Greatest Runningback of all time?

[skywlker32]

24 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

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

 

 

Out of the 3 seasons you mentioned in the first paragraph, only one of those would have been a season that Barry Sanders would have benefited from.

Charlie Batch also only had 1 season of overlap with Barry Sanders.

Even if I give you those 2 seasons as Barry having better or equal QBing, what does that say about the other 8 seasons of Barry's career?

[ThatJerkDave]

10 minutes ago, skywlker32 said:

Out of the 3 seasons you mentioned in the first paragraph, only one of those would have been a season that Barry Sanders would have benefited from.

Charlie Batch also only had 1 season of overlap with Barry Sanders.

Even if I give you those 2 seasons as Barry having better or equal QBing, what does that say about the other 8 seasons of Barry's career?

I am just tired of the narrative that Smith was some scrub that had golden gods on his team, and Barry Sanders was carrying your neighborhood Thanksgiving football team on his back.  And I was also mostly just being a smartass when comparing Aikman and the others. 

[skywlker32]

12 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

I am just tired of the narrative that Smith was some scrub that had golden gods on his team, and Barry Sanders was carrying your neighborhood Thanksgiving football team on his back.  And I was also mostly just being a smartass when comparing Aikman and the others. 

I am in no way saying that Smith was a scrub, but viewing him as top 3 is about as asinine as writing him off completely to me. The main point being, despite having less of a passing game to take the threat off of him, Sanders still put up better stats by volume and efficiency when compared to Smith. Smith was impressive for playing as long as he did at the level he did, but Sanders, Jim Brown and Walter Payton were on another level.

1992, 1993 and 1995 were the only years of their overlapping careers where Emmitt outperformed Barry. That is without accounting for OLs and other talent around them. Barry had minimum 4 years of their overlapping careers where he was clearly better.

Not to beat a dead horse, but one player had less talent around him, better bulk stats over the same time periods and much better efficiency statistics. Emmitt was still great, but Barry was on another level.

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

22 hours ago, Rtnldave said:

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

And they would have won at least 3 with Barry. Using team success as merit for a RB is completely asinine. 

[skywlker32]

2 hours ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

And they would have won at least 3 with Barry. Using team success as merit for a RB is completely asinine. 

If we are going by team success, Franco Harris is the GOAT right?

[Rtnldave]

15 minutes ago, skywlker32 said:

If we are going by team success, Franco Harris is the GOAT right?

So then Tony Romo was the GOAT as far as Cowboys QBs go?

He has every Cowboys passing record.

Look I get all the Sanders love.

But I stated my case very clearly.

When Smith was out, all that immense talent, HOF Oline, the Playmaker, number 1 defense, Jimmy Johnson trying to sell us on Derrick Lasic, etc, couldn't win a single game.

You get it yet? Smith WAS the dynasty. Yes, great players around him, but they couldn't win without him.

That's why he played the NYG with one arm and handled the ball more than anyone else on the team.

The offense RAN thru Smith. He made the whole thing go.

Sanders couldn't do that. His gifts were great, but he was no E. Smith.

 

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

1 hour ago, Rtnldave said:

So then Tony Romo was the GOAT as far as Cowboys QBs go?

I know as part of your counterpoint, you want us to say he isn't, but he really is one of the GOAT Cowboys QB's so it doesnt really hold up. The only one who was better was Roger Staubach and it doesn't matter that Romo's stats are better because Staubach played in an entirely different era and relative to his era his numbers were as good or better than Romo's.

Great QB's aren't great because of their team success, if they are great, and the other parts are in place, then their team will succeed. 

I guarantee you without a shadow of a doubt that if you out Barry on those teams they would have won at least as many SB's. It's literally as simple as Emmit playing on better teams than Barry. Was Emmit great? Absolutely. I think he's maybe top 5 all-time, but Barry is #2 if not the GOAT. 

[Rtnldave]

58 minutes ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

I know as part of your counterpoint, you want us to say he isn't, but he really is one of the GOAT Cowboys QB's so it doesnt really hold up. The only one who was better was Roger Staubach and it doesn't matter that Romo's stats are better because Staubach played in an entirely different era and relative to his era his numbers were as good or better than Romo's.

Great QB's aren't great because of their team success, if they are great, and the other parts are in place, then their team will succeed. 

I guarantee you without a shadow of a doubt that if you out Barry on those teams they would have won at least as many SB's. It's literally as simple as Emmit playing on better teams than Barry. Was Emmit great? Absolutely. I think he's maybe top 5 all-time, but Barry is #2 if not the GOAT. 

I do respect your point of view and greatly appreciate a mature conversation.

But I feel we have arrived at the point of having to agree to disagree.

 

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

27 minutes ago, Rtnldave said:

I do respect your point of view and greatly appreciate a mature conversation.

But I feel we have arrived at the point of having to agree to disagree.

 

you haven't actually done anything to give your argument merit, though. You simply discredited Smith's surrounding cast and arbitrarily claimed Sanders couldnt have done the same despite Sanders performing at the very worst, as good as Smith throughout their careers. 

There's no real objective evidence being cited here. Just speculation. 

