What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Who is the greatest running back of all time? (2 Viewers)

I'd say:1. Payton2. Sayers (might have been #1 had his injuries cut his career short)3. Brown
Id fall in line with this. Walter Payton's the only of those 3 that I ever actually watched as a fan in my youth, so for my money, Id say him. Id give him the slimmest possible edge over Brown only because he kept on playing beyond his best days with the same amount of heart, courage and tenacity. My two favorite runners to watch have to be Eric Dickerson and Barry Sanders. They were each poetry in motion. Dickerson had a grace and blazing speed that will rarely if ever be seen again at the position because of how the demands of the position have changed. He was built more like a WR of today's game. And Sanders was just brilliant and spectacular and had moves and instincts that may never be matched.
 
The only opinion worth anything is from people who actually saw players' careers. So no here is qualified to say who was the all-time best.

I saw the entire careers of every running back mentioned in this thread.

The best I ever saw......was Jim Brown.

And its not even close.

 
The only opinion worth anything is from people who actually saw players' careers. So no here is qualified to say who was the all-time best.I saw the entire careers of every running back mentioned in this thread.The best I ever saw......was Jim Brown. And its not even close.
Agreed. Having seen him play (on TV), I can say he was a destructive force at the line, and I can still recall him going through the line and past the DB's, and opening up more daylight between them and him, all the way to the end zone. Unbelievable.Others' careers have lasted longer, and they have played in a 16 game season instead of a 12 game season, but he was the best. Ever.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When are people going to stop with the nosense about how much of a horrible offense, and horrible line that Barry played behind? It is a myth... and it's nonsense. The Lions always had a good offense when he was playing with them... it was their Defense that made the team suck.

 
I'd say:1. Payton2. Sayers (might have been #1 had his injuries cut his career short)3. Brown
Id fall in line with this. Walter Payton's the only of those 3 that I ever actually watched as a fan in my youth, so for my money, Id say him. Id give him the slimmest possible edge over Brown only because he kept on playing beyond his best days with the same amount of heart, courage and tenacity. My two favorite runners to watch have to be Eric Dickerson and Barry Sanders. They were each poetry in motion. Dickerson had a grace and blazing speed that will rarely if ever be seen again at the position because of how the demands of the position have changed. He was built more like a WR of today's game. And Sanders was just brilliant and spectacular and had moves and instincts that may never be matched.
Only two players with 12,000 yards have a 5.0 average or better for their career.Brown and Barry. Payton only had one season over 5As did Emmit, with one of the league's best OLs at the timeConsidering the OL Barry had, he's easily top 3, if not #1; as I can't speak first hand for Brown, but I hear great things, I'd concede 1a/1b status for bothI love Sayers (JAYHAWK), but he's not quite BarryBARRY:NEVER ran for less than 1,000 yards in a season, 12,000/5.0...Film / seeing him play in personBad to average OL, made them into an above .500 team almost single-handedlyLions!Born in Kansas!
 
When are people going to stop with the nosense about how much of a horrible offense, and horrible line that Barry played behind? It is a myth... and it's nonsense. The Lions always had a good offense when he was playing with them... it was their Defense that made the team suck.
Sanders did his part in making the Lions suck, too. He holds the NFL record for the most carries for negative yardage: 336 Carries for -952 Yards. Sometimes a two yard gain is not a bad thing.
 
When are people going to stop with the nosense about how much of a horrible offense, and horrible line that Barry played behind? It is a myth... and it's nonsense. The Lions always had a good offense when he was playing with them... it was their Defense that made the team suck.
Sanders did his part in making the Lions suck, too. He holds the NFL record for the most carries for negative yardage: 336 Carries for -952 Yards. Sometimes a two yard gain is not a bad thing.
I'll somewhat agree with this, but those negative yards are a small price to pay for the positive. The one thing he was not is a short yardage back, but some of those negative yards get attributed to the OL as well. When you're constantly hit behind the line of scrimmage, you won't always make them miss.
 
Take 1995 for example.

Emmitt Smith lead the league in rushing with 1773 yards...

Troy Aikman was ranked 13th in passing yards with 3,304 16 TD's....

Michael Irvin was ranked 4th in receiving yards with 1,603...

