This weekend. All the haters can suck it.

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

I'd also like to throw in there that Emmitt ran for nearly 1,000 yards for the Arizona Cardinals at the age of 35. Not that it's a hard and fast comparison or example but in my mind this proves he was a damn good back and would have put up monster numbers in his prime/over his career anywhere he played.

don't forget 9 tds ..at 35 ....with the cards.

 

[ram29jackson]

Yea, Im still learning to read so bare with me.

Again its not debatable. Barry Sanders never, ever had half the talent Emmit Smith on his team but still managed to have stellar years and even went for 2000. Emmit was solid but wasnt on Barrys level. Barry doesnt retire, Emmit plays second fiddle. Thats based on what I seen not some shot in the dark assumption.

Barry Sanders the best I have seen in my day while Emmit is one of your 3 favorite players. No need to argue any more, that says it all.

...being the best on a losing team means absolutely nothing.

think of it this way . Emmitts record is actually more impressive because its harder to get that many yards on a team that doesnt need to rely on one guy because they spread the ball around and are successful at passing.

Emmitt had the best of both worlds. Great runner on a great team.
Barry was a great runner but left early because the Lions couldnt produce a winner.
Being a great individual on a great team is more impressive than being a great player on a bad team. Again- being the best on a losing team ultimately adds up to nothing in a team sport.
I am not saying Barry sucked haha. I am just saying advantage Emmitt.

 

[Aso]

I havent even brought up the benefit of playing in a dome 12 games a season. Playing against one of the weakest defensive divisions in the league. Meanwhile Emmitt was facing LT &Reggie White 4 times a year , a division with 2 SB winners , and 3 teams with consistently top 5-10 defenses most of his career. The surrounding team was better but so was the level of competition.

Well looks like this argument is coming to it's conclusion except for this, I needed to comment.

Packers, Bears, and Vikings were not bad defensive teams though. There were some pretty good defensive teams between 89-98 on those teams.

LT had declined and was not the all-pro he used to be when Emmitt came along. He only played aganst Reggie White between 90 and 93 and after Buddy Ryan left they really started to lose people on defense. Also the Redskins were trash for the most part after 1991.

Barry played against some good Bears defenses, Reggie White played on the Packers between 94 and 98 as well and the Vikings teams in the 90's had some really good front seven's, that defensive line specifically.

I think saying he played better defenses is a poor argument.

 

[Tailback U]

This always irks me with Barry. Especially when you get into GOAT talk. Barry taking his ball and going home hurts him big time in the discussion because a guy like Payton put up with even shittier teams for longer and stayed with it.

Barry made the playoffs in half of his NFL seasons. That's not that bad. And it should be noted that in the playoffs Barry played like shit so some would have to think that Barry needs to look into the mirror as well as to why his teams didn't go further.

I've been skimming through this thread and didn't really want to get involved but this statement is downright silly.

Blaming a running back for a teams playoff losses is retarded. You know, I know it, we all know it.

I don't know what it is with VSN, but everyone always wants to pin the loss or the win on 1 guy.

I remember you guys talking about how Joe Montana played like shit in the playoffs but still won and is widely recognized as the GOAT.

The Lions' playoff failures are not Barry Sanders fault. Comparing Barry and Emmitt by their rings is stupid, IMO. Stick to film and stats.

 

[BigBucs]

There is no "more with less" other than your imagination.

My imagination? What a homer. So you gonna sit here and tell me with a straight face that the talent surrounding both Emmit/Barry was equal or even close to equal during their careers? bama:

I wonder what kind of numbers Barry Sanders would have put up as a Cowboy?

More intriguing question is what kind of numbers Emmit would have put up in Detroit.

In '93 he lit up Green Bay. The Lions lost.

Barry and those Lions teams were built to win and play one way. In the playoffs though that style was really conducive to winning games. I don't want to use the term one dimensional but something along those lines...

