Because, quite frankly, it deserves its own thread...

[PoetTree]

What people who constantly (and ignorantly) bang their heads in this argument with the idea that Barry had no offensive talent around him ignore, is that he had multiple offensive pro-bowlers around him from 1994-1997 -- and that the Lions actually possessed the NFL's top-rated offense in 1995, and one of the top-rated offenses in the league from 1994-1997.

Those teams had a wealth of offensive talent, including (in 1995) a pair of receivers, Herman Moore & Brett Perriman, who became the first duo in NFL *history* to record 100-catch seasons on the same team, in the same year -- Moore finishing with a then-NFL record 123 grabs, and Perriman ending the season with 108. Not bad, by ANY means.

Add to that pro-bowl tackle Lomas Brown (who made the pro-bowl for 6 straight years), and budding pro-bowl center Kevin Glover... who wouldn't be awarded his first trip to Honolulu 'til 1996... and a quarterback, Scott Mitchell, who passed for 4,338 yards & 32 touchdowns that year... and it's a joke to say that Sanders didn't have any offensive talent around him.

And how many yards & touchdowns did Barry get in 1995?

1,500 yards, 11 TDs, a 4.8 yard-per-carry average.

And how did Emmitt do in the same season?

1,773 yards, 25 TDs, a 4.7 yard-per-carry average.

The Lions had the #1 rated offense in the LEAGUE that year.

Emmitt still put up significantly better numbers than Barry.


Emmitt is King, no matter how good Barry was at juking.

End of debate.

:starspin















Peace and Love

- PoetTree -

 

[JBond]

Like it!

 

[ladiewolve]

you know it!

 

[Brandon]

Just look at career stats, Emmitt has something like 40 more touchdowns than Barry.

 

[ZB9]

Stephen A.? Where have you been?

quite frankly i love cheese doodles!!

 

[NoLuv4Jerry]

not that this matters, but it surely debunks the myths that float around in cyberspace.....but the Lions also had the most expensive offensive line for a good portion of Barry's tenure. Bottom line is it does not matter how good an offensive line is if you do not follow it or if you cannot read defensive fronts pre-snap and "see the play before it happens".

Barry was better in the open field....Barry had more shiftiness...but it takes so much more to being a pro RB....and those are the things that Emmit had in abundance.

 

[Sarge]

The REAL bottom line is they were 2 completely different runners and it all boils down to preference, IMO/FWIW......

BTW, I'll take Emmitt, thank you.

 

[Prossman]

The only thing Barry had over Emmitt was style. He had the flashy/sexy running style with breakaway speed and looked so good doing it. The problem was he was equally capable of losing yards vs good defenses. So much so he was often taken out / left out of the goal line defenses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like Barry but the bottom line with the guy is he is a quitter. He was a year away from the rushing title and just walked away/quit and didn't have the guts to face the press. He sent his dad to tell everyone. It seemed like a month passed before he addressed the issue himself. He got the fat contract and bailed. He talked some kinda mumbo jumbo about not being worried about the record and faded away. Now instead of creating a Legacy of his career accomplishments he faded away as a guy with no heart who was a great back. Like a premature ejaculation, he blew right before the pinnacle of sucess.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emmitt on the other hand, was ALWAYS the guy who was to short, to slow, .......to everything, to even be effective in the NFL muchless be the NFL All time leading rusher. Barry got the props because of his better natural talent,from all sources (outside the cowboy nation). Emmitt had great vision, work ethic, and most importantly Heart! Emmitt had been on Barrys heels for years for the yardage record. Mr Smith was relentless, and was never going away. Barry yelled "uncle" and quit, while emmitt rushed on to glory. Emmitt is by far the better running back to carry the torch and represent the NFl as its leading rusher and greatest back. It may have took emmitt getting the rushing title for everyone else to finally give him his due, but we knew he was worth it from the day he dawned a star. Prossman

 

[CrazyCowboy]

gott agree with Mr. Cowboy for rbs

 

[adbutcher]

No arguments here, great post!

 

[Tobal]

Barry didn't love football... saying he had no heart is BS.... he just did not love it. I'm not even sure how much he liked. He just was very good at it.

Barry Sander is the most talented running back in NFL history. I don't think he ever understood the game though.

Walter Payton is the best NFL running back I ever saw play.

E Smith played with the heart of Payton and I think he has a really good grasp of the game. He knew the importance of 3rd and 4 vs 3rd and 8. He kept Dallas in manageable situations, he pciked of blitzers That made him one of the best RB's ever to play the game.

 

[CATCH17]

:worthy: :bravo:

 

[Silver Surfer]

As a Lions fan by birth, and a Cowboys fan by choice, I'm afraid I have to respectfully disagree with you. Your use of statistics is admirable, but you undermine your own argument in doing so.

First, you use one year of statistics to support your point.

Using that approach and the logic you use to support Emmitt would lead to the conclusion that Scott Mitchell was a better QB than Troy. Aikman's best year for yardage and touchdowns were 3445 and 23 in 1992. His supporting cast had 5 other offensive pro-bowlers in it while Mitchell had 4 in 1995.

Therefore, one could conclude Mitchell was doing more with less.

Obviously this is an indefensible argument.

It makes more sense to look at the body of their work.

Since Emmitt's performance started dropping off after 2000, it was reasonable to me to look at the years they were in the league together (1990-1998), arguably during their peak performance. You're welcome to take issue with this approach, but I don't believe it helps Emmitt.

