Zeke v. Saquon shades of Emmitt v. Barry

[Cowboysheelsreds053]

Listen, I know you're trying to appear diplomatic and/or objective, but you have failed.

Barry Sanders did not remotely have Emmitt Smith's power, who squatted over 700lbs., is seen repeatedly throughout his career carrying 300+ pounders down the field, was a tackle-breaking machine, has the most 1st-downs and the most rushing touchdowns in NFL history.

Barry Sanders, on the other hand, was replaced by another, more physical runner in short-yardage/goal-line situations. The Lions literally took him out of the game most of the time whenever they got inside the 4-yard-line & preferred to hand the ball to a fullback or Barry's backup (who was often brought in specifically to be the "thunder" to his lightning) when the team needed a short-yardage conversion of some kind.

Frankly, not taking the majority of those short-yardage handoffs is one of the reasons Barry was able to maintain such a robust yards-per-carry average over his career (5.0), while Emmitt was over in Dallas taking EVERY handoff for his team, between the 20s, goal-line, short-yardage, you name it. Emmitt was the Cowboys' thunder and lightning. He did literally everything for his team.

Meanwhile, Barry's own coach called him "the greatest flag-football player who ever lived."

You don't call someone that who has more lower-body power than Emmitt Smith.

And literally any fool can watch their highlights side-by-side and rightly conclude that Emmitt was, by far, the more physical running back --during a time (his prime) when the NFC East was far & away the best, most physical conference in football; the Commanders, Giants, & Cowboys winning 4-of-5 Super Bowls through the first half of the 90s, and Philly being a perennial playoff contender.

This post is not about debating which back is better overall. We can have that discussion if you want. But it is about refuting your assertion that Barry Sanders had a stronger lower-body than Smith. Sorry, but no. As you said: Not even close. Emmitt possessed a power, in the hips, butt, thighs, and calves, that was never a part of Barry's game.

Barry eluded people better than anyone in history.

Emmitt could elude you. But he could also flatten you.

I refer to Emmitt as the "Super Mario" of NFL running backs. There were faster. There were stronger. There were more agile. There were those who could catch better. None were better blockers. But no other back combined all those gifts into one package better than Emmitt Smith, in my opinion. The one "gift" he was missing was spinster's speed. His acceleration, however, is likely top-5 in NFL history --another testament to his ridiculous lower-body power.

Barry was a special, special player; and yes, he did have very strong legs. But this manifested more as unparalleled lateral-movement ability than outright power. Barry's highlights are amazing (don't get me wrong, I watched his whole career as it happened) but they do not show a power-back who drove piles with his legs or ran people over --things which were Emmitt Smith's calling-card, in no small part due to his superior leg-strength.

I consider this objective fact; and that your analysis reveals you as a Barry Sanders homer.


Sorry to put it in such stark terms. I have an allergy to apologists.

You are a Poet for real my man! Love this post and having seem both in person multiple times you are spot on with this post. Emmitt was the more complete back to me that means the better back, not just a runner. Like in basketball you can either have James Harden or MJ. Both can score but one will play D and get you steals and dunks and rebounds and make assist and take charges, while the other will just score and look good and TRAVEL doing it. Now which are you taking?

 

[Zeke-2K-Yards]

repost

 

[Zeke-2K-Yards]

Listen, I know you're trying to appear diplomatic and/or objective, but you have failed.

Barry Sanders did not remotely have Emmitt Smith's power, who squatted over 700lbs., is seen repeatedly throughout his career carrying 300+ pounders down the field, was a tackle-breaking machine, has the most 1st-downs and the most rushing touchdowns in NFL history.

Barry Sanders, on the other hand, was replaced by another, more physical runner in short-yardage/goal-line situations. The Lions literally took him out of the game most of the time whenever they got inside the 4-yard-line & preferred to hand the ball to a fullback or Barry's backup (who was often brought in specifically to be the "thunder" to his lightning) when the team needed a short-yardage conversion of some kind.

Frankly, not taking the majority of those short-yardage handoffs is one of the reasons Barry was able to maintain such a robust yards-per-carry average over his career (5.0), while Emmitt was over in Dallas taking EVERY handoff for his team, between the 20s, goal-line, short-yardage, you name it. Emmitt was the Cowboys' thunder and lightning. He did literally everything for his team.

