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

[Silver Surfer]

You're missing my point...


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

The Lions completed 40 more passes that year but took 111 attempts to do so. In 1995 the Cowboys averaged 7.1 Net Yards per passing attempt to the Lions 6.8 yards per attempt. The Cowboys ranked first, the Lions ranked 3rd. Actually, the Cowboys had a better passing attack than the Lions that year.

Barry had 63 less rushing attempts. His YPC was 4.8. If he had rushed as many times as Emmitt that year, he would have outrushed Emmitt by 27 yards.

Don't think 1995 proves much of anything.


"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". "

94-97 ES: 1333 RA 5535 Yds 4.2 YPC 62TDs
94-97 BS: 1287 RA 6989 Yds 5.4 YPC 40TDs

46 less attempts but 1454 yards more. "Virtually every category?" Really?

I'll give you scoring, but to attribute winning to one player is a reach. Using that argument, Trent Dilfer was better than Peyton Manning and Brett Favre in 2000.


Do you get my point?

Not really.

"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."

Don't think the numbers back up your point.

That "all-out" passing attack averaged 2.5 completions per 6.9 attempts for 46 yds a game more for the Lions in 1995. Wouldn't scare me much as a defense.

Show me where I'm wrong.

 

[jobberone]

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.

You beat me to it. It's comparing apples and oranges. Might as well compare Felix and MB's styles.

 

[hmcorp]

barry would have smashed the record if he played to 35.

dude would have had 20,000 yards.

this is a non starter argument.

both are great backs but dont act like barry sanders wasnt one of the best of all time.

 

[ilovejerry]

barry would have smashed the record if he played to 35.

dude would have had 20,000 yards.

this is a non starter argument.

both are great backs but dont act like barry sanders wasnt one of the best of all time.

One of the best of all time ? No I don't think so... Of all Time, maybe in your time , but no way , no how, not of all time...

Earl Campbell Is another back ( short career ) who was amazing and was on a crappy team who didn't last that long, Is Barry better then him ...no way..Barry was an exciting runner to watch but no way is he one of the best of all time ...

 

[PBJTime]

Every great Barry supporter starts his argument with "If he would have played as long....blah, blah, blah." The fact is, he didn't. Even if he didn't quit, who says he wouldn't have gotten injured. He had a different style than Emmitt, but I wouldn't call it better. Emmitt was the better running back in this league, period. Slant it how you want about who was the better "pure runner" (in reality, he was just flashier), but Emmitt was better and the career statistics show it.

 

[lonestar6]

It's interesting that the year Bobby Ross took over (1997) and the Lions added a blocking fullback to the offense was the same year Barry Sanders had his best year ever with over 2000 yards. In his 9th year no less. How many running backs are able to maintain that level of elite production for that long? It makes me wonder what Barry's production could have been if most of his career wasn't wasted in that run and shoot-like offense Fontes ran.

I still think it's tragic that Barry wasn't able to play in a more competent organization in his career. People bring up Emmitt's Superbowls all the time, but those were also a product of superior coaching, Troy Aikman, Michael Irvin, and a consistently top 5 defense (sometime #1 or #2) during the Superbowl era. When some of those elements started to fade post 1995 (especially the defense), so did Emmitt's production and the Superbowls. Oh, and I sometimes see people state that Emmitt was a better receiver than Barry. Look up their career receiving statistics. It's a myth.

So, even as a huge Emmitt fan, I'll be one of the few on this board that would take Barry over Emmitt. Just by a hair though.

 

[The Great Number 8]

It's always going to come down to personal preference. Both were among the best ever. I think Barry was just tired of the same old losing 6-10, 8-8 kind of seasons and didn't want to go through the grind anymore if he didn't see the payoff in terms of team success. I'd say if anything the biggest difference was Emmitt was driven to be the greatest of all-time and Barry didn't care about that in the least. He seemed to hate the media and any attention. He obviously wasn't just in it to win personal awards and set records or he would have contined on. That doesn't make him a quitter in my books at least.