Jay Novecek was the next highest ranked (44th) Cowboy receiver with 705 yards

Do you know where Detroits players were ranked?

Scott Mitchell (Detroit's QB) was ranked 2nd in passing yards 4,338 32 TD's...

Barry Sanders was ranked 2nd in rushing yards with 1,500....

Herman Moore was ranked 3rd in receiving yards with 1,686...

Brett Perriman was ranked 6th in receiving yards with 1,488...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think that we can put that myth to rest now. Detoit had a very high powered offense. Obviously, with the #2 QB, the #2 RB, the #3 and #6 receivers.... THEIR LINE WAS NOT THAT BAD!

 
When are people going to stop with the nosense about how much of a horrible offense, and horrible line that Barry played behind? It is a myth... and it's nonsense. The Lions always had a good offense when he was playing with them... it was their Defense that made the team suck.
Sanders did his part in making the Lions suck, too. He holds the NFL record for the most carries for negative yardage: 336 Carries for -952 Yards. Sometimes a two yard gain is not a bad thing.
I agree completely. Emmitt Smith could break the big runs... but he would also put the team on his shoulders, pound the ball over and over again, control the clock, and wear down the defense. Let alone his receiving and his GREAT blocking ability. Barry was great for breaking off some exciting plays... but he rarely won the game based on them. Emmitt Smith would win games for his team, because he completely controlled the game.Also, people act like Emmitt's line did all of the work, yet this is the same line that caused Troy Aikman to receive enough concussions (10 I think) to end his career early.
 
Its Earl Campbell. Nobody left it all on the field like him. Nobody ran with more power and nobody inflicted pain on the defense like he did. Once he got in the open field, you couldnt catch him. Try to take him down one on one and you can forget about it. You could forget about walking the next day.

The Oilers had NOTHING else. You would never see a defense stack the LOS like they did aginast the Oilers in Campbells days. That 3 year stretch was the greatest ever. You have to take into account the horrible teams he played on. His QBs in 78-80 - Dan Pastorini. In 1980 the Oilers went out and got Kenny Stabler - unfortunatly - Stabler was horrible - He was WELL past his prime and had no business being on the field. He threw 13 TDs to 28 INTs.

Campbell is now in a wheelchair from running so hard and with so much authority. I wish highlights were easier to come by.

The NFL Back I think who resembles him most today is Mike Turner - hopefully we get to see him getting 25 carries a game sometime soon.

 
When are people going to stop with the nosense about how much of a horrible offense, and horrible line that Barry played behind? It is a myth... and it's nonsense. The Lions always had a good offense when he was playing with them... it was their Defense that made the team suck.
Sanders did his part in making the Lions suck, too. He holds the NFL record for the most carries for negative yardage: 336 Carries for -952 Yards. Sometimes a two yard gain is not a bad thing.
I'll somewhat agree with this, but those negative yards are a small price to pay for the positive. The one thing he was not is a short yardage back, but some of those negative yards get attributed to the OL as well. When you're constantly hit behind the line of scrimmage, you won't always make them miss.
WiddowMaker debunked the myth about his o-line and poor surrounding talent.Sanders lost yardage because he chose to go backward as a way of trying to break huge runs. It may have worked one or two times a game, but the strategy failed far more often than it succeeded. This put his team in a hole.

Sanders may be the most exciting runner ever, but in terms of being a great overall running back, he's not among the truly elite like Payton, Emmitt and Brown.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
#1 Walter Payton#2 Emmitt Smith#3 Jim BrownBarry didn't do Goalline or catch the ball out of the backfield and was not a very good blocker.Neither Brown nor Dickerson caught the ball.Gayle Sayers was amazing, but didn't have the durability - something I think is neccessary to be on this list. Otherwise, you could list Bo Jackson here too.And Jim Brown shouldn't get bonus points because he quit when he could still play.LT2 has to be on this list soon IF he can stay healthy. He does it all.I think Thurman Thomas would get more recognition if the Bills had won at least 1 superbowl. Thurman made that offense work and also did it all. Just my 2 centsEdit: I can't believe most of you diss the all-time leading rusher like you do. Like he did it as some kind of fluke. Don't you think if all anybody had to do was play longer to break that record someone would? Thing is, not anyone could. Thats part of what made him great.
dissing the all-time leader....so that makes Favre better than Marino?
 
