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
    134

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 #5 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. Bo Jackson 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	36Franco Harris	173	2949	12120	91	4.1	70.1	307	2287	9	7.4	1.8	13.2	14407	83.3	100	90Bo Jackson	38	515	2782	16	5.4	73.2	40	352	2	8.8	1.1	9.3	3134	82.5	18	11Curtis Martin	168	3518	14101	90	4	83.9	484	3329	10	6.9	2.9	19.8	17430	103.8	100	29Adrian Peterson	61	1198	5782	52	4.8	94.8	119	1170	2	9.8	2	19.2	6952	114.0	54	21Gale Sayers	68	991	4956	39	5	72.9	112	1307	9	11.7	1.6	19.2	6263	92.1	48	34Emmitt Smith	226	4409	18355	164	4.2	81.2	515	3224	11	6.3	2.3	14.3	21579	95.5	175	61Thurman Thomas	182	2877	12074	65	4.2	66.3	472	4458	23	9.4	2.6	24.5	16532	90.8	88	50L. 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	7Franco Harris	1	9	0	0	13	35	10	23	19Bo Jackson	0	1	0	0	-	28	-	-	-Curtis Martin	1	5	0	0	4	11	12	8	19Adrian Peterson	2	4	0	0	83	5	54	8	168Gale Sayers	5	4	0	*	118	30	107	-	-Emmitt Smith	4	8	1	0	1	15	1	2	2Thurman Thomas	2	5	1	1	14	47	33	9	31L. 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.

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	21Priest 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	7Marion Motley	106	828	4720	31	5.7	44.5	85	1107	7	13	0.8	10.4	5827	55.0	38	9John 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	34
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	86Priest 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	-	-Marion Motley	2	1	0	*	127	166	169	-	-John Riggins	1	1	0	0	16	53	6	29	12Jim Taylor	1	5	1	*	33	52	15	74	24
 
Last edited by a moderator:

GregR_2

Footballguy
Granted it's still early, but I wasn't expecting anyone to take much of a lead this time. That said, I think Faulk deserves it, he was my pick for #4.

Faulk is someone that I think might have reached some amazing levels if he hadn't had the chronic knee situation he did that cut into his play. While he isn't the best pure runner, I think Faulk is probably in the top few of just about any other meaningful rankings. Picking up the blitz, running routes, hands, yards after catch, nose for the end zone, any of those and I think Faulk probably outranks most of the guys who are left in most if not all of them.

I thought Peyton Manning's comment about him was telling, when he said that having Faulk there was like having a coach standing next to him in the huddle. The guy probably could be a better offensive coordinator than half of them in the league.

I might take Brown, Payton or Sanders ahead of Faulk, but after those 3, if I had to pick a RB for my team, I know that I can do anything with Faulk. I can be a power running team. I can be a pass-first team. There are no limits where I have to play to a certain style. And I can create far better mismatches with him throughout the offense than I can with a Dickerson or an Emmitt Smith. LT is the only other guy I think is getting rated in this range that I think you can say had a similar effect in the passing game, and he's still 12 receiving yards per game behind Faulk's career numbers.

 

GregR_2

Footballguy
I'm still a bit taken aback that Earl didn't garner more attention for number 4.
I think he just a few too many knocks to be getting a lot of votes yet. Most of the RBs we're looking at now have at least one wart. For me, Campbell has longevity issues, with by far the fewest games played amongst the historical backs on the list apart from Gale Sayers and TD (neither of whom would I vote for here). Throw in the almost complete lack of impact in the receiving game and it's hard to take him over the multi-faceted players like Faulk or LT... over someone who had great longevity and also could be a part of the gameplan when you're trailing like Emmitt, or a RB who had similar great rushing production like Dickerson but who ends up with 20 more yards from scrimmage per game and did it longer... I just can't see voting him over those guys, great as he was.
 

Shane Falco

Footballguy
Granted it's still early, but I wasn't expecting anyone to take much of a lead this time. That said, I think Faulk deserves it, he was my pick for #4.Faulk is someone that I think might have reached some amazing levels if he hadn't had the chronic knee situation he did that cut into his play. While he isn't the best pure runner, I think Faulk is probably in the top few of just about any other meaningful rankings. Picking up the blitz, running routes, hands, yards after catch, nose for the end zone, any of those and I think Faulk probably outranks most of the guys who are left in most if not all of them.I thought Peyton Manning's comment about him was telling, when he said that having Faulk there was like having a coach standing next to him in the huddle. The guy probably could be a better offensive coordinator than half of them in the league.I might take Brown, Payton or Sanders ahead of Faulk, but after those 3, if I had to pick a RB for my team, I know that I can do anything with Faulk. I can be a power running team. I can be a pass-first team. There are no limits where I have to play to a certain style. And I can create far better mismatches with him throughout the offense than I can with a Dickerson or an Emmitt Smith. LT is the only other guy I think is getting rated in this range that I think you can say had a similar effect in the passing game, and he's still 12 receiving yards per game behind Faulk's career numbers.
2nd best Ram RB All-timeIMO
 

De Novo

Footballguy
Went with LT over Emmitt and Dickerson. Thinking the rest of mine goes Dickerson->Emmitt->Faulk->Edge->Sayers

