What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

**Official** Top Ten RBs of All Time Series (1 Viewer)

Who should make the next poll as a candidate?


  • Total voters
    144

GregR_2

Footballguy
Voting closed. Vote for RB #8 here.

RB #1: Jim Brown 48.5% of the vote.

RB #2: Walter Payton 41.7% of the vote.

RB #3: Barry Sanders 70.6% of the vote.

RB #4: OJ Simpson 27.4% of the vote.

RB #5(tie): Marshall Faulk 25.2% of the vote.

RB #5(tie): Emmitt Smith 25.2% of the vote.

RB #7: Eric Dickerson 41.0% of the vote.

Time to settle who are the top 10 running backs of all time. The first poll is to vote for the #2 RB of all time. The second poll is to pick the player who didn't make the list of candidates this time but who should be included in the list for the next slot. Marcus Allen was promoted based on the previous voting.

I've googled about 20 all time top ten lists and chose 14 of the players listed most often, and included Adrian Peterson as the active back I thought most likely to get votes somewhere in the top ten.

Career Stats

Player………… G RuAtt RuYd RuTD RuYd/A RuYd/G Rec RecYd RecTD Yd/Rec Rec/G ReYd/G YdScm YdScm/G TotalTD Fmb
Code:
Marcus Allen	222	3022	12243	123	4.1	55.1	587	5411	21	9.2	2.6	24.4	17654	79.5	144	65Jerome Bettis	192	3479	13662	91	3.9	71.2	200	1449	3	7.2	1	7.5	15111	78.7	94	41Earl Campbell	115	2187	9407	74	4.3	81.8	121	806	0	6.7	1.1	7	10213	88.8	74	43Terrell Davis	78	1655	7607	60	4.6	97.5	169	1280	5	7.6	2.2	16.4	8887	113.9	65	20Eric Dickerson	146	2996	13259	90	4.4	90.8	281	2137	6	7.6	1.9	14.6	15396	105.5	96	78Tony Dorsett	173	2936	12739	77	4.3	73.6	398	3554	13	8.9	2.3	20.5	16293	94.2	90	90Marshall Faulk	176	2836	12279	100	4.3	69.8	767	6875	36	9	4.4	39.1	19154	108.8	136	36Curtis Martin	168	3518	14101	90	4	83.9	484	3329	10	6.9	2.9	19.8	17430	103.8	100	29Walter Payton	190	3838	16726	110	4.4	88	492	4538	15	9.2	2.6	23.9	21264	111.9	125	86Adrian Peterson	61	1198	5782	52	4.8	94.8	119	1170	2	9.8	2	19.2	6952	114.0	54	21Barry Sanders	153	3062	15269	99	5	99.8	352	2921	10	8.3	2.3	19.1	18190	118.9	109	41Gale Sayers	68	991	4956	39	5	72.9	112	1307	9	11.7	1.6	19.2	6263	92.1	48	34OJ Simpson	135	2404	11236	61	4.7	83.2	203	2142	14	10.6	1.5	15.9	13378	99.1	75	62Emmitt Smith	226	4409	18355	164	4.2	81.2	515	3224	11	6.3	2.3	14.3	21579	95.5	175	61L. Tomlinson	156	3099	13404	144	4.3	85.9	582	4323	15	7.4	3.7	27.7	17727	113.6	159	30
Awards and Career Rankings

ProBwl: Total Pro Bowl appearances

All Pro: Total 1st team All Pro only.

MVP: Total Associated Press MVP only.

OffYr: Total AP Offensive Player of the Year awards

Rest of categories are where they rank on the all time career list.

*: Player predates the creation of the AP Offensive Player of the Year award.

-: Player does not rank in Pro Football Reference's career list in that category.