[Rtnldave]

10 hours ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

you haven't actually done anything to give your argument merit, though. You simply discredited Smith's surrounding cast and arbitrarily claimed Sanders couldnt have done the same despite Sanders performing at the very worst, as good as Smith throughout their careers. 

There's no real objective evidence being cited here. Just speculation. 

And you are justifiying your argument with statistics like Sanders and Smith faced the same level of competition during their respective careers after I pointed out the difference in their divisional opponents and yearly schedules with Dallas receiving the harder schedule based on their previous sucesses.

I also pointed out that both RBs were called upon in critical situations to overcome adversity and lead their teams to victory.

Smith did that more than Sanders, hence the "3 rings" argument.

Against the NYG in 93, with the number 1 seed at stake and a separated shoulder, who handled the ball on 90% of the plays that led to a victory?

In that same year Aikman was knocked out of the NFCCG with a concussion. The following week he was struggling in the SB. Losing at the half, who did they feed the ball to take the lead and then lead them to victory?

In the biggest settings on the largest stages Smith answered the bell more than Sanders.

And if his supporting cast was so great, why couldn't they win without him?

Why use him 90% of the time when injured?

Why do you keep feeding him the ball, losing in the SB, when you know defenses are set up to stop him?

These are the intangibles you cannot measure with stats, but count just as much, if not more.

Edited December 21, 2018 by Rtnldave
Spelling errir

[game3525]

22 hours ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

And they would have won at least 3 with Barry. Using team success as merit for a RB is completely asinine. 

Yup.

It is dumb enough when people do it with QBs, but it is even dumber to do so with RBs. Pretty much every RB in the HOF could replicate the team success Emmitt had with the Cowboys. This doesn't mean Smith is overrated or not a top 5-6 RB of all-time. It is just the nature of the position. 

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

5 hours ago, Rtnldave said:

also pointed out that both RBs were called upon in critical situations to overcome adversity and lead their teams to victory.

This is delving into an incredibly arbitrary, not at all objective, endeavor of what constitutes "overcoming adversity" and "leading their teams to victory" inherently downplays the influence of the player's surrounding cast. It pretends that their performance is the difference between winning and losing. But it really isn't. They are just one piece to the puzzle.

Barry had 27 carries for 169 yards in a loss. In other games, the team is quickly at a huge deficit and are forced to abandon the run game. Against the Redskins, the Lions had given up 41 points that game, and so Barry only got 11 carries. Was that his fault at all? Did his lack of carries have anything to do with his performance whatsoever? No, it didn't. Against the Eagles, the Lions had to abandon the run game because they gave up 58 points. So naturally, Barry only got 10 carries. What exactly do you expect him to do in those games? The reason for their loss was completely and totally out of his control. 

Emmit Smith never had that problem. He didn't have to outscore teams that put up 58 points on his own. He never was set aside because the defense gave up 41 points.  Actually, Emmit never even won a playoff game when the other team scored more than 30 points. He's 1-4 when the Cowboys give up more than 25 points. It's the same ****. When the defense gives up points, he loses. In Emmit's career, his defenses allowed 19.9 PPG compared to Barry's 28.2. There is an extremely clear trend here. 

He never had 169 yards in a loss. In fact, he never had 169 yards in his entire playoff career. Emmit simply played with better teams. It is literally that simple. 

[Bearerofnews]

How is Barry winning this? My man had the most lost yds in NFL history, was not an elite receiver or blocker and struggled at the goal line.

People get hypnotized by flash over consistent substance. I seen the same thing with Rodgers. Fans ignore play 1 to 30 where what you got was avg to below avg play. But play 31 to 35 or 36, is a handful of flashy spectacular plays that fans seem to extrapolate the value of those flashy plays. Those flashy player are usually big gain plays so they also fatten their stats and efficiency.  I appreciate and marvel at the flashy plays. But i value the consistency of play from play 1 to 36.  Gimme Payton or LT. 

Edited December 21, 2018 by Bearerofnews

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

1 hour ago, Bearerofnews said:

How is Barry winning this? My man had the most lost yds in NFL history, was not an elite receiver or blocker and struggled at the goal line.

People get hypnotized by flash over consistent substance. I seen the same thing with Rodgers. Fans ignore play 1 to 30 where what you got was avg to below avg play. But play 31 to 35 or 36, is a handful of flashy spectacular plays that fans seem to extrapolate the value of those flashy plays. Those flashy player are usually big gain plays so they also fatten their stats and efficiency.  I appreciate and marvel at the flashy plays. But i value the consistency of play from play 1 to 36.  Gimme Payton or LT. 

Negative runs or not, the guy still averaged a downright ridiculous ~100 yards per game, and ~119 total yards per game. Oh, and he played with the Lions, they inevitably had trash at OL, compared to guys like Smith with literal Hall of Famers on his OL.

[Rtnldave]

1 hour ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

Negative runs or not, the guy still averaged a downright ridiculous ~100 yards per game, and ~119 total yards per game. Oh, and he played with the Lions, they inevitably had trash at OL, compared to guys like Smith with literal Hall of Famers on his OL.

Like I said earlier, you are NOT going to see things my way and I will not agree with your stance on Sanders.

I agree he was a phenomenal talent, but the best athlete I ever witnessed to play the RB position was and still is Emmitt Smith.

That's all I'm gonna say.