Where would you rank Emmitt Smith? (1 Viewer)

[Biabreakable]

While I can get what some of you are saying about Emmitt perhaps not being as impressive as some of these other RB such as Barry (no one like him) Dickerson or Faulk. I don't necessarily think that they were better RB or had better careers.

If I am a GM for any NFL team the model of consistency and durability I am looking for is Emmitt Smith.

I absolutely love Barry Sanders, but I would rather have the consistency of Emmitt Smith to support my offense than Barry or any of these other RB.

 

[JohnnyU]

The offensive line was dominant, but so was Emmitt. Defenses stacked the box consistently and Emmitt consistently made defenders miss. 

DAL vs NYG - 1994 (Shoulder Game)

I don't think teams could stack the box because they also had Michael Irvin and Jay Novacek 

 

[Concept Coop]

I don't think teams could stack the box because they also had Michael Irvin and Jay Novacek 

Not every play, but they absolutely had to.

In 1995, the last SB season, the Cowboys were 28th (of 30) in passing attempts and 4th in rushing attempts. 

 

[-OZ-]

While I can get what some of you are saying about Emmitt perhaps not being as impressive as some of these other RB such as Barry (no one like him) Dickerson or Faulk. I don't necessarily think that they were better RB or had better careers.

If I am a GM for any NFL team the model of consistency and durability I am looking for is Emmitt Smith.

I absolutely love Barry Sanders, but I would rather have the consistency of Emmitt Smith to support my offense than Barry or any of these other RB.

Just curious, and you might think there's a significant difference, but where would you rank Curtis Martin and Frank Gore?  Other than the team I'm not sure there's a significant difference among them, value-wise.

 

[Tau837]

Where does he rank and what places him there? How heavily do you weigh the career rushing title?

As always happens in these discussions, the discussion is mixing top career vs. top player.

A player must certainly be an all time great to have an all time great career, but the player with the best career is not necessarily the best player. 

IMO there are several RBs who were better players than Smith, including Payton, Brown, and Sanders for sure. I would also choose others like Faulk and Tomlinson but I understand that they are more debatable since playing at a high level for a long time is a big plus for Emmitt. 

 

[Concept Coop]

While I can get what some of you are saying about Emmitt perhaps not being as impressive as some of these other RB such as Barry (no one like him) Dickerson or Faulk. I don't necessarily think that they were better RB or had better careers.

If I am a GM for any NFL team the model of consistency and durability I am looking for is Emmitt Smith.

I absolutely love Barry Sanders, but I would rather have the consistency of Emmitt Smith to support my offense than Barry or any of these other RB.

And even if we ignore his ability to carry a heavy load and stay healthy, he was still a great, great player. He had everything but elite speed: vision, patience, power, quickness, lateral agility, burst, balance, blocking ability, receiving ability - everything. The offensive line and YPC arguments always come off as lazy to me. Emmitt Smith was one of the most talented backs ever. 

 

[Biabreakable]

Just curious, and you might think there's a significant difference, but where would you rank Curtis Martin and Frank Gore?  Other than the team I'm not sure there's a significant difference among them, value-wise.

Curtis Martin was on my mind when I said that.

Frank Gore has been solid for a long time as well. Gore never really had the monster workload that Martin and Emmitt had though.

I know Emmitt and Martin are not the most exciting RB to watch, but man were they reliable.

When I look at rookie RB and try to grade them or rank them, Emmitt and Martin are the ideal I am shooting for.

I don't like RB who take too many big hits. I know a lot of people love that. As a dynasty owner I don't. I want a RB to take care of themselves like Emmitt and Martin did.

 

[Hoh]

If best means “anchoring my franchise” then I want Smith.

if best means “who do I want to win this one game for me” then I want Bo Jackson.

 

[Biabreakable]

And even if we ignore his ability to carry a heavy load and stay healthy, he was still a great, great player. He had everything but elite speed: vision, patience, power, quickness, lateral agility, burst, balance, blocking ability, receiving ability - everything. The offensive line and YPC arguments always come off as lazy to me. Emmitt Smith was one of the most talented backs ever. 

