Jim Brown Highlights

[Marley]

My main point was that Emmitt had a better team and played 5 years longer yet still only put up 3,000 more rushing yards than Sanders

Ok?

And that means what?

My main point was that Emmitt had a better team and played 5 years longer yet still only put up 3,000 more rushing yards than Sanders. Anyways, you can keep your opinion that Emmitt is better than Barry and I'll keep mine. :shakehands:

You just continuing arguing for the sake of it?

 

[FirstTimer]

You just continuing arguing for the sake of it?

So your "argument" for Barry being better is that Emmitt played longer, played with better players, and rushed for more yards?

Convincing.

It would make some sense that a RB of either of these guys caliber would rush for more yards if they played for longer and had better teammates. Emmitt having better teammates and playing for longer thereby rushing for more yards doesn't somehow mean Barry was a better back. You're doing nothing but describing Emmitt's playing situation.

 

[ram29jackson]

ya dude was a beast in a short career. i wish he woulda played longer, alot of people dont really know what he did

short career ? i believe he played 9 years- that aint short in sports / football terms

 

[Marley]

So your "argument" for Barry being better is that Emmitt played longer, played with better players, and rushed for more yards?

Convincing.

It would make some sense that a RB of ither of these guys caliber would rush for more yards if they played for longer and had better teammates. Emmitt having better teammates and playing for longer thereby rushing for more yards doesn't somehow mean Barry was a better back. You're doing nothing but describing Emmitt's playing situation.

I don't get why you're still at this. I raise the white flag. You win I lose.

 

[FirstTimer]

I don't get why you're still at this. .

Because your "main point" was backed up by literally nothing.

You: Barry Sanders is better than Emmitt Smith

Me: Why?

You: Emmitt played for 5 more years, with better players, and "only" rushed for 3,000 more yards.

Me: .....................................

 

[Marley]

Because your "main point" was backed up by literally nothing.

You: Barry Sanders is better than Emmitt Smith

Me: Why?

You: Emmitt played for 5 more years, with better players, and "only" rushed for 3,000 more yards.

Me: .....................................

You've got your "all-around back" argument. That's the only argument I've seen from you.


But you're right, I didn't quite flesh out my argument. So here we go.

Barry's a better runner. Over his career, he averaged 5.0/carry. Smith averaged 4.2/carry. Barry set the record for most consecutive games with 100+ rushing yards with 14 games in one season with over 100.

Smith fumbled twice as much as Sanders did. Surely this is due to the bruising style that Smith had, you say? Sanders had an equal if not greater chance to fumble by running through/in between tacklers via his running style.


Emmitt Smith's line was dominant in run blocking. Sanders line wasn't full of slouches, but it was nowhere close to the protection Smith had over his years in Dallas. This should allow Smith to run for more yards than Sanders (I write this only because you dismiss the fact that Smith had a better line as if I was saying he had a better defense).

"Well, Smith is the better all-around back."

Not exactly true. While Sanders wasn't as good at blocking as Smith was, he was at least as good receiving-wise. Sanders averaged 8.3 yards a catch compared to Smith's 6.3 yards a catch. Smith got only one more touchdown catch than Sanders and only 303 more receiving yards on 163 more catches.

So there is my argument. Full.

Barry Sanders running skills > Emmit Smith running skills
Barry Sanders catching skills > Emmitt Smith catching skills
Emmitt Smith blocking skills > Barry Sanders blocking skills

Barry Sanders is the better running back.

 

[FirstTimer]

Barry's a better runner. Over his career, he averaged 5.0/carry. Smith averaged 4.2/carry.

Skewed stat. Emmitt's lower average can be attributed to his use in the Red zone, where as Barry's was not.

Smith fumbled twice as much as Sanders did. Surely this is due to the bruising style that Smith had, you say? Sanders had an equal if not greater chance to fumble by running through/in between tacklers.

Smith had a more brusing style but Barry ran "through" tacklers at a perhaps "greater" rate?

LOL at this logic fail.

Also, Sanders fumbled an average of 4.5 times a season. 41 fumbles in 9 seasons.

Smith an average of 4.06 times a season. 61 fumbles in 15 seasons.

Try again.

Source: Pro Football Ref.

This should allow Smith to run for more yards than Sanders (I write this only because you dismiss the fact that Smith had a better line as if I was saying he had a better defense).

