Barry or Emmitt? (3 Viewers)

[JuSt CuZ]

This was a topic on PFT and Twiiter today, and I have been around here for a while and never really seen a topic just about them to to debate this.

What does the SP think? Barry or Emmitt?

Barry had a 2k season and 15,269 yards for a 5 ypc avg. with 109 TDs in 10 years.

Emmitt has a few SB titles and 18,355 yards for a 4.2 ypc avg. with 175 TDs in 15 years.

Well my take is, titles dont make you better runner, it means you were on a better team. We can split hairs, and I'm sure we will as this thread goes on, but I'm a Barry fan all day...so he gets my vote. Lets have a fun debate.

 

[Moniker]

Barry was the better runner. Emmitt was the better running back.

 

[Warpig]

If Barry had played behind a better O-line, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. He would probably hold all the RB records. I wish he would have played for atleast 2 more years.

 

[matuski]

No debate at all.

 

[Shane Falco]

debated to death and half the people are on the wrong side of the argument

 

[ThePittbully]

Put Barry behind that Dallas O line and he probably owns all the RB records

 

[Go Blue]

Put Barry behind that Dallas O line and he probably owns all the RB records

While it's pretty hard not to agree with this statement, I don't mind that Barry ran behind a mediocre to average NFL offensive line. While I don't consider Barry the best RB of all time, he's the best that I've seen in my lifetime and it's not close. I loved all those runs he'd get hit 4 yards in the backfield and still gain 2 yards on the play. Nobody was better at making people miss.

 

[adrenaline]

I think even better than the put Barry behind that O line argument is put Emmitt on Detroit & he wouldn't even be in this conversation.

 

[greggorymac]

I think even better than the put Barry behind that O line argument is put Emmitt on Detroit & he wouldn't even be in this conversation.

 

[Tau837]

We had this conversation last year in this thread: Sanders/Smith Caged Match

Here is one of my posts from that thread:

Sanders played from 1989 to 1998. Emmitt played from 1990 to 2004. The fact that they were both among the best ever RBs and started their careers one year apart is why they are always compared.

1st 10 seasons

So, first let's look at how Emmitt's first 10 seasons compared to Barry's 10 seasons. Regular season statistics:

Barry (1989-1998): 153 games; 3062/15269/99 rushing (4.99 ypc, 99.8 ypg); 352/2921/10 receiving (8.3 ypr); 18190 YFS; 109 total TDs; 41 fumbles

Emmitt (1990-1999): 155 games; 3243/13963/136 rushing (4.31 ypc, 90.1 ypg); 442/2728/11 receiving (6.2 ypr); 16691 YFS; 147 total TDs; 45 fumbles

Rushing yardage

Sanders was clearly a better runner. He was much better in ypc and consequently ended up with 1306 more rushing yards in 2 fewer games and 181 fewer carries... that is a very impressive advantage for Sanders. And it doesn't even factor in the fact that Smith played on a better team with better offensive teammates and better defenses... the better offenses presumably made it easier for Smith to perform well, and the better defenses were likely largely responsible for the extra carries Emmitt got in comparison to Sanders... without those extra carries, the results in this category would have been even more lopsided.

Big edge to Sanders.

Rushing TDs

Clearly Smith had a huge edge in rushing TDs. Some of the difference could be explained by the advantages cited above (i.e., better teammates), but not a disparity of 37 rushing TDs. Clearly, Smith had a nose for the end zone and was an excellent goal line back. As we know, Sanders was pulled at the goal line a fair amount in his career.

Big edge to Smith.

Receiving

Smith had 90 more receptions, yet Sanders had more receiving yards and almost as many TDs. Once again, Sanders was more productive with his opportunities, again underlining that Sanders is a better runner. Given that Emmitt had the 90 additional receptions, and given I don't know anything about their catch percentages, targets, drops, etc., I'm not sure it's fair to say Sanders was a better receiver, though it certainly seems that way... regardless, we know he did more with the ball once he caught it.

Small edge to Sanders.

Blocking

Not sure how to measure this objectively, but I recall Smith being known as a good pass blocker and Sanders being viewed as average to below average. However, I don't think this was as big a factor as other things.

Small edge to Smith.

Durability/Toughness

I think Emmitt is known for his toughness. I don't recall it being viewed as strongly as a positive for Sanders as for Smith, but the fact remains that Sanders played in 153 games, compared to Smith's 155.

Wash.

** Update **

Up to this point, I'd give Sanders a slight edge, since I think rushing yardage trumps the other categories, but it's very close thanks to Emmitt's huge edge in TDs.

Situations

Emmitt played with the following Pro Bowl offensive teammates: Troy Aikman (6), Michael Irvin (5), Jay Novacek (5), Daryl Johnston (2), Nate Newton (6), Mark Stepnoski (3), Erik Williams (4), Mark Tuinei (2), Ray Donaldson (2), Larry Allen (5). That's 40 Pro Bowl teammates in 10 seasons, including 24 run blockers (OL & FB). Plus, Emmitt played his first 5 seasons for Jimmy Johnson, a great coach. Emmitt's teams also finished in the top 10 in yards allowed in 8 of those 10 seasons and in the top 10 in points allowed in 7 of those 10 seasons, which presumably gave him more opportunities.