Yeah he was very good.

He isn't as amazing as Barry Sanders to watch though. He is so tuned in that he is cutting before he has to make such a crazy move like Barry lived on all the time.

I don't think his play stands out like some of the other greats do. He was just solid all around great at everything.

I do think Elliot is similar to Emmitt as far as talent level and play style.

 

[Despyzer]

The offensive line and YPC arguments always come off as lazy to me. 

"Lazy" how? To me these arguments seem more comprehensive and analytical to me than just rattling off a perceived skill set, throwing out a superlative without evidence, and calling it good.

 

[JohnnyU]

Yeah he was very good.

He isn't as amazing as Barry Sanders to watch though. He is so tuned in that he is cutting before he has to make such a crazy move like Barry lived on all the time.

I don't think his play stands out like some of the other greats do. He was just solid all around great at everything.

I do think Elliot is similar to Emmitt as far as talent level and play style.

The big difference (besides the eyeball test) is that people came to see Sanders (both Lions and opposing team fans).  People didn't come to watch Emmitt Smith, they came to watch the Cowboys.

 

[Concept Coop]

Yeah he was very good.

He isn't as amazing as Barry Sanders to watch though. He is so tuned in that he is cutting before he has to make such a crazy move like Barry lived on all the time.

I don't think his play stands out like some of the other greats do. He was just solid all around great at everything.

I do think Elliot is similar to Emmitt as far as talent level and play style.

Of all the guys I've watched, Barry is the best. (I haven't been watching as long as posters like Johnny, however.) 

 

[JohnnyU]

Of all the guys I've watched, Barry is the best. (I haven't been watching as long as posters like Johnny, however.) 

Barry is the best I've ever seen.  Brown retired before I saw him play, even though I was already a Colts fan by 1965.  I still rank Brown #1 because of what I know about Jim Brown.  What he did in his 9 years (without missing a game) was amazing.   He punished defenders.  I mean destroyed them physically.  He could run over you, stiff arm you where it hurt, or run around you.  Amazing athlete was Jimmy Brown.

 

[Concept Coop]

"Lazy" how? To me these arguments seem more comprehensive and analytical to me than just rattling off a perceived skill set, throwing out a superlative without evidence, and calling it good.

Emmitt played in an unbalanced offense (even for the time) and touched the ball 25+ times a game in his prime. Using YPC without that context feels lazy to me. It's one thing to compare that number to Barry (or other backs of the era) but using it in a vacuum as a knock against him is silly. 

 

[voiceofunreason]

Disagree.....we are talking about a guys career, a RB's ability to stay on the field under a heavy workload absolutely matters.

Pretty much all the top players stayed on the field. He just played more years,and the last ones weren't that good. 

Good rb that was in an incredible situation. Not even close to the others in the top 10 imo.

 

[Despyzer]

Emmitt played in an unbalanced offense (even for the time) and touched the ball 25+ times a game in his prime. Using YPC without that context feels lazy to me. It's one thing to compare that number to Barry (or other backs of the era) but using it in a vacuum as a knock against him is silly. 

Yes, I'd agree. I think all numbers should be compared to similar players of the same era.

 

[CalBear]

If best means “anchoring my franchise” then I want Smith.

if best means “who do I want to win this one game for me” then I want Bo Jackson.

How many games did the Raiders win because of Bo Jackson? They were under .500 in games he played, and went to the playoffs only once in his four years.

You can make arguments for one game in 1987 (18/221/2), maybe one in 1988 (17/80/1), three in 1989 (11/85/1, 19/144/1, 22/114/0), and three in 1990 (12/53/2, 13/117/2, 18/129/1). Eight substantial contribution to winning games in a 4-year career isn't exactly lighting it up. 

 

[voiceofunreason]

Barry is the best I've ever seen.  Brown retired before I saw him play, even though I was already a Colts fan by 1965.  I still rank Brown #1 because of what I know about Jim Brown.  What he did in his 9 years (without missing a game) was amazing. 

