CaptainHucklebuck
Ancient Chinese Secret
Okay, so let's continue this rousing discussion here, now that we've ruined the Fred Taylor thread.
And, I think the case could be made for Payton being as good as Brown.You can seriously state that the only time you saw Payton was the Super Bowl and that is your basis for his career?: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.
Though I'd probably shuffle the order, PMENFAN's look pretty good.you say that faulk is not in your top 5 please tell me where you would have him and who do you think is 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).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.
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.[ 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).
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 SayersDidn'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.
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.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.
Thats what happens when you kill your wife....you get off the list.I did leave off OJ Simpson
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.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.
Like your list except for Bo Jackson take him out completly and move Faulk to the bottom. Then you have a nice listI 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 SayersDidn'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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.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.
don't pretend that 100 total yards from scrimmage is an accomplishment faulk started...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.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.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.
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.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
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.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.
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.but you gotta remember that when he dominated the league was split in half pretty much with the usfl being around and all.
Maybe so but the NFL has always had the better talent pool.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Great scenerio. I like your list but you need to take Bo out of there, move everyone up and make Earl 5th.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'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
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.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.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 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.HERDGreat scenerio. I like your list but you need to take Bo out of there, move everyone up and make Earl 5th.