What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

All-time running backs thread (1 Viewer)

No one said Roger Craig was better than Marshall Faulk. I think the issue at hand is "Payton is no Marshall Faulk" and your evidence is suspect because you never watched Payton play. Or Craig. Or anyone else before 1994.

 
You can seriously state that the only time you saw Payton was the Super Bowl and that is your basis for his career? :wall: :rotflmao: I would not even put Faulk in the top 5 RB's of all time. You see Faulk has missed more games this season than Payton missed his entire career. Not only that he was a punishing runner. If you listen from the men who played across the ball from him you will hear they would state that he would hit you harder than you hit him. Maybe I'm a homer but outside of Jim Brown Walter Payton is the greates RB ever, hands down.

 
You can seriously state that the only time you saw Payton was the Super Bowl and that is your basis for his career? :wall: :rotflmao: I would not even put Faulk in the top 5 RB's of all time. You see Faulk has missed more games this season than Payton missed his entire career. Not only that he was a punishing runner. If you listen from the men who played across the ball from him you will hear they would state that he would hit you harder than you hit him. Maybe I'm a homer but outside of Jim Brown Walter Payton is the greates RB ever, hands down.
And, I think the case could be made for Payton being as good as Brown.
 
Didn't see the start, but I rank 'em like this. I don't consider M. Faulk, or Holmes, or Emmitt Smith anything other than very good at their time. Both were in schemes that maximized their talent. If the scheme isn't working well, they're absolutely ineffective. Barry SandersWalter PaytonGayle SayersJim BrownEarl CampbellI believe Sanders was the best ever, because he did what he did all alone. The others, no particular order. I'm sure there's somebody I overlooked.

 
I'd put them in this order:Jim BrownJoe The Jet PerryWalter PaytonBarry SandersEarl CampbellI hope some of you were old enough to enjoy Joe The Jet.

 
I'd put them in this order:Jim BrownJoe The Jet PerryWalter PaytonBarry SandersEarl CampbellI hope some of you were old enough to enjoy Joe The Jet.
Jesus, man, Joe's half a century out of the game. Nice reference. Sadly, I never got to see him live, but the footage I've seen was stellar. I wouldn't fight about him being in the top-5 (though #2 seems high).
 
barry sanders is a little overrated. i understand that if he'd hung around the rushing record would be put out of reach but he had too many runs for loss.i think he had the most in league history.his playoff stats aren't that great either. i actually think emmitt might be better.

 
[ Jesus, man, Joe's half a century out of the game. Nice reference. Sadly, I never got to see him live, but the footage I've seen was stellar. I wouldn't fight about him being in the top-5 (though #2 seems high).
OK, Joe at #2 is a homer call.....I grew up watching the man play.But I have no hesitation putting him in the top 5.
 
Didn't see the start, but I rank 'em like this. I don't consider M. Faulk, or Holmes, or Emmitt Smith anything other than very good at their time. Both were in schemes that maximized their talent. If the scheme isn't working well, they're absolutely ineffective. Barry SandersWalter PaytonGayle SayersJim BrownEarl CampbellI believe Sanders was the best ever, because he did what he did all alone. The others, no particular order. I'm sure there's somebody I overlooked.
I think Barry is the Vince Carter of football...great highlights and amazing talent, but a lot of deficiencies in his game.Barry was never a great blocker, was a very poor goal-line back, a very poor short yardage runner, not a team leader, and only had one good postseason game.In regards to Payton/Faulk, I said it in the other thread but I'll say it again: I think Walter was better, but it was stupid to say that you can't even compare the two. Marshall is talented enough to be compared to any RB ever.My list:1.Jim Brown2.Walter Payton3.Emmitt Smith4.Bo Jackson5.Marshall Faulk6.Barry Sanders7.Earl Campbell8.Gale Sayers
 
Sanders over-rated? And, you're pimping Faulk? Barry did it year in and year out, and I believe when he left that team went from 9-7 to 2-14. Faulk goes down, Canidate puts up similar numbers, as does Gordon, and for Gods sake, a dude named Arlen Harris. Yeah, Sanders did have lots of - carries. That's what happens when you don't have a line. As for Emmitt. He was a very good back, behind a great line, with a great passing game, and a very good D for the bulk of his career. Virtually any back in the league would have put up similar numbers. The men I listed I respect for their ability, not their situation. I did leave off OJ Simpson and Eric Dickerson. And another blast from the past, whose footage I love, is Marion Motley. In many, dude's just walking down the field. What's interesting is that he's often carrying 5-6 guys. Love his footage.

