Better pure runner> Emmitt Smith vs Fred Taylor (2 Viewers)

[Joe T]

If you give both Emmitt Smith and Fred Taylor the same offensive lines and both are in their primes, who would you take as the better pure running back?

I was arguing this with one of my GB's and wanted to get some other opinions.

 

[switz]

If you give both Emmitt Smith and Fred Taylor the same offensive lines and both are in their primes, who would you take as the better pure running back?I was arguing this with one of my GB's and wanted to get some other opinions.

Taylor.

 

[General Malaise]

Fred Taylor and it's not even close.

 

[bryhamm]

Fred Taylor and it's not even close.

 

[Bodysnatcher]

Emmitt Smith, and only a short period of his great career was behind a great line. Let's remember that this is the same line that allowed 407 concussions on Troy Aikman.

 

[Joe T]

Fred Taylor and it's not even close.

Please explain why it is not close™.

 

[switz]

Emmitt Smith, and only a short period of his great career was behind a great line. Let's remember that this is the same line that allowed 407 concussions on Troy Aikman.

Emmitt played behind a dominant RUN BLOCKING line the majority of his career.Pass blocking and run blocking are very different, and the DAL line was from the beginning built to be a great run blocking line, with their size. They never had tremendous mobility to be great pass blockers. It was built to get on a guy just long enough for the hole to open.

 

[PahtyTom]

Fred Taylor. When 100% in his prime, he was one of the most talented and complete running backs ever.

 

[Mr. Mojo]

Emmitt by a mile. He had the acceleration, cutting ability and toughness to make the most out of any run. Near the goal line, he was unstoppable. Yes, Dallas had a great OL in their prime, but Emmitt performed well even later when they didn't and even at Arizona at the end of his career.

Fred Taylor also had the benefit of a great OL for a number of years (have we forgotten Boselli already?). I like his top end speed better than Emmitt's but that's about it.

 

[Jason Wood]

Seriously?

 

[Koya]

Now, Fred's true prime was FAR shorter than Emmitts, and Emmitt's durability is one of the reasons he is an all time great... but Taylor was by far the more talented/skilled RUNNER.

In terms of being a complete back, Emmitt has to get bonus points for his other skills, including blocking and on a championship team that doesnt need that "bit" of extra running ability, that means a huge amount.

I do agree that it is not especially close though - Taylor would have had a couple all time great seasons (and I dont mean TDs which = opportunity, I mean yards and everything else to boot) if he had the Dallas line.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Showdown of the only 2 good RBs to come out of Florida the last 20 years or so?

The problem with these threads is it's impossible to seperate the RB play from the line play. I've said many times that I thought Barry Sanders would get cut from a Shanahan coached Broncos team because of the way he played. Not sure he'd be successful with the old Cowboys o-line either.

At any rate, the man holds the records for career rushing yards. That doesn't happen just because of a dominant o-line.

 

[Koya]

Seriously?

In terms of RUNNING the ball? It is not only a legit question, but the "correct" answer is actually Taylor.

 

[cowboysin07]

This isn't even close. Fred Taylor in his prime would be on the bench with an injury. Emmitt in his prime played with a grade 30 seperated shoulder. I know which one I would want for my team.

 

[RBM]

Adrian Peterson

Oh wait.....what were the choices?

 

[Koya]

Showdown of the only 2 good RBs to come out of Florida the last 20 years or so?The problem with these threads is it's impossible to seperate the RB play from the line play. I've said many times that I thought Barry Sanders would get cut from a Shanahan coached Broncos team because of the way he played. Not sure he'd be successful with the old Cowboys o-line either.At any rate, the man holds the records for career rushing yards. That doesn't happen just because of a dominant o-line.

Of course we cant come to any "real" conclusion. But these are interesting questions to ask.For those who saw both play, I think many will agree that Taylor was the better runner. Imo, Taylor was a better runner (in his far briefer prime) but Emmitt was always the better running back. Id take Emmitt on my team many times over as well... but a big part of that was his durability and toughness.

 

[General Malaise]

Fred Taylor and it's not even close.

Please explain why it is not close™.