He can't be included in the all time greats because he didn't play long enough but Bo Jackson was the best I ever saw in my lifetime. Barry was next, and I still remember their mnf game as one of my favorites. 

 

[Gally]

How many games did the Raiders win because of Bo Jackson? They were under .500 in games he played, and went to the playoffs only once in his four years.

You can make arguments for one game in 1987 (18/221/2), maybe one in 1988 (17/80/1), three in 1989 (11/85/1, 19/144/1, 22/114/0), and three in 1990 (12/53/2, 13/117/2, 18/129/1). Eight substantial contribution to winning games in a 4-year career isn't exactly lighting it up. 

You do realize that the Raiders also had Marcus Allen that took away touches and that Bo only played half a season and focused mostly on baseball.  I don't think he is a top 10 RB because he never committed to football.  It was his hobby.  However, his talent/skill as a RB is as good or better than any other RB ever. 

 

[Gally]

While I can get what some of you are saying about Emmitt perhaps not being as impressive as some of these other RB such as Barry (no one like him) Dickerson or Faulk. I don't necessarily think that they were better RB or had better careers.

If I am a GM for any NFL team the model of consistency and durability I am looking for is Emmitt Smith.

I absolutely love Barry Sanders, but I would rather have the consistency of Emmitt Smith to support my offense than Barry or any of these other RB.

Barry's line was not good.  He made something out of nothing all the time and in some ways having a bad line suited his ability.  However, if you put Barry on Dallas with that team I think he would have outperformed Emmitt in that environment.  Conversely, if you put Emmitt on Detroit I don't think he does nearly as good as Barry over that time.  He would be a solid RB but not to the level he is thought of now. 

 

[CalBear]

You do realize that the Raiders also had Marcus Allen that took away touches and that Bo only played half a season and focused mostly on baseball.  I don't think he is a top 10 RB because he never committed to football.  It was his hobby.  However, his talent/skill as a RB is as good or better than any other RB ever. 

He was exciting to watch. I don't think there's much evidence that Bo's overall skill set–which includes the ability to repeatedly carry the ball and contribute to team success in all phases of the game–is as good as the other RBs on the list here. The real NFL isn't like Tecmo Bowl.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I don't think teams could stack the box because they also had Michael Irvin and Jay Novacek 

Great point. Combined with that O line and you are damned either way you play it on D.

 

[Gally]

He was exciting to watch. I don't think there's much evidence that Bo's overall skill set–which includes the ability to repeatedly carry the ball and contribute to team success in all phases of the game–is as good as the other RBs on the list here. The real NFL isn't like Tecmo Bowl.

Football was Bo's hobby.  He only played half seasons and split time with a HOF'er in Marcus Allen.  Football was not taken seriously by Bo and he still was excelling against full time players.  I have no doubt that if he focused on football only and did not get injured he would be the undisputed best RB in NFL history.  I base this on how great he was as treating it only as a hobby. 

 

[kutta]

You can't discount the ability to stay on the field in a RB's career. I'd say a substantial part of Emmitt's game was the way he protected his body by avoiding big hits.

The 5-year stretch I chose, Barry played all 16 games. And I don't think his 1993 would have been much better than his 1998 if he'd played 16 games; he was at 1115/4.6/3TD in 11 games. 

And Barry would have had more seasons where he didn't reach 1400 yards if he'd played to age 35 as Emmitt did. If Emmitt had retired at age 30 after putting up 1397/4.2/11TD and going to the Pro Bowl for the eighth time, his career would look pure like Barry's.

I'm not so sure about that.

Emmitt never reached 1400 yards after his sixth season. 

Barry reached 1400 yards EVERY season after his sixth season (total of four) AND had a 2000 yard rushing season in his 9th season.

 

[CalBear]

Football was Bo's hobby.  He only played half seasons and split time with a HOF'er in Marcus Allen.  Football was not taken seriously by Bo and he still was excelling against full time players.  I have no doubt that if he focused on football only and did not get injured he would be the undisputed best RB in NFL history.  I base this on how great he was as treating it only as a hobby. 