 
Seems to me that one reason this is such a hard topic is that there are no defintions for what makes the "best".Is it just the best pure runner (ignoring everything else like blocking, receiving, longevity, etc..)?Is it a total back that is/was expected to stand in and block for the QB on passing downs and catch passes out of the backfield?Does the ability to play, and play effectively, when hurt where another back would be on the sidelines? Think Emmitt vs. Taylor as an exampleWhere does longevity fit in, is a Gale Sayers (or even an Earl Cambell) a top-5 even though their careers were pretty short.Do guys like Emmitt get brownie points for playing a long time and being a warrior even though he couldn't carry Sayers or Sanders jock as an open field runner.Just food for thought because I can see at least 3 or 4 different top-5 lists depending on the criteria.

 
barry sanders is a little overrated. i understand that if he'd hung around the rushing record would be put out of reach but he had too many runs for loss.i think he had the most in league history.his playoff stats aren't that great either. i actually think emmitt might be better.
Barry never had a season where he rushed for less than 1100 yards, I believe. That's getting it done plenty when there's nothing else on the team. The reason he had so many runs for a loss is that he had 8 men in the box for about 60% of his career - if not more.
 
what's the big deal about jim brown? that he had the rushing record for like 20 years or whatever but he played back in the sixties.who did he play against? like one good team and the others scrubs. at least with contemporaries like emmitt,barry,and marshall they played against players whose job is to play football all year round and they train and prepare as such.personally i think jim brown would be a mediocre player in thenfl and gale sayers probably the same.

 
Seems to me that one reason this is such a hard topic is that there are no defintions for what makes the "best".Is it just the best pure runner (ignoring everything else like blocking, receiving, longevity, etc..)?Is it a total back that is/was expected to stand in and block for the QB on passing downs and catch passes out of the backfield?Does the ability to play, and play effectively, when hurt where another back would be on the sidelines? Think Emmitt vs. Taylor as an exampleWhere does longevity fit in, is a Gale Sayers (or even an Earl Cambell) a top-5 even though their careers were pretty short.Do guys like Emmitt get brownie points for playing a long time and being a warrior even though he couldn't carry Sayers or Sanders jock as an open field runner.Just food for thought because I can see at least 3 or 4 different top-5 lists depending on the criteria.
Exactly. Just to get you up to speed, we had a comment in the Fred Taylor thread that Faulk was no Payton, which led to "Payton was no Faulk" and... you get the idea. Here we are.
 
Didn't see the start, but I rank 'em like this. I don't consider M. Faulk, or Holmes, or Emmitt Smith anything other than very good at their time. Both were in schemes that maximized their talent. If the scheme isn't working well, they're absolutely ineffective. Barry SandersWalter PaytonGayle SayersJim BrownEarl CampbellI believe Sanders was the best ever, because he did what he did all alone. The others, no particular order. I'm sure there's somebody I overlooked.
I think Barry is the Vince Carter of football...great highlights and amazing talent, but a lot of deficiencies in his game.Barry was never a great blocker, was a very poor goal-line back, a very poor short yardage runner, not a team leader, and only had one good postseason game.In regards to Payton/Faulk, I said it in the other thread but I'll say it again: I think Walter was better, but it was stupid to say that you can't even compare the two. Marshall is talented enough to be compared to any RB ever.My list:1.Jim Brown2.Walter Payton3.Emmitt Smith4.Bo Jackson5.Marshall Faulk6.Barry Sanders7.Earl Campbell8.Gale Sayers
Like your list except for Bo Jackson take him out completly and move Faulk to the bottom. Then you have a nice list :thumbup:
 
