Barry or Emmitt? (1 Viewer)

[GregR_2]

Like it was stated earlier, Sanders lost yardage 1/3 of the time.

Where do people come up with this stuff?

Tell me about it. As soon as I see something like that it pretty much tells me I can ignore the rest of their post because they clearly aren't worried about their statements being based on actual facts or reality.

These are my same thoughts every time I read the "put Barry behind Emmitt's OL and viceversa..." foolishness.

Further... tell me why you think that (the OL thing) is ridiculous?If we're trying to judge who is the better RB, if we're trying to judge which of the two players would you rather have on a team we're putting together.... how exactly would you go about doing that if you're not going to decide what both of them would do in the situation you're going to put them in, and choose the one that would do best?

 

[AmosMoses]

Like it was stated earlier, Sanders lost yardage 1/3 of the time.

Where do people come up with this stuff?

Tell me about it. As soon as I see something like that it pretty much tells me I can ignore the rest of their post because they clearly aren't worried about their statements being based on actual facts or reality.

These are my same thoughts every time I read the "put Barry behind Emmitt's OL and viceversa..." foolishness.

Further... tell me why you think that (the OL thing) is ridiculous?If we're trying to judge who is the better RB, if we're trying to judge which of the two players would you rather have on a team we're putting together.... how exactly would you go about doing that if you're not going to decide what both of them would do in the situation you're going to put them in, and choose the one that would do best?

The premise that Sanders' OL was terrible is untrue. Perhaps we should try to figure out what a good way to evaluate an OL before jumping into statements like that. Of course there is the eye test, but that is a problem because it is a) biased and b) our memory is far from perfect. I don't want to stand in the way though. I doubt a good evaluation for OL will be agreed upon here. So I guess your people can stand over there, and my people can stand over here and we can just agree to disagree.

 

[GregR_2]

Like it was stated earlier, Sanders lost yardage 1/3 of the time.

Where do people come up with this stuff?

Tell me about it. As soon as I see something like that it pretty much tells me I can ignore the rest of their post because they clearly aren't worried about their statements being based on actual facts or reality.

These are my same thoughts every time I read the "put Barry behind Emmitt's OL and viceversa..." foolishness.

Further... tell me why you think that (the OL thing) is ridiculous?If we're trying to judge who is the better RB, if we're trying to judge which of the two players would you rather have on a team we're putting together.... how exactly would you go about doing that if you're not going to decide what both of them would do in the situation you're going to put them in, and choose the one that would do best?

The premise that Sanders' OL was terrible is untrue. Perhaps we should try to figure out what a good way to evaluate an OL before jumping into statements like that. Of course there is the eye test, but that is a problem because it is a) biased and b) our memory is far from perfect. I don't want to stand in the way though. I doubt a good evaluation for OL will be agreed upon here. So I guess your people can stand over there, and my people can stand over here and we can just agree to disagree.

I don't think Sanders O-line was terrible. I'd say there's evidence to the contrary. Just like I think there's also evidence that Emmitt's line was a lot better than Barry's. Pro Bowls... an actual study done by SI that watched play by play to see where on the field first contact was made on Barry vs Emmitt.

I don't know how someone can't take that kind of thing into account in a situation like this. It's a lot easier to account for that with Barry and Emmitt than it is comparing either of them to say, Jim Brown, just because so much was different in the number of teams, the structure of the league, how much teams played outside of their division, etc.

Edit to add: By the way, I'm sure by "my people" you mean "people supporting Barry". Those aren't my people. "My people" are people trying to find the best, most correct answer regardless of which person it is. If you'll note my posts in this thread, I've given my opinion once, and the rest of my posts are when people are using bad logic (like that Super Bowl wins, win-loss, etc, should be a big consideration), or bad facts (like more than tripling someone's stats to try to cast them in a bad light), or when I think we can gather some new information that can help put the situation in a proper context (like when I gathered Arian Foster's negative yardage stats so we'd have another comparison).