Meanwhile, Barry's own coach called him "the greatest flag-football player who ever lived."

You don't call someone that who has more lower-body power than Emmitt Smith.

And literally any fool can watch their highlights side-by-side and rightly conclude that Emmitt was, by far, the more physical running back --during a time (his prime) when the NFC East was far & away the best, most physical conference in football; the Commanders, Giants, & Cowboys winning 4-of-5 Super Bowls through the first half of the 90s, and Philly being a perennial playoff contender.

This post is not about debating which back is better overall. We can have that discussion if you want. But it is about refuting your assertion that Barry Sanders had a stronger lower-body than Smith. Sorry, but no. As you said: Not even close. Emmitt possessed a power, in the hips, butt, thighs, and calves, that was never a part of Barry's game.

Barry eluded people better than anyone in history.

Emmitt could elude you. But he could also flatten you.

I refer to Emmitt as the "Super Mario" of NFL running backs. There were faster. There were stronger. There were more agile. There were those who could catch better. None were better blockers. But no other back combined all those gifts into one package better than Emmitt Smith, in my opinion. The one "gift" he was missing was spinster's speed. His acceleration, however, is likely top-5 in NFL history --another testament to his ridiculous lower-body power.

Barry was a special, special player; and yes, he did have very strong legs. But this manifested more as unparalleled lateral-movement ability than outright power. Barry's highlights are amazing (don't get me wrong, I watched his whole career as it happened) but they do not show a power-back who drove piles with his legs or ran people over --things which were Emmitt Smith's calling-card, in no small part due to his superior leg-strength.

I consider this objective fact; and that your analysis reveals you as a Barry Sanders homer.


Sorry to put it in such stark terms. I have an allergy to apologists.

Listen, I know you're trying to appear diplomatic and/or objective, but you have failed.

Barry Sanders did not remotely have Emmitt Smith's power, who squatted over 700lbs., is seen repeatedly throughout his career carrying 300+ pounders down the field, was a tackle-breaking machine, has the most 1st-downs and the most rushing touchdowns in NFL history.

Barry Sanders, on the other hand, was replaced by another, more physical runner in short-yardage/goal-line situations. The Lions literally took him out of the game most of the time whenever they got inside the 4-yard-line & preferred to hand the ball to a fullback or Barry's backup (who was often brought in specifically to be the "thunder" to his lightning) when the team needed a short-yardage conversion of some kind.

Frankly, not taking the majority of those short-yardage handoffs is one of the reasons Barry was able to maintain such a robust yards-per-carry average over his career (5.0), while Emmitt was over in Dallas taking EVERY handoff for his team, between the 20s, goal-line, short-yardage, you name it. Emmitt was the Cowboys' thunder and lightning. He did literally everything for his team.

Meanwhile, Barry's own coach called him "the greatest flag-football player who ever lived."

You don't call someone that who has more lower-body power than Emmitt Smith.

And literally any fool can watch their highlights side-by-side and rightly conclude that Emmitt was, by far, the more physical running back --during a time (his prime) when the NFC East was far & away the best, most physical conference in football; the Commanders, Giants, & Cowboys winning 4-of-5 Super Bowls through the first half of the 90s, and Philly being a perennial playoff contender.

This post is not about debating which back is better overall. We can have that discussion if you want. But it is about refuting your assertion that Barry Sanders had a stronger lower-body than Smith. Sorry, but no. As you said: Not even close. Emmitt possessed a power, in the hips, butt, thighs, and calves, that was never a part of Barry's game.

Barry eluded people better than anyone in history.

Emmitt could elude you. But he could also flatten you.

I refer to Emmitt as the "Super Mario" of NFL running backs. There were faster. There were stronger. There were more agile. There were those who could catch better. None were better blockers. But no other back combined all those gifts into one package better than Emmitt Smith, in my opinion. The one "gift" he was missing was spinster's speed. His acceleration, however, is likely top-5 in NFL history --another testament to his ridiculous lower-body power.

