Was the last decade the worst era for running backs in history?

[patriotsheatyan]

We’ve gotten some high end talent recently with Bell, Johnson, Gurley, and Elliot, with Fourtnette and Barkley also looking like they could have that potential.

In the previous decade the most productive backs were Peterson, Gore, and Forte, with some memorable seasons from Johnson and Lynch.

The decade before that we had the end of Sanders and Smith, Tomlinson, Faulk, and Martin with truly memorable seasons from Lewis and Alexander.

Any time before that and we usually have like four hall of fame backs at any point in time.

Was the Peterson era of running backs the worst in NFL history?

[JAF-N72EX]

Without digging too deep into it, I don't think so. You also had Charles, McCoy, MJD, Lynch, Sproles, Foster, Rice and Bush. Just to name a few.

[Soko]

No, Foster, Shady, Charles, Rice, and Lynch were all very good. They’re just not looked back at as fondly because they didn’t really have the longevity/record breaking numbers that others did. In their primes, they were right there though.

[jrry32]

Yes.

[patriotsheatyan]

5 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

Without digging too deep into it, I don't think so. You also had Charles, McCoy, MJD, Lynch, Sproles, Foster, Rice and Bush. Just to name a few.

Most of those guys are at best the equivalent to what Green, Dillon, Jones, James, Johnson, Portis of their generation. Meanwhile Faulk and Tomlinson were better than any back of this era and Barber was atleast comparable, Lewis and Alexander had freakishly high peak seasons, and Martin was better than Gore as the accumulator of their generations.

[JAF-N72EX]

1 hour ago, patriotsheatyan said:

Most of those guys are at best the equivalent to what Green, Dillon, Jones, James, Johnson, Portis of their generation. Meanwhile Faulk and Tomlinson were better than any back of this era and Barber was atleast comparable, Lewis and Alexander had freakishly high peak seasons, and Martin was better than Gore as the accumulator of their generations.

You're doing alot of things wrong here:

1) Changing the criteria of your own thread to fit your agenda .
2) Using the HoF as a standard and point of contention is wrong for so many reasons. 
3) Cherry picking certain cut-off dates and picking and choosing which era to place each RB in.
4) Not taking the differences between eras and inflation into consideration.

[patriotsheatyan]

33 minutes ago, JustAnotherFan said:

You're doing alot of things wrong here:

1) Changing the criteria of your own thread to fit your agenda .
2) Using the HoF as a standard and point of contention is wrong for so many reasons. 
3) Cherry picking certain cut-off dates and picking and choosing which era to place each RB in.
4) Not taking the differences between eras and inflation into consideration.

You didn’t cite any examples of these because you don’t really have any.

Trying to argue in favor of a group including Peterson, Gore, Johnson, Forte, Charles, McCoy, MJD, Lynch, Sproles, Foster, Rice and Bush as equal or superior to a group including Tomlinson, Faulk, Martin, Bettis, Barber,  Westbrook, Holmes, Dillon, Williams, Alexander, Lewis, McGahee, Jones, Green, Dunn, and James who all overlapped for large extents of their careers is insane.

[lancerman]

Yes because they are less important