The fact that they have tended to support Barry is because the evidence supports Barry. Not because I'm trying to support Barry. If I had found that Barry had 20 more negative yards per game and 8 more negative carries than Walter Payton I'd have posted it and taken it into account, just like when I found the difference between them wasn't that extreme, I posted it.

 

[Tau837]

The premise that Sanders' OL was terrible is untrue. Perhaps we should try to figure out what a good way to evaluate an OL before jumping into statements like that.

Here is a method. It shows that Sanders' OL was significantly worse than Smith's... no surprise there.

 

[GregR_2]

The premise that Sanders' OL was terrible is untrue. Perhaps we should try to figure out what a good way to evaluate an OL before jumping into statements like that.

Here is a method. It shows that Sanders' OL was significantly worse than Smith's... no surprise there.

I need to do some more reading on the method, but from what I've seen of it I'm not particularly crazy about the method. It just seems to me like there isn't enough separation between the RB and the O-line in the stats that feed it. But I need to read up on it more first.

 

[cobalt_27]

The premise that Sanders' OL was terrible is untrue. Perhaps we should try to figure out what a good way to evaluate an OL before jumping into statements like that.

Here is a method. It shows that Sanders' OL was significantly worse than Smith's... no surprise there.

Ugh, nevermind which side of the argument you're on, the statistical (and conceptual) models presented are a trainwreck.

 

[JuSt CuZ]

The premise that Sanders' OL was terrible is untrue. Perhaps we should try to figure out what a good way to evaluate an OL before jumping into statements like that.

Here is a method. It shows that Sanders' OL was significantly worse than Smith's... no surprise there.

You can show all the stats, it does not matter, they are bias.

 

[Tau837]

The premise that Sanders' OL was terrible is untrue. Perhaps we should try to figure out what a good way to evaluate an OL before jumping into statements like that.

Here is a method. It shows that Sanders' OL was significantly worse than Smith's... no surprise there.

I need to do some more reading on the method, but from what I've seen of it I'm not particularly crazy about the method. It just seems to me like there isn't enough separation between the RB and the O-line in the stats that feed it. But I need to read up on it more first.

I agree that the method is less than ideal. But at least it's a reasoned attempt at the subject. I'm not aware of any other substantive attempts. It's a tough problem.

 

[GregR_2]

The premise that Sanders' OL was terrible is untrue. Perhaps we should try to figure out what a good way to evaluate an OL before jumping into statements like that.

Here is a method. It shows that Sanders' OL was significantly worse than Smith's... no surprise there.

I need to do some more reading on the method, but from what I've seen of it I'm not particularly crazy about the method. It just seems to me like there isn't enough separation between the RB and the O-line in the stats that feed it. But I need to read up on it more first.

I agree that the method is less than ideal. But at least it's a reasoned attempt at the subject. I'm not aware of any other substantive attempts. It's a tough problem.

Agreed, and I realize that the reason it's less than ideal is the lack of data available to work with that isn't so dependent on the running back. There just isn't much better way to do it without a Football Outsiders type play by play analysis of offensive lines... or perhaps using salary as an indicator of quality, which wouldn't be perfect (player who outplayed his salary, or is a great pass blocker but mediocre run blocker, etc) but at least it should be more independent of the RB who played behind the line.But I'm just not sure that even with this being the best that can be done, that it's good enough to put much weight on. I'm a little more comfortable using all pro and pro bowls than I am that.

Which to bring this back around to Emmitt and Barry specifically, the one Sports Illustrated study is actually a reason that I do feel confident about saying Emmitt's line was a lot better than Barry's and it's not just my 15 year old memories saying that. It is that kind of Football Outsiders-like study. Given how elusive that Barry was, if people were getting contact on him that much further upfield, I think it says a lot about the holes that both had available.

 

[AmosMoses]

The fact that they have tended to support Barry is because the evidence supports Barry.

No.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

Not sure why this is even a debate. Trust your eyes, the eyes don't lie.

 

[Go Blue]

Like it was stated earlier, Sanders lost yardage 1/3 of the time.

