One Helluva RB! (1 Viewer)

[KoolKat]

Anyone saying that OJ had no help apparently did not watch him play. Although the entire team was not great(they did make the playoffs in 74), he did benefit from one of the best O-Lines in football history. They even had a nickname, "The Electric Company." You know, because they created electricity for the Juice. Funny how you "old timers" cannot seem to remember that. I watched OJ play, and in my opinion he is no more than a Top 10 back. Which is saying a lot considering how many RBs have come and gone.

You are correct - one of OJ's greatest contributions to the game was his insistance on giving credit to his OL.. He helped put the big guys on the map for the casual fan.But you error in thinking that this was all there was to it. His 2000 yard season (in 14 games) was done with Joe Fergusen at QB.........IN HIS ROOKIE YEAR!!!! I do not think even LT2 and Sanders compared to him and his unique size/spead/power combination. People put Payton and Smith at the top. Not even close IMHO. Especially Smith. And compared to OJ Sanders was a scat back like Murcury Morris.

Someone may be temped to think he was a finesse guy, but he took some serious pounding in the manner of the 'old timers'. Time and crime have diminished his standing in the RB 'greatest' lists, but for those who watched him no one compared.

While this is partly true (Jim Brown was the first RB I can remember who deflected most credit to his OL), that line earned their respect. Joe DeLamielleure did not make it to the HoF because OJ said he was good. Reginald McKenzie did not have a ten year NFL career and get inducted into the College Football HoF because OJ said he was good. Dave Foley did not have a 9 year NFL career and get elected to the Pro Bowl one year simply b/c OJ said he deserved credit. Mike Montler was not one of the best OL to ever come from my beloved CU Buffs, and have a 9 year NFL career b/c he was hyped by the Juice. Donnie Green was not great, but was serviceable and had a 7 year career. Certainly, OJ was not running behind a bunch of slouches. They earned the credit they got, and although OJ helped increase that credit, he was by no means the reason for it in the first place.Although it is true abotu Ferguson being a rookie, Joe Ferguson was a great player in his own right. He had a 17 Year NFL Career and is now on the Bills' Wall of Fame.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

Orenthal's SLASHING moves were the stuff of legend.

http://partmule.com/blog16/wp-content/uplo...knife-set-b.jpg



.

 

[DoubleG]

Brown

Payton

Dickerson

Sanders

Tomlinson

Smith

Faulk

Campbell

Simpson

Put Dickserson down with the Faulk and bump Simpson up to the middle group (at the top of it) then your list is solid. Dickerson wasn't even one of the top RBs of his time + he put the ball on the ground too often. Sanders and OJ could be right there at the top of the 2nd "tier". I actually think Emmitt get's too much credit when his offensive line was a large reason for much of his yardage. Payton and Sanders racked up yards on terrible teams with few other options - teams KNEW Payton/Sanders were going to be given the ball. Heck, the joke about the Bears in the late 70's was their offensive game plan - "Payton, Payton, Payton, Punt". I'd even consider putting Payton ahead of Brown, simply because Payton was one of the most complete RBs ever. He could run, block, catch, juke, run through guys, stiff arm, even throw the ball - and was willing to do all of it.

This is a complete falsehood

Umm, no it's not. Instead of spewing useless one-line contrariness, I will actually back up my point.Payton and Sanders careers overlapped that of Dickerson. Sanders fumbled less and was more elusive than Dickerson and many would argue that Payton was the most complete back to ever play the game. So, no, Dickerson was not one of the top backs of his time - Payton and Sanders were both better.

 

[KoolKat]

Brown

Payton

Dickerson

Sanders

Tomlinson

Smith

Faulk

Campbell

Simpson

Put Dickserson down with the Faulk and bump Simpson up to the middle group (at the top of it) then your list is solid. Dickerson wasn't even one of the top RBs of his time + he put the ball on the ground too often. Sanders and OJ could be right there at the top of the 2nd "tier". I actually think Emmitt get's too much credit when his offensive line was a large reason for much of his yardage. Payton and Sanders racked up yards on terrible teams with few other options - teams KNEW Payton/Sanders were going to be given the ball. Heck, the joke about the Bears in the late 70's was their offensive game plan - "Payton, Payton, Payton, Punt". I'd even consider putting Payton ahead of Brown, simply because Payton was one of the most complete RBs ever. He could run, block, catch, juke, run through guys, stiff arm, even throw the ball - and was willing to do all of it.

This is a complete falsehood

Umm, no it's not. Instead of spewing useless one-line contrariness, I will actually back up my point.Payton and Sanders careers overlapped that of Dickerson. Sanders fumbled less and was more elusive than Dickerson and many would argue that Payton was the most complete back to ever play the game. So, no, Dickerson was not one of the top backs of his time - Payton and Sanders were both better.