Taylor = Speed.

 

[Koya]

Fred Taylor and it's not even close.

Please explain why it is not close™.

Taylor = Speed.

And Agility.And burst, thrust and acceleration that Emmitt did not have.Oh, and power with speed.Jukes and moves.Cutting at full speed.(and then the injury)

 

[General Malaise]

Fred Taylor and it's not even close.

Please explain why it is not close™.

Taylor = Speed.

And Agility.And burst, thrust and acceleration that Emmitt did not have.Oh, and power with speed.Jukes and moves.Cutting at full speed.(and then the injury)

Also, much more heart.

 

[switz]

Emmitt by a mile. He had the acceleration, cutting ability and toughness to make the most out of any run. Near the goal line, he was unstoppable. Yes, Dallas had a great OL in their prime, but Emmitt performed well even later when they didn't and even at Arizona at the end of his career.Fred Taylor also had the benefit of a great OL for a number of years (have we forgotten Boselli already?). I like his top end speed better than Emmitt's but that's about it.

Taylor was quicker in and out of his cuts, was faster, he had more wiggle.I'm not sure in any area outside of toughness that Emmitt had an edge over Taylor.When did Emmitt perform well in AZ??????

 

[Sopranos]

This question is a ploy to motivate T Bell...lol

Not sure but Taylor was good when healthy but in no way was he ever a better back than Emmit. You couldnt count on him..

 

[redman]

Fred Taylor and it's not even close.

The only edge I'd give to Emmitt is that he had better vision than probably anyone, but Taylor was too much of a stud all around to take Emmitt over him.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Which Emmitt Smith and which Fred Taylor are you referring to? Specifically, what do you mean by their "primes"?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Mandatory in any thread on Emmitt:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/wordpress/?p=8

With greatness comes backlash, and every great player has collected his share of detractors. But my observation is that Emmitt Smith has it worse than most. It seems to me like the majority of football fans believe Emmitt was nothing special. “You put him on any other team and he would’ve been good but not great,” is a common sentiment. Feel free to let me know if I’m flogging a straw man here, but I hear that a lot.

Consider the period from 1998 to 2000. During that time, the Cowboys were one game under .500, were coached by Chan Gailey and Dave Campo, and won zero playoff games. I’m a big Aikman fan, but he was pretty much finished. So was Irvin. Some of the great names were still on the line, but their best years were way behind them at that point. These were the age 29, 30, and 31 seasons for Emmitt, who had taken a ridiculous amount of punishment in his first 28 years. What you’ve got there is a situation where an RB who was merely above average would probably struggle.

Emmitt rushed for 3900 yards and 32 TDs during those three years. And they weren’t Eddie George yards, either. He was above 4.1 yards per carry all three years. He was in the top five in the NFL in rushing yards two of those three years.

We don’t need to speculate on what Emmitt would have done if he had played for a mediocre team. He did play for a mediocre team from 1998-2000, and what he did was amass more rushing yards from age 29-31 than any player in NFL history aside from Walter Payton and Curtis Martin (yes, I know, Sanders and Brown retired before their age 31 seasons). Most good-but-not-great running backs are struggling to hold a job at age 30. Emmitt was a top five rusher on a bad team.

Those of you who would now accuse me of selecting that particular three-year stretch in an effort to make Emmitt look good would be walking right into a trap. The fact is that you can pick any three-year stretch out of Emmitt’s career and he will be among the leading rushers in NFL history in that age group. And the point is that his supporting cast wasn’t great in all of those stretches and was downright bad in others.

Smith played on good teams early in his career and bad teams late in his career. Walter Payton did the opposite. Barry Sanders played on bad teams in September and October every year and good ones in November and December. Jim Brown, of course, only played on good teams. During his career, Emmitt’s Smith’s teams were a total of 12 games over .500. Jim Brown’s were 45 games over .500. Walter Payton’s were 28 games over .500. (Sanders’ were four under). Why does Emmitt get singled out for being a coattail-rider?