He was a physical specimen. But splitting time with Allen didn't just eat into his stats; it also limited what he was asked to do. How many times did they give it to Jackson on third and 1? Only 5 of Jackson's 16 TDs came from inside the 5, so he wasn't fighting for the hard yards as often as lead RBs do. In Bo's years with the Raiders, Allen had 21 TDs from inside the 5.

When you're just the change of pack back, and you're a physical freak, you can make some spectacular plays. That doesn't mean you're better than the lead back.

 

[Gally]

He was a physical specimen. But splitting time with Allen didn't just eat into his stats; it also limited what he was asked to do. How many times did they give it to Jackson on third and 1? Only 5 of Jackson's 16 TDs came from inside the 5, so he wasn't fighting for the hard yards as often as lead RBs do. In Bo's years with the Raiders, Allen had 21 TDs from inside the 5.

When you're just the change of pack back, and you're a physical freak, you can make some spectacular plays. That doesn't mean you're better than the lead back.

Allen was also one of the best short yardage RB's in the history of the game so why wouldn't the Raiders use him in that capacity?  That doesn't take away anything from Bo or his abilities.  It is a testament to how good Allen was at that aspect of the game.

I would reason that Bo was used in a limited manner because he didn't show up until mid season and didn't really care.  Bo was not a "change of pace back" even if he was used part time.   I don't think we will every agree on this because it is all hypothetical anyway. 

 

[Biabreakable]

The big difference (besides the eyeball test) is that people came to see Sanders (both Lions and opposing team fans).  People didn't come to watch Emmitt Smith, they came to watch the Cowboys.

Oh no doubt I would rather watch Barry. More fun.

Emmitt wouldn't lose you yards though.

 

[kutta]

Oh no doubt I would rather watch Barry. More fun.

Emmitt wouldn't lose you yards though.

Barry wouldn't lose (many) yards either if he played on those Dallas teams.

 

[Hoh]

He was exciting to watch. I don't think there's much evidence that Bo's overall skill set–which includes the ability to repeatedly carry the ball and contribute to team success in all phases of the game–is as good as the other RBs on the list here. The real NFL isn't like Tecmo Bowl.

Damn you beat me to my punchline.

 

[Biabreakable]

Barry's line was not good.  He made something out of nothing all the time and in some ways having a bad line suited his ability.  However, if you put Barry on Dallas with that team I think he would have outperformed Emmitt in that environment.  Conversely, if you put Emmitt on Detroit I don't think he does nearly as good as Barry over that time.  He would be a solid RB but not to the level he is thought of now. 

I have speculated the same things and I do agree the Lions offensive line not as good or well known as the Cowboys line at that time. 

However the Lions had a more potent passing offense than the Cowboys did with Moore and some other good WR at the same time they had Barry. Overall Detroit was a good offense, one of the run and shoot offenses is what they called it at the time. They played a lot of 3 and 4 WR. The Cowboys on the other hand a traditional pro style offense that used a fullback and a TE most of the time.

I don't think Smith would have been as good in the run and shoot as Barry. I would think Barry would have been better with the Cowboys also. More carries and better blocking. They were a more successful overall team largely benefiting from the Vikings trading them 3 years of 1st round draft picks, plus 2nd round picks for Hershel Walker. I have hated the Cowboys ever since, but Emmitt was perhaps the best RB for their offense. He kept the offense on schedule and manageable 3rd down situations. Better for play action as the run action of the plays is more consistent. You never know what will happen with Barry. The Vikings defense was coached to just stay in their lane and wait. Eventually Barry will be coming back to you.

 

[voiceofunreason]

He was a physical specimen. But splitting time with Allen didn't just eat into his stats; it also limited what he was asked to do. How many times did they give it to Jackson on third and 1? Only 5 of Jackson's 16 TDs came from inside the 5, so he wasn't fighting for the hard yards as often as lead RBs do. In Bo's years with the Raiders, Allen had 21 TDs from inside the 5.