Meanwhile, Sanders played with the following Pro Bowl offensive teammates: Lomas Brown (6), Herman Moore (4), Kevin Glover (3). That's 13 Pro Bowl teammates in 10 seasons, including 9 run blockers. Sanders never played for a coach as good as Jimmy Johnson. His teams finished in the top 10 in yards allowed and points allowed just once each in his 10 seasons.

This is a huge disparity. We could get into comparisons of All Pro teammates and HOF teammates, and they would show a similar disparity.

This factor is often stated as Emmitt having a better OL, but, in reality, Emmitt had better coaching, better OL, better passing game, better defense... heck, without looking into it, I wouldn't be surprised if his teams had better special teams, too.

Big edge to Sanders.

Honors/Awards

This category reflects how they were viewed in comparison to their peers. Obviously, this is important to this comparison, since they were peers to each other.

Emmitt:

1990 NFL AP Offensive Rookie of the Year

1992 NFL Newspaper Ent. Assoc. MVP

1993 NFL AP MVP

1993 NFL PFWA MVP

1993 NFL Newspaper Ent. Assoc. MVP

1993 NFL Bert Bell Award (Player of the Year)

1993 NFL Super Bowl MVP

4 1st team AP All Pro selections

1 2nd team AP All Pro selection

8 Pro Bowl selections

Barry:

1989 NFL AP Offensive Rookie of the Year

1991 NFL Bert Bell Award (Player of the Year)

1994 NFL AP Offensive Player of the Year

1997 NFL AP MVP

1997 NFL PFWA MVP

1997 NFL Newspaper Ent. Assoc. MVP

1997 NFL Bert Bell Award (Player of the Year)

1997 NFL AP Offensive Player of the Year

6 1st team AP All Pro selections

4 2nd team AP All Pro selections

10 Pro Bowl selections

It looks close, with a small edge to Sanders until you reach the All Pro selections, where Sanders doubled up Smith, which is extremely impressive. Sanders was no worse than 2nd team All Pro in every single season of his career... I wonder if any other player can say that. Obviously, voters thought Sanders was significantly better.

Big edge to Sanders.

Emmitt's extra 5 seasons

Emmitt holds the records he has because he played 5 more years than Sanders. There is no reason to believe Sanders wouldn't have continued to outperform Smith into their declining years, particularly given how strong their respective 10th seasons were... but the fact is that Emmitt played on and Sanders didn't. Here are the numbers in those 5 seasons:

71 games; 1166/4392/28 rushing (3.77 ypc, 61.9 ypg); 73/496/0 receiving (6.8 ypr); 4888 YFS; 28 total TDs; 16 fumbles

On the one hand, there is no doubt Emmitt provided value to his teams over this period, or he wouldn't have gotten those 1200+ additional touches. So there must be some positive value in that. However, his effectiveness dropped off sharply, and he did not make the Pro Bowl or earn any other notable honors during those 5 years, so the value is limited.

Small extra credit edge to Emmitt.

** Update **

At this point, IMO Sanders has a huge lead over Smith.

Postseason

There really is no comparison here:

Emmitt: 17 games; 349/1586/19 rushing (4.54 ypc, 93.3 ypg); 46/342/2 receiving (7.4 ypr); 1928 YFS; 21 total TDs; 3 championships; 1 Super Bowl MVP

Barry: 6 games; 91/386/1 rushing (4.24 ypc, 64.3 ypg); 21/111/0 receiving (5.3 ypr); 497 YFS; 1 total TD; 0 championships

Though it isn't Barry's fault he didn't have more opportunities, the fact is that his performance regressed in the postseason, while Emmitt's improved.

Big edge to Smith.

Conclusion

All things considered, it is close. But I don't see how Emmitt's postseason accomplishments make up for the substantial edge Sanders had when everything else was considered. Especially considering that the supporting cast issue applies to postseason just as much as it does to regular season (to state the obvious).

So: Barry > Emmitt

 

[Tau837]

Barry was the better runner. Emmitt was the better running back.

This is a common cliche, throwaway answer. And it is wrong. Smith was a better blocker. Sanders was a better runner and receiver. Being a better runner and receiver equates to being a better RB.

 

[FUBAR]

Smith - consistent production, integral part of a great team and better blocker.

Barry - Electric, game changer. Perhaps the best runner ever.

If the question is "who is the best running back", it's Barry.

 

[GregR_2]

Emmitt had the more successful career, but Barry was the better RB.

Barry is in the discussion with Jim Brown and Walter Payton for best RB of all time. Emmitt is at best an honorable mention there.

 

[Mustang Man]

Does it really matter. E.Smith did everything he was asked and there is nothing this guy didn't do. In the dictionary under the word heart, Leader, accomplished, Tough, Champion, is Mr.Smith. I know what E.Smith was because he did it all and Barry is more potential, what he could have did. BLAH BLAH BLAH. The difference is Smith did it and Barry didn't. Barry can have the who is better title cause it means zero.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I think even better than the put Barry behind that O line argument is put Emmitt on Detroit & he wouldn't even be in this conversation.

While my vote went to Barry, I think people seriously under-rate Emmit Smith. Sure he worked behind a great o-line but it wasn't as if he didn't possess tremendous vision, balance, strength, toughness and cutting ability.