No, I dismissed it because it's obvious.

Not exactly true. While Sanders wasn't as good at blocking as Smith was, he was at least as good receiving-wise. Sanders averaged 8.3 yards a catch compared to Smith's 6.3 yards a catch.

During Smith;s peak season in the 90's with Dallas he was catching the ball alot, but in a different offesive scheme. The routes Sanders were catching were designed differently than the dumpoffs from Aikman Smith was catching in a more ball controlled offense rather than in Sanders more wide open attack.

Smith got only one more touchdown catch than Sanders and only 303 more receiving yards on 163 more catches.

Because in short yardage situations Smith was RUNNING the ball into the endzone. Many of Barry's TD receptions were of the longer variety.

Barry Sanders running skills > Emmit Smith running skills
Barry Sanders catching skills > Emmitt Smith catching skills
Emmitt Smith blocking skills > Barry Sanders blocking skills

Sanders was a better pure runner but Smith's skills were perfectly suited to the type of attack Dallas had so Smith's skills for his offense were obviously second to none. Also, Smith was the more well rounded runner as his work in the red zone will attest.

Smith was the better pass catcher. Most any analyst would tell you that.

 

[Marley]

Skewed stat. Emmitt's lower average can be attributed to his use in the Red zone, where as Barry's was not.

Unfortunately, there's no way of tracking red zone stats or outside of red zone stats. So apparently all of my future stat arguments, yards per carry (edge Barry), yards per season (edge Barry), and yards per game (edge Barry) must all be thrown out because of Emmitt's use in the red zone.

Smith had a more brusing style but Barry ran "through" tacklers at a perhaps "greater" rate?
LOL at this logic fail.

I'm sorry, when did I say at a "greater rate"?
I said he had "equal if not greater chance to fumble" than Smith.
LOL at this quoting fail.

Also, Sanders fumbled an average of 4.5 times a season. 41 fumbles in 9 seasons.

Smith an average of 4.06 times a season. 61 fumbles in 15 seasons.

Try again.

Source: Pro Football Ref.

You're right on this one. I won't deny that. Bad stat use on my part.

Because in short yardage situations Smith was RUNNING the ball into the endzone. Many of Barry's TD receptions were of the longer variety.

There goes another stat argument thrown under the bus because of Emmitt's red zone/short yardage use.

Sanders was a better pure runner

Finally we agree on something.

Smith's skills were perfectly suited to the type of attack Dallas had

/obvious

Also, Smith was the more well rounded runner as his work in the redzone will attest.

Yes Smith was a better all around runner than Sanders, but Sanders was the better runner.
_____________________________________________________________

Anyways I'm going to back out of this debate now. You can reply and have the win, I don't care, but this is basically a matter of opinions and not statistical facts. It's like Peyton vs. Brady, Montana vs. Marino, etc.

We all have our own opinions on this stuff and none of them are going to ever be proven. So debating about it is useless. I'm not going to change you to a Barry-is-best-of-all-time guy and you're not going to make me a Emmitt-is-best-of-all-time-guy. So reply and continue to attempt to lead me into the debate like you did before by continuously arguing my points even though I gave up, but I'm not replying.

 

[FirstTimer]

Unfortunately, there's no way of tracking red zone stats or outside of red zone stats.

There's common sense ways to do...as well as other stat organizations that track it. Namely Stats Inc.

You think it's a coincidence guys like Tommy Vardell scored 6TD's while averaging 2.1 YPC while in Detroit?

yards per season (edge Barry), and yards per game (edge Barry)

Re-tard-ed

There are obviously things that work in Barry's favor that are beyond reproach. LOL at Yards per game and yards per season being argued away by red zone touches.

I'm sorry, when did I say at a "greater rate"?
I said he had "equal if not greater chance to fumble" than Smith.

One would think that if he had a higher if not greater chance to fumble from contact similar to Smith that he would have to face equal if not greater rates of hits....since you are trying to prove he didn't fumble as much.....It wouldn't make any sense to say that Sanders fumbled less while facing less contact...because that would be obvious....and counter productive to your point to begin with.

Logic fail...again.

There goes another stat argument thrown under the bus because of Emmitt's red zone/short yardage use.

66% of Tommy Vardell's career rushing touchdown total>>>>>>>>You

Yes Smith was a better all around runner than Sanders, but Sanders was the better runner.