Where do people come up with this stuff?

Tell me about it. As soon as I see something like that it pretty much tells me I can ignore the rest of their post because they clearly aren't worried about their statements being based on actual facts or reality.

These are my same thoughts every time I read the "put Barry behind Emmitt's OL and viceversa..." foolishness.

Further... tell me why you think that (the OL thing) is ridiculous?If we're trying to judge who is the better RB, if we're trying to judge which of the two players would you rather have on a team we're putting together.... how exactly would you go about doing that if you're not going to decide what both of them would do in the situation you're going to put them in, and choose the one that would do best?

The premise that Sanders' OL was terrible is untrue. Perhaps we should try to figure out what a good way to evaluate an OL before jumping into statements like that. Of course there is the eye test, but that is a problem because it is a) biased and b) our memory is far from perfect. I don't want to stand in the way though. I doubt a good evaluation for OL will be agreed upon here. So I guess your people can stand over there, and my people can stand over here and we can just agree to disagree.

I don't think Sanders O-line was terrible. I'd say there's evidence to the contrary. Just like I think there's also evidence that Emmitt's line was a lot better than Barry's. Pro Bowls... an actual study done by SI that watched play by play to see where on the field first contact was made on Barry vs Emmitt.

I don't know how someone can't take that kind of thing into account in a situation like this. It's a lot easier to account for that with Barry and Emmitt than it is comparing either of them to say, Jim Brown, just because so much was different in the number of teams, the structure of the league, how much teams played outside of their division, etc.

Edit to add: By the way, I'm sure by "my people" you mean "people supporting Barry". Those aren't my people. "My people" are people trying to find the best, most correct answer regardless of which person it is. If you'll note my posts in this thread, I've given my opinion once, and the rest of my posts are when people are using bad logic (like that Super Bowl wins, win-loss, etc, should be a big consideration), or bad facts (like more than tripling someone's stats to try to cast them in a bad light), or when I think we can gather some new information that can help put the situation in a proper context (like when I gathered Arian Foster's negative yardage stats so we'd have another comparison).

The fact that they have tended to support Barry is because the evidence supports Barry. Not because I'm trying to support Barry. If I had found that Barry had 20 more negative yards per game and 8 more negative carries than Walter Payton I'd have posted it and taken it into account, just like when I found the difference between them wasn't that extreme, I posted it.

Very

Way too much of this thread sounded like a political debate. There is no need to tear down the opponent here. They are both 2 of the greatest RB's of all time.

I'm not saying it's easy, but it sure would be nice if more people could post as football fans instead of with their "Homer Goggles" on. "Thank You" to everyone that has been able to do just that.

 

[AmosMoses]

Like it was stated earlier, Sanders lost yardage 1/3 of the time.

Where do people come up with this stuff?

Tell me about it. As soon as I see something like that it pretty much tells me I can ignore the rest of their post because they clearly aren't worried about their statements being based on actual facts or reality.

These are my same thoughts every time I read the "put Barry behind Emmitt's OL and viceversa..." foolishness.

Further... tell me why you think that (the OL thing) is ridiculous?If we're trying to judge who is the better RB, if we're trying to judge which of the two players would you rather have on a team we're putting together.... how exactly would you go about doing that if you're not going to decide what both of them would do in the situation you're going to put them in, and choose the one that would do best?

The premise that Sanders' OL was terrible is untrue. Perhaps we should try to figure out what a good way to evaluate an OL before jumping into statements like that. Of course there is the eye test, but that is a problem because it is a) biased and b) our memory is far from perfect. I don't want to stand in the way though. I doubt a good evaluation for OL will be agreed upon here. So I guess your people can stand over there, and my people can stand over here and we can just agree to disagree.

I don't think Sanders O-line was terrible. I'd say there's evidence to the contrary. Just like I think there's also evidence that Emmitt's line was a lot better than Barry's. Pro Bowls... an actual study done by SI that watched play by play to see where on the field first contact was made on Barry vs Emmitt.