1983-1987 Dickerson was the best RB in football in my opinion. Payton was getting old, and I don't think Barry was even in the league yet.

 

[kethnaab]

After piling up 4 seasons > 370 carries (Something no other RB in NFL history has done...nor even come close to doing)

Curtis Martin and Emmitt both had 4 seasons of >364 carries.

*sigh* oh lord, if we're going to get specific, let's get specific.1) Emmitt Smith's top season was 377 carries. Eric Dickerson had 4 seasons with more carries.2) Curtis Martin's top season was 371 carries. Eric Dickerson had 4 seasons with more carries.3) Dickerson has had 3 seasons > 388 carries. No other RB has had more than 1. Dickerson's top 4 seasons - 7393 yards rushing, 8518 YFS. Emmitt Smith's top 4 seasons - 6535 yards rushing, 7921 YFS.Curtis Martin's top 4 seasons - 6161 yards rushing, 7246 YFS (yes, that's less than Dickerson's rushing yards alone)Let's not pretend that these 3 are close. Incidentallyickerson's best 4 seasons - 7383 yards rushing, 8518 YFSLT2's best 4 seasons - 6617 yards rushing, 8814 YFSBarry's best 4 seasons - 7036 yards rushing, 8277 YFSSweetness' best 4 seasons - 6697 yards rushing, 8235 YFS

Payton and Sanders careers overlapped that of Dickerson. Sanders fumbled less and was more elusive than Dickerson and many would argue that Payton was the most complete back to ever play the game. So, no, Dickerson was not one of the top backs of his time - Payton and Sanders were both better.

So Dickerson, despite outrushing Payton 5 of the 6 seasons where their careers overlapped, wasn't as good, and Sanders, who came along at the very end of Dickerson's career and who many consider to be the best RB of all time, might've also been better.So that means Dickerson wasn't one of the best backs of his time? You are reaching quite far with your logic.It's a typically difficult argument overall. Comparing any modern day runner with Jim Brown is silly if for no reason other than the difference in the NFL then versus now. Jim Brown was 232 lbs at a time when linemen were 240 lbs. Hell, the entire Steelers' offensive line during the 1970s was about 255. There's also that matter of "12-team league" versus "28 team league" as well as the way that colleges and the NFL developed talent then versus now, etc. I'd rather not even consider players before the merger when discussing these issues simply because things are so drastically different.In modern terms, comparing runners and overall talent levels, if you saw Dickerson play and you don't think he belongs as one of the best over the last 30 years, then I simply don't know what to say. He had a combination of power and speed that was simply not matched. There's a reason he was SO dominant as a RB during his peak years and it sure as hell wasn't his dominant offense. Yes, Barry Sanders was more elusive than Dickerson, but Sanders was more elusive than EVERYONE. He also was pretty weak at running between the tackles and was hardly a guy you'd want blocking. Sweetness is, IMHO, the best all-around RB I've ever seen. Anyone who lists him #1 will get no argument from me.If I had to choose 1 RB, in his prime, to have on my team, Sanders wouldn't make top 5 simply because of his "boom/bust" tendencies. There's a reason he has the record for most TDs > 50 yards as well as the record for most runs for losses.My list:1) Sweetness2) Dickerson3) Earl Campbell 4) LT2 5) Priest Holmes6) Barry SandersI took into consideration1) Strength of team - a strong offensive line + a strong passing attack = easier running2) Overall usefulness - running for short yardage (i.e. 3rd and short), red zone rushing, capability of breaking the long one, catching out of the backfield, blocking, etc.3) Dominance - don't care how you dominated, just how MUCH did you dominate?4) Offensive reliance - was the offense built around you or did it have tons of other weapons (Marshall Faulk suffers a bit, ONLY a bit in comparison due to this)5) Offensive scheme - was the offensive scheme a large reason for your dominance, or could you have been a brute in any type of systemAnyway, just my $0.02. No runner was perfect so holes in everyone's game can be found. The above is simply how my eyes saw things. Before people start posting Barry Sanders' highlight videos, don't bother. I already have them downloaded to my system and I love to watch them. But if you had $1mil riding on a Detroit game, and Detroit had the ball at the 2 yard line, Barry would not be the runner to put into the ballgame. and no comments about how weak Detroit's passing offense was. He had Perriman, Moore and Morton on his team for 5 of his 10 seasons, and they put together 3 seasons consecutive with 2x 1000-yard receivers on the team during the season, and 2 other seasons, they almost had it (800 or 900 yards for 1 of the receivers, 1000+ for the others)Compare to what Payton and Dickerson had. Anyway, it's late and way past my bedtime, so I'm going to drag my old bones to bed. Good discussion.

 

[DoubleG]

So Dickerson, despite outrushing Payton 5 of the 6 seasons where their careers overlapped, wasn't as good, and Sanders, who came along at the very end of Dickerson's career and who many consider to be the best RB of all time, might've also been better.