When you're just the change of pack back, and you're a physical freak, you can make some spectacular plays. That doesn't mean you're better than the lead back.

Did you actually watch these games or are you looking at stats? It sure doesn't sound like it and a lot if your statements are silly.

 

[CalBear]

Did you actually watch these games or are you looking at stats? It sure doesn't sound like it and a lot if your statements are silly.

"You must not have watched the games" is one of the lamest responses in the Shark Pool.

First, yes, I did. Not every one, of course.

Second, it really doesn't matter. If he were so awesome it would show up in the stat sheets. 

Here's a factoid for you: In games where Bo Jackson got 20+ carries, here are his stats:

• 21/70/1
  
• 20/79/0
  
• 21/103/0
  
• 20/64/0
  
• 22/114/0
  

104/430, 4.1 YPC, 1 TD. In those games he also had a total of 7 receptions for 60 yards.

That's not bad, but it's certainly not remarkable. And it suggests that if Bo had to carry the ball 20+ times a game (which he did mostly in 1989 when Allen got hurt), he might perform like the rest of the RBs who have to carry the ball 20+ times a game. Maybe he would have been on the top end of that group, maybe not. We won't ever know. What we do know, though, is that comparing the stats of a RB who is getting 10 carries in backup work to the stats of starting bell cow RBs doesn't make sense.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

I don’t like ranking players in a traditional manner. I think there are tiers of equally great players. 

Top Tier (in no particular order)

Emmitt

Barry

Walter

Orenthal 

Earl

Jim

Marshall

Marcus

Second tier

Curtis

Edge

ADP

Tomlinson

Riggins

and so on....

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

Also, you should remover Emmitt Smith everytime your favorite fantasy running back is raising his hand for a breather, taken out on 3rd down/goal line or injuries.

Emmitt barely ever came off the field, was rarely caught from behind (unlike Barry), was a devastating pass blocker and had hands down the best vision of any player I’ve ever seen. 

He had a great line from 1992-1996 but the line was garbage after that and he still gained another 8k yards after that. 

 

[JohnnyU]

Oh no doubt I would rather watch Barry. More fun.

Emmitt wouldn't lose you yards though.

Hell I wouldn't have lost yards on that team

 

[Despyzer]

but the line was garbage after that and he still gained another 8k yards after that.

I hear this argument a lot from Cowboys fans, but...

1997 - Larry Allen, 1st-team All-pro; Erik Williams, Pro Bowl; plus Nate Newton and Moose Johnston

1998 - Larry Allen, 1st-team All-pro; Nate Newton, Pro Bowl; plus Erik Williams, Flozell Adams, and Moose Johnston

1999 - Larry Allen, 1st-team All-pro; Erik Williams, Pro Bowl; plus Mark Stepnoski and Flozell Adams

2000 - Larry Allen, 1st-team All-pro; plus Erik Williams, Mark Stepnoski, and Flozell Adams

2001 - Larry Allen, 1st-team All-pro; plus Mark Stepnoski and Flozell Adams

Maybe it's not what Emmitt had been running behind, but that's not "garbage."

Edit to add: Any of these "garbage" lines look no worse than the best of what Thurman Thomas had to run behind at any point in his career.

 

[Ray Barboni]

I’d say strong, to quite strong 

 

[-OZ-]

I have speculated the same things and I do agree the Lions offensive line not as good or well known as the Cowboys line at that time. 

However the Lions had a more potent passing offense than the Cowboys did with Moore and some other good WR at the same time they had Barry. Overall Detroit was a good offense, one of the run and shoot offenses is what they called it at the time. They played a lot of 3 and 4 WR. The Cowboys on the other hand a traditional pro style offense that used a fullback and a TE most of the time.