Barry was a special, special player; and yes, he did have very strong legs. But this manifested more as unparalleled lateral-movement ability than outright power. Barry's highlights are amazing (don't get me wrong, I watched his whole career as it happened) but they do not show a power-back who drove piles with his legs or ran people over --things which were Emmitt Smith's calling-card, in no small part due to his superior leg-strength.

I consider this objective fact; and that your analysis reveals you as a Barry Sanders homer.


Sorry to put it in such stark terms. I have an allergy to apologists.

So much wrong info in this post idk where to start, first Barry did not have Emmitts upper body strength, lower body Barry’s legs were stronger than Emmitts. Emmitt has strong legs as well, Barry was far more explosive running the ball, where do think that came from? Ask Emmitt who had the stronger calves, thighs, knees and ankles? He’ll tell u Barry as would anyone that watched them both play and knows what there talking about.

As I said I don’t know what ur talking about, Barry was an every down back till his 4th year and up until that time he averaged around 15tds a year. He was taken out bc Fontes wanted to cut down on punishment. Barry gets hurt, who’s gonna carry the team? Ware, Michell, Peete, Kramer, Batch or Majkowski? I’m sure I forgot some, but I don’t see an Aikman on that list. Barry didn’t agree with it, but he did as the coach told him.

As I said check Barry’s first 3 years as an every down back and 2 of the 3 years he was above his career average ypc genius. So once again u don’t know what ur talking about. So his career ypc average is not bc he was taken out on short yardage situations.

Fontes called him the best flag football player that ever lived bc he was the hardest player to touch that ever played in the NFL. That means he must not be very strong according to u? Lol

Pretty much the only thing ur correct on is that Emmitt was a more physical running back than Barry. That’s true, he used to run over guys and light safety’s and lbs up when they’d blitz. Emmitts an all time great and possessed a will and determination that Barry didn’t have.

Sorry but Walter Payton has even stronger legs than Emmitt, more physical runner, easily a better receiver, slightly faster and a slightly better blocker. SO once again ur wrong that “no other back combined all those gifts into one package better than Emmitt”. Care to refute that statement?

Sorry, but the NFC East was not “by far” the most physical conference back then. First it’s a division, not conference and anyone that watched football back then knows the NFC Central was every bit as physical as any division. Dungys bucs, Vikings had a great defense and there happened to be a pretty good lineman in GB #92. Are u almost tired of being wrong yet?

Most absurd is that u said Emmitt Smith has top 5 acceleration in NFL HISTORY??? NOWHERE CLOSE TO TOP 5 in Cowboys history. That may be the dumbest statement I’ve ever read on the internet. Congratulations that’s the most homer thing I’ve ever read. Wait, Danny White was probably faster than Michael Vick with Elways arm strength and Marino’s release. I think I almost equaled ur statement. Almost.

 

[Zeke-2K-Yards]

Dungy was also the defensive coordinator for those great Vikings defenses in the early 90s as well. Bears also had a pretty good defense in the early 90s. Was the 90s NFC East “far more” physical than the Central?

 

[PoetTree]

So much wrong info in this post idk where to start, first Barry did not have Emmitts upper body strength, lower body Barry’s legs were stronger than Emmitts. Emmitt has strong legs as well, Barry was far more explosive running the ball, where do think that came from? Ask Emmitt who had the stronger calves, thighs, knees and ankles? He’ll tell u Barry as would anyone that watched them both play and knows what there talking about.

Here is an article by the New York Times, citing a Cowboys scout, which lists Barry Sanders' max-squat as 557lbs. --

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/23/sports/sanders-is-in-no-rush-for-glory.html


Here is a list of LaDainian Tomlinson's pre-draft workout numbers that records LT's max-squat as 610lbs. --

http://www.thehuddle.com/nfl_players/2006/rb-tomlinson.php


And here is Emmitt Smith's actual Cowboys scouting-report, which denotes Emmitt's squat @ 850lbs. --

Emmitt Smith's lower-body was quite a bit stronger than Barry Sanders', as I told you.

Barry was great, better than Emmitt at some things, but leg-strength was not one of 'em.

