105.3 has upset me: Emmitt vs Barry

I agree with you on our OL. The year before Emmitt arrived Philly sacked Aikman like 11 times or something. They were not very good. They certainly didn't look dominant with Derrick Lassic or Tommy Agee or Lincoln Coleman running behind them.


Haha Lincoln Coleman...only thing I remember about him was he had a good day in the mud during a game they had in Mexico City.
 
I don't think the Pro Bowl has anything to do with how good you are.

Oh right, it is just a popularity contest....my bad....
Why, Why do you say this, that just does not make any sense at all.
 
Barry averaged 1527 yards rushing and 292 yards receiving and 11 TDs per year...for a whopping 10 years
Emmitt averaged 1222 yards rushing and 215 yards receiving, and 11.7 TDs per year for an insane 15 years.

Both are HOF RBs and that's good enough for me
Babe Ruth (HR king, often spectacular, but struck out lot, but still had high average)
Lou Gehrig (consistent, solid and sometime spectacular, higher average, but HRs too)
 
Ok..


Can you remember a game we won without Emmitt? I can remember winning without Troy.. Never without Emmitt...

That Oline was great. I'm not going to deny it but a famous quote from the 90's from Nate Newton was that they were just a bunch of guys until Emmitt got there.





Also, name Jerry Rice's QB's for most of his career.. Now name Moss's.



My problem is that Emmitt gets graded on a different scale than Jerry Rice when they are the exact same player.

Not only that check it out. Barry played with 3 pro bowl linemen. Lomas Brown (Perennial probowl) and Kevin Glover come to mind. I cant remember the other. He also had a vry good WR in Herman Moore and Brett Perriman. The cowboys linemen are know b/c cowboys won. Im not saying the Lions line were as good, but Barry didnt have a slouch line or team.
 
and then 2 seconds later they say Jerry Rice is better than Randy Moss and it's not debatable.

It's not debatable. IMHO Jerry Rice was not only the greatest WR ever to play the game, there is a strong arguement that he is the greatest all-around player of all time.
 
Name Barry Sanders offensive line.

Now name Emmitt's.

Oh stop. W Nate Newton will even tell you if it was not for Emmitt, that OL would not be as praised as it is. OL and RB make each other in football. OL can make a RB look better but a great RB like Emmitt will do the same. Quit acting like Emmitt is some scrub who happened to play behind a great OL. What about Emmitt's backup when he didn't play? Yeah...

Emmitt had a lot to do with how great that OL looked. There's more to the position than flashy highlight reel plays. Emmitt was so more well rounded as a RB it isn't funny.
 
The object of the game is to win. As fans, we love spectacular plays, brilliant moves, great acrobatics. We love to watch unforgettable plays. But the object of the game is to win. I am amazed again and again when large numbers of people attempt to minimize the accomplishments of both Smith and Aikman. The arguments against either of them being all-time greats are remarkably similar and ultimately flaccid. They weren't flashy fast-gun artists. They were stone-cold gunfighters. They played a brand of football that results in victories. Irvin was similar in many respects. Yes that was a great offensive line, as much because of its stability as anything else. But there have been other great lines.

Smith was as much a warrior as you'll see on a football field. He played hurt, and he played hard. He did everything a RB should do to contribute to a victory. He played best in big games. He was one tough son of a thoroughbred mare. He got the tough yards. He broke long runs. He caught the ball. He blocked. He took the game on his back in big moments and when a lead needed to be nursed.

I loved to watch Sanders run with the football. It was magic. But he accumulated a lot of negative plays. He never proved able to elevate his team in the same way Smith was able. And results mean something. Speculation is fun. It entertains. But results means something. The Cowboys won. They were dominant. They had a great OL, they had Aikman and Emmitt, they had a deep defense. The sum of the parts was perhaps the greatest team ever assembled. But to do the addition and then to somehow subtract from a player like Smith because of the sum is simply wrong. Results mean something. The object of the game is to win.

Smith had the heart of a lion. I'm reminded of J.J. Watt's quote. A lion doesn't concern himself with the opinions of a sheep. I am no lion, and I get weary of the sound of baaahh, baaah, baaah.
 
So I'm listening to 105.3 the fan and they say that Barry is better than Emmitt and it's not debatable for anyone outside of the metroplex and then 2 seconds later they say Jerry Rice is better than Randy Moss and it's not debatable.


To me... Emmitt and Jerry are the same. Jerry and Emmitt both weren't the biggest, strongest, or fastest but they were warriors who got it done in the biggest moments and have titles and all kinds of records to show for it.


Barry and Randy share the same thing. Immense physical ability and nothing to show for it. Heck... I would take a young Adrian Peterson over Barry Sanders.

I just don't understand though how you can just not apply the same rules to Jerry Rice as you do Emmitt smith when they are basically the same player at different positions.
th
 
Oh right, it is just a popularity contest....my bad....
Why, Why do you say this, that just does not make any sense at all.

The pro bowl was a different animal in the 90s. It meant more to be a pro bowler back then. They actually played the games as well.
 
Took the time to look up a few random rankings:

fwiw:

Athlon Sports
Barry 2, Emmitt 4

Ranker
Barry 1, Emmitt 6

Gil Brandt
Barry 8th, Emmitt 10th

NBC Sports Top 5
Barry 2, Emmitt 6+

Cheatsheet
Emmitt 3, Barry 4

Men's Fitness NFL
Barry 2, Emmitt 4

Swartzsports Top 100
Barry 2, Emmitt 4

Fox Sports
Barry 2, Emmitt 3

Bleacher Report (lol)
Barry 1, Emmitt 10

So out of the 9....again for what it's worth...8 favored Barry and 1 favored Emmitt
 
It actually is a popularity contest. Who votes?

Players and coaches votes count like 75% of the votes, the 25% from fans don't mean a whole lot. Heck they may not be used at all. Just a gimmick to make the fans think their opinions count.
 
Name Barry Sanders offensive line.

Now name Emmitt's.

I hate this argument.

The o line is used to diminish what the team did over that time.

All arguments for any running back not named emmitt being the best are subjective.
 
I don't know if he would.


I don't know if he would convert all of those short yardage situations and wear down defenses like Emmitt did.

I'm sure he would've been great because he was a great player but i'm not sure we still have the titles because I don't know if Barry is a champion like Emmitt.

Barry was taken off the field in goal line situations.
 
Not only that check it out. Barry played with 3 pro bowl linemen. Lomas Brown (Perennial probowl) and Kevin Glover come to mind. I cant remember the other. He also had a vry good WR in Herman Moore and Brett Perriman. The cowboys linemen are know b/c cowboys won. Im not saying the Lions line were as good, but Barry didnt have a slouch line or team.

They also made the playoffs just about every year in the 90's
 
The Lions may have the Barry Jinx....their last playoff win was against us in 91, when Jimmy would not start Aikman over Steve Buerlein, though Steve was playing really good.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,113
Messages
13,789,552
Members
23,772
Latest member
BAC2662
Back
Top