 

[sspunisher]

Oh wow, I totally disagree. Let's keep in mind I'm about to compare two greats, so don't take this as me saying Barry sucks. But Emmitt is by far the RB that I'd prefer, both on a Fantasy Team and real team. Yes, I'm a Cowboys fan but I'm a football fan first, and have actually grown to be annoyed by Emmitt due to his dumb as a rock language skills, so this isn't some blind loyalty to him, far from. I actually think Marshall Faulk is the greatest RB of all time but that's another discussion all together.

Let's forget for a second where the both of them played. If you put both of them in any system on any team, plain and simple, Emmitt's running style would translate to wins while Barry's running style would translate to losses. Why? Because Emmitt would rarely get tackled for a loss and he'd put his team in a better position to succeed, ala 2nd and 5/6. Barry on the other hand would constantly put his offense in 2nd and 12/13. Of course, over the course of the game Barry would break a lot of amazing long runs, but by that time his team was already in a huge hole b/c of all the punting it did earlier in the game. I also don't think it's fair to dismiss how amazing of a blocker Emmitt was. Last I checked, Running Backs who couldn't block were looked down upon. Yes Barry was more exciting to watch, but that doesn't make him better. I believe I watched or read somewhere that no RB got tackled for a loss more times than Barry Sanders did in his career. That's a lot of 2nd and longs and potentially a lot of punting.

I'd love for someone to look those stats up so we can compare how many times Barry was stuffed as compared to Emmitt, I have no idea where to find that kind of info.

Give me Emmitt, the wins and possible championships all day over a RB who would leave me in AWE but cause my favorite team to be a joke for almost a decade.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Cowboy fan - Emmit was better.

Rest of us - Barry was better.

 

[sspunisher]

Cowboy fan - Emmit was better.Rest of us - Barry was better.

It's unfortunate that people think like that. How can football fans break down the RB position purely into running and stats, yet turn the QB position into wining percentages, playoff wins and Superbowls?ETA: LOL @ Location: Detroit

 

[dmac37]

I'm a huge Lion fan going all the way back to the 70's. I loved watching Barry run and thought he may be the best pure runner ever but many times I thought he could do more. There was a Monday night game in Dallas that was huge for the Lions and IMO Barry ran harder,tougher and more decisive than any other game he ever played. Ever since that game I wanted to see that same type of determination but I don't think he ever showed it but was still talented enough to be one of the greatest RB's of all time.

Barry was more exciting to watch than Emmitt but if I had to win one game with everything on the line I would take Emmitt over Barry to get the job done. I also think Emmitt helped that o-line gain a lot of the credit they received.

QB's are always judged by how they get the job done when it matters, if you use the same criteria for this battle I go Emmitt.

 

[GregR_2]

Oh wow, I totally disagree. Let's keep in mind I'm about to compare two greats, so don't take this as me saying Barry sucks. But Emmitt is by far the RB that I'd prefer, both on a Fantasy Team and real team. Yes, I'm a Cowboys fan but I'm a football fan first, and have actually grown to be annoyed by Emmitt due to his dumb as a rock language skills, so this isn't some blind loyalty to him, far from. I actually think Marshall Faulk is the greatest RB of all time but that's another discussion all together.

Let's forget for a second where the both of them played. If you put both of them in any system on any team, plain and simple, Emmitt's running style would translate to wins while Barry's running style would translate to losses. Why? Because Emmitt would rarely get tackled for a loss and he'd put his team in a better position to succeed, ala 2nd and 5/6. Barry on the other hand would constantly put his offense in 2nd and 12/13. Of course, over the course of the game Barry would break a lot of amazing long runs, but by that time his team was already in a huge hole b/c of all the punting it did earlier in the game. Yes Barry was more exciting to watch, but that doesn't make him better. I believe I watched or read somewhere that no RB got tackled for a loss more times than Barry Sanders did in his career. That's a lot of 2nd and longs and potentially a lot of punting.

I'd love for someone to look those stats up so we can compare how many times Barry was stuffed as compared to Emmitt, I have no idea where to find that kind of info.

Give me Emmitt, the wins and possible championships all day over a RB who would leave me in awe but cause my favorite team to be a joke for almost a decade.

I don't know what Emmitt's negative yardage stats are, but we do know what Walter Payton's negative yardage total is thanks to the NFL Videos "Barry's Backwards Runs". Barry had 1114 total yards lost in his career (952 of which were rushing in 336 carries, the rest presumably are receiving). Sanders lost on average 7.2 yards per game (6.2 rushing, 1.0 receiving). He on average would lose yards on 2.2 rushes per game, or once every 9.1 carries.

Walter Payton averaged 64 yards lost per season. Don't know how many carries that was in. Since he played 13 seasons that means he lost 832 yards in his career. Payton lost on average 4.4 yards per game.

So Sanders lost 7.2 yards per game (rush and receiving), Payton lost 4.4 yards per game. Sanders only lost yards on 2 carries per game, so we're probably talking about 1 more rush for a loss per game, and only 2.8 yards lost more than Payton did.

To me that is not a very significant amount. AT ALL. Especially considering that even with spotting Payton that 2.8 yards... Sanders still ended up a net 8 yards per game more rush+rec than Payton on slightly fewer touches per game (and about 14 yards more per game than Emmitt).