Because once Barry was shut down there were no other options while in Dallas you had Novachek, Harper, Irvin and Aikman. Barry was the Lions 1st and only option outside of Moore. Barry opened the offense, not the other way around. In Dallas if one HOF was off another would get them going.

 

[Fox1994]

Uhh... well... well... Payton's better than Emmitt because he threw eight touchdowns. :eviltongue: SO THERE!

These arguments are going nowhere, and I really don't have anything to add, except that it's a tough argument. I personally think Barry was more talented, but who knows. It's hard to play hypotheticals.

Especially with the whole "more is less" argument. What if Emmitt hadn't had Troy and Cracky, and so the team was completely on his shoulders. He'd have more carries, maybe he'd have more yards... Maybe he'd be a different back.

Maybe, maybe, maybe. Maybe we'll never know...

But do go on. This shit happens annually, and it keeps this area of these sorts of sites alive during the offseason.

 

[FirstTimer]

I've been skimming through this thread and didn't really want to get involved but this statement is downright silly.

Blaming a running back for a teams playoff losses is retarded.

I never blamed Barry alone for the losses. You missed my point entirely.

Bary's running style wasn't conducive to playoff football. He never really looked to adapt that style in order for himself and his team to become more successful in the playoffs. I'm not saying that if Barry would have changed his style the Lions would won the Super Bowl, the team wasn't that good overall, but they should have performed better in the playoffs. And blame for those failures, and the reasons for them fall to the entire team. Barry included.

It was/is pretty well known that Barry's running style was really nice for winning rushing titles and "wowing" people but it wasn't a running style that was all that really great for winning playoff games and controlling the ball/clock. That's why you have/had a lot of coaches/GM's taking Emmitt over Barry because IMO Emmitt would never really lose you a game with his running style, Barry could and has. Barry was a great running back and one of the best ever but Barry seemed to try and absolve himself from any blame for the Lions failures when he did have some blame to take. Barry was more interested in playing the victim role it seemed.

That was my only point

Because once Barry was shut down there were no other options while in Dallas you had Novachek, Harper, Irvin and Aikman. Barry was the Lions 1st and only option outside of Moore. Barry opened the offense, not the other way around. In Dallas if one HOF was off another would get them going.

I have a hard time buying that the Cowboys would have been as good a team or had an offense that was as effective or "opened up" with Lincoln Coleman running the football.

 

[MrBill]

FT has a really good point here.

A least one coach said Smith was a great player at any time in any conditions, but Sanders only excelled at certain times.

I'm not sure if I agree, but I can't remember a great Sanders playoff game. I can remember more great Smith playoff games than I care to remember.

I'd somewhat agree to that. If you needed 3 yards for a first down, I think Emmitt was far more likely to get yardage on a consistent basis while Barry was more likely to take it all the way on any play he touched the ball. Both players had a different style of running the ball and while I put Barry ahead of Emmitt on my all-time list, Emmitt is still one of the top 5-10 RB's to ever strap on pads.

 

[bucky]

while I put Barry ahead of Emmitt on my all-time list, Emmitt is still one of the top 5-10 RB's to ever strap on pads.

Anybody in the top 5 to 10 all time, is an absolutely amazing player. Nobody can take that away from Emmit. I really agree with your post Mr. Bill.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Lol@this debate.

I was kidding with the Barry vs. Emmitt post, but here we go again.

My two cents has always been that Emmitt is easily one of the most overated players in the history of the game. All things being equal, if you'd rather have Emmitt on you team than Sanders, Faulk, Tomlinson, Payton, Dickerson, Jim Brown or OJ, then you are on crack.

 

[Tailback U]

I never blamed Barry alone for the losses. You missed my point entirely.

Bary's running style wasn't conducive to playoff football. He never really looked to adapt that style in order for himself and his team to become more successful in the playoffs. I'm not saying that if Barry would have changed his style the Lions would won the Super Bowl, the team wasn't that good overall, but they should have performed better in the playoffs. And blame for those failures, and the reasons for them fall to the entire team. Barry included.