Sanders over-rated? And, you're pimping Faulk? Barry did it year in and year out, and I believe when he left that team went from 9-7 to 2-14. Faulk goes down, Canidate puts up similar numbers, as does Gordon, and for Gods sake, a dude named Arlen Harris. Yeah, Sanders did have lots of - carries. That's what happens when you don't have a line. As for Emmitt. He was a very good back, behind a great line, with a great passing game, and a very good D for the bulk of his career. Virtually any back in the league would have put up similar numbers. The men I listed I respect for their ability, not their situation. I did leave off OJ Simpson and Eric Dickerson. And another blast from the past, whose footage I love, is Marion Motley. In many, dude's just walking down the field. What's interesting is that he's often carrying 5-6 guys. Love his footage.
the year after barry quit the lions made the playoffs.and those other rams running backs haven't put up any numbers like faulk has. the rams haven't had a back run for a hundred yards this season so they can't be as good as faulk.i think that i'm giving sanders a lot more credit that you're giving faulk.
 
what's the big deal about jim brown? that he had the rushing record for like 20 years or whatever but he played back in the sixties.who did he play against? like one good team and the others scrubs. at least with contemporaries like emmitt,barry,and marshall they played against players whose job is to play football all year round and they train and prepare as such.personally i think jim brown would be a mediocre player in thenfl and gale sayers probably the same.
I think Jim Brown would be mediocre if he were to play today also. After all, the man is 65 years old.
 
what's the big deal about jim brown? that he had the rushing record for like 20 years or whatever but he played back in the sixties.who did he play against? like one good team and the others scrubs. at least with contemporaries like emmitt,barry,and marshall they played against players whose job is to play football all year round and they train and prepare as such.personally i think jim brown would be a mediocre player in thenfl and gale sayers probably the same.
I don't think when they played make a big difference. We are talking about guys who were tougher all around than many modern backs. In my mind many of today's backs wouldn't survive. Sure the guys are bigger and do it profesionally now but that doesn't degrade the performances of past backs at all. Football was alot more smash mouth in the day and face it today's back's were not "designed" to play that way.
 
Sanders over-rated? And, you're pimping Faulk? Barry did it year in and year out, and I believe when he left that team went from 9-7 to 2-14. Faulk goes down, Canidate puts up similar numbers, as does Gordon, and for Gods sake, a dude named Arlen Harris. Yeah, Sanders did have lots of - carries. That's what happens when you don't have a line. As for Emmitt. He was a very good back, behind a great line, with a great passing game, and a very good D for the bulk of his career. Virtually any back in the league would have put up similar numbers. The men I listed I respect for their ability, not their situation. I did leave off OJ Simpson and Eric Dickerson. And another blast from the past, whose footage I love, is Marion Motley. In many, dude's just walking down the field. What's interesting is that he's often carrying 5-6 guys. Love his footage.
the year after barry quit the lions made the playoffs.and those other rams running backs haven't put up any numbers like faulk has. the rams haven't had a back run for a hundred yards this season so they can't be as good as faulk.i think that i'm giving sanders a lot more credit that you're giving faulk.
Priest must not be a good back, he's only had two one hundred yard rushing games this year.
 
the year after barry quit the lions made the playoffs.and those other rams running backs haven't put up any numbers like faulk has. the rams haven't had a back run for a hundred yards this season so they can't be as good as faulk.i think that i'm giving sanders a lot more credit that you're giving faulk.
They made the playoffs with an 8-8 record that year. I'd hardly call that a great season.As far as the Rams not having a back run for 100 yards this season... 3 of those games were Faulk rushing.
 
i was referring to chitlins post.not yours hawkins. i guess maybe i should have respect for the old school but you're telling me that if barry sanders or marshall faulk played back in the day that they would not dominate. i don't think that i would agree with that.

 
Why all the love for Earl Campbell? Nothing wrong with him, but so many people putting him in their top 5? He had five 1,000 yard seasons and finished his career at #18 on the all-time rushing list. And he was only a rusher--next to zero receiving threat. His first three years he had good YPC with an average over 4.5 each year, but after that he didn't do much. Sure he's the gold standard for power backs and he had some great highlight film runs, but if we are talking about big backs, I don't see him as a big cut above Bettis. For that matter why no love for Eric Dickerson? Single season rushing record--in fact he's on the list with 3 out of the best 15 seasons all time. He's #4 in rushing yards and a true dual threat (he led his team in receptions as a rookie). He didn't have much of a supporting cast either for most of his better seasons. He was deceptively fast with an up-right running style. Not exceptionally elusive, but he had the complete package and got the job done. Walter PaytonBarry SandersJim BrownEmmitt SmithEric Dickerson