 

Go Blue

Footballguy
Remaining RBs in order for me:FaulkTomlinsonBoDickersonSayersCampbell
I just have a really hard time putting Bo Jackson up there when he played only 2 1/2 seasons of games.
:goodposting: I was amazed at what Jackson could do on the field, but please don't forget that he wasn't on the field much in his career. Very small sample size when considering the best of all time. He never had a 1000 yard season. He never even had a season where he carred the ball 175 times.
 

sn0mm1s

Footballguy
:goodposting: I was amazed at what Jackson could do on the field, but please don't forget that he wasn't on the field much in his career. Very small sample size when considering the best of all time. He never had a 1000 yard season. He never even had a season where he carred the ball 175 times.
Exactly, it is like putting Jamaal Charles up there. Bo was a great player but he had the benefit of coming into the season late and he got injured in college and the pros.
 

GregR_2

Footballguy
I'm actually a little surprised that we haven't seen some Adrian Peterson votes yet. Not that I think he's above the guys chosen so far, but looking at how he compares to the other guys we're voting for right now, he's amongst the top in what he's done. Yards per carry he's 3rd amongst the guys up for vote. Yards per game he's second. Yards from scrimmage he's first. He probably has a better total TD per game rate than anyone there.

Now granted, he doesn't have declining years yet to pull down those averages, but I'm just surprised there aren't any votes being thrown his way yet.

 

dgreen

Footballguy
I wonder what the average age of our voters are?
I would hazard to guess older rather than younger. I would never put Jim Brown and Payton over Sanders but that is somewhat common with the older crowd.
Brown is generally considered the #1 regardless of age group. Even if we have older voters here, I doubt they are old enough to really remember the greatness of Jim Brown. For someone to have seen and remember Jim Brown, they'd have to be over 60 now. I doubt we have many people here that old.Also, if we did have older group leading to votes for Jim Brown, they'd also likely be voting for Gale Sayers. That doesn't appear to be the case.I don't think there's a need to add any more names to the polls. If we're only doing the top 10, I think it's pretty much a lock the last 6 are Campbell, Dickerson, Faulk, Sayers, Smith, and Tomlinson in some order. I'm not sure anyone else has much of a chance to crack the top 10.
 

Go Blue

Footballguy
I wonder what the average age of our voters are?
I would hazard to guess older rather than younger. I would never put Jim Brown and Payton over Sanders but that is somewhat common with the older crowd.
I was thinking just the opposite. I was thinking we definitely had a younger (Below 35) crowd in here. Emmitt was getting votes as #1 while Earl Campbell has been getting no love at all. I'm betting most voting never saw Earl run. I'll give Emmitt all the credit in the world for his records, but he could never do what Campbell did. Although not many ever could. Actually the age might even be below 30 since Dickerson doesn't seem to be getting his due as a runner either.
 

sn0mm1s

Footballguy
Brown is generally considered the #1 regardless of age group. Even if we have older voters here, I doubt they are old enough to really remember the greatness of Jim Brown. For someone to have seen and remember Jim Brown, they'd have to be over 60 now. I doubt we have many people here that old.Also, if we did have older group leading to votes for Jim Brown, they'd also likely be voting for Gale Sayers. That doesn't appear to be the case.I don't think there's a need to add any more names to the polls. If we're only doing the top 10, I think it's pretty much a lock the last 6 are Campbell, Dickerson, Faulk, Sayers, Smith, and Tomlinson in some order. I'm not sure anyone else has much of a chance to crack the top 10.
People 60 years old don't remember the greatness of Jim Brown either. They remember the idea of the greatness of Jim Brown. There weren't nearly as many televised games there was no ESPN or anything like it. Brown was a great back he is #3 on my list - but he isn't the GOAT. They also don't have a very critical eye for stats.
I was thinking just the opposite. I was thinking we definitely had a younger (Below 35) crowd in here. Emmitt was getting votes as #1 while Earl Campbell has been getting no love at all. I'm betting most voting never saw Earl run. I'll give Emmitt all the credit in the world for his records, but he could never do what Campbell did. Although not many ever could. Actually the age might even be below 30 since Dickerson doesn't seem to be getting his due as a runner either.
And Campbell could never do what Emmitt did. Campbell had 3 great seasons and was a horrible receiver. That doesn't put you in the top 5. Yes, he was a beast to watch and yes he was unstoppable for 3 years - but again at some point longevity has to come into play. Emmitt has 9000 more rushing yards than Campbell - he doubled Campbell's career. That isn't a trivial amount of production. The fact that Marcus Allen is even on the list makes me think this is an older crowd. I guess we should define what is older. On an internet messageboard I consider 30+ an older crowd.
 

Go Blue

Footballguy
People 60 years old don't remember the greatness of Jim Brown either. They remember the idea of the greatness of Jim Brown. There weren't nearly as many televised games there was no ESPN or anything like it. Brown was a great back he is #3 on my list - but he isn't the GOAT. They also don't have a very critical eye for stats.

