to Troy.  

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/AikmTr00.htm

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BatcCh00.htm

 

 

Edited by ThatJerkDave
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...