 
Sanders over-rated?  And, you're pimping Faulk?  Barry did it year in and year out, and I believe when he left that team went from 9-7 to 2-14.  Faulk goes down, Canidate puts up similar numbers, as does Gordon, and for Gods sake, a dude named Arlen Harris.  Yeah, Sanders did have lots of - carries.  That's what happens when you don't have a line.  As for Emmitt.  He was a very good back, behind a great line, with a great passing game, and a very good D for the bulk of his career.  Virtually any back in the league would have put up similar numbers. The men I listed I respect for their ability, not their situation.  I did leave off OJ Simpson and Eric Dickerson.  And another blast from the past, whose footage I love, is Marion Motley.  In many, dude's just walking down the field.  What's interesting is that he's often carrying 5-6 guys.  Love his footage.
the year after barry quit the lions made the playoffs.and those other rams running backs haven't put up any numbers like faulk has. the rams haven't had a back run for a hundred yards this season so they can't be as good as faulk.i think that i'm giving sanders a lot more credit that you're giving faulk.
Priest must not be a good back, he's only had two one hundred yard rushing games this year.
well i don't even want to get into the priest. but even though he's only had 100 yards rushing twice he's had at least 100 total yards in every game this season. that's faulk like.
 
Sanders over-rated? And, you're pimping Faulk? Barry did it year in and year out, and I believe when he left that team went from 9-7 to 2-14. Faulk goes down, Canidate puts up similar numbers, as does Gordon, and for Gods sake, a dude named Arlen Harris. Yeah, Sanders did have lots of - carries. That's what happens when you don't have a line. As for Emmitt. He was a very good back, behind a great line, with a great passing game, and a very good D for the bulk of his career. Virtually any back in the league would have put up similar numbers. The men I listed I respect for their ability, not their situation. I did leave off OJ Simpson and Eric Dickerson. And another blast from the past, whose footage I love, is Marion Motley. In many, dude's just walking down the field. What's interesting is that he's often carrying 5-6 guys. Love his footage.
the year after barry quit the lions made the playoffs.and those other rams running backs haven't put up any numbers like faulk has. the rams haven't had a back run for a hundred yards this season so they can't be as good as faulk.i think that i'm giving sanders a lot more credit that you're giving faulk.
Priest must not be a good back, he's only had two one hundred yard rushing games this year.
well i don't even want to get into the priest. but even though he's only had 100 yards rushing twice he's had at least 100 total yards in every game this season. that's faulk like.
don't pretend that 100 total yards from scrimmage is an accomplishment faulk started...
 
For that matter why no love for Eric Dickerson? Single season rushing record--in fact he's on the list with 3 out of the best 15 seasons all time. He's #4 in rushing yards and a true dual threat (he led his team in receptions as a rookie). He didn't have much of a supporting cast either for most of his better seasons. He was deceptively fast with an up-right running style. Not exceptionally elusive, but he had the complete package and got the job done. Walter PaytonBarry SandersJim BrownEmmitt SmithEric Dickerson
ED's an all timer but you gotta remember that when he dominated the league was split in half pretty much with the usfl being around and all. he's definitely one of the the best ever though. i'd say he's better than barry sanders.
 
I think Faulk has been a very good, even great, back, just not one of the top 10 ever good. Top 25? I'd say most definitely. Maybe even top 20. My knock on him is that he's in a system that maximizes his talent. They spread him out at WR, out of the backfield, and all the traditional RB stuff. I'm not saying he sucks by any means. I'm just saying that his Backups have put up similar numbers. It's the same knock I have against Terrell Davis. Great numbers, but the pedestrian Mike Anderson and Olandis Gary put up damn near the same numbers behind that line. For the last 2 1/2 seasons, Marshall has been a relative non-factor. Even when healthy, he hasn't been getting it done. Why? Because he doesn't have that great passing game, drawing 5 defenders 15 yards off the line. I'm not going on stats, or winning, or blocking. I'm talking moving the ball against the D, with the ball in his hands. And, I'd add Bo Jackson to the list. He was a great runner, though for a very short time.