I was thinking just the opposite. I was thinking we definitely had a younger (Below 35) crowd in here. Emmitt was getting votes as #1 while Earl Campbell has been getting no love at all. I'm betting most voting never saw Earl run. I'll give Emmitt all the credit in the world for his records, but he could never do what Campbell did. Although not many ever could. Actually the age might even be below 30 since Dickerson doesn't seem to be getting his due as a runner either.
And Campbell could never do what Emmitt did. Campbell had 3 great seasons and was a horrible receiver. That doesn't put you in the top 5. Yes, he was a beast to watch and yes he was unstoppable for 3 years - but again at some point longevity has to come into play. Emmitt has 9000 more rushing yards than Campbell - he doubled Campbell's career. That isn't a trivial amount of production. The fact that Marcus Allen is even on the list makes me think this is an older crowd. I guess we should define what is older. On an internet messageboard I consider 30+ an older crowd.
I agree, no way Campbell could have had the career that Emmitt did. Not with his playing style. I do agree that longevity has to come into play at some point, but it's down the list for me. Not way down, but down enough. I want to know what the RB can do with the ball in his hands. Obviously if you have a good passing game, that opens up running lanes. Then if you have a good O-line, that opens up holes to get to those lanes. A good passing game and good O-line should lead to very good RB stats. In my opinion, Emmitt had a very good passing game and a great O-line for at least half of his career. I can't justify how a top 5 RB of all time could only average 4.2 yards per rush for his career with the talent that he played with. By watching Emmitt play I always had the feeling that a few RB's could be doing just as much if not more with what he had to work with. That's why I can't put him top 5. Did Emmitt ever approach 2000 yards in season? No, he did not. Dickerson went over 2100 for a season.Did Emmitt ever go over 1800 yards in a season? No, he did not. Dickerson did 3 times. How many times did Emmitt go over 2000 yards from scrimmage in a season? 2; Dickerson did that 4 times.I don't believe Dickerson had the supporting cast that Smith had, but he still averaged 4.4 yards per carry for his career. When Dickerson went over 2100 yards he carried that team on his back because the Rams QB's couldn't even complete 50% of their passes that year. That is the sign of a great RB. Emmitt was a very good RB playing on a great team in my opinion.I've said something to this effect a couple times now. If I was voting for best career, it's Emmitt #1. Since I'm voting for best RB, he has to wait awhile.
 

sihaokills

Footballguy
People 60 years old don't remember the greatness of Jim Brown either. They remember the idea of the greatness of Jim Brown. There weren't nearly as many televised games there was no ESPN or anything like it. Brown was a great back he is #3 on my list - but he isn't the GOAT. They also don't have a very critical eye for stats.

I was thinking just the opposite. I was thinking we definitely had a younger (Below 35) crowd in here. Emmitt was getting votes as #1 while Earl Campbell has been getting no love at all. I'm betting most voting never saw Earl run. I'll give Emmitt all the credit in the world for his records, but he could never do what Campbell did. Although not many ever could. Actually the age might even be below 30 since Dickerson doesn't seem to be getting his due as a runner either.
And Campbell could never do what Emmitt did. Campbell had 3 great seasons and was a horrible receiver. That doesn't put you in the top 5. Yes, he was a beast to watch and yes he was unstoppable for 3 years - but again at some point longevity has to come into play. Emmitt has 9000 more rushing yards than Campbell - he doubled Campbell's career. That isn't a trivial amount of production. The fact that Marcus Allen is even on the list makes me think this is an older crowd. I guess we should define what is older. On an internet messageboard I consider 30+ an older crowd.
I agree, no way Campbell could have had the career that Emmitt did. Not with his playing style. I do agree that longevity has to come into play at some point, but it's down the list for me. Not way down, but down enough. I want to know what the RB can do with the ball in his hands. Obviously if you have a good passing game, that opens up running lanes. Then if you have a good O-line, that opens up holes to get to those lanes. A good passing game and good O-line should lead to very good RB stats. In my opinion, Emmitt had a very good passing game and a great O-line for at least half of his career. I can't justify how a top 5 RB of all time could only average 4.2 yards per rush for his career with the talent that he played with. By watching Emmitt play I always had the feeling that a few RB's could be doing just as much if not more with what he had to work with. That's why I can't put him top 5. Did Emmitt ever approach 2000 yards in season? No, he did not. Dickerson went over 2100 for a season.Did Emmitt ever go over 1800 yards in a season? No, he did not. Dickerson did 3 times. How many times did Emmitt go over 2000 yards from scrimmage in a season? 2; Dickerson did that 4 times.I don't believe Dickerson had the supporting cast that Smith had, but he still averaged 4.4 yards per carry for his career. When Dickerson went over 2100 yards he carried that team on his back because the Rams QB's couldn't even complete 50% of their passes that year. That is the sign of a great RB. Emmitt was a very good RB playing on a great team in my opinion.I've said something to this effect a couple times now. If I was voting for best career, it's Emmitt #1. Since I'm voting for best RB, he has to wait awhile.
Great post man
 