I think when you come down to it, for that extra carry that Barry lost 3 yards that put his team in passing situation for the rest of that set of downs... there were probably multiple other series where Barry either picked up a first down when Emmitt left his team short, or where Barry put his team in third and short where Emmitt left his team in third and medium. Barry's gaining nearly a yard per carry more than Emmitt even after the negative yards are considered. If you're going to separate them out to knock Barry, then Barry's lead over Emmitt in yards per carry becomes even more staggering.

 

[GregR_2]

Cowboy fan - Emmit was better.Rest of us - Barry was better.

It's unfortunate that people think like that. How can football fans break down the RB position purely into running and stats, yet turn the QB position into wining percentages, playoff wins and Superbowls?ETA: LOL @ Location: Detroit

You're right, people shouldn't do that with the QB position.

 

[Wadsworth]

Whenever you are using yards per carry to compare RBs you need to take a long hard look at short yardage carries. Nothing inflates a RBs YPC more than not being used in shortage yardage/goal line situations. I'm not saying that Barry is that guy, but it needs to be part of the analysis.

 

[Zimm]

Put Barry behind that Dallas O line and he probably owns all the RB records

No they would have to actually delete his records because no one would ever be able to touch them haha. Unless of course the Pepsi machine makes the NFL soon.

 

[Zimm]

Also flip flop both players and put Emmitt on the Lions....Is he even a hall of famer?

 

[sspunisher]

Oh wow, I totally disagree. Let's keep in mind I'm about to compare two greats, so don't take this as me saying Barry sucks. But Emmitt is by far the RB that I'd prefer, both on a Fantasy Team and real team. Yes, I'm a Cowboys fan but I'm a football fan first, and have actually grown to be annoyed by Emmitt due to his dumb as a rock language skills, so this isn't some blind loyalty to him, far from. I actually think Marshall Faulk is the greatest RB of all time but that's another discussion all together.

Let's forget for a second where the both of them played. If you put both of them in any system on any team, plain and simple, Emmitt's running style would translate to wins while Barry's running style would translate to losses. Why? Because Emmitt would rarely get tackled for a loss and he'd put his team in a better position to succeed, ala 2nd and 5/6. Barry on the other hand would constantly put his offense in 2nd and 12/13. Of course, over the course of the game Barry would break a lot of amazing long runs, but by that time his team was already in a huge hole b/c of all the punting it did earlier in the game. Yes Barry was more exciting to watch, but that doesn't make him better. I believe I watched or read somewhere that no RB got tackled for a loss more times than Barry Sanders did in his career. That's a lot of 2nd and longs and potentially a lot of punting.

I'd love for someone to look those stats up so we can compare how many times Barry was stuffed as compared to Emmitt, I have no idea where to find that kind of info.

Give me Emmitt, the wins and possible championships all day over a RB who would leave me in awe but cause my favorite team to be a joke for almost a decade.

I don't know what Emmitt's negative yardage stats are, but we do know what Walter Payton's negative yardage total is thanks to the NFL Videos "Barry's Backwards Runs". Barry had 1114 total yards lost in his career (952 of which were rushing in 336 carries, the rest presumably are receiving). Sanders lost on average 7.2 yards per game (6.2 rushing, 1.0 receiving). He on average would lose yards on 2.2 rushes per game, or once every 9.1 carries.

Walter Payton averaged 64 yards lost per season. Don't know how many carries that was in. Since he played 13 seasons that means he lost 832 yards in his career. Payton lost on average 4.4 yards per game.

So Sanders lost 7.2 yards per game (rush and receiving), Payton lost 4.4 yards per game. Sanders only lost yards on 2 carries per game, so we're probably talking about 1 more rush for a loss per game, and only 2.8 yards lost more than Payton did.

To me that is not a very significant amount. AT ALL. Especially considering that even with spotting Payton that 2.8 yards... Sanders still ended up a net 8 yards per game more rush+rec than Payton on slightly fewer touches per game (and about 14 yards more per game than Emmitt).

I think when you come down to it, for that extra carry that Barry lost 3 yards that put his team in passing situation for the rest of that set of downs... there were probably multiple other series where Barry either picked up a first down when Emmitt left his team short, or where Barry put his team in third and short where Emmitt left his team in third and medium. Barry's gaining nearly a yard per carry more than Emmitt even after the negative yards are considered. If you're going to separate them out to knock Barry, then Barry's lead over Emmitt in yards per carry becomes even more staggering.

Wow, awesome job on the stats. Wish I could get Emmitt's to get a better idea of how they compared, I'm sure it would be significantly less since Emmitt was not a backfield dancer by any means. But as insignificant as 2 negative rushes per game seems, it sounds a bit worse when you do the math and find out that 10% of Barry's carries went backwards. I'm not really sure what to make of that number, considering I have no real barometer to compare. You are right, 1 loss every 10 rushes does seem insignificant, but 10% of his 3000+ career carries seems like a lot to me even though it's the same percentage. I've also seen Barry dance for about 50 yards and make the whole team miss just to get back to the line of scrimmage, so I'm sure there's some hidden stats in there somewhere in regards to Carries for No Gain. Maybe "positive runs" as opposed to "negative runs" would tell the story better? I wish I could find these stats! Nice write up though.