When are people going to stop with the nosense about how much of a horrible offense, and horrible line that Barry played behind? It is a myth... and it's nonsense. The Lions always had a good offense when he was playing with them... it was their Defense that made the team suck.
Sanders did his part in making the Lions suck, too. He holds the NFL record for the most carries for negative yardage: 336 Carries for -952 Yards. Sometimes a two yard gain is not a bad thing.
I agree completely. Emmitt Smith could break the big runs... but he would also put the team on his shoulders, pound the ball over and over again, control the clock, and wear down the defense. Let alone his receiving and his GREAT blocking ability. Barry was great for breaking off some exciting plays... but he rarely won the game based on them. Emmitt Smith would win games for his team, because he completely controlled the game.Also, people act like Emmitt's line did all of the work, yet this is the same line that caused Troy Aikman to receive enough concussions (10 I think) to end his career early.
Nice spin. The concussions came after the line self destructed. Come on you guys be honest. The Chicago line was not sub par just because after 10 years they got good? Unbelievable what some people will do to push their own agendas.
 
LT is obviously gaining ground on the jump to Tier III....

Tier I

Jim Brown

Tier II

Barry Sanders

Tier III

Walter Payton, Earl Campbell, OJ Simpson, Emmitt Smith

Tier IV

Bo Jackson, Tony Dorsett, Eric Dickerson, LT, Gayle Sayers

 
You guys that think Sanders should be in this discussion crack me up. He was good, sure. But he lacked power. To be considered greatest of all time, you have to have had power, speed, and agility. With these three abilities, you can excel in every situation. Two of the three don't count. You have to be able to run over people. You have to be able to juke and make a move to allude tacklers. You have to be able to outrun your opponents once you're in the open. That's why Campbell and Payton are at the top of the list -- they could do all three effectively.

 
Surprised reading through the list how few people mentioned Ladainian. He's in the conversation now for sure.
I'd like to see a few more seasons from him but no doubt he belongs in the conversation. What I like about him is what I like about Walter, they could do it all; run, catch, throw, block, hit, run past people, run around people, run over people, and in Walter's case fly). Nothing they couldn't do. LT has the chance to be the best ever. Even mentioning Peterson at this point is laughable and premature.
 
Walter Payton. Guys want to talk about how bad Sanders had it, but he had other Pro Bowlers on offense.Payton played without a single Pro Bowler around him on offense for the 1st decade of his career. Defenses didn't have to worry about Herman Moore - they knew with 100% certainty what was coming and were unable to stop it.
That's why I would put him in the top two and know that he would succeed regardless of circumstances or era. He was Ladanian Tomlinson on the 2002 Chargers for a decade. The main reason why I can't put Emmitt up there is that I don't believe that he would be successful regardless of circumstances the way that guys like that are and have been. The main reason why I can't put Barry up there is that his improvisation, as fun as it was to watch, was far too hit and miss and unpredictable to build a winning NFL offense around - sometimes you just need to get 3 yards. He's the RB parallel to Randall Cunningham in that regard.
What really surprises me is that everyone knows that Barry ran behind a horrible line, especially compared to Emmitt, but at the same time, everyone always knocks Barry because of his running style. I don't get it. He wouldn't have had to improvise on nearly every play if he had holes to run through. Its not like there were holes that you could drive a semi through and he chose to go a different direction. Emmitt was a given for 3-4 yards, because there was never anyone in the backfield hitting him. Most of the time, Emmitt didn't get touched until the second layer of defense. And the argument that Barry had other pro-bowlers around him is pretty funny too. I don't hear Scott Mitchell and Herman Moore being discussed as among the best in the '90s, let alone of all time. No one could honestly say that they would have taken Mitchell over Troy Aikmen nor Herman Moore over Michael Irvin. With any other running back (including Emmitt), those guys wouldn't have done much. They did well because defensive schemes were set up with one dream in mind, and that was stopping Barry. Barry never trailed Emmitt while he was playing. The one area that Emmitt was better than Barry was his love for the game.With that in mind, I would still put Barry as number 3 on the list, behind Payton and Jim Brown. I never saw Brown play, but I've never heard anyone that did say anything bad about him. For all the reasons I wrote about Barry, the same was true for Payton. He was the whole package.
 
