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.

Where would you rank Emmitt Smith? (1 Viewer)

Where would you rank him all-time?

  • #1, no question

    Votes: 3 2.7%
  • Solidly in the top 5

    Votes: 41 36.3%
  • In that 6 through 10 range

    Votes: 44 38.9%
  • Somewhere in that second group of ten

    Votes: 19 16.8%
  • Outside of the top 20

    Votes: 5 4.4%
  • Not close enough to be in the discussion

    Votes: 1 0.9%

  • Total voters
    113
Barry & Emmitt both averaged right at 20 carries per game during Barry's 10 year career. 
I don’t see a problem comparing Emmitt’s numbers to Barry’s. It’s the sentiment that Emmitt’s YPC was a negative in a vacuum that I question. It should only be compared to other players who rushed before nickel was the base defense . And even then, the Cowboys offense was unbalanced for the time. That gave Emmitt plenty of opportunities to rack up volume stats, but certainly didn’t help his efficiency metrics.

 
Biabreakable said:
However the Lions had a more potent passing offense than the Cowboys did
Like others, I disagree completely with this. In a comparison of Emmitt vs. Sanders, Emmitt had a better OL, QB, WR1, TE, and FB. Detroit may have had a better WR2 and/or WR3, but that's about it.

 
Like others, I disagree completely with this. In a comparison of Emmitt vs. Sanders, Emmitt had a better OL, QB, WR1, TE, and FB. Detroit may have had a better WR2 and/or WR3, but that's about it.
He wasn’t comparing the talent. Look at he numbers—the Lions had a more potent passing offense. It’s a fact.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Like others, I disagree completely with this. In a comparison of Emmitt vs. Sanders, Emmitt had a better OL, QB, WR1, TE, and FB. Detroit may have had a better WR2 and/or WR3, but that's about it.
Don't underestimate the defense comparison either.  I'm sure Dallas had a lot more plays than their opponents during Smith's tenure.   In the end, I hate using these types of excuses as to why Smith doesn't belong near the top 5.  What's really important is to use your eyes.  I've been fortunate to see all these RBs play with the exception of Brown, and to me it is clear there were more than 5 RBs better than Emmitt Smith.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't underestimate the defense comparison either.  I'm sure Dallas had a lot more possessions than their opponents during Smith's tenure.   In the end, I hate using these types of excuses as to why Smith doesn't belong near the top 5.  What's really important is to use your eyes.  I've been fortunate to see all these RBs play with the exception of Brown, and to me it is clear there were more than 5 RBs better than Emmitt Smith.
How can a team have a lot more possessions than their opponent? You give the ball back every time you score, save onside kicks.

 
He wasn’t comparing the talent. Look at he numbers—the Lions had a more potent passing offense. It’s a fact.
Potent?  Because they had a ####ty defense and had to throw a ton?   Because they played from behind more often and thus got garbage time stats?

I'm truly confused as to how anyone can call that Lions offense more potent.

 
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. 
1990: 475 pass/393 rush
1991: 500 pass/433 rush
1992: 491 pass/500 rush
1993: 475 pass/490 rush
1994: 448 pass/550 rush
1995: 494 pass/ 495 rush
1996: 487 pass/485 rush
1997: 553 pass/423 rush
1998: 474 pass/499 rush
1999: 507 pass/493 rush
2000: 445 pass/463 rush
2001: 413 pass/505 rush
2002: 471 pass/423 rush
Totals: 6,233 pass/5,160 rush

These numbers may have been somewhat different than the league average (I'm not sure because I didn't look it up), but it hardly looks unbalanced.

 
How can a team have a lot more possessions than their opponent? You give the ball back every time you score, save onside kicks.
I probably should have used the word "plays" instead of possessions.  A lot of 3 and outs help with that defense and I'm sure Dallas produced many of them given how good they were.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Biabreakable said:
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 was fairly young at the time, but the #1 thing I remember about Barry is the amount of times he was hit in the backfield and had to make something out of nothing. His line was pretty terrible. The Cowboy's line was one of the best that decade.

 
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.
I didn't say Barry couldn't run between the tackles or play with a FB. So I am not sure what you are disagreeing with.

He was not used this way in Detroit though and his runs were often off script with him reversing field a ton looking for an opening.

 
Potent?  Because they had a ####ty defense and had to throw a ton?   Because they played from behind more often and thus got garbage time stats?