 

[sspunisher]

Whenever you are using yards per carry to compare RBs you need to take a long hard look at short yardage carries. Nothing inflates a RBs YPC more than not being used in shortage yardage/goal line situations. I'm not saying that Barry is that guy, but it needs to be part of the analysis.

That's a very good point. I don't know if or how often they pulled Barry in short yardage, but I do know he struggled with it. At least when compared with Emmitt, b/c #22 was definitely going to punch it in from 2 yards out.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Cowboy fan - Emmit was better.Rest of us - Barry was better.

It's unfortunate that people think like that. How can football fans break down the RB position purely into running and stats, yet turn the QB position into wining percentages, playoff wins and Superbowls?ETA: LOL @ Location: Detroit

Most people on this board know Im a charger fan and NOT a lion fan, although I follow the Lions closely. barry is a better RB than Emmitt, sorry

 

[GregR_2]

For more comparison, I decided I'd grab Arian Foster (since I'm a Texans fan and wonder what his negative yardage stats are) and search the first 8 games worth of game logs from NFL.com to see what his stats were like.

Through 8 games, Foster had 14 negative yardage plays for -28 yards. 11 were runs for -24, 3 were passes for -4.

He also had 10 plays for no gain.

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

Cowboy fan - Emmit was better.Rest of us - Barry was better.

I'm Steeler fan that hates the Cowboys. I would take Emmit every time over Barry. Admittedly style probably plays more than a little bit of bias for me.

 

[BSanders2009]

I just don't understand how people can claim that Emmitt Smith was a better RB than Barry Sanders. It's not even close!! Emmitt Smith played behind the greatest offensive line ever. According to a study done by Sports Illustrated, it was determined that Emmitt Smith rushed for 2.9 yards per carry before being touched vs 1.3 YPC for Barry Sanders. And to say that he's more consistent than Barry. Well, people would be saying that about Barry too if he averaged 3 yards per carry before first touch rather than dancing to turn a negative gain into a positive one on a regular basis. And what's more boggling is the fact that even with the O-Line he had, Barry still averaged 5.0 YPC throughout his career vs. Emmitt's pedestrian 4.16 YPC. So let's do the math... let's compare yards gained after first touch: Emmitt - 1.26 YPC; Barry - 3.7YPC. Are we really having this debate? LOL Let's face it, Emmitt Smith was lucky to be drafted by the Dallas Cowboys when he did. If he started his career with Arizona, he may not have even been a Pro-Bowler, let alone a hall-of-famer! There... I said it!!! LOL

 

[sihaokills]

Barry was the better back

 

[Sidewinder16]

I think even better than the put Barry behind that O line argument is put Emmitt on Detroit & he wouldn't even be in this conversation.

Even better than that is make them both quadriplegics from birth and neither of them are in this conversation.

 

[B-Deep]

I just don't understand how people can claim that Emmitt Smith was a better RB than Barry Sanders. It's not even close!! Emmitt Smith played behind the greatest offensive line ever. According to a study done by Sports Illustrated, it was determined that Emmitt Smith rushed for 2.9 yards per carry before being touched vs 1.3 YPC for Barry Sanders. And to say that he's more consistent than Barry. Well, people would be saying that about Barry too if he averaged 3 yards per carry before first touch rather than dancing to turn a negative gain into a positive one on a regular basis. And what's more boggling is the fact that even with the O-Line he had, Barry still averaged 5.0 YPC throughout his career vs. Emmitt's pedestrian 4.16 YPC. So let's do the math... let's compare yards gained after first touch: Emmitt - 1.26 YPC; Barry - 3.7YPC. Are we really having this debate? LOL Let's face it, Emmitt Smith was lucky to be drafted by the Dallas Cowboys when he did. If he started his career with Arizona, he may not have even been a Pro-Bowler, let alone a hall-of-famer! There... I said it!!! LOL

if the dog hadn't stopped to lick his butt he might have caught the rabbitwe don't live in a world of what ifs, we live in a world of accomplishments

 

[BSanders2009]

if the dog hadn't stopped to lick his butt he might have caught the rabbit

we don't live in a world of what ifs, we live in a world of accomplishments

You're right! The Dallas Cowboys offensive line of the 90s accomplished quite a bit... Emmitt did not!

 

[sspunisher]

Lol I love these barstool debates, here's something I really believe when it comes to how everyone views the Legend of Barry Sanders.

Barry was a warrior on a pathetic, loser team. Society identified with him and felt for him because Barry literally carried that team for 10 years. That's a very powerful image, when a fan sees a single player try to will a horrible team to the promised land only to fail over and over. It reminds me of Steven Jackson two years ago. Watching the pathetic Rams and this one dreadlocked beast of a man single handedly galloping the way he does for some of the most amazing 9, 8 and 7 yard back-to-back runs I've ever seen. I felt for SJax that year, and it made me realize how great he truly was. Carrying defenders and playing his heart out like he was in a Championship Game while his team was on it's way to a 1-15 Record. And that was just 1 year! Imagine watching 10 years of that in Detroit w/ Barry. So yea, I get it. People feel for Barry, and I understand where that aura that surrounds Barry Sanders came from. His greatness is magnified because of that AND because what he did on the football field was what fans LOVE to see, big explosive, excitingly elusive runs.