 

[PoetTree]

Good article:

https://www.***BANNED-URL***/sports...t-the-end-of-the-day-18355-speaks-for-itself/

 

[Super_Kazuya]

I’m not sure who the funnier troll is, the one who thinks that the reason why Barry didn’t win 3 Super Bowls was because he wasn’t as good as Emmitt (not because of the Top 5 defenses, HOF teammates and coaching he lacked) or the one who thinks Emmitt could squat 850 pounds...

 

[PoetTree]

Here's an article (excerpt) from 1990 about Emmitt that verifies his leg-strength:


RUSHING IN A NEW COWBOYS ERA - Top pick Smith draws comparison to Dorsett
The Dallas Morning News - Friday, April 27, 1990
Author: Tim Cowlishaw, Staff Writer of The Dallas Morning News:

IRVING -- It was 1987, near the end of Tony Dorsett's final season as a Cowboy, and the camera crew outside his locker said they had an unusual question to ask.

A freshman at Florida named Emmitt Smith had just gone over the 1,000-yard rushing mark in his seventh game to set an NCAA record. One of Dorsett's records just had been erased. Three years later, Smith's record still stands. And when the Cowboys open their rookie orientation camp with meetings and testing Friday, Emmitt's life as a Cowboy begins. To some, that means his assault on Dorsett's team rushing records is about to get under way.

Shortly after Dallas had traded up to draft Smith, running backs coach Joe Brodsky was ecstatic. "Emmitt Smith has that little innate ingredient that you've got to be extremely careful of or he may not get tackled. I don't see a weak point in that athlete, and we've studied him a long, hard time," he said.

At 5-9 and 199 pounds, Smith is slightly shorter than Dorsett but similar in build. Dorsett had cuts few backs matched. Smith is more of a straight-ahead runner, but he squats 850 pounds and has the edge on Dorsett in power.

---(end excerpt)---


Some of y'all don't understand how great Emmitt was or just what made him special.

It's a shame Cowboys fans keep themselves in the dark, but I'm an equal-opportunity educator.

 

[Silver N Blue]

That's right......Emmitt is the only RB in the history of football to be his state's all-time leading rusher in high school, school's all-time leading rusher in college, and the NFL's all-time leading rusher.

Yeah buddy!

 

[Super_Kazuya]

Here's an article (excerpt) from 1990 about Emmitt that verifies his leg-strength:


RUSHING IN A NEW COWBOYS ERA - Top pick Smith draws comparison to Dorsett
The Dallas Morning News - Friday, April 27, 1990
Author: Tim Cowlishaw, Staff Writer of The Dallas Morning News:

IRVING -- It was 1987, near the end of Tony Dorsett's final season as a Cowboy, and the camera crew outside his locker said they had an unusual question to ask.

A freshman at Florida named Emmitt Smith had just gone over the 1,000-yard rushing mark in his seventh game to set an NCAA record. One of Dorsett's records just had been erased. Three years later, Smith's record still stands. And when the Cowboys open their rookie orientation camp with meetings and testing Friday, Emmitt's life as a Cowboy begins. To some, that means his assault on Dorsett's team rushing records is about to get under way.

Shortly after Dallas had traded up to draft Smith, running backs coach Joe Brodsky was ecstatic. "Emmitt Smith has that little innate ingredient that you've got to be extremely careful of or he may not get tackled. I don't see a weak point in that athlete, and we've studied him a long, hard time," he said.

At 5-9 and 199 pounds, Smith is slightly shorter than Dorsett but similar in build. Dorsett had cuts few backs matched. Smith is more of a straight-ahead runner, but he squats 850 pounds and has the edge on Dorsett in power.

---(end excerpt)---


Some of y'all don't understand how great Emmitt was or just what made him special.

It's a shame Cowboys fans keep themselves in the dark, but I'm an equal-opportunity educator.

You long-winded troll, think for yourself instead of just regurgitating nonsense. Emmitt could not squad 850 friggin’ pounds.

 

[PoetTree]

You long-winded troll, think for yourself instead of just regurgitating nonsense. Emmitt could not squad 850 friggin’ pounds.

