The way that people downplay Emmitt Smith will always be hilarious to me.
Watch and learn... that isn't the offensive line breaking those tackles, and shaking defenders IN THE BACKFIELD... that is Emmitt Smith.
Now, for the plays where he seems to be running through a nice hole... guess what? That is what great running backs can do by simply following the scheme of the play. This is something that really set Emmitt Smith apart from someone like Barry Sanders. Barry, while a great pure runner, simply never had Emmitt's vision, and was never great at following the scheme of the play. That tends to make an offensive line look a lot worse than it is, when you aren't going where you are supposed to. Rather than trying to tap dance in the backfield, and looking for a homerun on every play, it is actually more productive for your team if you follow the play and pick up positive yards on every play. If you do this all of the time, you will also find that sometimes the entire blocking scheme works out perfectly and you are in a footrace to the endzone. Michael Irvin said it best, when he said that Barry Sanders was the most exciting running back that he had ever seen, when he watched him. However, Emmitt was the greatest running back he had ever seen. He said what people don't understand, is that Emmitt doesn't get as much credit as Barry, because Barry did things that looked impossible, because he made everything look so difficult to do. Emmitt was so great, that he made everything look easy. He would make great cuts, and shake people now and then... but he had such a great feel for the game, and ran with such force, that he could simply tilt his shoulder at an angle, or just make a slight move, and it would look like a defender was just sliding off of him. Emmitt Smith made his line look as great as they looked. The man was hardly EVER taken down by the first couple people that got their hands on him. People like to pretend like Barry Sanders never had a good offense, when anyone who was around then knows damn well that their QB, and WR's had VERY productive years. Detroit's offense was never their problem... their problem was their horrible defense. Barry didn't really make things any easier on them by breaking up the scheme of the play in the backfield, and getting himself dropped for a loss more times than anyone else in history, rather than just following the play and only picking up a few yards if that is what was there. It doesn't really help if you snap off an 80 yard run once a game, when you have forced the offense to go 3 and out 5 other times that game because you were getting stuffed while looking for that homerun.
How are your opinions on their runnings styles facts? The Dallas line looked better not because Emmitt made them look better, but because they were. Yes, this is my opinion, but it seems to be shared by many, including those who voted half of that Oline into the Hall of Fame. I never stated that Allen and Stepnoski played together. I said they were part of the core of that talented offensive line in the 90s and they were. Albeit at different times, but the fact remains that Dallas had 3 probowlers annually on that Oline in the 90s.
As for your assertion about the Lions QBs. Find me one person in the history of NFL GMs that would take Scott Mitchell or Rodney Peete over Troy Aikman and you have a point.
Just to indulge you a bit, I looked up the Detroit QB stats from the early 90s. (Thank you profootballreference)
In 1991 Detroit QBs averaged 185 Y/G and had a QB rating of 71.0 nothing to write home about, but somehow the Lions finished 12-4. The line only gave up 25 sacks that year, pretty impressive.
In 1992 196 Y/G QB rating: 73.4 The vaunted Detroit Oline gave up an astounding 59 sacks. record 5-11
In 1993... 183.9 Y/G QB rating: 74.1 Line gave up another 46 sacks. Detroit still finished 10-6 and won their division.
In 1994... 192.8 Y/G QB rating of 80.2 Would've been a lot worse, but Dave Kreig came in after Mitchell got hurt and played surprisingly well in the second half of the season. The Lions finished 9-7
In 1995... This is the year you're thinking of when talking about the vaunted Detroit passing offense. They were good in 1995. Herman Moore had 123 catches. A record at the time. Mitchell played well, averaging 281.9 Y/G with a rating of 92.9, this year was an anamoly by all accounts, but go ahead use it as the norm if you must.
In 1996... Mitchell comes back down to earth. 216 Y/G QB rating: 72.5
Interesting thing to note. Barry Sanders had 1500 yards in 1995 when the passing game was going off the charts for the Lions. Yet, in 1996 he still had 1500 yards despite the passing game dissappearing.
In 1997.... This is the year that Barry Sanders had his 2000 yard rushing season. 225 Y/G QB rating of 75.4
I could keep going on, but the reality is that despite your revisionist history, there was only one year where Detroit had a good passing offense. In all the rest, Detroit's passing O was below league average. They gave up more than average for league sacks all throughout the 90s. Their team defense was below average almost every year. Yet, they made the playoffs more often than not while Barry was on the team. What does it all mean? Do the stats show me that Barry was a better player than Emmitt? Yes, in a word. But, I don't need stats to know that. I saw them play, so quit revising history in order to make your point look better. Emmitt was a great back who ran behind a historically good offensive line. Barry was a once in a lifetime type back that ran behind a mediocre line.
I grew up a "Cowboys hater" and still despise Irvin and many of the others, but I grew to really like and respect Emmit. I don't think he's as good a complete back as Payton, OJ, Herschel and Brown, but it's too difficult to compare him to Barry. Their styles were just completely different. You couldn't trust Barry to get a yard (blame the OL?) but he'd break one off at a moment's notice. Emmit was more consistent, less home run threat. Kind of like Tony Gwynn vs. Mark McGwire. (FWIW, I'll take Gwynn)