But hey we're not comparing Barry to some scrub. We're comparing him to Emmitt Smith. Emmitt was a boring runner when you compare his style to Barry... and let's not forget on a team that people love to hate so it skews their perspective a little bit, whether they admit it or not. It bothers me that there were so many glaring holes in Barry's game that Emmitt didn't have yet everyone ignores them in the Emmitt vs Barry debate. Yet those same holes everyone disects to death in some other thread in trying to decide which player to draft over who. Barry may be the best, but the debate isn't as lopsided as some think it is. I'll still take Emmitt, the all-time rushing crown and the 3 rings.

 

[bostonfred]

Name a guy who was comparable to Emmitt. You probably can't think of too many. Now name a guy who was comparable to Barry.

Emmitt was an excellent running back, but he was not so good that you couldn't replace him with some other very good running back and have those Cowboys teams keep winning. He was better than his peers, but not by orders of magnitude. Nobody these days really talks about a guy as being an "Emmitt Smith type".

But with Barry, people still talk about how this guy or that guy is a poor man's Barry Sanders. And none of them have stood up to the comparison - none of them have been as good as Barry at his best, and none of them have had the longevity Barry had. Seriously, name a guy. Barry was just so far ahead of other players who play "his style" that people still talk about it as being Barry's style.

 

[Detroit Revival]

Oh wow, I totally disagree. Let's keep in mind I'm about to compare two greats, so don't take this as me saying Barry sucks. But Emmitt is by far the RB that I'd prefer, both on a Fantasy Team and real team. Yes, I'm a Cowboys fan but I'm a football fan first, and have actually grown to be annoyed by Emmitt due to his dumb as a rock language skills, so this isn't some blind loyalty to him, far from. I actually think Marshall Faulk is the greatest RB of all time but that's another discussion all together.

Let's forget for a second where the both of them played. If you put both of them in any system on any team, plain and simple, Emmitt's running style would translate to wins while Barry's running style would translate to losses. Why? Because Emmitt would rarely get tackled for a loss and he'd put his team in a better position to succeed, ala 2nd and 5/6. Barry on the other hand would constantly put his offense in 2nd and 12/13. Of course, over the course of the game Barry would break a lot of amazing long runs, but by that time his team was already in a huge hole b/c of all the punting it did earlier in the game. I also don't think it's fair to dismiss how amazing of a blocker Emmitt was. Last I checked, Running Backs who couldn't block were looked down upon. Yes Barry was more exciting to watch, but that doesn't make him better. I believe I watched or read somewhere that no RB got tackled for a loss more times than Barry Sanders did in his career. That's a lot of 2nd and longs and potentially a lot of punting.

I'd love for someone to look those stats up so we can compare how many times Barry was stuffed as compared to Emmitt, I have no idea where to find that kind of info.

Give me Emmitt, the wins and possible championships all day over a RB who would leave me in AWE but cause my favorite team to be a joke for almost a decade.

Scratching my head on that one... I'll be the first to admit that I have not seen a ton of tape on Smith, but have seen Barry run many times and been to more than 2 dozen games at the Silverdome during his time in Det. Everyone knew he was the one weapon on the team. They knew he was going to be running. They would game plan to stop him and still he had an unbelievable 10 years. I have no idea who you were watching but Barry made the Lions respectable, not the other way around. He did was Suh is doing right now.

 

[Eastwood]

Barry and its like comparing Peyton Manning to Ryan Leaf.

 

[sspunisher]

Scratching my head on that one... I'll be the first to admit that I have not seen a ton of tape on Smith, but have seen Barry run many times and been to more than 2 dozen games at the Silverdome during his time in Det. Everyone knew he was the one weapon on the team. They knew he was going to be running. They would game plan to stop him and still he had an unbelievable 10 years. I have no idea who you were watching but Barry made the Lions respectable, not the other way around. He did was Suh is doing right now.

Ok fair enough, that bolded statement was a bit exaggerated. He clearly was the only reason that team was competitive. But all those negative yards over a career? Of course he'd eventually get his yards in the positive stat column, but I'm convinced that his running style isn't optimal for winning football games. NFL coaches preach going downhill as soon as possible for a reason. Offenses can better handle 2nd and 6 than 2nd and 10+. Sure sometimes it'd go 70 something yards for a TD, but he'd get stuffed a few times as well.

 

[noneother]

Results are results. If Barry was the better RB. Smith was the better Football Player. Grew up in Detroit. Never saw Barry take a leadership or ownership role with the lions.

Doesn't mean he didn't try. Saying I didn't notice it. No question to his talent.

How do people think Tomlinson compares to them?

 

[Jercules]

This was a topic on PFT and Twiiter today, and I have been around here for a while and never really seen a topic just about them to to debate this.

What does the SP think? Barry or Emmitt?

Barry had a 2k season and 15,269 yards for a 5 ypc avg. with 109 TDs in 10 years.

Emmitt has a few SB titles and 18,355 yards for a 4.2 ypc avg. with 175 TDs in 15 years.

Well my take is, titles dont make you better runner, it means you were on a better team. We can split hairs, and I'm sure we will as this thread goes on, but I'm a Barry fan all day...so he gets my vote. Lets have a fun debate.