Buddy Ball 2K3

Footballguy
I wonder what the average age of our voters are?
I would hazard to guess older rather than younger. I would never put Jim Brown and Payton over Sanders but that is somewhat common with the older crowd.
I was thinking just the opposite. I was thinking we definitely had a younger (Below 35) crowd in here. Emmitt was getting votes as #1 while Earl Campbell has been getting no love at all. I'm betting most voting never saw Earl run. I'll give Emmitt all the credit in the world for his records, but he could never do what Campbell did. Although not many ever could. Actually the age might even be below 30 since Dickerson doesn't seem to be getting his due as a runner either.
Great combination of speed and power
 

jon_mx

Footballguy
Billy Sims lead a hapless Lions team to the playoffs and within a missed FG of beating the 49ers. He may have only played 5 years of which only 3 were close to full seasons, but he carried that team on his shoulders more so than any back in history. Detroits QB that season was Gary Danielson who had a 65 QB rating, threw a ton more interceptions thanTD's. Sims stats wise was better than Faulk over his career in yards per catch and yards per carry and Sims had to do it with zero other offensive weapons on the field.

 

dgreen

Footballguy
Brown is generally considered the #1 regardless of age group. Even if we have older voters here, I doubt they are old enough to really remember the greatness of Jim Brown. For someone to have seen and remember Jim Brown, they'd have to be over 60 now. I doubt we have many people here that old.

Also, if we did have older group leading to votes for Jim Brown, they'd also likely be voting for Gale Sayers. That doesn't appear to be the case.

I don't think there's a need to add any more names to the polls. If we're only doing the top 10, I think it's pretty much a lock the last 6 are Campbell, Dickerson, Faulk, Sayers, Smith, and Tomlinson in some order. I'm not sure anyone else has much of a chance to crack the top 10.
People 60 years old don't remember the greatness of Jim Brown either. They remember the idea of the greatness of Jim Brown. There weren't nearly as many televised games there was no ESPN or anything like it. Brown was a great back he is #3 on my list - but he isn't the GOAT. They also don't have a very critical eye for stats.
What does that mean? Are you saying older people who say Brown is the GOAT do so partly because they don't have a critical eye for stats?
 

rzrback77

IBL Representative
Marshall Faulk is the guy here for me, but I did consider Earl Campbell, who I personally watched in 1977 overcome an outstanding Arkansas team singlehandedly, with an awesome run off a screen pass reception no less. The Tyler Rose was big, fast, had quick feet and would flat out run over people.

However, Marshall managed to put up comparable rushing numbers to Campbell and Marshall added another dimension with his receiving abilities and really increased the running back's involvement in the passing game. He was also deadly near the goal line.

 

sn0mm1s

Footballguy
'dgreen said:
What does that mean? Are you saying older people who say Brown is the GOAT do so partly because they don't have a critical eye for stats?
Partly - the issue generally revolves around older people thinking there is absolutely no difference in quality or style of play between the 1960s and prior vs. the 1980s onward. What I usually see is generally a simplistic summary: 5.2 YPC, 104 YPG, 8/9 years leading the league in rushing = GOAT and then people get offended when I say that isn't quite as impressive as it looks.
 

sn0mm1s

Footballguy
'Go Blue said:
I agree, no way Campbell could have had the career that Emmitt did. Not with his playing style. I do agree that longevity has to come into play at some point, but it's down the list for me. Not way down, but down enough. I want to know what the RB can do with the ball in his hands. Obviously if you have a good passing game, that opens up running lanes. Then if you have a good O-line, that opens up holes to get to those lanes. A good passing game and good O-line should lead to very good RB stats. In my opinion, Emmitt had a very good passing game and a great O-line for at least half of his career. I can't justify how a top 5 RB of all time could only average 4.2 yards per rush for his career with the talent that he played with. By watching Emmitt play I always had the feeling that a few RB's could be doing just as much if not more with what he had to work with. That's why I can't put him top 5. Did Emmitt ever approach 2000 yards in season? No, he did not. Dickerson went over 2100 for a season.Did Emmitt ever go over 1800 yards in a season? No, he did not. Dickerson did 3 times. How many times did Emmitt go over 2000 yards from scrimmage in a season? 2; Dickerson did that 4 times.I don't believe Dickerson had the supporting cast that Smith had, but he still averaged 4.4 yards per carry for his career. When Dickerson went over 2100 yards he carried that team on his back because the Rams QB's couldn't even complete 50% of their passes that year. That is the sign of a great RB. Emmitt was a very good RB playing on a great team in my opinion.I've said something to this effect a couple times now. If I was voting for best career, it's Emmitt #1. Since I'm voting for best RB, he has to wait awhile.
I agree - Emmitt has the luxury of a great cast. If I was drafting a RB and had all the greats available I wouldn't pick him #1. However, using the same sort of logic above would you pick Barry Sanders over say Jim Brown? Brown played with multiple HOFers on his Oline, HOF WRs and RBs, had several HOFers play on D, and had QBs make pro bowl squads. Barry had none of those things yet is only 4 yards less per game than Brown and .2 YPC. Do you think giving Barry 2-3 HOF linemen, a HOF WR, pro bowl level QB, and a couple HOFers on his D would change his stats a little?I just give Emmitt a little more respect than most in regards to how many carries he took and his total rushing yardage numbers.My top 4 in order are:SandersPaytonBrownSmithMy next 4 (which seem to change in order depending on my mood)SimpsonDickersonFaulkTomlinsonMy next 2 are usuallyJoe Perry Earl CampbellGuys that come close but fall a little short for one reason or another:DorsettHarrisSayersTaylorEdgeVan BurenMotleyThomas
 
Last edited by a moderator:

sn0mm1s

Footballguy
Might as well give it to Emmitt and move on. He has more 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th (actually currently tied with OJ) place votes than Faulk.