I don't think Smith would have been as good in the run and shoot as Barry. I would think Barry would have been better with the Cowboys also. More carries and better blocking. They were a more successful overall team largely benefiting from the Vikings trading them 3 years of 1st round draft picks, plus 2nd round picks for Hershel Walker. I have hated the Cowboys ever since, but Emmitt was perhaps the best RB for their offense. He kept the offense on schedule and manageable 3rd down situations. Better for play action as the run action of the plays is more consistent. You never know what will happen with Barry. The Vikings defense was coached to just stay in their lane and wait. Eventually Barry will be coming back to you.

Interesting. Maybe the stats bear that out but inferring that playing with Rodney peete, Erik Kramer, Charlie batch, and Scott Mitchell is an advantage over Troy aikman seems wrong. 

 

[cockroach]

Why is Leroy Kelly not considered among the best of all time? He was ahead of Sayers in rate stats, let alone total production, when they were contemporaries. 

Because he didn't sing Brian's Song.

 

[voiceofunreason]

Also, you should remover Emmitt Smith everytime your favorite fantasy running back is raising his hand for a breather, taken out on 3rd down/goal line or injuries.

Emmitt barely ever came off the field, was rarely caught from behind (unlike Barry), was a devastating pass blocker and had hands down the best vision of any player I’ve ever seen. 

He had a great line from 1992-1996 but the line was garbage after that and he still gained another 8k yards after that. 

Barry had 18 thousand yards in ten years. Smith had 21 in 15 years and is worse in pretty much any stat while playing with massively better lines, qbs and coaching. Those last 8 years he didn’t even average 4 ypc. Over that many years that’s significant. Lots of rbs played all three downs back then and did better.

I mean we all know how this topic will play out. But in a perfect world cowboy homers should stay out of it. 

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

Barry had 18 thousand yards in ten years. Smith had 21 in 15 years and is worse in pretty much any stat while playing with massively better lines, qbs and coaching. Those last 8 years he didn’t even average 4 ypc. Over that many years that’s significant. Lots of rbs played all three downs back then and did better.

I mean we all know how this topic will play out. But in a perfect world cowboy homers should stay out of it. 

You take your boy Barry and I’ll take Emmitt. Both of us will be OK at RB. 

 

[Biabreakable]

Interesting. Maybe the stats bear that out but inferring that playing with Rodney peete, Erik Kramer, Charlie batch, and Scott Mitchell is an advantage over Troy aikman seems wrong. 

I always liked Batch.

I don't think Aikman was all that great of a QB. He had play action to Invin or Novacheck.

The only reason I bring it up is to point out the different style of offenses. The Lions were running an offense more similar to what teams have been doing the last 5 years than the offense that Emmitt and several of these other RB were in.

Its an advantage for the RB to have more blocking, its also a disadvantage if the team is running the ball more than they pass. The Lions were a more balanced offense with great skill players. They never really filled the QB position. Scott Mitchel got a huge contract (for the time) to be that guy but it never really worked out. The WR were great though. I just remember this as a Vikings fan having to play against the Lions twice a year. The Lions were the best offense in the old NFC Central until Favre went to the Packers.

 

[Yenrub]

Emmitt played in an unbalanced offense (even for the time) and touched the ball 25+ times a game in his prime. Using YPC without that context feels lazy to me. It's one thing to compare that number to Barry (or other backs of the era) but using it in a vacuum as a knock against him is silly. 

Barry & Emmitt both averaged right at 20 carries per game during Barry's 10 year career. 

 

[Elevencents]

I've got some obvious fan bias going on, but, when I google the all time leading rusher his name keeps popping up.  

No need to debate then. Just rank them in order of their yardage totals. 

Really interesting looking at the all time list. A lot of name I forgot. Was surprised to see Ricky Watters had over 10k! His was the first Jersey I had. And other names I completely forgot like Garrison Hearst, Travis Henry, etc. 

 

[Pipes]

Barry's line was not good.  He made something out of nothing all the time and in some ways having a bad line suited his ability.  However, if you put Barry on Dallas with that team I think he would have outperformed Emmitt in that environment.  Conversely, if you put Emmitt on Detroit I don't think he does nearly as good as Barry over that time.  He would be a solid RB but not to the level he is thought of now. 