Does it really matter. E.Smith did everything he was asked and there is nothing this guy didn't do. In the dictionary under the word heart, Leader, accomplished, Tough, Champion, is Mr.Smith. I know what E.Smith was because he did it all and Barry is more potential, what he could have did. BLAH BLAH BLAH. The difference is Smith did it and Barry didn't. Barry can have the who is better title cause it means zero.

These two quotes represent the two quintessential sides of this debate.The thing is, there will never be agreement because it isn't really about Emmitt vs. Barry. The two arguments have been carved out over and over, and in the end the side you take is about who you are and what you value in people (let alone football players).

 

[Matt Waldman]

Folks, I'm not completely sure where I stand on this debate. I would initially lean to Sanders as a pure runner. However, as I read the posts from people on this thread saying that Smith was a boring runner I wondered if that colored the conversation in an inaccurate way. I thought Smith was a pretty dynamic runner, but maybe people simply choose to remember him as the player he was at the end of his career.

In his prime, Smith was far from a boring runner.

Smith highlights

 

[BSanders2009]

Scratching my head on that one... I'll be the first to admit that I have not seen a ton of tape on Smith, but have seen Barry run many times and been to more than 2 dozen games at the Silverdome during his time in Det. Everyone knew he was the one weapon on the team. They knew he was going to be running. They would game plan to stop him and still he had an unbelievable 10 years. I have no idea who you were watching but Barry made the Lions respectable, not the other way around. He did was Suh is doing right now.

Ok fair enough, that bolded statement was a bit exaggerated. He clearly was the only reason that team was competitive. But all those negative yards over a career? Of course he'd eventually get his yards in the positive stat column, but I'm convinced that his running style isn't optimal for winning football games. NFL coaches preach going downhill as soon as possible for a reason. Offenses can better handle 2nd and 6 than 2nd and 10+. Sure sometimes it'd go 70 something yards for a TD, but he'd get stuffed a few times as well.

You make it sound like Barry intentionally ran for losses and, therefore, purposely dug the grave for the Lions! The biggest factor, by far, that makes an offense click is a strong offensive line. How many "great" running backs did Denver produce in the late 90's and early 2000's. And, ironically, they were all drafted in the 6th round or later with the exception of Clinton Portis? Did you ever think that maybe it was the offensive line and not the running back? Whether people want to admit it or not, the position that is most affected by its peers (along with WR) is RB. The majority of RBs who had great seasons also had strong offensive lines. What separates Sanders from the majority is that he had a mediocre offensive line at best for his entire career and only had the highest YPC over a career EVER! They weren't horrible (like others make it out to be) but it wasn't 5.0 YPC good, that's for sure. Like the facts showed in my first post, if Barry ran for 3 yards vs 1.3 YPC before contact, we'd be talking about how consistent Barry was as a runner and how well he moved the chains. I, unlike the other Barry supporter who said he didn't watch many Dallas games, did watch many of the games Emmit Smith played and I couldn't believe how many times he'd get the ball and first get touched 10 yards down the field. And several times, you'd be able to fit a #######' truck through the hole created by that offensive line. And don't tell me that's not true because I saw it with my own eyes! Don't get me wrong, Emmitt was not a below-average running back. He was slightly above-average but that offensive line made him look like a God. He averaged only 1.3 yards after contact... that doesn't sound like an extraordinary RB to me. Sorry. Yes, he won Super Bowls... you can't tell me he won those Super Bowls for them all by himself. It's a team effort and I'm quite confident they were going to win a couple Super Bowls without Emmitt.

 

[Go Blue]

Oh wow, I totally disagree. Let's keep in mind I'm about to compare two greats, so don't take this as me saying Barry sucks. But Emmitt is by far the RB that I'd prefer, both on a Fantasy Team and real team. Yes, I'm a Cowboys fan but I'm a football fan first, and have actually grown to be annoyed by Emmitt due to his dumb as a rock language skills, so this isn't some blind loyalty to him, far from. I actually think Marshall Faulk is the greatest RB of all time but that's another discussion all together.Let's forget for a second where the both of them played. If you put both of them in any system on any team, plain and simple, Emmitt's running style would translate to wins while Barry's running style would translate to losses. Why? Because Emmitt would rarely get tackled for a loss and he'd put his team in a better position to succeed, ala 2nd and 5/6. Barry on the other hand would constantly put his offense in 2nd and 12/13. Of course, over the course of the game Barry would break a lot of amazing long runs, but by that time his team was already in a huge hole b/c of all the punting it did earlier in the game. I also don't think it's fair to dismiss how amazing of a blocker Emmitt was. Last I checked, Running Backs who couldn't block were looked down upon. Yes Barry was more exciting to watch, but that doesn't make him better. I believe I watched or read somewhere that no RB got tackled for a loss more times than Barry Sanders did in his career. That's a lot of 2nd and longs and potentially a lot of punting.I'd love for someone to look those stats up so we can compare how many times Barry was stuffed as compared to Emmitt, I have no idea where to find that kind of info.Give me Emmitt, the wins and possible championships all day over a RB who would leave me in AWE but cause my favorite team to be a joke for almost a decade.