For what it's worth, the best running back I ever saw was Bo Jackson. I think if he would have played football full time and not gotten hurt, he'd have set every record.

 

[Seven]

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

How many more years did Emmitt play? Irrelevant.

I'd still take Emmitt. He was, by far, a much better "team player". If there is one thing that sets them apart it would be that.


I remember Emmitt playing with a seperated shoulder against the Giants to help win that playoff game. Against the advice of Jimmy.

 

[Silver Surfer]

" Slant it how you want about who was the better "pure runner" (in reality, he was just flashier), but Emmitt was better and the career statistics show it."

I'm sure that explains why his career YPC is 20% lower than Sanders.

 

[hmcorp]

One of the best of all time ? No I don't think so... Of all Time, maybe in your time , but no way , no how, not of all time...

Earl Campbell Is another back ( short career ) who was amazing and was on a crappy team who didn't last that long, Is Barry better then him ...no way..Barry was an exciting runner to watch but no way is he one of the best of all time ...

barry sanders is in the top 3 of running backs for all time. no doubt.

this statement is insane. the man had 15,000 yards.

 

[NewJCowboy]

They both were great runningbacks with different styles. I'd be happy with either one of them.

 

[PoetTree]

Actually, the Cowboys had a better passing attack than the Lions that year. Show me where I'm wrong.

Okay, happy to:

In 1995, Troy Aiman threw for 3,304-yards & 16-touchdowns.

Not bad, by any means. But here's what Scott Mitchell threw for in the same season:

4,338-yards & 32-touchdowns.

Okay, so, the Lions' QB threw for over one-thousand more yards than the Cowboys QB, and twice as many touchdowns. And you say the Cowboys had the better passing attack that season? On what do you base this idea, that they had a very marginally better yards-per-completion average? Please...

Maybe it was the receiving totals of the skill players, then?

Okay, Michael Irvin's statistics from 1995:

111-catches, 1,603-yards, 10-touchdowns. Great season.

Herman Moore's from the same year:

123-catches, 1,686-yards, 14-touchdowns.

---

How 'bout we check out the secondary receivers:

Kevin Williams, as the Cowboys 2nd wideout, caught 38 balls for 613-yards & 2-TDs. Brett Perriman, as the Lions' 2nd wideout, caught 108 balls for 1,488-yards & 9-TDs. Hmm, QUITE the discrepancy there.

For while Herman Moore's totals were only marginally higher than Irvin's, Perriman's numbers vastly DWARF Dallas' 2nd wideout production. So, too, for the 3rd receiver, where a young Johnnie Morton caught 44 balls for 590-yards & 8-touchdowns. The Lions 3rd receiver had better statistics than Dallas' 2nd-leading wideout.

Of course, the one area that Dallas has a clear edge on the Lions of 1995... is tight-end production, where Jay Novacek logically outperformed David Sloan by a wide margin. However, Brett Perriman's numbers alone are greater than Jay Novacek's and Kevin Williams' combined.

Which, of course, is why the Lions passed for over a thousand yards more and twice as many touchdowns as the Dallas Cowboys did that year. Because, yeah, overall, the Lions had the more prolific "passing" attack in 1995. Dallas had the stronger running game. Which, mm-hmm, is kind of my point.

But on the issue of showing you where you were wrong in your assertion that the Lions didn't have the better passing attack, I'd say: "Mission Accomplished." ;-)

Barry had 63 less rushing attempts. His YPC was 4.8. If he had rushed as many times as Emmitt that year, he would have outrushed Emmitt by 27 yards. Don't think 1995 proves much of anything.

Wrong. You're just not paying attention:

As I said before, I wasn't trying to promote Emmitt's superior numbers in 1995 as "proof" that he's better than Barry. My point was simply to illustrate the fallacy of the idea that Barry "not having any talent around him" stopped him from outpacing Emmitt (and the history books) to unbelievable degrees. 1995 definitively proves that's not the case.