the best i've ever seen...w.payton

the best i've never seen...j.brown

i would think j.brown would still be an animal in todays game too

i will also say that walter was the best PLAYER (at any position) that i've ever seen

sometimes i wonder just how good bo jackson could've been had he concentrated on just football (and no hip injury of course) and played as many games as many of these rb's being mentioned, i think he could've put up some stagering numbers

 
Previous post on this:

Payton is a nobrainer IMO.

He WAS the offense

QBs he played with: Bob Avellini, Bobby Douglass, Gary Huff, Virgil Carter, Vince Evans, Mike Phipps, Jim McMahon, Steve Fuller, Greg Landry, Rusty Lisch, Mike Tomczak, Doug Flutie, Jim Harbaugh. Heck, Payton himself lined up at QB a few times. Basically, Jim McMahon was the best he played with. That's not saying much.

Payton played with 1 Pro Bowl QB in 13 seasons: McMahon in 1985. (And why exactly did McMahon make the Pro Bowl? The Bears passing offense was 22nd in yards and 23rd in TDs... McMahon threw for 2392 yards and 15 TDs. :confused: )

Not only did he never play with a 1000 yard receiver, he never even played with a 900 yard receiver. In fact, only 3 times in his 13 year career did any Bears receiver top 800 yards, and only 3 other times did any Bears receiver top 700 yards. And there were no good receiving TEs, either. It should come as no surprise that no Bears WR (or TE) made the Pro Bowl during Payton's career.

To reinforce this, consider Chicago's pass yardage ranks during Payton's career: 23 (of 26), 28 (of 28), 21, 26, 26, 28, 28, 22, 17, 26, 22, 24, 14. They finished in the bottom quarter of the league 10 times in Payton's career.

Payton himself led the Bears in receptions 6 times, and had the second highest total 5 other times.

In his last few years, his offensive lines were pretty good, but for most of his career it wasn't. Two of Payton's linemen made the Pro Bowl a total of 5 times in his 13 seasons, all in his final 3 seasons: Jim Covert (1985, 1986), and Jay Hilgenberg (1985, 1986, 1987).

Compared to Jim Brown

Brown is the only back I would consider comparing to Payton, and I admit I didn't see him play, so that may bias my opinion. That said, consider that Brown joined a dynasty.

1950-56 (pre-Brown): 63-20-1 (.759), 6 postseason appearances in 7 years, 6 championship games, 3 championships

1957-1965 (with Brown): 79-34-5 (.699), 5 postseason appearances in 9 years, 3 championship games, 1 championship

Now compare that to Payton and the Bears:

1968-1974 (pre-Payton): 31-66-1 (.320), no postseason appearances

1975-1987 (with Payton): 111-83 (.572), 6 postseason appearances, 1 championship

How about a supporting cast comparison? Payton's is addressed above. It seems very hard to support the notion that the Browns were not already a very, very good team when Brown joined them, which naturally implies that he was surrounded by a talented group of teammates. Remember, there was no free agency (or draft?) at that time, so it would be very hard for me to see how the talent level of a team that appeared in 6 championship games in the 7 years prior to Brown's rookie season had suddenly dropped to average or worse. This is supported by the number of Pro Bowlers Brown played with:

- Browns QBs made the Pro Bowl 4 times in Brown's 9 seasons: Milt Plum (1960, 1961), Frank Ryan (1964, 1965).

- Browns WRs made the Pro Bowl 5 times in Brown's 9 seasons: Ray Renfro (1957, 1960), Bobby Mitchell (1960), Paul Warfield (1964), and Gary Collins (1965).

- Brown played with the following Pro Bowl offensive linemen: Art Hunter (1959), Mike McCormack (1957, 1960, 1961, 1962), Jim Smith (1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962), John Morrow (1961, 1963), **** Schafrath (1963), Gene Hickerson (1965), John Wooten (1965). That's 7 different linemen for a total of 15 times in 9 seasons, and only one season without a Pro Bowler--1964. In 6 of his seasons, Brown had 2 or more Pro Bowlers on the line.