Agreed Barry didn't "dance" because he enjoyed it.  He had to the Lions were trash and he constantly had defenders in the backfield to juke. 

 

[Yenrub]

I have speculated the same things and I do agree the Lions offensive line not as good or well known as the Cowboys line at that time. 

However the Lions had a more potent passing offense than the Cowboys did with Moore and some other good WR at the same time they had Barry. Overall Detroit was a good offense, one of the run and shoot offenses is what they called it at the time. They played a lot of 3 and 4 WR. The Cowboys on the other hand a traditional pro style offense that used a fullback and a TE most of the time.

I don't think Smith would have been as good in the run and shoot as Barry. I would think Barry would have been better with the Cowboys also. More carries and better blocking. They were a more successful overall team largely benefiting from the Vikings trading them 3 years of 1st round draft picks, plus 2nd round picks for Hershel Walker. I have hated the Cowboys ever since, but Emmitt was perhaps the best RB for their offense. He kept the offense on schedule and manageable 3rd down situations. Better for play action as the run action of the plays is more consistent. You never know what will happen with Barry. The Vikings defense was coached to just stay in their lane and wait. Eventually Barry will be coming back to you.

I disagree with this. Oklahoma State ran more of a traditional offense, Barry had a fullback in front of him a lot in college, he did just fine running between the tackles.

 

[Concept Coop]

Interesting. Maybe the stats bear that out but inferring that playing with Rodney peete, Erik Kramer, Charlie batch, and Scott Mitchell is an advantage over Troy aikman seems wrong. 

That’s not what is being inferred. The Cowboys played in an unbalanced offense. Teams defended them accordingly. They were always near the bottom in passing attempts and near the top in rushing attempts. While that style certainly helps the volume stats, it’s going to hurt the efficiency numbers. 

 

[Concept Coop]

Agreed Barry didn't "dance" because he enjoyed it.  He had to the Lions were trash and he constantly had defenders in the backfield to juke. 

Barry danced in the open field, too. I’d happily live with Barry gambling - I think he was the best. But he was a gambler.

 

[Pipes]

I have speculated the same things and I do agree the Lions offensive line not as good or well known as the Cowboys line at that time. 

However the Lions had a more potent passing offense than the Cowboys did with Moore and some other good WR at the same time they had Barry. Overall Detroit was a good offense, one of the run and shoot offenses is what they called it at the time. They played a lot of 3 and 4 WR. The Cowboys on the other hand a traditional pro style offense that used a fullback and a TE most of the time.

I don't think Smith would have been as good in the run and shoot as Barry. I would think Barry would have been better with the Cowboys also. More carries and better blocking. They were a more successful overall team largely benefiting from the Vikings trading them 3 years of 1st round draft picks, plus 2nd round picks for Hershel Walker. I have hated the Cowboys ever since, but Emmitt was perhaps the best RB for their offense. He kept the offense on schedule and manageable 3rd down situations. Better for play action as the run action of the plays is more consistent. You never know what will happen with Barry. The Vikings defense was coached to just stay in their lane and wait. Eventually Barry will be coming back to you.

Completely disagree with this.  Aikman is a hall of famer so he destroys and QB the Lions trotted out there.  Irvin was better or at least on par with Moore and Novacek was a fantastic receiving TE.  I'd argue most of Detroit's offensive numbers including the passing game were a result of Barry Sanders and how defenses had to focus on stopping him vs Scott Mitchell and company.

I like Emmitt and he deserves a spot in the top 10 but let's not downplay the amount of offensive talent, on all levels, he had around him.

 

[Pipes]

Barry danced in the open field, too. I’d happily live with Barry gambling - I think he was the best. But he was a gambler.

Yeah but those aren't the runs people criticize Barry for.  People knock him because of all his negative yardage plays those are what I'm referring too.  Though there were runs where he could've taken a 0 gain and took a bigger loss trying to make something happen whereas Emmitt would just lower his shoulder and take what was there. 

Both are great backs.