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!
Exactly.The question is greatest, not who is the best stasticially. Bo Jackson is not a bad pick because you could argue he was the best player when he played, the fact that he didn't lead the league in rushing for 9 years doesn't change a thing about how well he played.
Feel free to lay out the criteria you feel fit the best or just toss up the names and let everyone decide their own criteria. I'd be very interested to see what the sharks think. I just can't imagine Faulk finishes in the top 4 even though his accomplishments are still fresh in everyone's mind which to me is a huge advantage. As I look at Matrix's list, I see nothing but modern backs which I simply don't understand. Faulk, I love the guy, I think he's got an unreal amount of moxie, but I just can't put him at the top statistically or talent wise.i think lt 2.0 is that damn good. and you might be right about edge but he got hurt so he's done. not my problem. no way was edge clearly better than lt 2.0. he was a talented player on a good offense who got every carry on the team.lt 2.0 wishes he could run with half the line that edge had. when you have a season of greatness (2000 yards) your second year in the league with no team around you then yeah you get my respect. I think talent and great stats go hand in hand. arod is the best shortstop because he has the best stats.
No, not true. Davis played with an o-line that can take an average back(like 3 straight RBs drafted after round 5 of the nfl draft) and make them 1000 yard rushers. He also played with one of the top 5 QBs of all time.This makes him put up great stats. Ron Dayne could put up hall of fame stats behind that line. The best RBs will not always put up the best stats because surrounding talent makes a huge difference. You're only one player and you have to rely on 10 others on the field at once.
no because lt 2.0's stats are comparable and he had no other weapons to take pressure off of him like edge did.so no i cannot say that edge was the better back. i think he was overrated.
Now I'm very confused.James - repeat 2000 yard seasons in friendly offense with weapons to take the pressure off - overrated.
"Don't just say 2000 yard seasons"? That's all you've been talking about this whole thread!How is it a positive that Faulk did it for two different teams? That just means his previous team didn't think it was worth it to pay him. Usually RBs at this level are not let go by their teams. You want to penalize other RBs because they were too valuable to their teams?Fine, Faulk may have possessed "WR skills", but Edge had power running skills that Faulk did not have, in addition to being one of the top receiving backs in the league. I'd rather have the RB that can smash it between the tackles than one thatca run an out pattern.You never answered the question though. Why don't you penalize Faulk for playing with one of the best offenses ever, while you penalize Edge and others because they had other weapons?
its all about money. the colts were too cheap to pay faulk. that's why they gave him away to the rams. and the reverse happened to eric dickerson. and marshall faulk could most definitely get the tough yards but why use him that way when you don't have to? edge had some talent but he compiled stats because he got every single carry. when you saw faulk play he was just unstoppable. that's the difference.
you contradict yourself like this quite often throughout this thread.Edge came into Indy and put up stats in the SAME EXACT system that Marshall was in. Marshall went to an even more friendly system in St. Louis where he was the focal point of the entire offense (hence his TD record). I understand Marshall has done it for longer, but I honestly think you are overrating Marshall a bit and underrating Edge at the same time.
To be honest, I have to say the Bears. Walter Paytonthis argument could go on forever and has been done to death.
I rate Jim Brown, Walter Payton, and Barry Sanders in the top 3. The next group of guys is too difficult to separate.
How about this question: Which NFL team has had the best group of RBs throughout their history?
Without thinking carefully about every team's RBs, I'll suggest the Bills as a potential candidate:
1. OJ Simpson
2. Thurman Thomas
3. Cookie Gilchrist
4. Joe Cribbs
5. Travis Henry
6. Greg Bell
7. Willis McGahee (?)
the rams and the colts tied. they had marshall faulk and eric dickerson.To be honest, I have to say the Bears. Walter Paytonthis argument could go on forever and has been done to death.
I rate Jim Brown, Walter Payton, and Barry Sanders in the top 3. The next group of guys is too difficult to separate.
How about this question: Which NFL team has had the best group of RBs throughout their history?
Without thinking carefully about every team's RBs, I'll suggest the Bills as a potential candidate:
1. OJ Simpson
2. Thurman Thomas
3. Cookie Gilchrist
4. Joe Cribbs
5. Travis Henry
6. Greg Bell
7. Willis McGahee (?)
Gale Sayers
Bronko Nagurski
Red Grange
Only question is... who's next?
over the last 20 years...it has to be the Rams. 1 HOF and 2 pretty much locks.Dickersonthis argument could go on forever and has been done to death.
I rate Jim Brown, Walter Payton, and Barry Sanders in the top 3. The next group of guys is too difficult to separate.
How about this question: Which NFL team has had the best group of RBs throughout their history?
Without thinking carefully about every team's RBs, I'll suggest the Bills as a potential candidate:
1. OJ Simpson
2. Thurman Thomas
3. Cookie Gilchrist
4. Joe Cribbs
5. Travis Henry
6. Greg Bell
7. Willis McGahee (?)
Nice post and I agree, Sweetness was one heck of a man on and off the field.
I agree, I think the only standard that is consistent is that Faulk is the best in his opinion regardless of the rationale. That makes for a hard discussion since the rules shift depending on the comparison.
Why argue with a 12 year old? Faulk is a great back that played in two system that were similiar and he put up good yards. Both systems he had good weapons around him along with a good line.James is a great back that played in a good system with good weapons around him.X Back - is a great back that played in a good system with good weapons around him..If people don't listen to the arguments they are making and don't stop changing the rules this thread is useless.Just to be a pain in the ### I vote for Thurman Thomas I can put his numbers against anybodys. And his O-line sucked, he had a crappy QB, and never won the Super Bowl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He is the best.
I truly like Thurman and think he is one of the most forgetten backs in the NFL.
My biggest knock against Terrell Davis was Olandis Gary hanging 1400 in 13 games, behind that same line, with Brian Griese as the starter, and Mike Anderson doing the same thing the following year. Davis was a very good RB, playing behind a great line, in a great scheme. Stats and championships are team accomplishments. And since the very pedestrian players mentioned above had similar statistical years, I give more of the credit to the team and scheme than the player. On most runs, TD was 6 yards down field before he had to evade or take a hit. It's rather easy to pile up stats that way. Tom Nalen, Gary Zimmerman and Mark Schlereth are all going to the HOF. Throw in Tony Jones, and I can't remember the 5th lineman, and you have the scenario where 3 different backs, in 3 different years put up similar numbers. For the record, I consider that line to not only be one of the best at the time, but one of the great run blocking lines of all time. Cheap shots? Yeah, but cheap within the rules.