Player………… AllPro ProBwl MVP OffYr RuYd RuYd/G RuTD YdScm RuReTD
Code:
Marcus Allen	2	6	1	1	12	92	3	7	6Jerome Bettis	2	6	0	0	5	33	10	18	22Earl Campbell	3	5	1	3	30	14	23	78	74Terrell Davis	3	3	1	2	46	4	40	119	99Eric Dickerson	5	6	0	2	7	6	12	14	21Tony Dorsett	1	4	0	0	8	27	20	10	28Marshall Faulk	3	7	1	3	10	36	7	4	7Curtis Martin	1	5	0	0	4	11	12	8	19Walter Payton	5	9	1	1	2	7	4	3	11Adrian Peterson	2	4	0	0	83	5	54	8	168Barry Sanders	6	10	1	2	3	2	9	5	15Gale Sayers	5	4	0	*	118	30	107	-	-OJ Simpson	5	6	1	1	18	12	38	31	60Emmitt Smith	4	8	1	0	1	15	1	2	2L. Tomlinson	3	5	1	1	6	9	2	6	3
----------------------------------------

I also grabbed some RBs who didn't make the list this time, but maybe should be included for voting of later slots. The second poll is to decide which one of these RBs gets promoted to the main list next time. If there is someone you think actually belongs in the top ten list who isn't in either list, please post them. Jim Taylor was added by request.

Code:
Player…………	G 	RuAtt 	RuYd 	RuTD 	RuYd/A 	RuYd/G 	Rec 	RecYd	RecTD 	Yd/Rec	Rec/G 	ReYd/G 	YdScm 	YdScm/G	TotalTD	Fmb
Code:
Shaun Alexander	123	2187	9453	100	4.3	76.9	215	1520	12	7.1	1.7	12.4	10973	89.2	112	31Larry Csonka	146	1891	8081	64	4.3	55.3	106	820	4	7.7	0.7	5.6	8901	61.0	68	21Franco Harris	173	2949	12120	91	4.1	70.1	307	2287	9	7.4	1.8	13.2	14407	83.3	100	90Priest Holmes	113	1780	8172	86	4.6	72.3	339	2962	8	8.7	3	26.2	11134	98.5	94	16Edgerrin James	148	3028	12246	80	4	82.7	433	3364	11	7.8	2.9	22.7	15610	105.5	91	44Chris Johnson	47	925	4598	34	5	97.8	137	1008	4	7.4	2.9	21.4	5606	119.3	38	7John Riggins	175	2916	11352	104	3.9	64.9	250	2090	12	8.4	1.4	11.9	13442	76.8	116	58Jim Taylor	132	1941	8597	83	4.4	65.1	225	1756	10	7.8	1.7	13.3	10353	78.4	93	34Thurman Thomas	182	2877	12074	65	4.2	66.3	472	4458	23	9.4	2.6	24.5	16532	90.8	88	50
Code:
Player…………	AllPro	ProBwl	MVP	OffYr	RuYd	RuYd/G	RuTD	YdScm	RuReTD
Code:
Shaun Alexander	1	3	1	1	29	20	7	62	13Larry Csonka	2	5	0	0	39	91	35	118	86Franco Harris	1	9	0	0	13	35	10	23	19Priest Holmes	3	3	0	1	38	31	14	60	22Edgerrin James	1	4	0	0	11	13	18	13	25Chris Johnson	1	3	0	1	139	3	146	-	-John Riggins	1	1	0	0	16	53	6	29	12Jim Taylor	1	5	1	*	33	52	15	74	24Thurman Thomas	2	5	1	1	14	47	33	9	31
 
Last edited by a moderator:

GregR_2

Footballguy
Voting for #1 went about how I expected. I think the voting for #2 is going to be pretty close so this should be interesting to watch.

 

SWC

Bromigo
you got sanders and then you got payton and then you got the rest and marshall marshall marshall faulk could be the number four because he changed the postiiosn and now we see lots of guys who catch and run like crazy wombats from hell heading for the promised land of the endzone while possibly on fire

 

Jason Wood

Zoo York
I went with Emmitt, although I suspect Sanders and Payton will duke it out for 2/3 and then Emmitt will get his due as the consensus #4.