To be fair, there were fewer teams when Brown played, so it stands to reason he would have played with more Pro Bowlers. Still, the difference is too big to be accounted for simply by that IMO.

I just don't see evidence that Brown was better. Again, I admit that could be because I never saw him play with my own eyes, while I did see Payton play often.

Conclusion

Payton's accomplishments are more impressive than Jim Brown's (or any other RB's), IMO.
 
Sanders was the most exciting guy I saw, but I heard some old RBs talking about the best ever once and thought one of them (forget who now) had a good point when they said that "a great RB has to be able to get you ONE yard sometimes too." Sanders couldn't do that. On 4th and 1 he wasn't your guy.

 
Unless you have seen them all play in their day this is hard to answer; my own knowledge begins in the early 70s so I never saw Brown play. Of the players I have seen the one I most feared to have my team play against was probably Marshall Faulk or OJ Simpson. If I had to pick, I would say Faulk. He could score at any time and could do as much damage receiving as running. Simpson was a load running the ball and could also take it to the house.

I wonder too how many of the players of this era are juicing? In the 70s LBs were 220; lineman were 290; it was a different game. I doubt that the unbeaten Dolphins could go five hundred in the NFL today. Are players really that much better? I am guessing that the NFL is even more drug infested than MLB. So, these comparisons are pretty hard to make.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Please. Anyone who watched football in that era knows that the Cowboys had the best rushing OL in history. Smith is a great back deserving of the HOF especially for his durability, but he is not even in the class of people like Larry Brown, Payton, OJ Simpson, Faulk, Sanders... If he had been on any other team there is no way he would have put up as impressive numbers.

When are people going to stop with the nosense about how much of a horrible offense, and horrible line that Barry played behind? It is a myth... and it's nonsense. The Lions always had a good offense when he was playing with them... it was their Defense that made the team suck.
Sanders did his part in making the Lions suck, too. He holds the NFL record for the most carries for negative yardage: 336 Carries for -952 Yards. Sometimes a two yard gain is not a bad thing.
I agree completely. Emmitt Smith could break the big runs... but he would also put the team on his shoulders, pound the ball over and over again, control the clock, and wear down the defense. Let alone his receiving and his GREAT blocking ability. Barry was great for breaking off some exciting plays... but he rarely won the game based on them. Emmitt Smith would win games for his team, because he completely controlled the game.Also, people act like Emmitt's line did all of the work, yet this is the same line that caused Troy Aikman to receive enough concussions (10 I think) to end his career early.
 
I agree with this. As a Vikings fan I saw him play many times and I can recall one time when the Lions were on their own one yard line and where Sanders should have been tackled for a safety but somehow he escaped and went all the way for a TD. But I can also remember games where he went 15 for 30 yards and was tackled for a loss frequently in the game. His inconsistency play to play is the reason I wouldn't give him the top spot and the fact that he quit on his team and didn't have as long a career as some of these guys. But he was a guy who was capable of scoring on any play at anytime in the game and his running style was exciting because he didn't run straight ahead. Lots of times he would start one way then turn about run way back behind his own line and come out on the other side of the field and make a big run. His ability to take a play back the other way was exceptional. He was also very elusive.

Sanders was the most exciting guy I saw, but I heard some old RBs talking about the best ever once and thought one of them (forget who now) had a good point when they said that "a great RB has to be able to get you ONE yard sometimes too." Sanders couldn't do that. On 4th and 1 he wasn't your guy.
 
My dad will swear until his last day that there will never be a better RB than Gale Sayers.
I never saw Sayers play except in highlights, but part of what makes a player great is durability. He didn't have it. AD has as much talent and is more exciting than any of the guys we are talking about IMO, but he has to go out there and do it for seven or eight years to even enter the discussion.
 
Sanders was a more exciting RB than Smith, but IMO Smith was a better RB all around. He just moved the chains. That being said, we do not know what Sanders could have done with Smith's offensive line, which was one of the best ever.