Over the 9 year period, Emmitt outscored Barry by 40 touchdowns, but Barry outrushed Emmitt by 1233 yards. Emmitt also had 132 more attempts during that period. If you normalize the numbers to even attempts, Emmitt would outscore Barry by 36 touchdowns, but Barry would outrush Emmitt by 1888 yards.

Secondly, a larger discrepency is evident in their supporting cast. I compared offensive pro-bowl players for each team from 1990-1999 and removed special teams players who were classified as members of the offensive team.

During those same nine years, the total number of offensive pro-bowl players for the Cowboys was 45, while the Lions only had 22. If you remove the running backs themselves, the Cowboys had 36 while the Lions had 13. That's nearly a 3:1 advantage.

The Cowboys will have multiple members of their offense from that time period in the HOF: Aikman, Irvin, Smith, probably Allen and perhaps Novacek.

The Lions will have Sanders and perhaps Lomas Brown.

Those who believe that the impact of other offensive players have a negligible impact on performance should consider the following:

In the only years the Emmitt had less pro-bowl offensive players (1990 & 1997), Barry had 24 touchdowns to Emmitt's 15 and a 5.7 YPC vs Emmitt's 4.0 YPC.

Finally, Emmitt was not selected to the pro-bowl in 1996 and 1997 while Barry was.


Ultimately, I don't believe either back was clearly better.

I believe Emmitt was a more complete back (running, catching, scoring), but benefitted from a clearly superior supporting cast.

I consider Barry the better "pure" runner and, along with Gayle Sayers, one of the most elusive backs of all time.

 

[Big Dakota]

Don't forget blocking. Emmitt may have been the best pass blocking back of his generation.

 

[Silver Surfer]

Just a follow-up. There's a typo in my original argument. The correct value for the number of Cowboy offensive pro-bowlers from 1990-1998 without Emmitt should read 38 (45-7), not 36. The ratio is still nearly 3:1 Cowboys over the Lions.

 

[RainMan]

Barry was obviously the more talented back. Prettier to watch, too. Emmitt was obviously the more successful back. Better to win with, too.

That's how I see it.

 

[DaBoys4Life]

I'd take Emmitt > any RB in the NFL ever to play RB any day of the week and twice on sundays.

 

[PoetTree]

You're missing my point...

I wasn't taking that single year as "proof" that Emmitt is a better back than Barry. I'm saying that year, 1995, takes away the rationale some fans promote that Barry would have put up astronomical numbers if the Lions ever had any other weapons on offense besides him. "They" always claim that Barry's numbers are more impressive due to the fact that defenses were only focused on stopping him, and that if defenses ever had to contend with other weapons... Barry would have been completely unstoppable.

However, as the 1995 season proves, that's not the case.

Herman Moore was one of the top-3 wideouts in the game during his heyday. He was a 6'4" beast of a receiver. And Perriman was a very quick, fast, reliable second receiver. Again, they were the first duo in NFL history to ever[/i] record 100-catch seasons for the same team in the same year. Scott Mitchell tossed 32 touchdowns, and threw for over 4,000-yards. The Lions had the #1 rated offense in the entire LEAGUE that year.

My point is, that's A LOT of other weapons to take attention away from Barry... extremely productive, formidable weapons--along with a very stout offensive line with two pro-bowlers as anchors... and one cannot logically make the argument that Sanders had no talent around him to keep the defense focused elsewhere. He did. To the tune of his team having the #1 offense in the league.

And yet, despite all the cries of how amazing Barry would have been if surrounded with quality weapons on offense, and a good offensive line... which he clearly was from 1994-1997 (and especially in '95)... Emmitt still outperformed him in virtually every category, and by a wide margin in some areas -- particularly "scoring" & "winning".

Do you get my point?

The idea that Barry had no talent around him is preposterous. He played on some very prolific offenses that produced tremendous (even record-setting) statistics, and yet, didn't have the unbelievable explosion of yardage & scoring that most who ignore history continue to insist would have happened "if he ever"...

Well, he did have all that... and he didn't produce like the apologists claim he would if ever placed in that situation. And there's really no more relevant an argument than that. The Lions' defenses may not have ever been strong enough to carry them far into the post-season. But they had plenty of very, very good offenses during Barry's tenure with the team. Yet, even when surrounded by such talent... an all-out passing attack that kept the safeties back & the 8th man out of the box, at times... Emmitt was still able to out-produce Barry, yeah, in the very situation his fans claim would have proven Sanders' superiority... "if he ever had it"....


Well, he did have it. And it didn't prove that.

In fact, it may well have proven the opposite.




Peace,
Poet

 

[dozin_theknick]

I'll take 2nd and 5 rather than 2nd and 13. Thank you. Maybe the reason for the Lions inferior offense compared to the Cowboys is the fact that Sanders led the league in negative carries for most of his career.

 

[PoetTree]

I'll take 2nd and 5 rather than 2nd and 13. Thank you. Maybe the reason for the Lions inferior offense compared to the Cowboys is the fact that Sanders led the league in negative carries for most of his career.

Bingo!

Jimmy Johnson said it best one time:

"Barry Sanders is very exciting with the things he does with the ball. So, if I'm a fan and I want to watch somebody run with the ball, I'd want to watch Barry Sanders. But if I'm a coach and I want to win championships, I'd take Emmitt Smith. He's the best running back I've ever seen in my life."

Even Warren Sapp, who played against Barry Sanders twice every year, when asked to pick the "better" back, said: "With Barry, it's like, you stop him, you stop him, you stop him, you stop him, and then boom, he's gone. But for downhill, smash-mouth, comin' at ya, runnin' down your throat... it's Emmitt all day long.


Just sayin'.

:laugh2: