Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Right - in an entire career he had one game in the NFC championships.
I mentioned Gore because he was well past his prime in the SB.
I'll never understand why people are bothered by that. Payton got a ring; who cares if he got a touchdown in the Super Bowl or not?
Not sure how we define great. I think great teams are pretty rare. Most players never play for a great team. Barry played for good teams. Barry played on two 10 win teams and one 12 team team.
I suspect that if he hadn't tragically passed away, this wouldn't have been anything more than a bar wager or anecdotal footnote.
This post is evidence of you not watching Barry.. and perhaps somehow not watching Emmit. Emmit winning Superbowls had very little to do with Emmit. Emmit's contribution to that team would be somewhere on the bottom half of the list out of 11 offensive starters.anguskahn said:
I thought that the point of the question was to think of backs that will never be considered great because they were held back by their team their entire career. Peterson played on some mediocre teams, but they never held his talent down. The years when they had Hutchinson and McKinnie they had one of the best o-lines in the league. It certainly did not hold Peterson back; we got to see everything he had. I think you're taking it more like a "who deserved a shot at a championship?" question.
Yes, Walter Payton, who played on a team that many regard as the best team ever and who used him as the focal point of the offense, allowing him to become the leagues all-time leading rusher never got a fair shake.
To be honest, its amazing those Cowboys won any superbowls at all. The QB was awful, the RB was JAG, the WR pushed off on every single play and their shutdown corner didnt tackle. .
Making anything of it is making too much of it.
The same Corey Dillon who was a key cog on the Super Bowl winner of 2004?
Yep - that's kinda how I interpreted it. My bad if that's not really the case.
Yes, agreed.
That doesn't erase that 10 years of his prime when he was arguably the most talented back in the league were wasted on awful teams. I would say more than any playrer mentioned here he had bad teams. If you look at 2 seasons over 30 years old for him and count that sure you can make that argument for any player you list
Didn't Tate get several chances when Foster was out with various ailments and not perform very well every chance?
I guess theres a good argument for Sayers.. (kinda makes sense) Im wrong again, when I really thought I was right..
Holy crap! You're right. Why did I think that. I guess that Super Bowl was further back than I remember.
You are ridiculous. No one said what you posted. My point about Allen is that after that season Allen was relegated to Davis' dog house. These were his prime years. I truely believe he would have been consider one of the greatest rbs to play the game had Davis not shafted him. So I do not believe he got a fair shot.
Good point.
Well, he won a Super Bowl. He was a key contributor and scored a lot of touchdowns. So he did get a shot to play on a great team.
While yes he does have a Superbowl ring he did it as a bit player in the twilight of his career.