Barry was surrounded by a WEALTH of offensive talent; talent which broke NFL records for receptions and production from a receiving duo on the same team. Herman Moore was a perennial All-Pro at his position. Brett Perriman & Johnnie Morton were *very* productive complimentary weapons.

And contrary to popular opinion, the Lions were anchored by a pretty good group of linemen upfront; starring perennial All-Pro Lomas Brown, and budding pro-bowl center Kevin Glover. Over the years, the myths about these two lines, Dallas' and the Lions', have grown disproportionate in each direction -- the reputation of those Dallas lines has swelled, while the memory of Detroit's groups has gotten worse over time.

In truth, the Dallas line is not as "great" as their legend would tell, and the Lions' line is not nearly as pitiful as Barry apologists would have you believe. Overall, yes, Dallas had the better o-line. But the margin is not as close to as wide as their respective myths would make ya think.

As Nate Newton said:

"Before Emmitt got here, I was just a big, fat lineman. Now I'm in the pro-bowl every year."

Because, in truth, Emmitt's vision & athleticism is one of the reasons those Dallas lines looked so good. He could see where the holes were, and accelerated through them with a burst almost unparalleled in NFL history. Emmitt wasn't as "nifty" as Barry. No one ever has been. But make no mistake, Smith was a supreme athlete with unbelievable agility, vision, instincts, acceleration, balance and a POWER in the thighs & hips that Barry never possessed.

That's not to take anything away from what Barry could do. But because it's not as flashy, as eye-popping, people often overlook the tremendous runner Emmitt was and how extraordinarily difficult it was to get him on the ground. He could run over you, around you, juke you, spin you, stiff-arm you, flatten you and/or accelerate right by you. And not only you, but often 2, 3 or 4 of your biggest, strongest teammates at the same time.

Smith may not have had all the moves of Sanders. But Emmitt also had gifts Barry didn't. And again, it's not to take anything away from the phenom that Barry was. It's just to give Emmitt his deserved, but often overlooked, due. No, his style wasn't as flashy or highlight-reely. But the man DOMINATED the league for almost his entire career. He had talent. More talent than some give him credit for. Just like Barry had more talent "around" him than those wanting to pimp his legend attribute.

94-97 ES: 1333 RA 5535 Yds 4.2 YPC 62TDs
94-97 BS: 1287 RA 6989 Yds 5.4 YPC 40TDs

46 less attempts but 1454 yards more. "Virtually every category?" Really?

I was speaking, specifically, about the 1995 season. Because it was that season, more than any other, which disproves the theory that Barry didn't have any talent around him for opposing defenses to focus on. And in that season, where Sanders' team had the #1 offense in the LEAGUE and broke (then) all-time NFL passing records, yes, Emmitt outperformed Barry in virtually every category. That's a fact.

Which again, is just to say that it's a myth that Barry would have broken all the records & easily out-gained Emmitt "if" he was ever surrounded by complimentary talent. Because as 1995 unequivocally proves, he was, and he didn't. Sanders was surrounded by the #1 passing attack in the league that year, one which was vastly more productive than Dallas' own (to the tune of 1,000+ yards and 16 more TDs).

Emmitt still outperformed him, handily, rushing for 273 more yards and scoring 14 more touchdowns. In fact, the gap between Emmitt's touchdown total and Barry's touchdown total, is more than Barry's entire touchdown total!

Do you get my point?

Not really.

Yeah, that much is evident:


And again, that's not to say that the 1995 season definitively proves that Emmitt's the better back, simply because he had more production that year. It just means that all the "excuses" Barry apologists use to diminish Emmitt's accomplishments and aggrandize Barry's feats... "if he had an o-line", "if he wasn't the Lions' only weapon", "if defenses had to deal with a passing game", etc, etc... are proven to be untrue by the 1995 (and other) seasons.