 

Shane Falco

Footballguy

GregR_2

Footballguy
I went with Emmitt, although I suspect Sanders and Payton will duke it out for 2/3 and then Emmitt will get his due as the consensus #4.
You must have missed the polls here where Tomlinson & Faulk beat Emmitt by far.
I won't be surprised after those polls if #4 is a close three way race.
Neither of those 3 were as good as Dickerson (and possibly OJ as well)
I think that is open to debate, by which I mean, it would be a good debate. OJ and Dickerson both probably get an edge in pure running ability, but LT was a very good receiving back and when you talk about their total yards from scrimmage, he's got a pretty significant edge on them there, especially on OJ. He's also near the top of the chart in scoring. Faulk is a similar case, he may be the smartest, most complete back to have ever played the game. I think the injuries he had are going to hurt him in a discussion like this whether intentionally included or whether just from the affect they had on his career stats.

 

Kleck

Footballguy
Can't really go wrong with Payton, Sanders or Emmitt, but I suspect Emmitt will be 4th. Although O.J. is not a likeable person, he's in my top 3 following Payton and Brown.

 

Moniker

Footballguy
Can't really go wrong with Payton, Sanders or Emmitt, but I suspect Emmitt will be 4th. Although O.J. is not a likeable person, he's in my top 3 following Payton and Brown.
Emmitt won't sniff #4 on this board or probably any other, people just don't like the guy and the casual fan doesn't understand the difference between running back and running ability.
 

Jason Wood

Zoo York
I wouldn't have a problem with Dickerson being in the conversation. OJ? No way can I see someone credibly arguing for him over Emmitt.

:no:

 

Shane Falco

Footballguy
I wouldn't have a problem with Dickerson being in the conversation. OJ? No way can I see someone credibly arguing for him over Emmitt. :no:
dominated his era (Emmitt was not the clear-cut best of his era like OJ)did more with less (talent of teams)keep in mind they were only 14 game seasonshe wasn't asked to catch the balldisregard post career actionscan you really credibly even post what you posted :mellow:
 

Jason Wood

Zoo York
I wouldn't have a problem with Dickerson being in the conversation. OJ? No way can I see someone credibly arguing for him over Emmitt. :no:
dominated his era (Emmitt was not the clear-cut best of his era like OJ)did more with less (talent of teams)keep in mind they were only 14 game seasonshe wasn't asked to catch the balldisregard post career actionscan you really credibly even post what you posted :mellow:
Emmitt did what OJ did on a per game basis for the same period of time (OJ played 135 regular season games), doubled his TDs over the same number of games, won three rings, and then went on and then racked up another 6,000 yards of offense beyond that at a point when OJ was done playing. Of course I can say it credibly.
 

Shane Falco

Footballguy
I wouldn't have a problem with Dickerson being in the conversation. OJ? No way can I see someone credibly arguing for him over Emmitt. :no:
dominated his era (Emmitt was not the clear-cut best of his era like OJ)did more with less (talent of teams)keep in mind they were only 14 game seasonshe wasn't asked to catch the balldisregard post career actionscan you really credibly even post what you posted :mellow:
Emmitt did what OJ did on a per game basis for the same period of time (OJ played 135 regular season games), doubled his TDs over the same number of games, won three rings, and then went on and then racked up another 6,000 yards of offense beyond that at a point when OJ was done playing. Of course I can say it credibly.
you only addressed every other one of points...
 

GregR_2

Footballguy
I wouldn't have a problem with Dickerson being in the conversation. OJ? No way can I see someone credibly arguing for him over Emmitt. :no:
To me OJ is in the conversation... sort of the same way Emmitt is in the conversation for #1 where you mention him and a few other guys but he's quickly discarded as he just doesn't measure up.OJ drops out of the conversation fast because he didn't sustain the high level he played at for more than a couple of years. But when he was there, he blew away not just an Emmitt's best seasons but most everyone's best seasons. Work in rushing yards per game or yards from scrimmage per game to correct for the different length seasons and if you compare each RB's best season, their second best season, etc, OJ beats Emmitt soundly for the first three years. After that he can't keep up as he didn't get 20+ carries a game like the other RBs did outside of his top 4 years.So I'd say in the conversation, but he'd be in the first round of guys who are cut from the conversation.
 

Insein

Footballguy
Its gotta be either Payton or Barry. Loser should automatically be #3. I voted Payton despite being a huge Barry fan as a kid.