I'm truly confused as to how anyone can call that Lions offense more potent.
In 1995 Scott Mitchell threw for 4,300 yards and 32 TDs. Troy Aikman threw for 3,300 and 16 TDs. Nobody is arguing that Scott Mitchell was a better QB, but the Lions were clearly a more potent passing offense.

You can look this stuff up, folks. It’s easy to forget that Aikman never put up big numbers. Those Cowboys teams could throw the ball when they needed to, but were not a potent passing offense.

 
1990: 475 pass/393 rush
1991: 500 pass/433 rush
1992: 491 pass/500 rush
1993: 475 pass/490 rush
1994: 448 pass/550 rush
1995: 494 pass/ 495 rush
1996: 487 pass/485 rush
1997: 553 pass/423 rush
1998: 474 pass/499 rush
1999: 507 pass/493 rush
2000: 445 pass/463 rush
2001: 413 pass/505 rush
2002: 471 pass/423 rush
Totals: 6,233 pass/5,160 rush

These numbers may have been somewhat different than the league average (I'm not sure because I didn't look it up), but it hardly looks unbalanced.
Why don’t you look up league averages, then? They were routinely near the bottom in terms of passing attempts and near the top of rushing attempts. 

 
I probably should have used the word "plays" instead of possessions.  A lot of 3 and outs help with that and I'm sure Dallas produced many of them given how good they were.
Perhaps. And Emmitt’s volume was certainly helped by that. But his efficiency was hurt by it. It’s harder to run the ball when you’re trying to kill the clock and protect a sizable lead. 

 
Perhaps. And Emmitt’s volume was certainly helped by that. But his efficiency was hurt by it. It’s harder to run the ball when you’re trying to kill the clock and protect a sizable lead. 
I'm flabbergasted that anyone would consider E Smith over B Sanders in any ranking.  It's almost like people just enjoy being contrarian / Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I didn't say Barry couldn't run between the tackles or play with a FB. So I am not sure what you are disagreeing with.

He was not used this way in Detroit though and his runs were often off script with him reversing field a ton looking for an opening.
If Barry was running behind the Dallas offensive line no one would have had to worry about Barry “going of script” as often.

Perhaps disagree was the wrong word

 
I took issue with a Cowboys fan calling their line in the late 90's as garbage. The Lions' O-line was probably a lot better than we remember it.

Lomas Brown went to 6 Pro Bowls and was a 1st-team All-Pro once. Kevin Glover went to 3 Pro Bowls. They also lined up Harvey Salem, Mike Utley, Dave Lutz for multiple seasons. They may not have been All-Pros but they were quality starters. All-in-all, not as good as what Emmitt was running behind at that time, but not the train wreck that many are making it out to be.

 
I'm flabbergasted that anyone would consider E Smith over B Sanders in any ranking.  It's almost like people just enjoy being contrarian / Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD).
I’ve said multiple times that I think Barry was better. Like you, I voted 6-10 for Emmitt.

 
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.
Well it was a long time ago.

1997 Lions 4th in points and 2nd in total yards in the NFL

1995 Lions 2nd in points and 1st in total yards in the NFL

The Cowboys offense was in the top 10 in these categories more times than the Lions were but that does not mean the Lions didn't have a good offense, despite the poor QB play.

 
I'm flabbergasted that anyone would consider E Smith over B Sanders in any ranking.  It's almost like people just enjoy being contrarian / Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD).
I think you might be misdiagnosing him. Even he would probably admit to some Homerism in this case.

 
Why don’t you look up league averages, then? They were routinely near the bottom in terms of passing attempts and near the top of rushing attempts. 
Unless I get super-bored, I probably won't. (Feel free to do so on your own though.) But I feel confident that the league was passing at a higher rate than the Cowboys, but not by such a degree that it would drastically alter defenses very much. Regardless, I'm not sure how you can quantify those Cowboys' offenses as "unbalanced." If what you are saying is true though, I'm not sure that argument works in your favor. If defenses are built and designed to stop the pass all the time, and a team comes in that runs heavily on them, those defenses won't be as equipped to stop that running team as they would be the offenses they see in the other 14 or 15 games of the season.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top 3 in passing TDs and passing yardage. 
That happened 1 time in Sanders' career. In 1995, Detroit was #2 in both passing yards and passing TDs. And in 1992, Dallas was #5 in both. Not seeing a real difference.

More importantly, I am very surprised that posters like you and @Biabreakable are citing volume stats as proof of being 'potent'.