Because, one last time, in a season where Barry's talent was coupled with the #1 offense in the league, a record-setting passing game, a very solid o-line and a strong-armed quarterback who could keep the safteys off with his deep throws to a trio of sensational receivers... Emmitt STILL out-gained Sanders, in some areas considerably, even though Barry was IN the situation his fans rave would have allowed him to crush Smith's production easily.

But that didn't happen. And that's a fact.

Show me where I'm wrong.

I believe I just did. G'day to ya, sir...

:starspin















Peace and Love

- PoetTree -

 

[Brandon]

Okay, happy to:

In 1995, Troy Aiman threw for 3,304-yards & 16-touchdowns.

Not bad, by any means. But here's what Scott Mitchell threw for in the same season:

4,338-yards & 32-touchdowns.

Okay, so, the Lions' QB threw for over one-thousand more yards than the Cowboys QB, and twice as many touchdowns. And you say the Cowboys had the better passing attack that season? On what do you base this idea, that they had a very marginally better yards-per-completion average? Please...

Maybe it was the receiving totals of the skill players, then?

Okay, Michael Irvin's statistics from 1995:

111-catches, 1,603-yards, 10-touchdowns. Great season.

Herman Moore's from the same year:

123-catches, 1,686-yards, 14-touchdowns.

---

How 'bout we check out the secondary receivers:

Kevin Williams, as the Cowboys 2nd wideout, caught 38 balls for 613-yards & 2-TDs. Brett Perriman, as the Lions' 2nd wideout, caught 108 balls for 1,488-yards & 9-TDs. Hmm, QUITE the discrepancy there.

For while Herman Moore's totals were only marginally higher than Irvin's, Perriman's numbers vastly DWARF Dallas' 2nd wideout production. So, too, for the 3rd receiver, where a young Johnnie Morton caught 44 balls for 590-yards & 8-touchdowns. The Lions 3rd receiver had better statistics than Dallas' 2nd-leading wideout.

Of course, the one area that Dallas has a clear edge on the Lions of 1995... is tight-end production, where Jay Novacek logically outperformed David Sloan by a wide margin. However, Brett Perriman's numbers alone are greater than Jay Novacek's and Kevin Williams' combined.

Which, of course, is why the Lions passed for over a thousand yards more and twice as many touchdowns as the Dallas Cowboys did that year. Because, yeah, overall, the Lions had the more prolific "passing" attack in 1995. Dallas had the stronger running game. Which, mm-hmm, is kind of my point.

But on the issue of showing you where you were wrong in your assertion that the Lions didn't have the better passing attack, I'd say: "Mission Accomplished." ;-)




Wrong. You're just not paying attention:

As I said before, I wasn't trying to promote Emmitt's superior numbers in 1995 as "proof" that he's better than Barry. My point was simply to illustrate the fallacy of the idea that Barry "not having any talent around him" stopped him from outpacing Emmitt (and the history books) to unbelievable degrees. 1995 definitively proves that's not the case.

Barry was surrounded by a WEALTH of offensive talent; talent which broke NFL records for receptions and production from a receiving duo on the same team. Herman Moore was a perennial All-Pro at his position. Brett Perriman & Johnnie Morton were *very* productive complimentary weapons.

And contrary to popular opinion, the Lions were anchored by a pretty good group of linemen upfront; starring perennial All-Pro Lomas Brown, and budding pro-bowl center Kevin Glover. Over the years, the myths about these two lines, Dallas' and the Lions', have grown disproportionate in each direction -- the reputation of those Dallas lines has swelled, while the memory of Detroit's groups has gotten worse over time.

In truth, the Dallas line is not as "great" as their legend would tell, and the Lions' line is not nearly as pitiful as Barry apologists would have you believe. Overall, yes, Dallas had the better o-line. But the margin is not as close to as wide as their respective myths would make ya think.