 

Jason Wood

Zoo York
I wouldn't have a problem with Dickerson being in the conversation. OJ? No way can I see someone credibly arguing for him over Emmitt. :no:
dominated his era (Emmitt was not the clear-cut best of his era like OJ)did more with less (talent of teams)keep in mind they were only 14 game seasonshe wasn't asked to catch the balldisregard post career actionscan you really credibly even post what you posted :mellow:
Emmitt did what OJ did on a per game basis for the same period of time (OJ played 135 regular season games), doubled his TDs over the same number of games, won three rings, and then went on and then racked up another 6,000 yards of offense beyond that at a point when OJ was done playing. Of course I can say it credibly.
And FWIW, Emmitt also happens to be one of my most hated players of all time.you only addressed every other one of points...
I'm not sure what you're aiming for. Take OJ's 135 game career and look at Emmitt's first 135 games. Or if you want to argue that OJ was "past his prime" in his last three seasons, do the same and compare OJ's first 105 games against Emmitt's. Emmitt matches OJ yard for yard AND handily outproduces him as a scorer. And then on top of that, he went on and was productive for another bunch of years allowing him to gain 6,000+ more yards and finish as the all time leading rusher and TD leader (rushing TDs). When you're discussing the BEST EVER, I don't see that you can exclude longevity, championships or ability from the conversation. OJ certainly had elite ability, and is one of the all-time greats, no question. But Emmitt was an all-time great AND had massive longevity AND won multiple rings. He did it all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Shane Falco

Footballguy
I wouldn't have a problem with Dickerson being in the conversation. OJ? No way can I see someone credibly arguing for him over Emmitt.

:no:
dominated his era (Emmitt was not the clear-cut best of his era like OJ)did more with less (talent of teams)

keep in mind they were only 14 game seasons

he wasn't asked to catch the ball

disregard post career actions

can you really credibly even post what you posted :mellow:
Emmitt did what OJ did on a per game basis for the same period of time (OJ played 135 regular season games), doubled his TDs over the same number of games, won three rings, and then went on and then racked up another 6,000 yards of offense beyond that at a point when OJ was done playing. Of course I can say it credibly.
GregR covered it well but since you have apparently NOT been following the Emmitt vs Barry thread....Emmitt did what OJ did on a per game basis for the same period of time (OJ played 135 regular season games) same old argument about the quality of the team Smith played on verus quality of OJ's, doubled his TDs over the same number of games see my last point, won three rings so by that argument Dilfer is better than Marino?, and then went on and then racked up another 6,000 yards of offense beyond that at a point when OJ was done playing so he was a compiler who played past his prime?. Of course I can say it credibly.

Smith was a good -> above average back who benefited from playing on a dominate team and staying injury free

 

Insein

Footballguy
I wouldn't have a problem with Dickerson being in the conversation. OJ? No way can I see someone credibly arguing for him over Emmitt.

:no:
dominated his era (Emmitt was not the clear-cut best of his era like OJ)did more with less (talent of teams)

keep in mind they were only 14 game seasons

he wasn't asked to catch the ball

disregard post career actions

can you really credibly even post what you posted :mellow:
Emmitt did what OJ did on a per game basis for the same period of time (OJ played 135 regular season games), doubled his TDs over the same number of games, won three rings, and then went on and then racked up another 6,000 yards of offense beyond that at a point when OJ was done playing. Of course I can say it credibly.
GregR covered it well but since you have apparently NOT been following the Emmitt vs Barry thread....Emmitt did what OJ did on a per game basis for the same period of time (OJ played 135 regular season games) same old argument about the quality of the team Smith played on verus quality of OJ's, doubled his TDs over the same number of games see my last point, won three rings so by that argument Dilfer is better than Marino?, and then went on and then racked up another 6,000 yards of offense beyond that at a point when OJ was done playing so he was a compiler who played past his prime?. Of course I can say it credibly.

Smith was a good -> above average back who benefited from playing on a dominate team and staying injury free
How can you knock a guy for staying injury free? Thats part of the package. Its why Emmitt is top 5 back of all time. He doesn't get there if he didn't stay relatively healthy. Championships mean something. Just because the team was good doesn't mean he didn't contribute. He was a large part of the reason why they won 3 titles. Dilfer better than Marino is complete hyperbole.
 

