Greatest Runningback of all time?

[Rtnldave]

17 hours ago, Malik said:

Jerry Rice was a pro bowl receiver in Oakland dude.

Yes, good numbers for his first 2 years. But Oakland had a solid team. They had just most the AFC championship game prior to his arrival. They were playoff contenders, appeared in a SB, etc.

What happened the next 2 years?

Emmitt walked into a 4 and 12 team and only plays 10 games. Granted, it was a very bad year for him by anyone's standards. But the next year he played 15 games and just missed 1000 yards (937). Again on a losing team.

Point is, why does Jerry Rice get a free pass on his success when it comes to being named GOAT at his position when he had just as much talent around him, but Emmitt Smith's success is a product of his team mates and their talent?

Edited January 2, 2019 by Rtnldave
😊

[Bobikus]

Glad to see the correct RB still winning the poll.

[Mox]

6 hours ago, Rtnldave said:

Yes, good numbers for his first 2 years. But Oakland had a solid team. They had just most the AFC championship game prior to his arrival. They were playoff contenders, appeared in a SB, etc.

What happened the next 2 years?

Emmitt walked into a 4 and 12 team and only plays 10 games. Granted, it was a very bad year for him by anyone's standards. But the next year he played 15 games and just missed 1000 yards (937). Again on a losing team.

Point is, why does Jerry Rice get a free pass on his success when it comes to being named GOAT at his position when he had just as much talent around him, but Emmitt Smith's success is a product of his team mates and their talent?

Because Jerry Rice always produced no matter who his QB was. Whenever Joe or Steve were hurt he still posted elite numbers. Then he left San Fran and was a Pro Bowler at damn near 40.

[Shoeless]

I am admittedly biased with my vote for Campbell.  I think Jim Brown was probably the greatest - all things considered - but if I could take any back in their prime to build my franchise around it would be The Tyler Rose. Sanders was the flashiest, but give me Campbell any day of the week. 

[Rtnldave]

1 hour ago, Bullet Club said:

Because Jerry Rice always produced no matter who his QB was. Whenever Joe or Steve were hurt he still posted elite numbers. Then he left San Fran and was a Pro Bowler at damn near 40.

Again, on a team coming off a championship apperance. 

Arizona was NOT a championship caliber team. Not to mention the difference in shelf life between a WR and RB is huge. 

WR shelf life 7 to 10 years.

RB shelf life 3 to 5 years.

Smith was already in the league 12 years when he went to Arizona. More than double the average RBs shelf life.

But the point on JR is why does he not held to the same standard as Emmitt Smith when it comes to GOAT???

They both played on dynasties, they played against each other, btw, Smith edging him 2 to 1 in that era, but somehow Rice is the greatest because he has all the stats and Emmitt's success is a product of his team???

Doesn't seem like the same standard applies here.

And NO I'm not comparing Smith to Rice, just saying they both came from great teams, dynasties even, but Rice gets a pass on that when GOAT comes up and Smith gets called on it.

That's the point.

[Jotun_Fan]

I think I understand the argument, the problem with picking a guy like Rice to equate to Emmitt Smith is that I think Rice is pretty clearly far and away #1.  He's something like 6,000 yards and 50 more touchdowns in front of the next guy (33 in front of all positions.)  Not only that, for the first part of his career it was not a league that was as conducive to the passing game as it is now.  Even when he was older he still produced at a ridiculous level.  Some people throw the Moss argument in, but I just don't think he was consistent enough to compete for the title, and with Hutson I'm not sure you can really compare two players from such different eras... especially considering there aren't many people still alive who have even seen Hutson play one snap, let alone remember it.

In terms of this poll,  I think the main reason Sanders appears to be winning by so much is that the age demographic here is shifted much lower than the average football fan age, and for those who were too young to watch him play there are lots of highlights available, and he really does have so many memorable runs that are visually appealing, even if they don't do much for the statbooks.  I mean my favorite play from him is an 8 yard run against the vikings ( I think this play also produced a pretty memorable photo of John Randle.)

The bottom line though is that everyone is going to have their own opinion about stuff, some based on emotion and some based on some sort of statistical analysis.  People like to pick apart a sport like football, which is a team game, and determine which parts are best, even though each part is dependent upon each other part.  I don't think anyone's an idiot or just that everyone hates the cowboys, that's just how it is.  Actually...most people probably do hate the cowboys.

[x0x]

Jim Brown has his own era. The cross-era comparisons are void of any serious discussion. Just pure fantasy.

Barry Sanders in the modern era after the 70s (much lower scoring, more rushing) is the most valuable back. He was a good pass catcher that is often forgotten and of course rarely had what we would call good offensive lines. They weren't trash all his seasons but largely mediocre. I would say Peterson in his best years had better lines to work with. Also what's largely forgotten is Herman Moore in some of Barry's seasons was a legitimate distraction giving Barry more room. His 2k yard 1997 seasons, Moore caught 104 passes and Morton had 80. That's more help than Peterson in his with Harvin 62 and Rudolph 53.

But Barry did it for more seasons than Peterson. Peak for Peak would be a nice discussion.

Then you have the versatile backs of Tomlinson and Faulk, who in their best years had loaded teams but still were phenomenal players.

For my money, if you have a great offense you can't go wrong with Barry but Faulk is probably the bigger payday back in that scenario. If you have a mediocre team and especially mediocre QB, then you gotta take Barry or Peterson and if it's a long consistent streak it's Sanders by a wide margin. I know Peterson had the suspension season which cut into what could have been a 4 year stretch but judging reality he's only had 3 consecutive full productive seasons. Nowhere close to Barry right?

Then of course you got Walter Payton. Arguably worse teams than Barry, arguably as versatile as Faulk, tough, tough call. Different era, you could argue he had harsher defenses but then he also faced some garbage teams that didn't exist in Barry's days. Tough.