HA!

"Yes Smith was the better all around runningback but Sanders was the better runningback"

Wow.

On what planet could this make ANY sense?

I'm not going to change you to a Barry-is-best-of-all-time guy and you're not going to make me a Emmitt-is-best-of-all-time-guy.

Why would I try to do that? I don't believe that.

 

[Tailback U]

Obviously, it's impossible to place Bo in any of the "greatest of all time" lists because he only played 4 seasons, but from what I've seen, his highlights are as good as any running backs that I've ever seen.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgYYaL--1qc]YouTube - Bo Jackson Various runs[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BReD8xk2KqI]YouTube - BO JACKSON - Bo's On Parade[/ame]

 

[FirstTimer]

Obviously, it's impossible to place Bo in any of the "greatest of all time" lists because he only played 4 seasons, but from what I've seen, his highlights are as good as any running backs that I've ever seen.

YouTube - Bo Jackson Various runs

YouTube - BO JACKSON - Bo's On Parade

Bo was a freak. He falls into that Sayers, what could have been deal.

But keep in mind as well Bo had the advantage as well of coming in half way through some seasons and beating up on defenses and players that had already played half the year. I think Bo was a stud but I do think there is a little bit of "skew" in some of his stats.

 

[DoubleDeuce]

Why are we arguing for #3, again?

 

[FirstTimer]

Why are we arguing for #3, again?

Because I was bored at work

 

[Marley]

There's common sense ways to do...as well as other stat organizations that track it. Namely Stats Inc.

You think it's a coincidence guys like Tommy Vardell scored 6TD's while averaging 2.1 YPC while in Detroit?


Re-tard-ed

There are obviously things that work in Barry's favor that are beyond reproach. LOL at Yards per game and yards per season being argued away by red zone touches.


One would think that if he had a higher if not greater chance to fumble from contact similar to Smith that he would have to face equal if not greater rates of hits....since you are trying to prove he didn't fumble as much.....It wouldn't make any sense to say that Sanders fumbled less while facing less contact...because that would be obvious....and counter productive to your point to begin with.

Logic fail...again.





66% of Tommy Vardell's career rushing touchdown total>>>>>>>>You




HA!

"Yes Smith was the better all around runningback but Sanders was the better runningback"

Wow.

On what planet could this make ANY sense?





Why would I try to do that? I don't believe that.

Not here to argue like I said I wouldn't but I would like to correct two of my badly phrased points.

1. "Yes Smith was the better all around runningback but Sanders was the better runningback"
First of all, you skewed this to say Running back. Smith was the better all-around-runner (he could run through people, fast, good at receiving, etc.) but Barry was the better pure runner (as in better straight up running the ball) as you stated before.
2. By best of all-time, I meant second best of all-time. My bad.

 

[FirstTimer]

Not here to argue like I said I wouldn't but I would like to correct two of my badly phrased points.

1. "Yes Smith was the better all around runningback but Sanders was the better runningback"
First of all, you skewed this to say Running back. Smith was the better all-around-runner (he could run through people, fast, etc.) but Barry was the better pure runner as you stated before.

K.

So how does that make Barry better overall?

2. By best of all-time, I meant second best of all-time. My bad.

Fail again seeing as though I don't think either are.....

 

[Marley]

K.

So how does that make Barry better overall?



Fail again seeing as though I don't think either are.....

lmfao. I'm sorry again, third best of all time.

 

[jaxjaggywires]

Taking Emmitt's first 10 years, he has 13963 rushing yards, 16691 total yards from scrimmage in 155 games. 30 TDs came from > 10 yards (2 of which were receiving) out of 147 overall TDs.

Barry's career (10 years) = 15269 rushing, 18190 yards from scrimmage in 153 games. 56 TDs > 10 yards (5 of which were receiving) out of 109 overall TDs.

Emmitt's got the big lead in TDs, and the vast majority of them came close to the endzone. Barry was, by far, the better long run threat, and Emmitt was the better grind it out back.