So that means Dickerson wasn't one of the best backs of his time? You are reaching quite far with your logic.

It's a typically difficult argument overall. Comparing any modern day runner with Jim Brown is silly if for no reason other than the difference in the NFL then versus now. Jim Brown was 232 lbs at a time when linemen were 240 lbs. Hell, the entire Steelers' offensive line during the 1970s was about 255. There's also that matter of "12-team league" versus "28 team league" as well as the way that colleges and the NFL developed talent then versus now, etc. I'd rather not even consider players before the merger when discussing these issues simply because things are so drastically different.

In modern terms, comparing runners and overall talent levels, if you saw Dickerson play and you don't think he belongs as one of the best over the last 30 years, then I simply don't know what to say. He had a combination of power and speed that was simply not matched. There's a reason he was SO dominant as a RB during his peak years and it sure as hell wasn't his dominant offense. Yes, Barry Sanders was more elusive than Dickerson, but Sanders was more elusive than EVERYONE. He also was pretty weak at running between the tackles and was hardly a guy you'd want blocking. Sweetness is, IMHO, the best all-around RB I've ever seen. Anyone who lists him #1 will get no argument from me.

If I had to choose 1 RB, in his prime, to have on my team, Sanders wouldn't make top 5 simply because of his "boom/bust" tendencies. There's a reason he has the record for most TDs > 50 yards as well as the record for most runs for losses.

My list:

1) Sweetness

2) Dickerson

3) Earl Campbell

4) LT2

5) Priest Holmes

6) Barry Sanders

I took into consideration

1) Strength of team - a strong offensive line + a strong passing attack = easier running

2) Overall usefulness - running for short yardage (i.e. 3rd and short), red zone rushing, capability of breaking the long one, catching out of the backfield, blocking, etc.

3) Dominance - don't care how you dominated, just how MUCH did you dominate?

4) Offensive reliance - was the offense built around you or did it have tons of other weapons (Marshall Faulk suffers a bit, ONLY a bit in comparison due to this)

5) Offensive scheme - was the offensive scheme a large reason for your dominance, or could you have been a brute in any type of system

Anyway, just my $0.02. No runner was perfect so holes in everyone's game can be found. The above is simply how my eyes saw things.

Before people start posting Barry Sanders' highlight videos, don't bother. I already have them downloaded to my system and I love to watch them. But if you had $1mil riding on a Detroit game, and Detroit had the ball at the 2 yard line, Barry would not be the runner to put into the ballgame.

and no comments about how weak Detroit's passing offense was. He had Perriman, Moore and Morton on his team for 5 of his 10 seasons, and they put together 3 seasons consecutive with 2x 1000-yard receivers on the team during the season, and 2 other seasons, they almost had it (800 or 900 yards for 1 of the receivers, 1000+ for the others)

Compare to what Payton and Dickerson had. Anyway, it's late and way past my bedtime, so I'm going to drag my old bones to bed. Good discussion.

First off, the first bolded part is incorrect. 34 WAS perfect Second, the fact that Sanders wasn't in the game at 2 yard line is more an indictment of his moronic coach than his ability. If you ask any defensive player in the 90's which RB they would least like to have had to solo tackle in the open field, Sanders would have been at the top of the list. Also, the "Detroit had good passing numbers" is actually more to support the point. They had one of the best runners of all time in their backfield, yet insisted on throwing the ball - how many playoff appearances during that span?? Yep - brilliant coaching staff there.

I am NOT saying (nor have I said anywhere in this thread that Dickerson wasn't a great runner or even one of the best - just that he wasn't in the top 3, maybe not even top 5.

My list would be:

1) Payton - probably the most complete back to ever play the game

2) Brown - dominant. Period.

3) Sanders - one of the most elusive backs ever. Would have likely threatened many records had Fonts not been such an idiot and Sanders wouldn't have retired early.

4) Juice - for many reasons posted and the point of the thread.

5) Emmit, Campbell, Dickerson, Faulk - all could be argued for here.

One cosideration you didn't take into account (which was mentioned earlier) was that of all the backs listed Dickerson had the propensity to put the ball on the ground more than any of them. This takes him down a little as well, imho. Dickerson was a very good to great RB, just not top 3 or 4 (maybe not even top 5 or 6).

 

[ShadowPhunk]

In other news...the ocean is wet.

I know you've been dying to use this line, but you need to work on your timing. 0.8/10. He is hardly mentioned in the top 5 of NFL backs on this board.Most people under the age of 30 have no idea how great OJ was. He was size, speed, and power. Top 3 College back of all time. ( Campbell and Walker )

I'd say OJ is the RB who get the least respect when the topic of greatest RBs is brought up. Maybe his off-field issues has something to do with that. All I know is that it seems he is a pretty convenient guy to omit on a lot of lists.