I don't know how someone can't take that kind of thing into account in a situation like this. It's a lot easier to account for that with Barry and Emmitt than it is comparing either of them to say, Jim Brown, just because so much was different in the number of teams, the structure of the league, how much teams played outside of their division, etc.

Edit to add: By the way, I'm sure by "my people" you mean "people supporting Barry". Those aren't my people. "My people" are people trying to find the best, most correct answer regardless of which person it is. If you'll note my posts in this thread, I've given my opinion once, and the rest of my posts are when people are using bad logic (like that Super Bowl wins, win-loss, etc, should be a big consideration), or bad facts (like more than tripling someone's stats to try to cast them in a bad light), or when I think we can gather some new information that can help put the situation in a proper context (like when I gathered Arian Foster's negative yardage stats so we'd have another comparison).

The fact that they have tended to support Barry is because the evidence supports Barry. Not because I'm trying to support Barry. If I had found that Barry had 20 more negative yards per game and 8 more negative carries than Walter Payton I'd have posted it and taken it into account, just like when I found the difference between them wasn't that extreme, I posted it.

Very

Way too much of this thread sounded like a political debate. There is no need to tear down the opponent here. They are both 2 of the greatest RB's of all time.

I'm not saying it's easy, but it sure would be nice if more people could post as football fans instead of with their "Homer Goggles" on. "Thank You" to everyone that has been able to do just that.

It would be nice. I can understand the Barry Sanders homer goggle effect though. He's an exciting player, who translates well to highlights.

 

[JuSt CuZ]

Like it was stated earlier, Sanders lost yardage 1/3 of the time.

Where do people come up with this stuff?

Tell me about it. As soon as I see something like that it pretty much tells me I can ignore the rest of their post because they clearly aren't worried about their statements being based on actual facts or reality.

These are my same thoughts every time I read the "put Barry behind Emmitt's OL and viceversa..." foolishness.

Further... tell me why you think that (the OL thing) is ridiculous?If we're trying to judge who is the better RB, if we're trying to judge which of the two players would you rather have on a team we're putting together.... how exactly would you go about doing that if you're not going to decide what both of them would do in the situation you're going to put them in, and choose the one that would do best?

The premise that Sanders' OL was terrible is untrue. Perhaps we should try to figure out what a good way to evaluate an OL before jumping into statements like that. Of course there is the eye test, but that is a problem because it is a) biased and b) our memory is far from perfect. I don't want to stand in the way though. I doubt a good evaluation for OL will be agreed upon here. So I guess your people can stand over there, and my people can stand over here and we can just agree to disagree.

I don't think Sanders O-line was terrible. I'd say there's evidence to the contrary. Just like I think there's also evidence that Emmitt's line was a lot better than Barry's. Pro Bowls... an actual study done by SI that watched play by play to see where on the field first contact was made on Barry vs Emmitt.

I don't know how someone can't take that kind of thing into account in a situation like this. It's a lot easier to account for that with Barry and Emmitt than it is comparing either of them to say, Jim Brown, just because so much was different in the number of teams, the structure of the league, how much teams played outside of their division, etc.

Edit to add: By the way, I'm sure by "my people" you mean "people supporting Barry". Those aren't my people. "My people" are people trying to find the best, most correct answer regardless of which person it is. If you'll note my posts in this thread, I've given my opinion once, and the rest of my posts are when people are using bad logic (like that Super Bowl wins, win-loss, etc, should be a big consideration), or bad facts (like more than tripling someone's stats to try to cast them in a bad light), or when I think we can gather some new information that can help put the situation in a proper context (like when I gathered Arian Foster's negative yardage stats so we'd have another comparison).

The fact that they have tended to support Barry is because the evidence supports Barry. Not because I'm trying to support Barry. If I had found that Barry had 20 more negative yards per game and 8 more negative carries than Walter Payton I'd have posted it and taken it into account, just like when I found the difference between them wasn't that extreme, I posted it.

Very

Way too much of this thread sounded like a political debate. There is no need to tear down the opponent here. They are both 2 of the greatest RB's of all time.