 

[dell71]

Top 10 Running Backs of All-Time

1a. Jim Brown
1b. Walter Payton

3. Emmitt Smith

4. Barry Sanders
5. Marshall Faulk
6. Eric Dickerson
7. Jerome Bettis
8. LaDanian Tomlinson
9. Tony Dorsett
10. OJ Simpson

Just missed the list: Gale Sayers(What could have been...) Earl Campbell, Curtis Martin, Franco Harris, Lenny Moore, Thurman Thomas

Barry wasn't the complete back the guys like Payton, Emmitt, and Brown were IMO. To be considered the top 2 or 3 all time at the position you have to be the complete package. I'm not saying Barry wasn't a tremendous back or an all-time great but there were guys that had a more well rounded game than Barry so when discussing the top 3 backs of all-time I never even really have Sanders in the conversation. Smith gets major points for being much more of a redzone threat and being a better pass catcher. Frankly, the only "conversation" there really is is between Payton and Brown and as I already said I lean towards Brown.

Top running back of all time to me in the Top 4 is pretty simple. It's Brown, Payton.....Smith..Sanders. Anybody else in the top 4 makes no sense. 5-10 it gets much more interesting. Honestly the debate of who fills out the Top 10 is more interesting than who makes out the Top 4 because in my mind there really isn't much debate to who belongs there and really what order they go in.


Gale was a great runner but I find a lot of times he gets too much credit for the "what could have been" factor when you can say that about a lot of guys. I tend to put him just outside my Top 10 with an asterisk. Sayers though did have the greatest rookie season of all time though and was an all-time great but I think there are so many other guys that had longer careers who were also great that having Sayers in the Top 10 doesn't quite jive with me.

Since the Emmitt/Barry issue comes up every off-season I try not to get too involved in it too much, anymore. I'm personally a Barry > Emmitt guy but don't begrudge anyone who sees it the other way.

That said, your argument about Emmitt being the more complete back, thus making him the better back, loses a lot of water with me when I go down the list a couple notches and see Jerome Bettis over LaDainian Tomlinson. Personally, I wouldn't have Bettis anywhere near my top 10 but I know lots of you do. Whether you do, or not, I don't think there's any possible way to argue that Bettis is the more complete back.

My RB list based on running ability, not career achievements...

1) Jim Brown
2) Gale Sayers
3) OJ Simpson
4) Barry Sanders
5) Walter Payton
6) Earl Campbell
7) Hugh McEllhenny
8) Leroy Kelly
9) Emmitt Smith
10) LaDainian Tomlinson

I'd be hard pressed not to bump Sanders up to #2 , possibly even the top spot. I swear he did things that seemed like magic. Yes, I saw plenty of Sayers and O.J.

No Bo Jackson? Eric Dickerson? Marshall Faulk? Terrell Davis? I have to go find some clips of your 7 & 8. I've seen some but it's been YEARS. Thanx.

short career ? i believe he played 9 years- that aint short in sports / football terms

It's short considering Brown was completely healthy & at the top of his game when he retired.

There's common sense ways to do...as well as other stat organizations that track it. Namely Stats Inc.

You think it's a coincidence guys like Tommy Vardell scored 6TD's while averaging 2.1 YPC while in Detroit?

That was the odd thing about Detroit. Early in Sanders career they really didn't pull him out down by the goal line. In fact, it was really only the last couple years when they tried to make Touchdown Tommy their short-yardage guy, even though he was only mediocre, at best. There's really no reason to believe Sanders couldn't get that last yard or two. And he still scored double-digit TDs 6 times and 99 for his career. He also led the team in TDs every season of his career except the last (there was one other year where he tied).

Wait...I said I was staying out of this. Dammit.

 

[Tailback U]

Saying Barry wasn't an all around back because his coaches took him out on the goal line isn't very good logic. I say Barry > Emmitt because every defense knew Barry was the only legit threat on his team and he still got it done. You can all have your opinion and I don't feel like arguing for 15 pages because that's been way done.

I honestly don't understand how anyone could think Emmitt Smith was hands down a better runner than Barry Sanders.

As Dell said, Sanders was magical. Truly one of a kind.

I'd like to see a poll to see if most people think these two are even close. I doubt most do.

 

[Tailback U]

In the infancy days of MM there was an epic thread of threads. It was the Barry/Emmitt thread. I can't even remember how long the thread was, but it got to a point where the argument wasn't even allowed anymore because of how ridiculously heated and passionate Team Emmitt and Team Barry got.

Yeah I vaguely remember that. I think it was like 50 pages long.