 
Seems to me that one reason this is such a hard topic is that there are no defintions for what makes the "best".Is it just the best pure runner (ignoring everything else like blocking, receiving, longevity, etc..)?Is it a total back that is/was expected to stand in and block for the QB on passing downs and catch passes out of the backfield?Does the ability to play, and play effectively, when hurt where another back would be on the sidelines? Think Emmitt vs. Taylor as an exampleWhere does longevity fit in, is a Gale Sayers (or even an Earl Cambell) a top-5 even though their careers were pretty short.Do guys like Emmitt get brownie points for playing a long time and being a warrior even though he couldn't carry Sayers or Sanders jock as an open field runner.Just food for thought because I can see at least 3 or 4 different top-5 lists depending on the criteria.
Great reply. The sytem makes players and breaks players. You also need a good team around you. But the qualities of the great just can't get penciled in. To me there a great Tough backs, great Scat backs, etc, etc.I used to love watching Robert Newhouse run. But I don't think he'll ever be considered a great back. But he had alot of good qualities. The same could be said for "Moose" he could run, catch, pass and run back. I loved watching him play also and Emmitt would not be the same back without him.As far as backs I'd like to see in differnt systems. Imagine Sanders playing on the Cowboys instead of Emmitt. Talk about something that could have been devastating.So don't argue a point that can't be won. Just watch the game and enjoy seeing the ones like Barry, Emmitt, Walter, Earl. But don't forget to watch the Newhouses, Johnstons, and Alstotts.
 
that's what makes faulk great. he dominated in not one but two systems. the only other great back who can say that is ed.

 
but you gotta remember that when he dominated the league was split in half pretty much with the usfl being around and all.
How did the usfl split the league in half. It was a training league pretty much like the XFL, CFL, Arena and the training league they have now. As far as Dickerson goes he was a great back also and you should consider him.
 
GUYS:To make this a more workable topic you might want to set down the standards your comparing everyone to as mentioned in an earlier post.Example: 1) Must be able to get the tough yards 2) Have outside speed 3) Good hands 4) Doesn't have to be taken out on passing downs 5) Can run black and pass block 6) Generally tackeled on the second hit

 
a lot of good defensive players were in the usfl. during its time.he had a dominant year when they came back though so that's why i still gave him respect.

 
a lot of good defensive players were in the usfl. during its time.he had a dominant year when they came back though so that's why i still gave him respect.
Maybe so but the NFL has always had the better talent pool.
 
that's what makes faulk great. he dominated in not one but two systems. the only other great back who can say that is ed.
I'm sorry, but what other system did M. Faulk dominate under? He was an underachiever in Indi, hence his departure for what I think was like a 3rd round draft pick. It might even have been 4th. For the overunder on Matrix' age, I'd put it at under 21.
 
I'll rank the greatest RB ever like this..."HERD, tomorrow you are playing one game for all the marbles, the Super Bowl of All Time, and I'm telling you right now, it might snow, sleet, rain, or be 120 degrees. Also, our O-line might be good or might be bad and our QB is a question mark himself. Every yard will be tough and its going to be a grind to win this one. We need to be able to move the rock, not fumble, block when we're not running, get tough yards, maybe explode for the big play, and we need to be able to go up the middle and around the corners.Who do you want in the backfield to give us our best chance to win?"HERD's reply...1. Jim Brown2. Walter Payton3. Bo Jackson4. Barry Sanders5. Emmitt SmithHonorable mention: Earl Campbell, Gayle SayersHERD

 
Barry was simply the most dominant running back, college or pro, since Jim Brown. He is so good that people feel compelled to come up with explanations for why he was just OK... it just doesn't seem possible that somebody who isn't a huge bruiser could be so good.I won't get into his college stats, which were sick, because this is an NFL discussion.In the pros, Barry averaged 5.0 YPC. Payton only averaged 5.0 YPC one year (5.5), and overall he averaged 4.4 YPC which is basically mediocre--that's Emmitt Smith territory.Barry never rushed for less than 1100 yards, and that year he only played 11 games. He had two years in which he outrushed Payton's best total.Yes, Payton was a tough dude. Yes, he was a good blocker. But honestly, if Barry hadn't retired so early (due to personal, not physical reasons) he would have easily crushed Payton's career rushing mark. Isn't that the ultimate test of durability?There are three backs since Brown that could compete with Barry, and Payton isn't one of them. OJ, Marshall and Bo.