I'm not saying it's easy, but it sure would be nice if more people could post as football fans instead of with their "Homer Goggles" on. "Thank You" to everyone that has been able to do just that.

It would be nice. I can understand the Barry Sanders homer goggle effect though. He's an exciting player, who translates well to highlights.

Not to spark up the argument again, but your acting like his highlights did not produce results, lol.

 

[PatsFanCT]

If you're on the three yard line and need to punch it in who do you call? For me, it's Smith all day. Like it was stated earlier, Sanders lost yardage 1/3 of the time. Emmitt on the other hand was going to get you a gain. He wouldn't break the crazy runs Sanders did, but you knew what you were getting every play. When comparing Sanders/Smith number wise, we've got to remember that Sanders left the game still in his prime. Smith played into his mid 30's. And lets be honest, while Smith played behind some great lines, no one can or will say that Dallas was a juggernaut in the Chutch/Quincey era. Or the Cardinals debacle for that matter. And Smith gets bonus points for doing what he did to the Giants with a bum shoulder.

That's great and all, but maybe you should have actually watched Barry play before commenting.

 

[PatsFanCT]

i will take Emmit due to he is a better short yardage RB(gaol-line and 3rd and short), best TD RB in the history of the NFL and one of the toughest players to every play the game(just watch the NY game when he was hurt). not sexy/flash like Barry but one hell of a RB.

You'll take Emmitt because either you're a Cowboys fan, or have never seen Barry play... Just like everyone who voted Emmitt and are wasting their time trying to explain their position.

 

[Disc Shark]

Sanders. And it's not even close. Emmitt may be your favorite player, Cowboy fan, but that doesn't make him the better player.

Sanders - 5.0 yards/carry, career

118.9 yards from scrimmage per game, career

Smith - 4.2 yards/carry, career

95.5 yards from scrimmage per game, career

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/rush_yds_career.htm

 

[cobalt_27]

Sanders. And it's not even close. Emmitt may be your favorite player, Cowboy fan, but that doesn't make him the better player.

Sanders - 5.0 yards/carry, career

118.9 yards from scrimmage per game, career

Smith - 4.2 yards/carry, career

95.5 yards from scrimmage per game, career

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/rush_yds_career.htm

Thanks for the update!

 

[cobalt_27]

i will take Emmit due to he is a better short yardage RB(gaol-line and 3rd and short), best TD RB in the history of the NFL and one of the toughest players to every play the game(just watch the NY game when he was hurt). not sexy/flash like Barry but one hell of a RB.

You'll take Emmitt because either you're a Cowboys fan, or have never seen Barry play... Just like everyone who voted Emmitt and are wasting their time trying to explain their position.

I think it's the other way around...the Sanders guys are really spinning their wheels trying to explain themselves. I don't think the Emmitt folks have needed to work to hard at this. It's pretty obvious.

 

[mcd]

i will take Emmit due to he is a better short yardage RB(gaol-line and 3rd and short), best TD RB in the history of the NFL and one of the toughest players to every play the game(just watch the NY game when he was hurt). not sexy/flash like Barry but one hell of a RB.

You'll take Emmitt because either you're a Cowboys fan, or have never seen Barry play... Just like everyone who voted Emmitt and are wasting their time trying to explain their position.

I think it's the other way around...the Sanders guys are really spinning their wheels trying to explain themselves. I don't think the Emmitt folks have needed to work to hard at this. It's pretty obvious.

Spinning our wheels would be arguing that Roger Craig was a better running back than Emmitt Smith because he was a better blocker (started career as a fullback) & receiver & a more complete back that could get you a 1000 yards on the ground or through the air. He had heart & was a team leader. Add in that he only fumbled 42 times over his career compared to 61 for Smith, 61 times Smith killed a Dallas drive. Craig was better at everything except running the ball. That's spinning your wheels.Arguing that Sanders is better than Smith is spinning the obvious.

PS: Sanders had 41 fumbles, another advantage over Smith.