GregR_2

Footballguy
...When you're discussing the BEST EVER, I don't see that you can exclude longevity, championships or ability from the conversation. OJ certainly had elite ability, and is one of the all-time greats, no question. But Emmitt was an all-time great AND had massive longevity AND won multiple rings. He did it all.
I agree longevity is an issue and ability of course is. I disagree with you on championships. If we're rating the success of a player's career, sure they have to be in there.But if we're rating the RB himself, there isn't a lot of information gained about his play, compared to that of his team, by knowing his team won a championship.
 

Jason Wood

Zoo York
I wouldn't have a problem with Dickerson being in the conversation. OJ? No way can I see someone credibly arguing for him over Emmitt.

:no:
dominated his era (Emmitt was not the clear-cut best of his era like OJ)did more with less (talent of teams)

keep in mind they were only 14 game seasons

he wasn't asked to catch the ball

disregard post career actions

can you really credibly even post what you posted :mellow:
Emmitt did what OJ did on a per game basis for the same period of time (OJ played 135 regular season games), doubled his TDs over the same number of games, won three rings, and then went on and then racked up another 6,000 yards of offense beyond that at a point when OJ was done playing. Of course I can say it credibly.
GregR covered it well but since you have apparently NOT been following the Emmitt vs Barry thread....Emmitt did what OJ did on a per game basis for the same period of time (OJ played 135 regular season games) same old argument about the quality of the team Smith played on verus quality of OJ's, doubled his TDs over the same number of games see my last point, won three rings so by that argument Dilfer is better than Marino?, and then went on and then racked up another 6,000 yards of offense beyond that at a point when OJ was done playing so he was a compiler who played past his prime?. Of course I can say it credibly.

Smith was a good -> above average back who benefited from playing on a dominate team and staying injury free
How can you knock a guy for staying injury free? Thats part of the package. Its why Emmitt is top 5 back of all time. He doesn't get there if he didn't stay relatively healthy. Championships mean something. Just because the team was good doesn't mean he didn't contribute. He was a large part of the reason why they won 3 titles. Dilfer better than Marino is complete hyperbole.
Exactly. When people start penalizing players for longevity I pretty much have to jump out of the conversation (kind of like someone debating whether water is wet). The other thing that cracks me up is when people use the quality of a team against a player in an argument. The NFL is a team game through and through, you don't win and have IMMENSE success without quality parts around you. It rarely if ever happens. If you started discounting the value of having great teammates, you would have to remove 2/3rds of the Hall of Fame inductees.
 

Jason Wood

Zoo York
...When you're discussing the BEST EVER, I don't see that you can exclude longevity, championships or ability from the conversation. OJ certainly had elite ability, and is one of the all-time greats, no question. But Emmitt was an all-time great AND had massive longevity AND won multiple rings. He did it all.
I agree longevity is an issue and ability of course is. I disagree with you on championships. If we're rating the success of a player's career, sure they have to be in there.But if we're rating the RB himself, there isn't a lot of information gained about his play, compared to that of his team, by knowing his team won a championship.
Well that's a semantic issue because the NFL historians, and certainly the Hall of Fame voters, ascribe value to winning and championships.
 

GregR_2

Footballguy
...When you're discussing the BEST EVER, I don't see that you can exclude longevity, championships or ability from the conversation. OJ certainly had elite ability, and is one of the all-time greats, no question. But Emmitt was an all-time great AND had massive longevity AND won multiple rings. He did it all.
I agree longevity is an issue and ability of course is. I disagree with you on championships. If we're rating the success of a player's career, sure they have to be in there.But if we're rating the RB himself, there isn't a lot of information gained about his play, compared to that of his team, by knowing his team won a championship.
Well that's a semantic issue because the NFL historians, and certainly the Hall of Fame voters, ascribe value to winning and championships.
It's far from semantic in what we're doing. Hall of Fame is about the career the player had, not necessarily about how good the player was. A great player may have a great career without championships and get in, or a very good player may have a great career because of championships and get in. But championships don't make the very good player into a great player.Here's a perfect illustration of why championships should not be included in something like what we're doing here today. Let's say that we slot every RB from Jim Brown down through Eddie George, wherever George ends up, and we include championships.Now we go back in time and give Kevin Dyson a hard shove in the back so that he goes into the end zone on the last play of the Super Bowl. Titans win, Rams lose. Eddie George has a Super Bowl win now, and Marshal Faulk has zero Super Bowl wins on his resume.If you're arguing that Super Bowls are a valid measure of RB ability, then by changing the actions of one WR on one single play, we've made Eddie George a better RB and we've made Marshall Faulk a worse RB. Obviously that makes no sense.It's one thing to argue about the value that a player brought to his team. But talking about championships doesn't do that, it only looks at what the team as a whole was able to accomplish.
 