 

Instinctive

Footballguy
Might as well give it to Emmitt and move on. He has more 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th (actually currently tied with OJ) place votes than Faulk.
But Faulk has the votes now. Perhaps the same people voting for Smith now have been all along while others voted for Brown then Sanders and then Faulk.
 

GregR

Footballguy
I just sat down to make the next poll, so I'm calling the results official where it stands now. It's tied 28-28 with 25.2% of the vote each.

We can just call it a tie, or we can have a run off between the two. I'm leaning towards just calling it a tie though. They were both phenomenal RBs and it's no slight having them share the 5th spot. Thoughts?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Go Blue

Footballguy
'Instinctive said:
'sn0mm1s said:
Might as well give it to Emmitt and move on. He has more 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th (actually currently tied with OJ) place votes than Faulk.
But Faulk has the votes now. Perhaps the same people voting for Smith now have been all along while others voted for Brown then Sanders and then Faulk.
I do agree with this. I doubt Emmitt would get close to 50% of the votes if we had a run-off with just Faulk and Smith. I'm not saying Emmitt wasn't a great RB becuase I think he was, but I get the feeling he's getting pretty lucky here. A few other Rb's are splitting votes while the Emmitt supporters are still voting for their guy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

sn0mm1s

Footballguy
'Instinctive said:
'sn0mm1s said:
Might as well give it to Emmitt and move on. He has more 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th (actually currently tied with OJ) place votes than Faulk.
But Faulk has the votes now. Perhaps the same people voting for Smith now have been all along while others voted for Brown then Sanders and then Faulk.
I do agree with this. I doubt Emmitt would get close to 50% of the votes if we had a run-off with just Faulk and Smith. I'm not saying Emmitt wasn't a great RB becuase I think he was, but I get the feeling he's getting pretty lucky here. A few other Rb's are splitting votes while the Emmitt supporters are still voting for their guy.
How is Emmitt different than Faulk? Faulk wasn't great on the Colts (and Edge performed better as a rookie than Faulk ever did on the Colts). It wasn't until he got a HOF LT, and likely HOFers in Holt, Bruce, and Warner (probably more HOFers on offense than Emmitt will have when all is said and done) that Faulk becomes a great RB. Faulk needed a loaded offense to become the Faulk we think about.
 

Manster

Footballguy
'Instinctive said:
'sn0mm1s said:
Might as well give it to Emmitt and move on. He has more 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th (actually currently tied with OJ) place votes than Faulk.
But Faulk has the votes now. Perhaps the same people voting for Smith now have been all along while others voted for Brown then Sanders and then Faulk.
I do agree with this. I doubt Emmitt would get close to 50% of the votes if we had a run-off with just Faulk and Smith. I'm not saying Emmitt wasn't a great RB becuase I think he was, but I get the feeling he's getting pretty lucky here. A few other Rb's are splitting votes while the Emmitt supporters are still voting for their guy.
How is Emmitt different than Faulk? Faulk wasn't great on the Colts (and Edge performed better as a rookie than Faulk ever did on the Colts). It wasn't until he got a HOF LT, and likely HOFers in Holt, Bruce, and Warner (probably more HOFers on offense than Emmitt will have when all is said and done) that Faulk becomes a great RB. Faulk needed a loaded offense to become the Faulk we think about.
Good point. Why does Emmitt get the "his surrounding cast made him" argument, but you dont hear it with Faulk? cant have it both ways.
 

GregR

Footballguy
'Instinctive said:
'sn0mm1s said:
Might as well give it to Emmitt and move on. He has more 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th (actually currently tied with OJ) place votes than Faulk.
But Faulk has the votes now. Perhaps the same people voting for Smith now have been all along while others voted for Brown then Sanders and then Faulk.
I do agree with this. I doubt Emmitt would get close to 50% of the votes if we had a run-off with just Faulk and Smith. I'm not saying Emmitt wasn't a great RB becuase I think he was, but I get the feeling he's getting pretty lucky here. A few other Rb's are splitting votes while the Emmitt supporters are still voting for their guy.
How is Emmitt different than Faulk? Faulk wasn't great on the Colts (and Edge performed better as a rookie than Faulk ever did on the Colts). It wasn't until he got a HOF LT, and likely HOFers in Holt, Bruce, and Warner (probably more HOFers on offense than Emmitt will have when all is said and done) that Faulk becomes a great RB. Faulk needed a loaded offense to become the Faulk we think about.
Faulk had 1800 yards from scrimmage his rookie season and 2200 yards from scrimmage his final season on the Colts. He made the Pro Bowl three years out of five. Those were average to worst-in-the-league Colts teams that he was doing that with. Despite Faulk having 1500 yards from scrimmage they had the worst record and got the #1 pick they used on Peyton Manning. They also used a bunch of picks on the O-line as Faulk was on his way out, putting together the line that Edge would end up running behind. The line Faulk was running behind in Indy wasn't nearly as good.Yes the Rams had great offensive personnel and Faulk's best years were there, but I don't see how anyone can say Faulk wasn't great on the Colts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