 
If Barry was running behind the Dallas offensive line no one would have had to worry about Barry “going of script” as often.

Perhaps disagree was the wrong word
Probably.

Barry was a great RB. Never seen anyone like him since, which is why the Barkley comparisons to Sanders seemed over the top to me.

Barkley is very good though.

 
79 passing TDs and 57 INTs while in Detroit.   Mitchell had a single year with a QBR > 80 while in Detroit.  

See, we can both cherry pick irrelevant stats.
Troy Aikman never threw more than 16 TDs in a season*. Even during the Pete years - and I wouldn’t call those passing offenses potent - the Lions were throwing more than that. Mitchell did it 3 times himself.

Pick whatever stat you want, the Lions had more potent (not efficient) passing offenses.

Edit: Aikman did it twice. My bad. Misread the stats.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That happened 1 time in Sanders' career. In 1995, Detroit was #2 in both passing yards and passing TDs. And in 1992, Dallas was #5 in both. Not seeing a real difference.

More importantly, I am very surprised that posters like you and @Biabreakable are citing volume stats as proof of being 'potent'.
Do you mean efficient? I won’t argue that the Lions were more efficient.

The Lions regularly out-attempted, out-gained and out-scored the Cowboys through the air. 

 
Troy Aikman never threw more than 16 TDs in a season. Even during the Pete years - and I wouldn’t call those passing offenses potent - the Lions were throwing more than that. Mitchell did it 3 times himself.

Pick whatever stat you want, the Lions had more potent (not efficient) passing offenses.
I can't believe Troy Aikman is in the HOF.  Unbelievable. 

 
Troy Aikman never threw more than 16 TDs in a season. Even during the Pete years - and I wouldn’t call those passing offenses potent - the Lions were throwing more than that. Mitchell did it 3 times himself.

Pick whatever stat you want, the Lions had more potent (not efficient) passing offenses.
So for you "potent" can mean "inefficiently productive."   Because let's face it, that's what Scott Mitchell (and the passing offense) was.

I'm not suggesting that the Cowboys passing offense was very "potent" either.  It was more efficient, but less productive.  

 
I love how sometimes homers will throw every other player on their team under the bus in order to defend one guy. Broncos fans do it all the time when discussing Elway. Here we have Cowboys fans calling that 90's O-line garbage and claiming that Scott Mitchell was better than Aikman. It's the craziest thing!

 
Probably.

Barry was a great RB. Never seen anyone like him since, which is why the Barkley comparisons to Sanders seemed over the top to me.

Barkley is very good though.
Waaaaay to early for the Barkley to Barry comparisons

Though I can’t think of a guy with Barkley’s size that moved as well as he does

 
I can't believe Troy Aikman is in the HOF.  Unbelievable. 
That’s a straw man. Troy Aikman was very good and I never said otherwise. If he played in different offenses, he’d have put up big numbers. He just wasn’t asked to do that in Dallas. They were an especially run heavy team, ever for the time.

Troy Aikman himself has said so many times.

 
I love how sometimes homers will throw every other player on their team under the bus in order to defend one guy. Broncos fans do it all the time when discussing Elway. Here we have Cowboys fans calling that 90's O-line garbage and claiming that Scott Mitchell was better than Aikman. It's the craziest thing!
Show me who called Mitchell better than Aikman, please. You either misread me or are being dishonest.

 
So for you "potent" can mean "inefficiently productive."   Because let's face it, that's what Scott Mitchell (and the passing offense) was.

I'm not suggesting that the Cowboys passing offense was very "potent" either.  It was more efficient, but less productive.  
The original claim was *more* potent. I’m not even arguing for Smith over Barry. I think it’s fair to compare YPC stats. Just that it’s not fair to assume Emmitt’s YPC was propped up by his offensive line. With a lesser offensive line, they’d have to run a different, more balanced offense. Emmitt’s volume numbers would surely suffer as a result; but his efficiency metrics would jump.

 
Show me who called Mitchell better than Aikman, please. You either misread me or are being dishonest.
Deep breaths.... this isn't personal. Even suggesting that Scott Mitchell was more productive (but less efficient or something) than Aikman is pretty ridiculous. Maybe take a break from this conversation and come back a little later. Honestly, I'm appreciating your input, but you've gone a bit astray.

 
Deep breaths.... this isn't personal. Even suggesting that Scott Mitchell was more productive (but less efficient or something) than Aikman is pretty ridiculous. Maybe take a break from this conversation and come back a little later. Honestly, I'm appreciating your input, but you've gone a bit astray.
Aikman is easily top five all time overrated QBs.