I'm really not sure how a football fan could even type this. You make it sound like Barry took the handoff and ran backwards. The reason that Emmitt put the Boys in 2nd and 5 was because the defense had to respect each and every other offensive player on each play. The reason Barry put the Lions in 2nd and 12 was because he was the ONLY player the defense was even worried about. There is NO doubt in my mind that if you put both players into the exact same scenario(same team, same offensive philosophy),that Barry puts up better numbers. The numbers don't lie and I'll give Emmitt all the credit in the world for his records. With that said, he's not even the greatest RB to ever play for the Boys in my mind. Tony Dorsett gets that nod from me. I'll never forget watching him rumble for 99 yards back in 82'.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

Is this a joke?

 

[sspunisher]

Folks, I'm not completely sure where I stand on this debate. I would initially lean to Sanders as a pure runner. However, as I read the posts from people on this thread saying that Smith was a boring runner I wondered if that colored the conversation in an inaccurate way. I thought Smith was a pretty dynamic runner, but maybe people simply choose to remember him as the player he was at the end of his career.

In his prime, Smith was far from a boring runner.

Smith highlights

That was my boring comment, but I definitely meant when compared to Barry. Emmitt's had some "Barry Worthy" highlights of his own, and as a Cowboys fan I watched many of them. But the bread and butter was small positive 5-7 yard runs that eventually wore the defense down before he started popping the longer variety. Barry was so much more of an exciting player we all know that.

Results are results. If Barry was the better RB. Smith was the better Football Player. Grew up in Detroit. Never saw Barry take a leadership or ownership role with the lions.

Doesn't mean he didn't try. Saying I didn't notice it. No question to his talent.

How do people think Tomlinson compares to them?

I can't really put Tomlinson anywhere near that category for some reason. I don't know why, maybe b/c I didn't watch much of him in his prime. Always respected him but never really was a fan. I'm much more willing to put Faulk up there, I really think Marshall Faulk is the best football player to ever play the RB position. What he did in St. Louis was not only amazing but ground breaking. A RB who can run between the tackles AND line up at WR? And he wasn't running routes on LBs, he was running routes on corners, and winning the matchups, that's unheard of. People argue about how impressive his career was, but his PRIME is what really impressed me. When he was at his best, no one was better. I was in awe when I watched him play.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

The difference is Cowboys did it and the Lions didn't.

FYPETA: nice to see that people give it to Sanders by a 5-1 margin.

 

[Tau837]

Sanders played for 10 seasons and was 1st team or 2nd team All Pro each season. Very few players, if any, have done that, particularly in the modern era (with more teams).

That is ridiculous. And it shows how AP voters ranked Sanders against his peers, notably Smith, who "only" had half as many All Pro seasons, despite playing 5 more seasons in the league.

/thread

 

[adrenaline]

Scratching my head on that one... I'll be the first to admit that I have not seen a ton of tape on Smith, but have seen Barry run many times and been to more than 2 dozen games at the Silverdome during his time in Det. Everyone knew he was the one weapon on the team. They knew he was going to be running. They would game plan to stop him and still he had an unbelievable 10 years. I have no idea who you were watching but Barry made the Lions respectable, not the other way around. He did was Suh is doing right now.

Ok fair enough, that bolded statement was a bit exaggerated. He clearly was the only reason that team was competitive. But all those negative yards over a career? Of course he'd eventually get his yards in the positive stat column, but I'm convinced that his running style isn't optimal for winning football games. NFL coaches preach going downhill as soon as possible for a reason. Offenses can better handle 2nd and 6 than 2nd and 10+. Sure sometimes it'd go 70 something yards for a TD, but he'd get stuffed a few times as well.

You make it sound like Barry intentionally ran for losses and, therefore, purposely dug the grave for the Lions! The biggest factor, by far, that makes an offense click is a strong offensive line. How many "great" running backs did Denver produce in the late 90's and early 2000's. And, ironically, they were all drafted in the 6th round or later with the exception of Clinton Portis? Did you ever think that maybe it was the offensive line and not the running back? Whether people want to admit it or not, the position that is most affected by its peers (along with WR) is RB. The majority of RBs who had great seasons also had strong offensive lines. What separates Sanders from the majority is that he had a mediocre offensive line at best for his entire career and only had the highest YPC over a career EVER! They weren't horrible (like others make it out to be) but it wasn't 5.0 YPC good, that's for sure. Like the facts showed in my first post, if Barry ran for 3 yards vs 1.3 YPC before contact, we'd be talking about how consistent Barry was as a runner and how well he moved the chains. I, unlike the other Barry supporter who said he didn't watch many Dallas games, did watch many of the games Emmit Smith played and I couldn't believe how many times he'd get the ball and first get touched 10 yards down the field. And several times, you'd be able to fit a #######' truck through the hole created by that offensive line. And don't tell me that's not true because I saw it with my own eyes! Don't get me wrong, Emmitt was not a below-average running back. He was slightly above-average but that offensive line made him look like a God. He averaged only 1.3 yards after contact... that doesn't sound like an extraordinary RB to me. Sorry. Yes, he won Super Bowls... you can't tell me he won those Super Bowls for them all by himself. It's a team effort and I'm quite confident they were going to win a couple Super Bowls without Emmitt.

But, I'm pretty sure Elmer Smitt supporters aren't going to let facts cloud their judgement.

 

[SWC]

barry was the best... i hated it when the pack played him because he was a human highlight reel and all you could do was bite your fingernails and hope for the best