sn0mm1s

Footballguy
Faulk had 1800 yards from scrimmage his rookie season and 2200 yards from scrimmage his final season on the Colts. He made the Pro Bowl three years out of five. Those were average to worst-in-the-league Colts teams that he was doing that with. Despite Faulk having 1500 yards from scrimmage they had the worst record and got the #1 pick they used on Peyton Manning. They also used a bunch of picks on the O-line as Faulk was on his way out, putting together the line that Edge would end up running behind. The line Faulk was running behind in Indy wasn't nearly as good.Yes the Rams had great offensive personnel and Faulk's best years were there, but I don't see how anyone can say Faulk wasn't great on the Colts.
Edge put up huge numbers the year after Faulk left - and that wasn't because all of a sudden the Colts learned how to block.Faulk couldn't run on the Colts period. Using YFS tries to hide what a poor runner he was. He averaged 1064 rushing yards per season with a dreadful 3.8 YPC - that is Reggie Bushesque as far as YPC goes. His next 3 years on the Rams he averaged 1374 yards and 5.4 YPC. Faulk was always a great receiver - but it took a HOFers surrounding him to make him a good runner. There is night and day difference between Faulk on the Colts and Faulk on the Rams. Also, pro bowls are popularity contests everyone should know this by now. Faulk made 0 all pros his 5 years on the Colts.
 

GregR

Footballguy
Faulk had 1800 yards from scrimmage his rookie season and 2200 yards from scrimmage his final season on the Colts. He made the Pro Bowl three years out of five. Those were average to worst-in-the-league Colts teams that he was doing that with. Despite Faulk having 1500 yards from scrimmage they had the worst record and got the #1 pick they used on Peyton Manning. They also used a bunch of picks on the O-line as Faulk was on his way out, putting together the line that Edge would end up running behind. The line Faulk was running behind in Indy wasn't nearly as good.Yes the Rams had great offensive personnel and Faulk's best years were there, but I don't see how anyone can say Faulk wasn't great on the Colts.
Edge put up huge numbers the year after Faulk left - and that wasn't because all of a sudden the Colts learned how to block.Faulk couldn't run on the Colts period. Using YFS tries to hide what a poor runner he was. He averaged 1064 rushing yards per season with a dreadful 3.8 YPC - that is Reggie Bushesque as far as YPC goes. His next 3 years on the Rams he averaged 1374 yards and 5.4 YPC. Faulk was always a great receiver - but it took a HOFers surrounding him to make him a good runner. There is night and day difference between Faulk on the Colts and Faulk on the Rams. Also, pro bowls are popularity contests everyone should know this by now. Faulk made 0 all pros his 5 years on the Colts.
"Using YFS tries to hide what a poor runner he was." :confused: If you're using normally available stats to evaluate a RB, is there a better one than yards from scrimmage for judging a RB's contribution to his team? I don't think there is. YFS per game is the first stat I look at when judging any of these players in this voting. The single stat I wasn't able to provide that I wish I could have is where each ranks in YFS per game all-time, because PFR doesn't have rankings for that and I'd have to do it for every RB in their database to generate it. Go look through this series of threads and you'll see me reference yards from scrimmage multiple times.I'm not sure where you're going with this, but I'll take a guy who can put up 1800 and 2200 yards from scrimmage over a guy who contributes 1600 but 1500 of it is rushing. Wouldn't you?On the Colts run blocking, who was the line they found success with? Tarik Glenn and Adam Meadows at tackle, both drafted in 97. Jeff Saturday at center drafted in 99. Ryan Diem and Rick DeMulling drafted at guard in 2001. And let's not forget the contribution to Edge's success of a guy named Peyton who forced defenses to focus on stopping the pass. He definitely helped out Faulk's numbers in Faulk's final season there, but Peyton in his rookie year was still only a glimpse of what he would become in year two and beyond. Good yards and TDs his rookie year, but also a 56.7% completion rate and he threw 28 interceptions.The Colts teammates that Edge played with were far superior to the ones Faulk played with.
 

Chase Stuart

Footballguy
Faulk had 1800 yards from scrimmage his rookie season and 2200 yards from scrimmage his final season on the Colts. He made the Pro Bowl three years out of five. Those were average to worst-in-the-league Colts teams that he was doing that with. Despite Faulk having 1500 yards from scrimmage they had the worst record and got the #1 pick they used on Peyton Manning. They also used a bunch of picks on the O-line as Faulk was on his way out, putting together the line that Edge would end up running behind. The line Faulk was running behind in Indy wasn't nearly as good.