Multiple sources corroborate that he did, including his actual Cowboys scouting-report.

If you think Cowboys scouts were in the habit of lying or embellishing on their own to mister Jones about the prospects they were scouting for him, the Owner & General Manager, then I suspect you're either 12-years-old or addicted to NyQuil.

You've got to remember, this was in the era before the internet. The "Age-of-Information" was not quite upon us yet, where access to all manner of recorded facts & figures are available to us at the tap of our fingertips. Rather, here, we have photographs of Emmitt's actual scouting-report by the team that drafted him; and a published article by a reputable news-source likewise reporting Emmitt's 850lbs. squat-stat.

There is literally no reason to doubt either of those sources.

In fact, there are numerous reasons to believe each had a vested interest in accurate info.

Moreover, given I've provided substantial evidence of this claim's veracity, you are going to have to supply something more compelling than a cry for some subjective application of "common sense" to persuade anyone otherwise. The burden-of-proof is upon you to disprove what is objectively true.

I have Emmitt's actual Cowboys scouting-report and a published Dallas Morning News Article each reporting the 850lbs. figure, right around the same time.

What do you have that demonstrates this is wrong?

 

[Super_Kazuya]

Multiple sources corroborate that he did, including his actual Cowboys scouting-report.

If you think Cowboys scouts were in the habit of lying or embellishing on their own to mister Jones about the prospects they were scouting for him, the Owner & General Manager, then I suspect you're either 12-years-old or addicted to NyQuil.

You've got to remember, this was in the era before the internet. The "Age-of-Information" was not quite upon us yet, where access to all manner of recorded facts & figures are available to us at the tap of our fingertips. Rather, here, we have photographs of Emmitt's actual scouting-report by the team that drafted him; and a published article by a reputable news-source likewise reporting Emmitt's 850lbs. squat-stat.

There is literally no reason to doubt either of those sources.

In fact, there are numerous reasons to believe each had a vested interest in accurate info.

Moreover, given I've provided substantial evidence of this claim's veracity, you are going to have to supply something more compelling than a cry for some subjective application of "common sense" to persuade anyone otherwise. The burden-of-proof is upon you to disprove what is objectively true.

I have Emmitt's actual Cowboys scouting-report and a published Dallas Morning News Article each reporting the 850lbs. figure, right around the same time.

What do you have that demonstrates this is wrong?

There isn’t “multiple”’sources, there is one erroneous scouting report. That’s it.
And clearly you are a pencil-necked geek type if it makes sense to you, with the heaviest thing you’ve ever lifted was your beer mug.
Nick Chubb, with the benefit of 30 years of nutrition and science over Emmitt, recently squatted 600 pounds and it was treated as some kind of unicorn event, with even non-football sites like Men’s Health reporting on its significance:
https://www.menshealth.com/fitness/a19527567/nick-chubb-squats-600-pounds-georgia/
And yet, Emmitt, who is smaller than Chubb, was able to squat four times his own weight and there is no legend behind it at all. I mean could Larry Allen even squat 850 pounds?

 

[PoetTree]

There isn’t “multiple”’sources, there is one erroneous scouting report. That’s it.
And clearly you are a pencil-necked geek type if it makes sense to you, with the heaviest thing you’ve ever lifted was your beer mug.
Nick Chubb, with the benefit of 30 years of nutrition and science over Emmitt, recently squatted 600 pounds and it was treated as some kind of unicorn event, with even non-football sites like Men’s Health reporting on its significance:
https://www.menshealth.com/fitness/a19527567/nick-chubb-squats-600-pounds-georgia/
And yet, Emmitt, who is smaller than Chubb, was able to squat four times his own weight and there is no legend behind it at all. I mean could Larry Allen even squat 850 pounds?

I think you're helping make the case for why Emmitt is so special.

Also, welcome back to my ignore list...

 

[Super_Kazuya]

I think you're helping make the case for why Emmitt is so special.

Also, welcome back to my ignore list...

And you are making the case that we really need some kind of IQ test before allowing access to the New Post button. 850 lbs!