 
I'm sorry, but what other system did M. Faulk dominate under? He was an underachiever in Indi, hence his departure for what I think was like a 3rd round draft pick. It might even have been 4th. For the overunder on Matrix' age, I'd put it at under 21.
what are you talking about? he was a damn good player for the colts. his last year there he had 2000 yards(the standard for greatness) in his last season there and he had over 400 touches.
 
Marshall FaulkAmong the league's all-time top 50Rushes: 15Rushing yards: 15Rushing TDs: 9Receptions: 24Yards from scrimmage: 6Rush/Receive TDs: 7Barry SandersAmong the league's all-time top 50Rushes: 3Rushing yards: 3Rushing TDs: 6Yards from scrimmage: 4Rush/Receive TDs: 10

 
I'll rank the greatest RB ever like this..."HERD, tomorrow you are playing one game for all the marbles, the Super Bowl of All Time, and I'm telling you right now, it might snow, sleet, rain, or be 120 degrees. Also, our O-line might be good or might be bad and our QB is a question mark himself. Every yard will be tough and its going to be a grind to win this one. We need to be able to move the rock, not fumble, block when we're not running, get tough yards, maybe explode for the big play, and we need to be able to go up the middle and around the corners.Who do you want in the backfield to give us our best chance to win?"HERD's reply...1. Jim Brown2. Walter Payton3. Bo Jackson4. Barry Sanders5. Emmitt SmithHonorable mention: Earl Campbell, Gayle SayersHERD
Great scenerio. I like your list but you need to take Bo out of there, move everyone up and make Earl 5th.
 
like i said faulk just needs one more good season and a couple of okay ones and he'll be up there in the end count on it. he's only 30 years old. but i'll admit there are no guarantees.

 
I'll rank the greatest RB ever like this..."HERD, tomorrow you are playing one game for all the marbles, the Super Bowl of All Time, and I'm telling you right now, it might snow, sleet, rain, or be 120 degrees. Also, our O-line might be good or might be bad and our QB is a question mark himself. Every yard will be tough and its going to be a grind to win this one. We need to be able to move the rock, not fumble, block when we're not running, get tough yards, maybe explode for the big play, and we need to be able to go up the middle and around the corners.Who do you want in the backfield to give us our best chance to win?"HERD's reply...1. Jim Brown2. Walter Payton3. Bo Jackson4. Barry Sanders5. Emmitt SmithHonorable mention: Earl Campbell, Gayle SayersHERD
Exactly. That's the criteria for the greatest of all time in my opinion. We have no idea what the rest of the team is, who we're playing, or what the conditions will be. We only know that this ball here needs to get to that endzone over there by whatever means necessary. That's why I put Payton and Brown at the top - though I honestly believe Payton should be either co-#1 or #1 all by himself.The man used to walk across the field, back and forth, 200 total yards on his hands in practice without coming down. The man was hard as nails.
 
I'm sorry, but what other system did M. Faulk dominate under? He was an underachiever in Indi, hence his departure for what I think was like a 3rd round draft pick. It might even have been 4th. For the overunder on Matrix' age, I'd put it at under 21.
what are you talking about? he was a damn good player for the colts. his last year there he had 2000 yards(the standard for greatness) in his last season there and he had over 400 touches.
You mean rushing or combined. He DID not rush for 2000 yards his final season as a Colt, try more like 1200-1400 with maybe another 800 for receiving. Touchs rushing I doubt was over 330 or so. I'd go out on a limb and say that the other touchs were recieving.
 
Great scenerio. I like your list but you need to take Bo out of there, move everyone up and make Earl 5th.
I understand, and I completely realize 99% of people won't agree with me. That's fine. But I saw Bo Jackson play football in person once and baseball in person twice. After all 3 experiences, I came to the realization that there was NOTHING he couldn't do on the field. Watching Bo in person made me realize what it must have been like to see Jim Thorpe when he was around.Bo stays on my list, but I certainly don't begrudge the fact that he's probably not on anybody else's.HERD
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top