Yes the Rams had great offensive personnel and Faulk's best years were there, but I don't see how anyone can say Faulk wasn't great on the Colts.
Edge put up huge numbers the year after Faulk left - and that wasn't because all of a sudden the Colts learned how to block.Faulk couldn't run on the Colts period. Using YFS tries to hide what a poor runner he was. He averaged 1064 rushing yards per season with a dreadful 3.8 YPC - that is Reggie Bushesque as far as YPC goes. His next 3 years on the Rams he averaged 1374 yards and 5.4 YPC. Faulk was always a great receiver - but it took a HOFers surrounding him to make him a good runner. There is night and day difference between Faulk on the Colts and Faulk on the Rams.

Also, pro bowls are popularity contests everyone should know this by now. Faulk made 0 all pros his 5 years on the Colts.
"Using YFS tries to hide what a poor runner he was." :confused:

If you're using normally available stats to evaluate a RB, is there a better one than yards from scrimmage for judging a RB's contribution to his team? I don't think there is. YFS per game is the first stat I look at when judging any of these players in this voting. The single stat I wasn't able to provide that I wish I could have is where each ranks in YFS per game all-time, because PFR doesn't have rankings for that and I'd have to do it for every RB in their database to generate it. Go look through this series of threads and you'll see me reference yards from scrimmage multiple times.
At PFR, you can do a good fudge. With this link, I found the top 100 players in YFS with at least 5,000 rushing yards. Then I dropped that into excel, and divided YFS by games played. Obviously this will be biased against players who played a bunch of games where they weren't starters, but....
Code:
Rk	From	To	G	Ryds	YScm	YFS/G	Player1	1957	1965	118	12312	14811	126	Jim Brown*2	1980	1984	60	5106	7178	120	Billy Sims3	1989	1998	153	15269	18190	119	Barry Sanders*4	2007	2010	61	5782	6952	114	Adrian Peterson5	1995	2001	78	7607	8887	114	Terrell Davis6	2001	2010	156	13404	17727	114	LaDainian Tomlinson7	1975	1987	190	16726	21264	112	Walter Payton*8	1994	2005	176	12279	19154	109	Marshall Faulk*9	2004	2010	100	7948	10618	106	Steven Jackson10	2002	2010	113	9923	11941	106	Clinton Portis11	1999	2009	148	12246	15610	105	Edgerrin James12	1983	1993	146	13259	15396	105	Eric Dickerson*13	1995	2005	168	14101	17430	104	Curtis Martin14	2005	2010	84	6414	8697	104	Frank Gore15	1992	2001	144	10643	14891	103	Ricky Watters16	1997	2006	154	10449	15632	102	Tiki Barber17	1979	1986	87	5986	8633	99	William Andrews18	1969	1979	135	11236	13378	99	O.J. Simpson*19	1997	2007	113	8172	11134	99	Priest Holmes20	1990	2004	226	18355	21579	95	Emmitt Smith*21	2006	2010	77	5248	7347	95	Maurice Jones-Drew22	2000	2009	131	10607	12486	95	Jamal Lewis23	1977	1988	173	12739	16293	94	Tony Dorsett*24	1999	2010	131	9565	12088	92	Ricky Williams25	1998	2010	153	11695	14079	92	Fred Taylor26	1988	2000	182	12074	16532	91	Thurman Thomas*27	2003	2010	84	6221	7594	90	Larry Johnson28	1996	2004	141	10441	12668	90	Eddie George29	2000	2008	123	9453	10973	89	Shaun Alexander30	1978	1985	115	9407	10213	89	Earl Campbell*31	1972	1980	111	6534	9737	88	Lydell Mitchell32	1997	2006	150	11241	13154	88	Corey Dillon33	1977	1985	107	6789	9291	87	Wilbert Montgomery34	2002	2010	121	6335	10275	85	Brian Westbrook35	1997	2008	181	10967	15306	85	Warrick Dunn36	1973	1980	109	5950	9106	84	Chuck Foreman37	1972	1984	173	12120	14407	83	Franco Harris*38	1983	1990	100	6844	8311	83	Curt Warner39	1993	2000	98	6818	8110	83	Robert Smith40	1976	1984	110	6702	9025	82	Chuck Muncie41	1981	1987	92	7176	7544	82	George Rogers42	1969	1976	102	5875	8360	82	Larry Brown43	1998	2009	148	9205	12088	82	Ahman Green44	2001	2008	97	6096	7816	81	Deuce McAllister45	1993	2004	126	7966	10031	80	Garrison Hearst46	1982	1997	222	12243	17654	80	Marcus Allen*47	1983	1993	165	8189	13100	79	Roger Craig48	1994	2001	88	5336	6981	79	Jamal Anderson49	2001	2007	89	6086	7037	79	Travis Henry50	1990	1997	104	6897	8206	79	Rodney Hampton51	1993	2005	192	13662	15111	79	Jerome Bettis52	1991	2001	130	8614	10215	79	Terry Allen53	1958	1967	132	8597	10353	78	Jim Taylor*54	1956	1967	143	5174	11213	78	Lenny Moore*55	1986	1993	116	6166	8929	77	Neal Anderson56	1972	1981	109	6578	8377	77	Lawrence McCutcheon57	1960	1968	110	5138	8452	77	Clem Daniels58	1971	1985	175	11352	13442	77	John Riggins*59	1981	1992	144	8074	11035	77	Freeman McNeil60	1977	1986	108	6378	8194	76	Wendell Tyler61	1982	1991	129	8188	9704	75	Gerald Riggs62	1995	2002	101	5841	7556	75	James Stewart63	1967	1975	117	6323	8741	75	Floyd Little*64	1980	1988	102	5356	7555	74	Joe Cribbs65	2000	2010	164	10113	12093	74	Thomas Jones66	1981	1990	129	6008	9508	74	James Wilder67	1994	2004	147	7097	10808	74	Charlie Garner68	1997	2006	114	5785	8372	73	Duce Staley69	1979	1992	182	10273	13335	73	Ottis Anderson70	1966	1973	104	5481	7491	72	Mike Garrett71	1981	1992	162	7962	11583	72	James Brooks72	1961	1968	107	6217	7527	70	Don Perkins73	1964	1973	136	7274	9555	70	Leroy Kelly*74	1974	1981	100	5598	7013	70	Delvin Williams75	1986	1997	187	8225	13084	70	Herschel Walker76	1973	1982	107	5453	7358	69	Sam Cunningham77	2004	2010	105	6167	7214	69	Willis McGahee78	1985	1993	99	5123	6725	68	Kevin Mack79	1996	2006	143	8052	9546	67	Stephen Davis80	1948	1963	181	9723	11744	65	Joe Perry*81	1986	1995	149	5006	9662	65	John L. Williams82	1960	1969	112	5417	7258	65	**** Bass83	1977	1984	110	5626	6960	63	Pete Johnson84	1965	1974	132	6105	8289	63	Ken Willard85	1984	1997	211	8261	12866	61	Earnest Byner86	1968	1979	146	8081	8901	61	Larry Csonka*87	1976	1986	152	7378	9238	61	Mike Pruitt88	1974	1983	136	6651	8234	61	Mark van Eeghen89	1998	2008	151	5627	9139	61	Michael Pittman90	1997	2005	131	6881	7863	60	Antowain Smith91	1952	1964	143	5281	8528	60	Hugh McElhenny*92	1990	2000	162	7696	9631	59	Chris Warren93	1954	1966	143	6803	8281	58	John Henry Johnson*94	1969	1981	156	6083	8944	57	Calvin Hill95	1955	1966	130	5797	7385	57	Rick Casares96	1973	1984	158	5672	8741	55	Greg Pruitt97	1982	1990	127	5427	6729	53	Sammy Winder98	1952	1966	171	5173	8458	49	Ollie Matson*99	1996	2006	158	5088	7372	47	Mike Alstott100	1961	1974	194	5838	9021	47	Bill Brown
 