That's what happens what you kill 2 people - nobody wants to be your friend

 

[ShadowPhunk]

D-Mac sure runs a lot like O.J........

Hardly - I don't see D-Mac breaking ANY tackles, just running through super open holes that his O-Line made for him at USC

 

[daddymag]

IMO all this conjecture points out something to me... all the shock and amazement the way fans freak out about ADP's play and his skills. That's what it looks like when you see a RB who is the real thing. And back in the day, we used to see all the greats who have been listed above.

Colleges today are cranking out athletes with more speed, more power, more fitness... but it's becoming more rare to find that guy who's the real thing, the vision, burst and desire.

That's why we see so many RBCCs, star RBs won't get overpaid, front offices see them as interchangeable... today's RBs are just a bunch of guys, with rare exceptions like Peterson and Tomlinson.

 

[kethnaab]

First off, the first bolded part is incorrect. 34 WAS perfect

*chuckles* can't really argue with that fact. You'll never hear me rail against anyone who gives props to Sweetness

Second, the fact that Sanders wasn't in the game at 2 yard line is more an indictment of his moronic coach than his ability. If you ask any defensive player in the 90's which RB they would least like to have had to solo tackle in the open field, Sanders would have been at the top of the list. sure, but at the 2 yard line, there isn't any open field Also, the "Detroit had good passing numbers" is actually more to support the point. They had one of the best runners of all time in their backfield, yet insisted on throwing the ball - how many playoff appearances during that span?? Yep - brilliant coaching staff there. their defense was horrible, and you can't argue with the results their offense got. Take a look at what happens with the 'greatest' offenses. They never win the big one. Defenses win championships. I'm certainly NOT going to pimp Fontes as being a genius, what I'm saying, however, is that a lot of the arguments that get posted regarding Barry simply don't fly

I am NOT saying (nor have I said anywhere in this thread that Dickerson wasn't a great runner or even one of the best - just that he wasn't in the top 3, maybe not even top 5. certainly a fair argument

My list would be:

1) Payton - probably the most complete back to ever play the game

2) Brown - dominant. Period.

3) Sanders - one of the most elusive backs ever. Would have likely threatened many records had Fonts not been such an idiot and Sanders wouldn't have retired early.

4) Juice - for many reasons posted and the point of the thread.

5) Emmit, Campbell, Dickerson, Faulk - all could be argued for here. no complaints on this list. There are arguments that can be posted for or against each of the guys

One cosideration you didn't take into account (which was mentioned earlier) was that of all the backs listed Dickerson had the propensity to put the ball on the ground more than any of them. This takes him down a little as well, imho. Dickerson was a very good to great RB, just not top 3 or 4 (maybe not even top 5 or 6). Dickerson put the ball on the ground SLIGHTLY more, but not enough, IMHO, to be a big deal. Remember, on a per-touch basis or a per-carry basis, he fumbled barely more than your top 2 guys. We're talking a difference of 2 or 3 carries/touches more often. He just happened to be a workhorse that no one else really could compare to.

I have no issues with someone not thinking that he was 'the man'. It just seems that Dickerson gets disrespected more than most other elite RBs. Everyone makes a big deal about AD, yet take a look at who he gets compared to....#29.

IMO all this conjecture points out something to me... all the shock and amazement the way fans freak out about ADP's play and his skills. That's what it looks like when you see a RB who is the real thing. And back in the day, we used to see all the greats who have been listed above.

Colleges today are cranking out athletes with more speed, more power, more fitness... but it's becoming more rare to find that guy who's the real thing, the vision, burst and desire.

That's why we see so many RBCCs, star RBs won't get overpaid, front offices see them as interchangeable... today's RBs are just a bunch of guys, with rare exceptions like Peterson and Tomlinson.

not a bad point. The Terrell Davis/Shannie/Broncos RB "situation" through their SB wins and the years following really opened up the eyes and changed the minds of the coaching staffs across the NFL I think. TD was the 'latest/greatest' example of a RB who got overworked, and Shannie's success running with nobody's demonstrated that, in large part, RBs truly ARE exchangeable. If a guy like Addai even CONSIDERS talking 'contract', then he'd better be prepared to get tossed to the curb, because Indy could fill that slot with damn near anyone and get huge production, at least as good as Addai. A guy like Addai is an above-average talent, at best. The # of truly 'awesome' RBs in the NFL is neglible. Their success, for the most part, depends far more on the team and the scheme rather than what is under their own hood, talent-wise

 

[daddymag]

HUGE caveat - RBs are interchangeable IF you have the right scheme and coaching. We shouldn't even talk about Shanahan this and Shanahan that, it's ALEX GIBBS. The FALCONS ran the ball like maniacs when Gibbs was coaching them.