As Nate Newton said:

"Before Emmitt got here, I was just a big, fat lineman. Now I'm in the pro-bowl every year."

Because, in truth, Emmitt's vision & athleticism is one of the reasons those Dallas lines looked so good. He could see where the holes were, and accelerated through them with a burst almost unparalleled in NFL history. Emmitt wasn't as "nifty" as Barry. No one ever has been. But make no mistake, Smith was a supreme athlete with unbelievable agility, vision, instincts, acceleration, balance and a POWER in the thighs & hips that Barry never possessed.

That's not to take anything away from what Barry could do. But because it's not as flashy, as eye-popping, people often overlook the tremendous runner Emmitt was and how extraordinarily difficult it was to get him on the ground. He could run over you, around you, juke you, spin you, stiff-arm you, flatten you and/or accelerate right by you. And not only you, but often 2, 3 or 4 of your biggest, strongest teammates at the same time.

Smith may not have had all the moves of Sanders. But Emmitt also had gifts Barry didn't. And again, it's not to take anything away from the phenom that Barry was. It's just to give Emmitt his deserved, but often overlooked, due. No, his style wasn't as flashy or highlight-reely. But the man DOMINATED the league for almost his entire career. He had talent. More talent than some give him credit for. Just like Barry had more talent "around" him than those wanting to pimp his legend attribute.




I was speaking, specifically, about the 1995 season. Because it was that season, more than any other, which disproves the theory that Barry didn't have any talent around him for opposing defenses to focus on. And in that season, where Sanders' team had the #1 offense in the LEAGUE and broke (then) all-time NFL passing records, yes, Emmitt outperformed Barry in virtually every category. That's a fact.

Which again, is just to say that it's a myth that Barry would have broken all the records & easily out-gained Emmitt "if" he was ever surrounded by complimentary talent. Because as 1995 unequivocally proves, he was, and he didn't. Sanders was surrounded by the #1 passing attack in the league that year, one which was vastly more productive than Dallas' own (to the tune of 1,000+ yards and 16 more TDs).

Emmitt still outperformed him, handily, rushing for 273 more yards and scoring 14 more touchdowns. In fact, the gap between Emmitt's touchdown total and Barry's touchdown total, is more than Barry's entire touchdown total!

Do you get my point?



Yeah, that much is evident:


And again, that's not to say that the 1995 season definitively proves that Emmitt's the better back, simply because he had more production that year. It just means that all the "excuses" Barry apologists use to diminish Emmitt's accomplishments and aggrandize Barry's feats... "if he had an o-line", "if he wasn't the Lions' only weapon", "if defenses had to deal with a passing game", etc, etc... are proven to be untrue by the 1995 (and other) seasons.

Because, one last time, in a season where Barry's talent was coupled with the #1 offense in the league, a record-setting passing game, a very solid o-line and a strong-armed quarterback who could keep the safteys off with his deep throws to a trio of sensational receivers... Emmitt STILL out-gained Sanders, in some areas considerably, even though Barry was IN the situation his fans rave would have allowed him to crush Smith's production easily.

But that didn't happen. And that's a fact.




I believe I just did. G'day to ya, sir...

:starspin















Peace and Love

- PoetTree -

Do you work in politics?

 

[zrinkill]

Barry would not have benefited from our O-line anymore than he did with his.

Barry had Pro-bowl linemen ..... and he would not follow their blocks or hit the holes they created.

Barry's style of running involved him using his quickness to get into space and then use his incredible move set to cause chaos and spring him free.

Barry had unnatural awareness ..... but not good vision on where to hit the holes in the line like Emmitt Smith.

Thats why in the playoffs against the best defenses ..... Barry did nothing.

Thats why in the Pro Bowl games ... Barry did worse than he did behind the Lions lines.

Thats why Emmitt flourished in the playoffs and Probowl games.

 

[Silver Surfer]

Glad you could make it back. Best be careful about using the term "mission accomplished" - it has a tendancy to come back and bite ya in the ***.