 
#1 - Barry Sanders - Snow isn't even as pure as Barrys running skills

#2 - Earl Campbell - Could put Jim Brown here but Earl at least played against D lineman that were his size or larger

#3 - Walter Payton -

#4 - OJ Simpson - Sorry but its true

#5 - Jim Brown - A Man amongst boys, literally

#6- Eric Dickerson -

 
Last edited by a moderator:
1: Jim Brown (Averaged 125.52 total yards per game in his career. Only played 113 games)

2: Barry Sanders (Averaged 118.89 total yards per game in 153 games, 35 more than Brown)

3: Marshall Faulk (Averaged 108.83 total yards per game in 176 games, 58 more than Brown and 23 more than Sanders). Thing that pushes Faulk ahead IMO was his ability as a receiver and he scored 136 total TDs in 14 fewer games vs. Payton's 125. If Faulk even averaged his rushing TD per game for 14 games to catch up with Payton's 190 games, he'd have 115 rushing TDs for his career.

4: Walter Payton (Averaged 111.92 total yards per game in 190 games, 77 more than Brown, 37 more than Sanders, and 14 more than Faulk)

 
Please. Anyone who watched football in that era knows that the Cowboys had the best rushing OL in history. Smith is a great back deserving of the HOF especially for his durability, but he is not even in the class of people like Larry Brown, Payton, OJ Simpson, Faulk, Sanders... If he had been on any other team there is no way he would have put up as impressive numbers.

When are people going to stop with the nosense about how much of a horrible offense, and horrible line that Barry played behind? It is a myth... and it's nonsense. The Lions always had a good offense when he was playing with them... it was their Defense that made the team suck.
Sanders did his part in making the Lions suck, too. He holds the NFL record for the most carries for negative yardage: 336 Carries for -952 Yards. Sometimes a two yard gain is not a bad thing.
I agree completely. Emmitt Smith could break the big runs... but he would also put the team on his shoulders, pound the ball over and over again, control the clock, and wear down the defense. Let alone his receiving and his GREAT blocking ability. Barry was great for breaking off some exciting plays... but he rarely won the game based on them. Emmitt Smith would win games for his team, because he completely controlled the game.Also, people act like Emmitt's line did all of the work, yet this is the same line that caused Troy Aikman to receive enough concussions (10 I think) to end his career early.
Try again...Watch this, and get back to reality.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3BMqqbeZhME&feature=related

Emmitt probably had the best vision of back ever. His cutbacks were amazing, he just made them look so easy. Also, he was so hard to tackle, that he made it look easy. Michael Irvin said before that even though he was great friends with Barry, and he would have to say that Barry was the most exciting back to watch... that Emmitt was by far the best back that he ever saw play. He pointed out that when Dallas drafted him, he thought that they made a mistake, because he watched his tapes and thought it looked as if he was hardly running. After he had the chance to play beside, he realized that Emmitt was just so great, that he made everything look easy. He didn't have to look extemely exciting like Barry, and make 5 juke's before breaking out into the open... Emmitt could let a guy hit him head on, tilt his shoulders at just the right angle, and guys would just slide off of him. He doesn't get credit for being as great as he is, because he was SO great, that he made it look like anyone could do it.

 
For my money and a turjerken, Barry Sanders. Sweetness a close 2nd. Bo Jackson 3rd. Jim Brown 4th. Eric Dickerson 5th. Emmitt Smith 6th.
Love the Bo Jackson props!he was special...

For my money L. Tomlinson TRUMPS everyone on this list, by the time he's finished he'll be the greatest ever, and he'll own many of the records by then...

and what about Earl Campbell?

 
Emmitt was a given for 3-4 yards, because there was never anyone in the backfield hitting him. Most of the time, Emmitt didn't get touched until the second layer of defense.
Some pretty bad revisionist history about Emmitt and the Cowboys OL in this post.In 1993 when Emmitt held out the first two games of the season, the team lost both and averaged a mere 13 points per game. When Emmitt ended his hold out, they went 15-2, won the Super Bowl and averaged over 26 points a game.If an offensive line let any NFL RB run "untouched until the second level" they'd be getting 5 yards before contact. So if the Cowboys OL was so awesome and Emmitt was just a product of the system, then why did the entire offense tank without him? Reason: Emmitt was awesome and he made the OL look good, not the other way around.
 
Bo was probably one of the first guys that I am confident was juicing. His body looked like it and his injury confirmed it for me. We'll never know but he really doesn't belong in this conversation at all.

As for the Cowboy fans--sorry. Emmitt is a great back who was fortunate to be in the perfect system with the best blocking OL. He frequently wasn't hit until five yards past the OL. He deserves credit for his durability and his consistency and for that reason is a top 10 all time back--but he is no where near the best.

Tanner9919 said:
For my money and a turjerken, Barry Sanders. Sweetness a close 2nd. Bo Jackson 3rd. Jim Brown 4th. Eric Dickerson 5th. Emmitt Smith 6th.
Love the Bo Jackson props!he was special...

For my money L. Tomlinson TRUMPS everyone on this list, by the time he's finished he'll be the greatest ever, and he'll own many of the records by then...

and what about Earl Campbell?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
H.K. said:
Tornacl said:
Emmitt was a given for 3-4 yards, because there was never anyone in the backfield hitting him. Most of the time, Emmitt didn't get touched until the second layer of defense.
Some pretty bad revisionist history about Emmitt and the Cowboys OL in this post.In 1993 when Emmitt held out the first two games of the season, the team lost both and averaged a mere 13 points per game. When Emmitt ended his hold out, they went 15-2, won the Super Bowl and averaged over 26 points a game.If an offensive line let any NFL RB run "untouched until the second level" they'd be getting 5 yards before contact. So if the Cowboys OL was so awesome and Emmitt was just a product of the system, then why did the entire offense tank without him? Reason: Emmitt was awesome and he made the OL look good, not the other way around.
Exactly... actually all you have to do is actually watch him play to see how many tackles he broke, and how his cutbacks, and vision is what broke him out into the open most of the time. His line was very good... but so was Barry's.
 
Agreed, but you have to downgrade Brown for lack of longevity compared to some others. if not (or depending on where you draw the line Bo Jackson was the best ever).

I honestly believe LT2 is at the top as well because he can do everything and do it extremely well/great. Note, I am not one to choose modern players often.

Walter was in this top group as well with Barry Sanders (although getting out early knocks him down). I think Emmitt is in the next grouping

Brown

LT2, Sweetness, Barry Sanders

Emmitt, Earl Campbell (maybe OJ here?), edited to add Marshall Faulk as he is what everyone thought Reggie Bush could be

Bo Jackson (hard to know where to put him because he was probably the best, but lack of playing time probably drops him into this tier) If you asked if you could have a guy for the amount of years he played on a neutral team (which is probably the way to look at it), Bo would drop further.

Earl Campbell was an absolute beast and if his OL was as good as guys like OJ, Emmitt and Dickerson he would have been at the tip of most people's tongues.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
H.K. said:
Tornacl said:
Emmitt was a given for 3-4 yards, because there was never anyone in the backfield hitting him. Most of the time, Emmitt didn't get touched until the second layer of defense.
Some pretty bad revisionist history about Emmitt and the Cowboys OL in this post.In 1993 when Emmitt held out the first two games of the season, the team lost both and averaged a mere 13 points per game. When Emmitt ended his hold out, they went 15-2, won the Super Bowl and averaged over 26 points a game.If an offensive line let any NFL RB run "untouched until the second level" they'd be getting 5 yards before contact. So if the Cowboys OL was so awesome and Emmitt was just a product of the system, then why did the entire offense tank without him? Reason: Emmitt was awesome and he made the OL look good, not the other way around.
Emmitt was overvalued a little because the teams he was on won a lot, but Emmitt was a great running back. His OL was very good, they had Irvin on the outside and a top defense and special teams. Aikman was more a product of the system than Emmitt. Aikman was a good QB that is looked at as great because of all the talent on both sides of the ball.
 