No one knows how Emmitt’s prime would have looked without Troy, Erik, et al. I am not going to argue that he would still be the all-time rushing champ had he switched places with Sanders or Payton. Nor am I going to argue that he didn’t benefit from some good fortune. All record holders did. But he was and is one of the very best running backs in history.

 

[Ranethe]

Emmitt by a mile. He had the acceleration, cutting ability and toughness to make the most out of any run. Near the goal line, he was unstoppable. Yes, Dallas had a great OL in their prime, but Emmitt performed well even later when they didn't and even at Arizona at the end of his career.Fred Taylor also had the benefit of a great OL for a number of years (have we forgotten Boselli already?). I like his top end speed better than Emmitt's but that's about it.

 

[Sputnikv8]

This isn't even close. Fred Taylor in his prime would be on the bench with an injury. Emmitt in his prime played with a grade 30 seperated shoulder. I know which one I would want for my team.

Speed and moves are no good without durability.

 

[Swanny]

I have always been a big Taylor fan and to this day think he is one of the great RBs who never realized his true potential in the NFL. But trying to say that Taylor was a better "pure runner" than Emmitt Smith is tough to swallow. It's probably true that Emmitt wasn't as fast or explosive as Taylor. It might be true that Taylor was also quicker and shiftier. Emmitt might have played with a better offensive line - some will debate that the line was actually overrated...sometimes a great RB will make a line better. Emmitt Smith is one of those RBs who simply got the job done. Curtis Martin is another RB like this. At what point do we have to let the results speak for themselves? There are just so many intangibles that go into being a great RB. What really makes someone a better "pure runner?" I mean, Reggie Bush looks like a great pure runner at times. But my opinion is that he lacks vision, instincts, and the ability to break tackles to be a great RB. Pure runner? Are pure instincts part of that equation? There have been numerous RBs who have passed through this league that I've watched and thought were absolutely incredible pure runners but never turned out to be great RBs for one reason or another. IMO, it's far too easy to see a guy who we think has all the physical tools and label him as a great "pure runner." At some point we have to point to a guy's continued success and realize that there was obviously something special about him that enabled him to succeed at the highest level.

 

[Chase Stuart]

As with anything else, people will read into this what they want. But here are how other RBs on Taylor/Smith's teams have done through their careers:

Rushes  Yards   TDs   YPCTaylor's teammates: 1624	6425	72	3.96Fred Taylor:		2062	9513	56	4.61

Rushes  Yards   TDs   YPCSmith's teammates: 1808	 7121	 39	3.94Emmitt Smith:	  4409	18355	164	4.16

Taylor's teammates:

James Stewart		 1999	249	931	13	3.74Stacey Mack		   2001	213	877	 9	4.12Maurice Jones-Drew	2006	166	941	13	5.67Greg Jones			2005	151	575	 4	3.81Stacey Mack		   2002	 98	436	 9	4.45Elvis Joseph		  2001	 68	294	 0	4.32Greg Jones			2004	 62	162	 3	2.61Stacey Mack		   2000	 54	145	 1	2.69James Stewart		 1998	 53	217	 2	4.09LaBrandon Toefield	2003	 53	212	 2	4.00LaBrandon Toefield	2004	 51	169	 0	3.31George Jones		  1998	 39	121	 0	3.10Alvin Pearman		 2005	 39	149	 1	3.82LaBrandon Toefield	2005	 36	142	 4	3.94Chris Fuamatu-Ma'afala2003	 35	144	 1	4.11Daimon Shelton		1998	 30	 95	 1	3.17Anthony Johnson	   2000	 28	112	 1	4.00Tavian Banks		  1998	 26	140	 1	5.38Tavian Banks		  1999	 23	 82	 0	3.57Chris Howard		  2000	 21	 52	 1	2.48Chris Fuamatu-Ma'afala2004	 20	 69	 1	3.45Shyrone Stith		 2000	 20	 55	 1	2.75Alvin Pearman		 2006	 19	 89	 1	4.68Chris Howard		  1999	 13	 55	 0	4.23LaBrandon Toefield	2006	 10	 22	 0	2.20Frank Moreau		  2001	  8	 27	 1	3.38Marc Edwards		  2003	  7	 13	 1	1.86Chris Howard		  1998	  7	 16	 0	2.29Stacey Mack		   1999	  7	 40	 0	5.71David Allen		   2003	  4	  8	 0	2.00Rich Alexis		   2006	  3	  5	 0	1.67Derrick Wimbush	   2005	  3	 12	 1	4.00Chad Dukes			2000	  2	  2	 0	1.00Daimon Shelton		2000	  2	  3	 0	1.50Jermaine Williams	 2000	  2	  8	 0	4.00Daimon Shelton		1999	  1	  2	 0	2.00Derrick Wimbush	   2006	  1	  3	 0	3.00