 
The original claim was *more* potent. I’m not even arguing for Smith over Barry. I think it’s fair to compare YPC stats. Just that it’s not fair to assume Emmitt’s YPC was propped up by his offensive line. With a lesser offensive line, they’d have to run a different, more balanced offense. Emmitt’s volume numbers would surely suffer as a result; but his efficiency metrics would jump.
Yeah, I get the thought process.  It's just really odd to use the word "potent."

If my son and I shoot free throws together......and he makes 10 of 25.....and I make 9 of 10......is he a more potent free throw shooter?    

Anyway, I'll move on.  Potent was a strange word, but I somewhat get your broader point.

 
Yeah, I get the thought process.  It's just really odd to use the word "potent."

If my son and I shoot free throws together......and he makes 10 of 25.....and I make 9 of 10......is he a more potent free throw shooter?    

Anyway, I'll move on.  Potent was a strange word, but I somewhat get your broader point.
I agree, it was that word choice that caused me to respond.

 
Deep breaths.... this isn't personal. Even suggesting that Scott Mitchell was more productive (but less efficient or something) than Aikman is pretty ridiculous. Maybe take a break from this conversation and come back a little later. Honestly, I'm appreciating your input, but you've gone a bit astray.
You suggested I said something that I didn’t, then made fun of me for it. I’m not taking it personally, I’m just calling you out for it. Now that I’ve called you out for it, rather than acknowledge it or clarify,  you are deflecting and (again) misreading or misrepresenting my tone. 

I’m not offended or upset or taking anything personally. No deep breathes needed on my part. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, I get the thought process.  It's just really odd to use the word "potent."

If my son and I shoot free throws together......and he makes 10 of 25.....and I make 9 of 10......is he a more potent free throw shooter?    

Anyway, I'll move on.  Potent was a strange word, but I somewhat get your broader point.


I agree, it was that word choice that caused me to respond.
That’s certainly fair. I didn’t mean to argue that the Cowboys couldn’t beat those numbers if they wanted or needed to. The Cowboys had better parts, for sure. Aikman could have put up 4K and 30+ more efficiently than Mitchell did, if asked to do so. My point was that he wasn’t; that he was asked to drive the bus of a run-heavy offense. 

I see that “potent” wasn’t the best word to use, and how using it would suggest that I’m making an argument that I didn’t intend to.

 
Hard to keep a QB who went 3-0 in the SB out of the HOF but while I can brush aside Aikmans lack of TD's and overall big numbers the problem is he threw to many interceptions for someone who did not put up big numbers.

Emmitt obviously benefitted from the OL and is in general for me not so likeable and not because he seems like a bad guy just one with a giant ego. But if I can pull back from my general dislike for him I got to say he was great. No not as good a runner as Barry, not an all time top 5 or even top 10 all time pure runner but he was still great. What he should be lauded for was that he did everything well and he did everything well almost every single week of every single season. He's what you want your RB to be, three down back skills,  could run, block and catch,  tough, dependable and reliable.  I voted for him in the 6-10 range.

 
You suggested I said something that I didn’t, then made fun of me for it. I’m not taking it personally, I’m just calling you out for it. Now that I’ve called you out for it, rather than acknowledge it or clarify,  you are deflecting and (again) misreading or misrepresenting my tone. 

I’m not offended or upset or taking anything personally. No deep breathes needed on my part. 
Show me who made fun of you, please. You either misread me or are being dishonest.

 
Show me who made fun of you, please. You either misread me or are being dishonest.


I love how sometimes homers will throw every other player on their team under the bus in order to defend one guy. Broncos fans do it all the time when discussing Elway. Here we have Cowboys fans calling that 90's O-line garbage and claiming that Scott Mitchell was better than Aikman. It's the craziest thing!


I agree, but still... better than Scott Mitchell, right?

 
And when did I mention you? Okay, now that we've both pretended to be offended over stupid crap, let's get back to the topic.

 
In terms of guys that I watched, he wasn't better than Payton, Sanders, Faulk, Tomlinson, or Peterson.

Might give him the nod over Dickerson, who was a better runner but never showed much interest in being a complete player.

If you asked the question as "Who would you rather have in their prime?", then I'd add a few other guys who were ahead of Smith but couldn't stay healthy (Terrell Davis, Priest Holmes).

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top