 

[Zeke-2K-Yards]

Here's an article (excerpt) from 1990 about Emmitt that verifies his leg-strength:


RUSHING IN A NEW COWBOYS ERA - Top pick Smith draws comparison to Dorsett
The Dallas Morning News - Friday, April 27, 1990
Author: Tim Cowlishaw, Staff Writer of The Dallas Morning News:

IRVING -- It was 1987, near the end of Tony Dorsett's final season as a Cowboy, and the camera crew outside his locker said they had an unusual question to ask.

A freshman at Florida named Emmitt Smith had just gone over the 1,000-yard rushing mark in his seventh game to set an NCAA record. One of Dorsett's records just had been erased. Three years later, Smith's record still stands. And when the Cowboys open their rookie orientation camp with meetings and testing Friday, Emmitt's life as a Cowboy begins. To some, that means his assault on Dorsett's team rushing records is about to get under way.

Shortly after Dallas had traded up to draft Smith, running backs coach Joe Brodsky was ecstatic. "Emmitt Smith has that little innate ingredient that you've got to be extremely careful of or he may not get tackled. I don't see a weak point in that athlete, and we've studied him a long, hard time," he said.

At 5-9 and 199 pounds, Smith is slightly shorter than Dorsett but similar in build. Dorsett had cuts few backs matched. Smith is more of a straight-ahead runner, but he squats 850 pounds and has the edge on Dorsett in power.

---(end excerpt)---


Some of y'all don't understand how great Emmitt was or just what made him special.

It's a shame Cowboys fans keep themselves in the dark, but I'm an equal-opportunity educator.

Emmitt has seriously strong legs, I’ve never heard any analyst or “expert” say he had stronger legs. JJ Watt “only” squatted around 700 in his prime. There’s no way any version of Emmitt squatted 150 pounds more than him, regardless of what one scouting report said.

Idk why people ever argued about Barry vs. Emmitt to start with. 2 totally different runners. As Zeke and Barkley are. I feel Emmitt is the 2nd best all around back ever behind Walter, pure runner I’d rank Barry number 1 with Jim Brown number 2

 

[Toruk_Makto]

"Zeke wasn't particularly effective in moving the chains last year."

Wins the rushing title 2 out of 3 years (should be 3) lol

I like how people didn't care as much about YPA until Zeke came. No one gets awards for YPA or YPC. Yards, TDs, & turnover ratio > every other stat.

Zeke won the rushing title 2 of 3 years yes. He also led the league in rushing attempts. Zeke led th eleague in volume not efficiency and it isn't particularly close.

 

[PoetTree]

Emmitt has seriously strong legs, I’ve never heard any analyst or “expert” say he had stronger legs. JJ Watt “only” squatted around 700 in his prime. There’s no way any version of Emmitt squatted 150 pounds more than him, regardless of what one scouting report said.

Incorrect.

I am friends & associates with professional athletes, trainers, and fitness experts. You might say it's a circle I run in. I have had these discussions with them and you couldn't be more wrong from a biological level. You see how much bigger JJ Watt is than Emmitt & think, "Smith could never squat more than Watt," but that only imparts your ignorance of biomechanics.

In fact, when I shared this data with a strength-trainer friend of mine this morning, his response was that Emmitt Smith's height helped him squat that much weight and that athletes are not carbon-copies of one another. Genetically, some have highly-developed arms, or shoulders, or backs, or in Emmitt's case: LEGS.

Remember, as a 14-year-old freshman in high-school, having never lifted weights before, Emmitt Smith squatted 400lbs. the very first time he ever tried. I think the point you're missing is that Emmitt's leg-strength was athletically special, which is one of the things that allowed him to do things on an NFL field that literally no other back in NFL history has proved capable of matching.

Emmitt's production is nothing less than historically freakish.

His freakish lower-body-power, and the balance / burst / ability to break tackles this provided him, is why he was able to out-produce every other phenom athlete who's ever played the position.


Here is an article, again from the New York Times, about Emmitt's idol, Walter Payton, who it cites not only squats more weight than JJ Watt, but does 'SETS' of squats that are beyond JJ Watt's max. If you were to compare upper-body strength, shoulders, arms, chest, there's no way Walter or Emmitt would match Watt. But that's why they were "running" backs --because their legs had special athletic ability.


https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/02/...unning-back-for-chicago-bears-dies-at-45.html

from the article --"At 5 feet 10 1/2 inches and 204 pounds, Payton was not big for a running back, but his strength and conditioning were legendary. He could bench-press 390 pounds and do leg-press series with more than 700 pounds."