[KellChippy]

On 1/2/2019 at 3:50 PM, Rtnldave said:

And NO I'm not comparing Smith to Rice, just saying they both came from great teams, dynasties even, but Rice gets a pass on that when GOAT comes up and Smith gets called on it.

That's the point.

Because they play different positions.  Generally rbs production is more indicative of the offense as a whole. Look at David Johnson this year vs CJ Anderson or Marshall Faulk in Indy vs Faulk in St Louis. Saquan wasn’t a factor running the ball in some games.  I’m sure thats true with some wrs as well, but often times a productive offense hurts their target share.  Rice obviously was not affected by this, but at the time he retired he had almost every single season and career record for wr production.

I’m honestly too young to accurately have an opinion on Sanders vs Smith, and possibly this situation as a whole. Just my thoughts. 

[Rtnldave]

3 hours ago, KellChippy said:

Because they play different positions.  Generally rbs production is more indicative of the offense as a whole. Look at David Johnson this year vs CJ Anderson or Marshall Faulk in Indy vs Faulk in St Louis. Saquan wasn’t a factor running the ball in some games.  I’m sure thats true with some wrs as well, but often times a productive offense hurts their target share.  Rice obviously was not affected by this, but at the time he retired he had almost every single season and career record for wr production.

I’m honestly too young to accurately have an opinion on Sanders vs Smith, and possibly this situation as a whole. Just my thoughts. 

Welcome to the part KC.

I get what you are saying but consider the WR position thru this lens.

What would you say if the majority of people on here said Randy Moss was the GOAT WR?

That Jerry Rice had Montana and Young and a 5 time SB franchise to his credit.

That the ONLY year Moss had a legit stud QB, he went to a SB and set the record for most TDs in a season 23.

That if he had Jerry Rice's opportunities on a 5 time SB team, he would have bigger numbers than Rice?

Its the same EXACT situation with Smith vs Sanders.

But many are either Cowboy haters or just attribute all of Smith's success to the team he had around him.

The fact is Smith MADE every team he played for better, until Arizona, but by that point he was 13 years in the league playing a position that had thee shortest shelf life in the NFL.

 

[KellChippy]

18 minutes ago, Rtnldave said:

Welcome to the part KC.

I get what you are saying but consider the WR position thru this lens.

What would you say if the majority of people on here said Randy Moss was the GOAT WR?

That Jerry Rice had Montana and Young and a 5 time SB franchise to his credit.

That the ONLY year Moss had a legit stud QB, he went to a SB and set the record for most TDs in a season 23.

That if he had Jerry Rice's opportunities on a 5 time SB team, he would have bigger numbers than Rice?

Its the same EXACT situation with Smith vs Sanders.

But many are either Cowboy haters or just attribute all of Smith's success to the team he had around him.

The fact is Smith MADE every team he played for better, until Arizona, but by that point he was 13 years in the league playing a position that had thee shortest shelf life in the NFL.

 

Its definitely ironic.  Unfortunately, we never got to see how Barry Sanders would impact a super bowl calibur team. 

Somewhat similar is Reggie White/Bruce Smith.  Not many are taking the longevity in that debate.  

I do think Smiths longevity should factor more into people’s opinions, but I also have no problem putting plenty of modern rbs ahead of Frank Gore who has insane career numbers and longevity.

 

 

[Rtnldave]

51 minutes ago, KellChippy said:

Its definitely ironic.  Unfortunately, we never got to see how Barry Sanders would impact a super bowl calibur team. 

Somewhat similar is Reggie White/Bruce Smith.  Not many are taking the longevity in that debate.  

I do think Smiths longevity should factor more into people’s opinions, but I also have no problem putting plenty of modern rbs ahead of Frank Gore who has insane career numbers and longevity.

 

 

That's a great point.

[kingseanjohn]

This depends on if we're talking all time career, who you'd pick in a game, or who had the best string of seasons.

I'd go Sanders if I were to start a team today and had him for 10 years, prime Peterson for a single game, and prime Priest Holmes for a season or two.

[braylon]

Adrian Peterson should be on the poll.

[skywlker32]

19 hours ago, Rtnldave said:

Welcome to the part KC.

I get what you are saying but consider the WR position thru this lens.

What would you say if the majority of people on here said Randy Moss was the GOAT WR?

That Jerry Rice had Montana and Young and a 5 time SB franchise to his credit.

That the ONLY year Moss had a legit stud QB, he went to a SB and set the record for most TDs in a season 23.

That if he had Jerry Rice's opportunities on a 5 time SB team, he would have bigger numbers than Rice?

Its the same EXACT situation with Smith vs Sanders.

But many are either Cowboy haters or just attribute all of Smith's success to the team he had around him.

The fact is Smith MADE every team he played for better, until Arizona, but by that point he was 13 years in the league playing a position that had thee shortest shelf life in the NFL.

 

Sanders DID have better numbers over the same number of seasons each. Smith played longer, but Sanders outpaced him in everything aside from TDs.

For Moss vs. Rice, while Moss was more physically imposing, Rice had more yards, receptions and TDs per season over their first 11 seasons. There just isn't much of anything to backup Moss over Rice statistically.

For Sanders vs. Smith, not only is Sanders the more physically gifted and flashy, but Sanders also had more yards on less attempts from ages 21-30 for both players (same number of years in the league). Sanders also had more yards receiving over the same span on less receptions (and less targets). If you just want to look at overlapping years, same story.

Emmitt Smith was only better statistically than Sanders because Smith played longer.

[DontTazeMeBro]

I only feel comfortable talking about the ones I’ve seen. And of those its

1. Barry Sanders

2. Adrian Peterson