You've stated that one year "proved" your point. When I challenged that, you then increased the time frame (94-97). When I demonstrated that the statistics didn't support your claim of being in superior every category, you ignored it and restated the same point. You've also ignored the most comprehensive statistic of passing effectivness (YPA), but think I'm not paying attention. I guess I still "don't get it."

You've stated your opinions on the Lions line vs the Cowboys line. Did you watch both teams? I did. Here's my opinion. The Lions were inept at run blocking. Lomas Brown was good, and that was about it. It seemed like half the time, Sanders was running for his life because there was at least one guy from the other team in the backfield with him when he got the hand off. Emmitt didn't seem to have the same problem, especially since he had one of the best lead blockers in the game working for him. That's my opinion based on watching games. But you know what, its only my opinion, so its not worth much.

Rather than spend more time challenging your opinions stated as facts, and re-reading restated assertions when refuted by statistics, I'll simply use your own logic to make a point.

1997

Team Passing: Virtually identical numbers

Lions 304/540 3334yds 19TD/17Int 5.7YPA
Cowboys 314/553 3141yds 19TD/12Int 5.3YPA

BS 335 2053yds 11TD 6.1YPA
ES 261 1074yds 4TD 4.1YPA

Same passing game, double the yards, triple the touchdowns. Using your logic, that's the ballgame. Have a nice night.

 

[ThreeSportStar80]

I honestly don't see the debate... Emmitt Smith is a winner.

 

[es22]

i will take Emmitt who was the complete back instead of Barry who would make some nice plays but also lose yardage and hurt his team.

 

[Thomas82]

Okay, happy to:

In 1995, Troy Aiman threw for 3,304-yards & 16-touchdowns.

Not bad, by any means. But here's what Scott Mitchell threw for in the same season:

4,338-yards & 32-touchdowns.

Okay, so, the Lions' QB threw for over one-thousand more yards than the Cowboys QB, and twice as many touchdowns. And you say the Cowboys had the better passing attack that season? On what do you base this idea, that they had a very marginally better yards-per-completion average? Please...

Maybe it was the receiving totals of the skill players, then?

Okay, Michael Irvin's statistics from 1995:

111-catches, 1,603-yards, 10-touchdowns. Great season.

Herman Moore's from the same year:

123-catches, 1,686-yards, 14-touchdowns.

---

How 'bout we check out the secondary receivers:

Kevin Williams, as the Cowboys 2nd wideout, caught 38 balls for 613-yards & 2-TDs. Brett Perriman, as the Lions' 2nd wideout, caught 108 balls for 1,488-yards & 9-TDs. Hmm, QUITE the discrepancy there.

For while Herman Moore's totals were only marginally higher than Irvin's, Perriman's numbers vastly DWARF Dallas' 2nd wideout production. So, too, for the 3rd receiver, where a young Johnnie Morton caught 44 balls for 590-yards & 8-touchdowns. The Lions 3rd receiver had better statistics than Dallas' 2nd-leading wideout.

Of course, the one area that Dallas has a clear edge on the Lions of 1995... is tight-end production, where Jay Novacek logically outperformed David Sloan by a wide margin. However, Brett Perriman's numbers alone are greater than Jay Novacek's and Kevin Williams' combined.

Which, of course, is why the Lions passed for over a thousand yards more and twice as many touchdowns as the Dallas Cowboys did that year. Because, yeah, overall, the Lions had the more prolific "passing" attack in 1995. Dallas had the stronger running game. Which, mm-hmm, is kind of my point.

But on the issue of showing you where you were wrong in your assertion that the Lions didn't have the better passing attack, I'd say: "Mission Accomplished." ;-)




Wrong. You're just not paying attention:

As I said before, I wasn't trying to promote Emmitt's superior numbers in 1995 as "proof" that he's better than Barry. My point was simply to illustrate the fallacy of the idea that Barry "not having any talent around him" stopped him from outpacing Emmitt (and the history books) to unbelievable degrees. 1995 definitively proves that's not the case.