H.K. said:
Tornacl said:
Emmitt was a given for 3-4 yards, because there was never anyone in the backfield hitting him. Most of the time, Emmitt didn't get touched until the second layer of defense.
Some pretty bad revisionist history about Emmitt and the Cowboys OL in this post.In 1993 when Emmitt held out the first two games of the season, the team lost both and averaged a mere 13 points per game. When Emmitt ended his hold out, they went 15-2, won the Super Bowl and averaged over 26 points a game.If an offensive line let any NFL RB run "untouched until the second level" they'd be getting 5 yards before contact. So if the Cowboys OL was so awesome and Emmitt was just a product of the system, then why did the entire offense tank without him? Reason: Emmitt was awesome and he made the OL look good, not the other way around.
Emmitt was overvalued a little because the teams he was on won a lot, but Emmitt was a great running back. His OL was very good, they had Irvin on the outside and a top defense and special teams. Aikman was more a product of the system than Emmitt. Aikman was a good QB that is looked at as great because of all the talent on both sides of the ball.
Using the same logic, then guys like Montana and Jerry Rice must be overvalued, too. Their teams won a lot. I wonder if there is any corellation between the teams with the best players winning though? Nah, that's just silly, teams with the worst players usually are the best.
 
If I had to choose any runner for my team and could pick anyone....then I would go with Brown

after that

I am not so sure I wouldn't consider ADRIAN PETERSON

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rush/receive yards per game

127 - LT

125.5 - Jim Brown

118.9 - Barry Sanders

111.9 - Walter Payton

108.8 - Marshall Faulk

105.5 - Eric Dickerson

95.5 - Emmitt Smith

92.1 - Gale Sayers

rush/receive TDs per game

1.16 - LT

1.07 - Jim Brown

0.77 - Emmitt Smith

0.72 - Marshall Faulk

0.71 - Gale Sayers

0.71 - Barry Sanders

0.66 - Walter Payton

0.65 - Eric Dickerson

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Agreed, but you have to downgrade Brown for lack of longevity compared to some others. if not (or depending on where you draw the line Bo Jackson was the best ever).I honestly believe LT2 is at the top as well because he can do everything and do it extremely well/great. Note, I am not one to choose modern players often.Walter was in this top group as well with Barry Sanders (although getting out early knocks him down). I think Emmitt is in the next groupingBrownLT2, Sweetness, Barry SandersEmmitt, Earl Campbell (maybe OJ here?), edited to add Marshall Faulk as he is what everyone thought Reggie Bush could beBo Jackson (hard to know where to put him because he was probably the best, but lack of playing time probably drops him into this tier) If you asked if you could have a guy for the amount of years he played on a neutral team (which is probably the way to look at it), Bo would drop further.Earl Campbell was an absolute beast and if his OL was as good as guys like OJ, Emmitt and Dickerson he would have been at the tip of most people's tongues.
I think 9 great years from a running back constitutes longevity. Brown only played one fewer season than Sanders and Brown's career was exactly as long as Earl Campbell's (and Campbell only had three great seasons). I don't think O-line problems had anything to do with Campbell's decline after 1980. He was "an absolute beast" as you say. From 1978-1980 he was as great as any back I've ever seen. Dude just took too many shots in those three years and he was never the same player after that. Unfortunately, the effects of all that punishment on Campbell's body are sadly apparent these days. It's a tough job. Payton and Emmitt Smith are the only two backs I believe who exhibited real greatness after the age of 30 (I could be wrong). Good rankings.
 
my personal opinion is walter payton, although the guy i enjoyed watching was earl campbell.

that being said, i did read an article, although i cant recall where, a few yrs back and it was basically written by a guy who took a poll of most of the all time nfl great backs, and he asked the question, "who was the most TALENTED rb ever ?"

the overwhelming majority chose gale sayers.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Keith Lewis said:
I'm surprised Cedric Benson hasn't been mentioned yet.
Oh be quiet. How many threads do you have to riun with your senseless Benson bashing? What was the point of your post? We get it already that you don't like Benson, bu jeez, what did the guy ever do to you?
 
az_prof said:
Bill Lust said:
My dad will swear until his last day that there will never be a better RB than Gale Sayers.
I never saw Sayers play except in highlights, but part of what makes a player great is durability. He didn't have it. AD has as much talent and is more exciting than any of the guys we are talking about IMO, but he has to go out there and do it for seven or eight years to even enter the discussion.
I dont agree, what makes a player's entire career great is durablity. Durable or not, Sayers was a great RB.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top