Jason Wood

Zoo York
...When you're discussing the BEST EVER, I don't see that you can exclude longevity, championships or ability from the conversation. OJ certainly had elite ability, and is one of the all-time greats, no question. But Emmitt was an all-time great AND had massive longevity AND won multiple rings. He did it all.
I agree longevity is an issue and ability of course is. I disagree with you on championships. If we're rating the success of a player's career, sure they have to be in there.But if we're rating the RB himself, there isn't a lot of information gained about his play, compared to that of his team, by knowing his team won a championship.
Well that's a semantic issue because the NFL historians, and certainly the Hall of Fame voters, ascribe value to winning and championships.
It's far from semantic in what we're doing. Hall of Fame is about the career the player had, not necessarily about how good the player was. A great player may have a great career without championships and get in, or a very good player may have a great career because of championships and get in. But championships don't make the very good player into a great player.Here's a perfect illustration of why championships should not be included in something like what we're doing here today. Let's say that we slot every RB from Jim Brown down through Eddie George, wherever George ends up, and we include championships.Now we go back in time and give Kevin Dyson a hard shove in the back so that he goes into the end zone on the last play of the Super Bowl. Titans win, Rams lose. Eddie George has a Super Bowl win now, and Marshal Faulk has zero Super Bowl wins on his resume.If you're arguing that Super Bowls are a valid measure of RB ability, then by changing the actions of one WR on one single play, we've made Eddie George a better RB and we've made Marshall Faulk a worse RB. Obviously that makes no sense.It's one thing to argue about the value that a player brought to his team. But talking about championships doesn't do that, it only looks at what the team as a whole was able to accomplish.
I should've been more specific in my response Greg, apologies. For this particular thread, you've made it clear championships shouldn't matter, and I fully respect that. I was speaking more holistically, not to imply your parameters for this conversation were flawed in any way. Apologies amigo :thumbup:
 

bostonfred

Footballguy
...When you're discussing the BEST EVER, I don't see that you can exclude longevity, championships or ability from the conversation. OJ certainly had elite ability, and is one of the all-time greats, no question. But Emmitt was an all-time great AND had massive longevity AND won multiple rings. He did it all.
I agree longevity is an issue and ability of course is. I disagree with you on championships. If we're rating the success of a player's career, sure they have to be in there.But if we're rating the RB himself, there isn't a lot of information gained about his play, compared to that of his team, by knowing his team won a championship.
If a player's performance (at any position) was a substantial reason his team won playoff games and ultimately won a championship, I think you have to give him a bump upwards. If their performance was a substantial reason their team lost repeatedly, or if they don't live up to the expectations set by their regular season performance, I think you have to give them a substantial bump downwards. It's not about team success. It's about their individual performances when the pressure is on. Terrell Owens helped the 49ers make that huge comeback against the Giants, and then he came back early from injury to play in the Superbowl and had a great game. He didn't get a ring out of it, but I give him more credit as a player than McNabb, who finally got to a Superbowl after 117 consecutive NFC championship game losses, only to throw up and struggle to run the two minute drill. That's not to say McNabb is a bad QB or Owens is the guy I'd build my team around - just that you have to look at playoff performance as part of the package.
 

Truman

Footballguy
In 1973 OJ Simpson rushed for 2000 yards in 14 games, while being supported by a passing game that threw for less than 1000 yards over the course of the season. There isn't a running back on the list who has had a more impressive season than that.