It was/is pretty well known that Barry's running style was really nice for winning rushing titles and "wowing" people but it wasn't a running style that was all that really great for winning playoff games and controlling the ball/clock. That's why you have/had a lot of coaches/GM's taking Emmitt over Barry because IMO Emmitt would never really lose you a game with his running style, Barry could and has. Barry was a great running back and one of the best ever but Barry seemed to try and absolve himself from any blame for the Lions failures when he did have some blame to take. Barry was more interested in playing the victim role it seemed.

That was my only point

I have a hard time buying that the Cowboys would have been as good a team or had an offense that was as effective or "opened up" with Lincoln Coleman running the football.

Barry's style of running wasn't conventional but it was effective. Not to mention, it depends entirely on what kind of offense/system and team that Barry is on. Same goes with Smith. Put him in a different offense with different players and he probably doesn't fare as well. It's completely hypothetical.

And I don't know how anyone can discredit Barry because of his running style. He made something out of nothing time and time again for good reason. He wasn't trying to run toward the opposite of the field as soon as he took the handoff just for the hell of it. He did it to create something out of nothing and usually did. Smith was the epitome of the complete half back; durable, great balance, feet, vision, great stiff arm and strength. Barry was the epitome of the dynamic half back. In a debate filled with hypotheticals, I guess it ultimately just comes down to preference.

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

Lol@this debate.

I was kidding with the Barry vs. Emmitt post, but here we go again.

My two cents has always been that Emmitt is easily one of the most overated players in the history of the game. All things being equal, if you'd rather have Emmitt on you team than Sanders, Faulk, Tomlinson, Payton, Dickerson, Jim Brown or OJ, then you are on crack.

Hes so overrated hes underrated.

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

In a debate filled with hypotheticals, I guess it ultimately just comes down to preference.

There you go. Now youre gettin it.:shot:

 

[Tailback U]

There you go. Now youre gettin it.:shot:

I always got it. You just don't realize that most people prefer Barry over Smith.

Now I'll wait for you to pull up that 1 article that you've been saving for years to support your argument. :wave:

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

I always got it. You just don't realize that most people prefer Barry over Smith.

Now I'll wait for you to pull up that 1 article that you've been saving for years to support your argument. :wave:

I would but I dont want to overshadow you again.et:

 

[Tailback U]

I hate you.

 

[Pills]

Hi. I was actually in Michigan during Barry's prime, and could watch him weekly. I also saw Emmitt plenty (being a Giants fan and all). However, I wasn't going to comment until I saw this.

think of it this way . Emmitts record is actually more impressive because its harder to get that many yards on a team that doesnt need to rely on one guy because they spread the ball around and are successful at passing.

This is utterly ludicrous. It's more impressive because Emmitt has an easier time because the defense has to focus on the other weapons on the field? Smith had a harder time because he didn't face 8 men in the box on 3rd and 5?

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

I hate you.

:date::wub:

 

[FirstTimer]

Barry's style of running wasn't conventional but it was effective. Not to mention, it depends entirely on what kind of offense/system and team that Barry is on. Same goes with Smith. Put him in a different offense with different players and he probably doesn't fare as well. It's completely hypothetical.

I know that but the overall point is the system Barry was in and his running style that he actually used wasn't really all that conducive to winning playoff games. If we want to avoid hypotheticals as much as possible we have to judge the player on what they actually did and how they did it. Thus my issue with Barry seemingly absolving himself from any blame for the Lions failures.

He wasn't trying to run toward the opposite of the field as soon as he took the handoff just for the hell of it. He did it to create something out of nothing and usually did. Smith was the epitome of the complete half back; durable, great balance, feet, vision, great stiff arm and strength. Barry was the epitome of the dynamic half back. In a debate filled with hypotheticals, I guess it ultimately just comes down to preference.

Give me all around over dynamic any day.

I'd rather have a guy that can beat my opponet or help me beat my opponnet in more than one way. Or more ways than the other back. Especially in dealing with GOAT questions.