sn0mm1s

Footballguy
'Greg Russell said:
"Using YFS tries to hide what a poor runner he was." :confused: If you're using normally available stats to evaluate a RB, is there a better one than yards from scrimmage for judging a RB's contribution to his team? I don't think there is. YFS per game is the first stat I look at when judging any of these players in this voting. The single stat I wasn't able to provide that I wish I could have is where each ranks in YFS per game all-time, because PFR doesn't have rankings for that and I'd have to do it for every RB in their database to generate it. Go look through this series of threads and you'll see me reference yards from scrimmage multiple times.I'm not sure where you're going with this, but I'll take a guy who can put up 1800 and 2200 yards from scrimmage over a guy who contributes 1600 but 1500 of it is rushing. Wouldn't you?On the Colts run blocking, who was the line they found success with? Tarik Glenn and Adam Meadows at tackle, both drafted in 97. Jeff Saturday at center drafted in 99. Ryan Diem and Rick DeMulling drafted at guard in 2001. And let's not forget the contribution to Edge's success of a guy named Peyton who forced defenses to focus on stopping the pass. He definitely helped out Faulk's numbers in Faulk's final season there, but Peyton in his rookie year was still only a glimpse of what he would become in year two and beyond. Good yards and TDs his rookie year, but also a 56.7% completion rate and he threw 28 interceptions.The Colts teammates that Edge played with were far superior to the ones Faulk played with.
The reason I don't use YFS as a high benchmark is that by doing that you are essentially saying 20-30 RBs are more important than Jerry Rice. YFS and YPT are heavily skewed in favor of a RB that catches passes. Someone like Larry Centers has a higher career YPT than Jim Brown because most of his touches were passes. Rushing yards are much more difficult to come by so when a RB can maintain a high rushing average and gain a lot of yards I prefer that over a RB that struggles running but is involved more in the passing game. In Faulk's case he was a horrible runner on the Colts but caught passes. If he was such a great HOF RB the Colts wouldn't have traded him for essentially nothing. Faulk needed the right system and talent surrounding him to be the Faulk we think of. Faulk needed space to be able to run - and he wasn't one that could consistently create that space (unlike Payton, Sanders, and OJ) Similarly, passing yards are much easier to come by than receiving or rushing yards. I would take a WR that averaged 150 yards per game receiving over a QB averaging 250 yards per game passing. There is juggling that needs to be done YFS, YPT, RuY, and YPC when judging how good a RB is - else why would you have picked Walter Payton over Barry Sanders?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top