Emmitt's teammates:

Marcel Shipp		   2003	228	830	0	3.64Sherman Williams	   1997	121	468	2	3.87Troy Hambrick		  2001	113	579	2	5.12Chris Warren		   1999	 99	403	2	4.07Troy Hambrick		  2002	 79	317	1	4.01Derrick Lassic		 1993	 75	269	3	3.59Sherman Williams	   1996	 69	269	0	3.90Sherman Williams	   1998	 64	220	1	3.44Lincoln Coleman		1994	 64	180	1	2.81Troy Hambrick		  2004	 63	283	1	4.49Chris Warren		   2000	 59	254	2	4.31Chris Warren		   1998	 59	291	4	4.93Tommie Agee			1990	 53	213	1	4.02Curvin Richards		1992	 49	176	1	3.59Sherman Williams	   1995	 48	205	1	4.27Daryl Johnston		 1994	 40	138	2	3.45Michael Wiley		  2001	 34	247	0	7.26Lincoln Coleman		1993	 34	132	2	3.88Obafemi Ayanbadejo	 2004	 30	122	3	4.07Larry Croom			2004	 29	 76	0	2.62Josh Scobey			2004	 27	 89	0	3.30Daryl Johnston		 1995	 25	111	2	4.44Michael Wiley		  2000	 24	 88	0	3.67Blair Thomas		   1994	 24	 70	1	2.92Daryl Johnston		 1993	 24	 74	3	3.08Michael Wiley		  2002	 23	164	1	7.13Daryl Johnston		 1996	 22	 48	0	2.18Alonzo Highsmith	   1990	 19	 48	0	2.53Damien Anderson		2003	 18	 68	0	3.78Daryl Johnston		 1992	 17	 61	0	3.59Daryl Johnston		 1991	 17	 54	0	3.18Tommie Agee			1992	 16	 54	0	3.38Ricky Blake			1991	 15	 80	1	5.33Robert Chancey		 1999	 14	 57	0	4.07Robert Thomas		  2002	 10	 31	0	3.10Herschel Walker		1996	 10	 83	1	8.30Daryl Johnston		 1990	 10	 35	1	3.50Derrick Gainer		 1993	  9	 29	0	3.22Tommie Agee			1991	  9	 20	0	2.22Robert Thomas		  1999	  8	 35	0	4.38Daryl Johnston		 1998	  8	 17	0	2.13Robert Thomas		  2001	  6	 40	0	6.67Troy Hambrick		  2000	  6	 28	0	4.67Herschel Walker		1997	  6	 20	0	3.33Tommie Agee			1993	  6	 13	0	2.17Timmy Smith			1990	  6	  6	0	1.00Tommie Agee			1994	  5	  4	0	0.80Curvin Richards		1993	  4	  1	0	0.25James Hodgins		  2003	  2	  6	0	3.00Daryl Johnston		 1997	  2	  3	0	1.50Curvin Richards		1991	  2	  4	0	2.00Damien Anderson		2004	  1	  2	0	2.00Tony Taylor			2001	  1	  0	0	0.00David Lang			 1995	  1	  7	0	7.00Robert Wilson		  1994	  1	 -1	0	-1.00

 

[Phlash]

Emmitt was an awesome talent and the definition of a "complete back" (he had good blocking, receiving, and running ability). No disrespect to him, however, but Fred Taylor is known to be one of the most absurd runners out there. The guy has crazy running ability.