 

Buddy Ball 2K3

Footballguy
In 1973 OJ Simpson rushed for 2000 yards in 14 games, while being supported by a passing game that threw for less than 1000 yards over the course of the season. There isn't a running back on the list who has had a more impressive season than that.
I always bring up OJ when it comes to the greatest RB ever. The problem is that it always comes down to can the greatest RB ever can't have a short career. IMO Sayers was a better RB than Payton, however Payton's career dwarfs Gales.
 

rzrback77

IBL Representative
In 1973 OJ Simpson rushed for 2000 yards in 14 games, while being supported by a passing game that threw for less than 1000 yards over the course of the season. There isn't a running back on the list who has had a more impressive season than that.
I always bring up OJ when it comes to the greatest RB ever. The problem is that it always comes down to can the greatest RB ever can't have a short career. IMO Sayers was a better RB than Payton, however Payton's career dwarfs Gales.
Awesome posting, but for me when it is all time, you have to factor in longevity some. That spins off another discussion. I voted Walter Payton both first and now as second. Barry will be third, unless he is voted second. I do agree that Gale Sayers was awesome and will probably override my longevity to vote hime in the top ten. I just can't see Emmitt making the top ten, but maybe that's just me.
 

Go Blue

Footballguy
In 1973 OJ Simpson rushed for 2000 yards in 14 games, while being supported by a passing game that threw for less than 1000 yards over the course of the season. There isn't a running back on the list who has had a more impressive season than that.
I always bring up OJ when it comes to the greatest RB ever. The problem is that it always comes down to can the greatest RB ever can't have a short career. IMO Sayers was a better RB than Payton, however Payton's career dwarfs Gales.
Both :goodposting: I think the reason so many of us differ on our votes is because we view the greatest RB ever with different criteria. For me the greatest RB ever to completely different than the greatest career ever. Emmitt would be my #1 for greatest career ever, while he's not even in my top 7 for greatest RB ever. Yards and Rings do factor in to a degree. But with over 50 other guys on each team giving their heart and soul each week, football is the epitome of team sport for me. It's not even about offense or defense. How many games are decided by special teams? Something tells me that whoever wins multiple Rings is playing on some very good TEAMS.
 

Zoomanji

Footballguy
In 1973 OJ Simpson rushed for 2000 yards in 14 games, while being supported by a passing game that threw for less than 1000 yards over the course of the season. There isn't a running back on the list who has had a more impressive season than that.
I always bring up OJ when it comes to the greatest RB ever. The problem is that it always comes down to can the greatest RB ever can't have a short career. IMO Sayers was a better RB than Payton, however Payton's career dwarfs Gales.
Both :goodposting: I think the reason so many of us differ on our votes is because we view the greatest RB ever with different criteria. For me the greatest RB ever to completely different than the greatest career ever. Emmitt would be my #1 for greatest career ever, while he's not even in my top 7 for greatest RB ever. Yards and Rings do factor in to a degree. But with over 50 other guys on each team giving their heart and soul each week, football is the epitome of team sport for me. It's not even about offense or defense. How many games are decided by special teams? Something tells me that whoever wins multiple Rings is playing on some very good TEAMS.
all 3 :goodposting:
 

Sidewinder16

Footballguy
Talk about a close race. 2 votes separating Barry and Payton.
Now only 1. I would suggest a runoff poll with Sanders and Payton as the only options, but I'm not sure the 15 votes that went to other players will make a significant enough difference.
 

GregR_2

Footballguy
Where would Faulk be if he had been used better in St Louis?
I'd even say, where would he be if he hadn't of had the chronic knee injury. Just found this article that details that he was dealing with it his entire career. This is actually a fantasy article warning to be wary of Faulk back in 2001 because of his knee situation.... after which it only got worse for him.http://www.fftoday.com/articles/special/faulks_knee.htm
 

Gawain

Footballguy
I voted for Payton, but I tend to think you have to call this one a tie. I don't think a difference of 3 votes out of 79 total is statistically significant.

 

GregR_2

Footballguy
I voted for Payton, but I tend to think you have to call this one a tie. I don't think a difference of 3 votes out of 79 total is statistically significant.
Edited: I started to ask whether we should skip the RB3 voting, but the more I think about it maybe we should do it just so we have a thread for each slot for anyone coming back to view it later.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top