For those who think Emmitt's bodyweight was somehow prohibitive of him having freakish leg-strength, Walter Payton weighed less than Emmitt. Y'all need to understand, their freakish legs are what make Emmitt & Walter the #1 & #2 leading-rushers in NFL history...

 

[QuincyCarterEra]

Barkley had more four carries(no pass attempts) on first drive against a good Buffalo defense for an TD and more yards than Zeke had all last week. Between the tackle runs.

 

[Zeke-2K-Yards]

Incorrect.

I am friends & associates with professional athletes, trainers, and fitness experts. You might say it's a circle I run in. I have had these discussions with them and you couldn't be more wrong from a biological level. You see how much bigger JJ Watt is than Emmitt & think, "Smith could never squat more than Watt," but that only imparts your ignorance of biomechanics.

In fact, when I shared this data with a strength-trainer friend of mine this morning, his response was that Emmitt Smith's height helped him squat that much weight and that athletes are not carbon-copies of one another. Genetically, some have highly-developed arms, or shoulders, or backs, or in Emmitt's case: LEGS.

Remember, as a 14-year-old freshman in high-school, having never lifted weights before, Emmitt Smith squatted 400lbs. the very first time he ever tried. I think the point you're missing is that Emmitt's leg-strength was athletically special, which is one of the things that allowed him to do things on an NFL field that literally no other back in NFL history has proved capable of matching.

Emmitt's production is nothing less than historically freakish.

His freakish lower-body-power, and the balance / burst / ability to break tackles this provided him, is why he was able to out-produce every other phenom athlete who's ever played the position.


Here is an article, again from the New York Times, about Emmitt's idol, Walter Payton, who it cites not only squats more weight than JJ Watt, but does 'SETS' of squats that are beyond JJ Watt's max. If you were to compare upper-body strength, shoulders, arms, chest, there's no way Walter or Emmitt would match Watt. But that's why they were "running" backs --because their legs had special athletic ability.


https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/02/...unning-back-for-chicago-bears-dies-at-45.html

from the article --"At 5 feet 10 1/2 inches and 204 pounds, Payton was not big for a running back, but his strength and conditioning were legendary. He could bench-press 390 pounds and do leg-press series with more than 700 pounds."


For those who think Emmitt's bodyweight was somehow prohibitive of him having freakish leg-strength, Walter Payton weighed less than Emmitt. Y'all need to understand, their freakish legs are what make Emmitt & Walter the #1 & #2 leading-rushers in NFL history...

I don’t care about what your “fitness trainer” friend has to say. It’s probably a yoga teacher. You’re ignorant if u think Emmitt Smith could squat 150-200 lbs more than JJ Watt and James Harrison. Those guys would destroy Emmitt in the weight room and YOU are probably the only person that would ever say otherwise. Freakish legs are not the main reason Emmitt and Walter are 1,2. Great players that dominated at their positions, both were IRONMEN that rarely missed games and their longevity were bigger factors than just their freakish legs.

Idk why I’m arguing points with someone that thinks the NFC East was a conference and that Emmitt Smith of all runners had top 5 acceleration in NFL history

 

[PoetTree]

I don’t care about what your “fitness trainer” friend has to say. It’s probably a yoga teacher. You’re ignorant if u think Emmitt Smith could squat 150-200 lbs more than JJ Watt and James Harrison. Those guys would destroy Emmitt in the weight room and YOU are probably the only person that would ever say otherwise. Freakish legs are not the main reason Emmitt and Walter are 1,2. Great players that dominated at their positions, both were IRONMEN that rarely missed games and their longevity were bigger factors than just their freakish legs.

Idk why I’m arguing points with someone that thinks the NFC East was a conference and that Emmitt Smith of all runners had top 5 acceleration in NFL history

And welcome to my ignore list, as well...

This forum sucks.