 

[Wadsworth]

Emmitt was a better blocker, receiver, short yardage back, had better vision and an overall better understanding of the RBs job in the game of football. Emmitt was a much better runner of the football than many like to admit. But the question was pure runner, and I have no doubt that Fred Taylor in his prime was a better pure runner than Emmitt. If Fred Taylor had been drafted by Denver I bet he'd have multiple 2,000+ yard seasons to his credit and place reserved in the HoF. As it is, he's going to quietly have an excellent career in little ol' Jacksonville and fade quietly into nothing.

 

[Spartans Rule]

The problem with these threads is it's impossible to seperate the RB play from the line play. I've said many times that I thought Barry Sanders would get cut from a Shanahan coached Broncos team because of the way he played. Not sure he'd be successful with the old Cowboys o-line either.

Could not possibly disagree more with this. Barry's 2000-yard season came under Bobby Ross and his straightforward running scheme.Barry Sanders spent most of his career in a bass-ackwards Wayne Fontes offense that pass blocked on run plays and therefore lost yardage quite frequently. To think that because of this he was somehow incapable of running straight through a gaping hole, that's just absurd. He had one of the best running back seasons ever in 1997 doing just that.

 

[mjohnell]

Emmitt just retired too late. For some reason we like our stud backs to retire in their prime. It makes them immortal.

 

[redman]

Emmitt just retired too late. For some reason we like our stud backs to retire in their prime. It makes them immortal.

I don't agree. Not many have retired in their prime. In fact, outside of Brown I can't think of another all-time great back who did. A good RB who recently did was Robert Smith, but that guy gets no play in discussions of excellent RB's, so I don't think it helped him.

 

[switz]

As with anything else, people will read into this what they want. But here are how other RBs on Taylor/Smith's teams have done through their careers:

Rushes  Yards   TDs   YPCTaylor's teammates: 1624	6425	72	3.96Fred Taylor:		2062	9513	56	4.61

Rushes  Yards   TDs   YPCSmith's teammates: 1808	 7121	 39	3.94Emmitt Smith:	  4409	18355	164	4.16

So basically the difference between Taylor and his teammates is greater than the difference between Emmitt and his teammates. Hard not to draw the conclusion that Taylor is better.

 

[Spartans Rule]

Emmitt just retired too late. For some reason we like our stud backs to retire in their prime. It makes them immortal.

I don't agree. Not many have retired in their prime. In fact, outside of Brown I can't think of another all-time great back who did. A good RB who recently did was Robert Smith, but that guy gets no play in discussions of excellent RB's, so I don't think it helped him.

Barry Sanders?

 

[Bodysnatcher]

Let's get back to reality fellas.... Emmitt MADE his O-line look as great as they were. Because he is one of the greatest running backs in the history of the sport, THE best in my opinion.... Fred Taylor isn't anywhere near him.

Watch this and get back to reality...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3BMqqbeZhME

 

[Chase Stuart]

As with anything else, people will read into this what they want. But here are how other RBs on Taylor/Smith's teams have done through their careers:

Rushes  Yards   TDs   YPCTaylor's teammates: 1624	6425	72	3.96Fred Taylor:		2062	9513	56	4.61

Rushes  Yards   TDs   YPCSmith's teammates: 1808	 7121	 39	3.94Emmitt Smith:	  4409	18355	164	4.16

So basically the difference between Taylor and his teammates is greater than the difference between Emmitt and his teammates. Hard not to draw the conclusion that Taylor is better.

That is just one piece of the puzzle. But it certainly -- at least initially -- points to Taylor being better. Ideally, it would be adjusted for the year (for example, if Emmitt Smith ran 10 times for 30 yards in 2005 for the Cardinals, and Joe Bad RB ran 350 times for 1000 yards, that would bias the results in favor of Emmitt). This was just a first shot, simple look.

 

[redman]

Emmitt just retired too late. For some reason we like our stud backs to retire in their prime. It makes them immortal.

I don't agree. Not many have retired in their prime. In fact, outside of Brown I can't think of another all-time great back who did. A good RB who recently did was Robert Smith, but that guy gets no play in discussions of excellent RB's, so I don't think it helped him.

Barry Sanders?

I'm not sure that helps the argument. Was Barry going to be relegated to 2nd tier consideration if he'd put up a couple pedestrian seasons at the tail end of his career? I strongly doubt that.

 

[mjohnell]

Emmitt just retired too late. For some reason we like our stud backs to retire in their prime. It makes them immortal.

I don't agree. Not many have retired in their prime. In fact, outside of Brown I can't think of another all-time great back who did. A good RB who recently did was Robert Smith, but that guy gets no play in discussions of excellent RB's, so I don't think it helped him.

Barry Sanders?

Tiki Barber was another that crossed my mind. He isn't in conversations for best ever but he did dominate when he retired.

 

[Bodysnatcher]

Emmitt Smith, the greatest back to ever live. You don't have to believe me... believe the record books.

 

[switz]

Emmitt Smith, the greatest back to ever live. You don't have to believe me... believe the record books.

Records are the result of playing at a high level PLUS longevity. It doesn't mean he was the greatest ever, it just means he was good, and played LONGER than the guys who were better than him (a la Barry Sanders)

 

[bryhamm]

Emmitt Smith, the greatest back to ever live. You don't have to believe me... believe the record books.

Records are the result of playing at a high level PLUS longevity. It doesn't mean he was the greatest ever, it just means he was good, and played LONGER than the guys who were better than him (a la Barry Sanders)

ala Henry Aaron

 

[patriarchz]

They are both great, so it's hard to say, but if I had to pick, I'd take Barry Sanders.

 

[Bodysnatcher]

You guys act like the only thing about running is what "looks like" natural talent.

Michael Irvin said something a long time ago that made great sense, he said "I am very close friends with Barry Sanders, and I will have to say that Emmitt Smith is the best running back that I have ever seen play. I remember when we drafted him, I was watching his tapes from Florida thinking 'why did we pick up this guy, he hardly looks like he is running'. That was until I was able to see him for himself. Emmitt is so great, he makes it look easy. He doesn't get as much credit, because you have other running backs like Barry doing things that look impossible, all of those cuts, and turns in every run, trying to make people miss. That is the difference, Emmitt was so great, that he made making people miss look easy. He would dip his shoulder at a cetain angle, and the defenders would just glide right off of him. He didn't need to make his moves look spectacular, because he was great enough to make it look easy."

Add that to the fact that Emmitt Smith may be the best HB blocker to ever play the game, and was a great receiver out of the backfield. More durable than any back in history, and mentally, and physically tougher than the other backs in question. He would play games with a seperated shoulder, fractured ankle... the man was a beast.

If I am in control of a fantasy team, I choose Emmitt over any running back in history.

 

[CapoTX]

Cowboy fans choose Emmitt. All those of us with a brain choose Taylor.

 

[Mimo]

Emmitt Smith, the greatest back to ever live. You don't have to believe me... believe the record books.

Not to Hijack but to say the above is like saying Karl Malone was better than Jordan because Malone is the all time scoring leader in the NBA. It is like saying because Bill Russell has more titles he was better than Jordan.I am sure if you said Jordan was the GOAT in B Ball you will not get much flak as you are getting when you say Emmitt is the GOAT RB.BTW, I'll take Barry

 

[831hoops]

Let's get back to reality fellas.... Emmitt MADE his O-line look as great as they were. Because he is one of the greatest running backs in the history of the sport, THE best in my opinion.... Fred Taylor isn't anywhere near him.

Watch this and get back to reality...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3BMqqbeZhME

The signature play for Dallas in those years was to give the ball to Emmitt and let him drive his golf cart through the hole for a TD. The season didn't officially start until Emmitt had an 80 yd TD untouched on MNF against the G-Men. Did this happen every year?

 

[831hoops]

You guys act like the only thing about running is what "looks like" natural talent.

Michael Irvin said something a long time ago that made great sense, he said "I am very close friends with Barry Sanders, and I will have to say that Emmitt Smith is the best running back that I have ever seen play. I remember when we drafted him, I was watching his tapes from Florida thinking 'why did we pick up this guy, he hardly looks like he is running'. That was until I was able to see him for himself. Emmitt is so great, he makes it look easy. He doesn't get as much credit, because you have other running backs like Barry doing things that look impossible, all of those cuts, and turns in every run, trying to make people miss. That is the difference, Emmitt was so great, that he made making people miss look easy. He would dip his shoulder at a cetain angle, and the defenders would just glide right off of him. He didn't need to make his moves look spectacular, because he was great enough to make it look easy."

Add that to the fact that Emmitt Smith may be the best HB blocker to ever play the game, and was a great receiver out of the backfield. More durable than any back in history, and mentally, and physically tougher than the other backs in question. He would play games with a seperated shoulder, fractured ankle... the man was a beast.

If I am in control of a fantasy team, I choose Emmitt over any running back in history.

I stopped reading at that point.

 

[switz]

You guys act like the only thing about running is what "looks like" natural talent.

Michael Irvin said something a long time ago that made great sense, he said "I am very close friends with Barry Sanders, and I will have to say that Emmitt Smith is the best running back that I have ever seen play. I remember when we drafted him, I was watching his tapes from Florida thinking 'why did we pick up this guy, he hardly looks like he is running'. That was until I was able to see him for himself. Emmitt is so great, he makes it look easy. He doesn't get as much credit, because you have other running backs like Barry doing things that look impossible, all of those cuts, and turns in every run, trying to make people miss. That is the difference, Emmitt was so great, that he made making people miss look easy. He would dip his shoulder at a cetain angle, and the defenders would just glide right off of him. He didn't need to make his moves look spectacular, because he was great enough to make it look easy."

Add that to the fact that Emmitt Smith may be the best HB blocker to ever play the game, and was a great receiver out of the backfield. More durable than any back in history, and mentally, and physically tougher than the other backs in question. He would play games with a seperated shoulder, fractured ankle... the man was a beast.

If I am in control of a fantasy team, I choose Emmitt over any running back in history.

It's this type of homerism and hyperbole that makes me ignore the rest of what you've written.Emmitt's highest YPC were 5.3, 4.7, 4.6 - in none of his other 11 years did he break 4.3. He was a product of great blocking, and a great offensive system, and as was seen in a previous post, he wasn't clearly that much better than his counterparts in that offense.

On the other hand, only twice has Taylor ever had less than 4.6 YPC for a season. And he's never been in a powerhouse offense like Dallas.

Sanders' career LOW YPC was 4.3, which he did twice, 4.5 once, 4.6 once, 4.8 once, and the rest were over 5 YPC, one year over 6 YPC. And that was on a horrible offense and terrible run blocking.

So when it comes to simple running the ball - Smith IMO is not even part of the conversation of best ever.

If you want to talk about all around RB, then we'll talk - and even then there have been better ones.

He put up AVERAGE numbers for a LONG time. That says he was one of the most durable backs ever, that's it.

 

[Bodysnatcher]

Emmitt Smith, the greatest back to ever live. You don't have to believe me... believe the record books.

Not to Hijack but to say the above is like saying Karl Malone was better than Jordan because Malone is the all time scoring leader in the NBA. It is like saying because Bill Russell has more titles he was better than Jordan.I am sure if you said Jordan was the GOAT in B Ball you will not get much flak as you are getting when you say Emmitt is the GOAT RB.BTW, I'll take Barry

BTW.... it was about Taylor vs Emmitt, not Barry vs Emmitt.Also, you are acting like these guys weren't coming along in the same era. Also, Detroit ALWAYS had a good offense when Barry played. They had great receivers, and always had good QB's as well. It was the defense that always kept them out of being as good as they could be... well that and that fact that San Fran, and Dallas were too well rounded for any of the other teams.Barry Sanders was a great back, but Emmitt was better, in my opinion. Emmitt has more rushing yards, more rushing touchdowns, just as many rushing titles (head to head against Barry), more receiving yards, more receiving touchdowns, ect... He was more durable, he had a better nose for the endzone, he was a better blocker, I have said enough. Emmitt was the man during their time, and it doesn't change just because he played longer than he needed to.