Barry was surrounded by a WEALTH of offensive talent; talent which broke NFL records for receptions and production from a receiving duo on the same team. Herman Moore was a perennial All-Pro at his position. Brett Perriman & Johnnie Morton were *very* productive complimentary weapons.

And contrary to popular opinion, the Lions were anchored by a pretty good group of linemen upfront; starring perennial All-Pro Lomas Brown, and budding pro-bowl center Kevin Glover. Over the years, the myths about these two lines, Dallas' and the Lions', have grown disproportionate in each direction -- the reputation of those Dallas lines has swelled, while the memory of Detroit's groups has gotten worse over time.

In truth, the Dallas line is not as "great" as their legend would tell, and the Lions' line is not nearly as pitiful as Barry apologists would have you believe. Overall, yes, Dallas had the better o-line. But the margin is not as close to as wide as their respective myths would make ya think.

As Nate Newton said:

"Before Emmitt got here, I was just a big, fat lineman. Now I'm in the pro-bowl every year."

Because, in truth, Emmitt's vision & athleticism is one of the reasons those Dallas lines looked so good. He could see where the holes were, and accelerated through them with a burst almost unparalleled in NFL history. Emmitt wasn't as "nifty" as Barry. No one ever has been. But make no mistake, Smith was a supreme athlete with unbelievable agility, vision, instincts, acceleration, balance and a POWER in the thighs & hips that Barry never possessed.

That's not to take anything away from what Barry could do. But because it's not as flashy, as eye-popping, people often overlook the tremendous runner Emmitt was and how extraordinarily difficult it was to get him on the ground. He could run over you, around you, juke you, spin you, stiff-arm you, flatten you and/or accelerate right by you. And not only you, but often 2, 3 or 4 of your biggest, strongest teammates at the same time.

Smith may not have had all the moves of Sanders. But Emmitt also had gifts Barry didn't. And again, it's not to take anything away from the phenom that Barry was. It's just to give Emmitt his deserved, but often overlooked, due. No, his style wasn't as flashy or highlight-reely. But the man DOMINATED the league for almost his entire career. He had talent. More talent than some give him credit for. Just like Barry had more talent "around" him than those wanting to pimp his legend attribute.




I was speaking, specifically, about the 1995 season. Because it was that season, more than any other, which disproves the theory that Barry didn't have any talent around him for opposing defenses to focus on. And in that season, where Sanders' team had the #1 offense in the LEAGUE and broke (then) all-time NFL passing records, yes, Emmitt outperformed Barry in virtually every category. That's a fact.

Which again, is just to say that it's a myth that Barry would have broken all the records & easily out-gained Emmitt "if" he was ever surrounded by complimentary talent. Because as 1995 unequivocally proves, he was, and he didn't. Sanders was surrounded by the #1 passing attack in the league that year, one which was vastly more productive than Dallas' own (to the tune of 1,000+ yards and 16 more TDs).

Emmitt still outperformed him, handily, rushing for 273 more yards and scoring 14 more touchdowns. In fact, the gap between Emmitt's touchdown total and Barry's touchdown total, is more than Barry's entire touchdown total!

Do you get my point?



Yeah, that much is evident:


And again, that's not to say that the 1995 season definitively proves that Emmitt's the better back, simply because he had more production that year. It just means that all the "excuses" Barry apologists use to diminish Emmitt's accomplishments and aggrandize Barry's feats... "if he had an o-line", "if he wasn't the Lions' only weapon", "if defenses had to deal with a passing game", etc, etc... are proven to be untrue by the 1995 (and other) seasons.

Because, one last time, in a season where Barry's talent was coupled with the #1 offense in the league, a record-setting passing game, a very solid o-line and a strong-armed quarterback who could keep the safteys off with his deep throws to a trio of sensational receivers... Emmitt STILL out-gained Sanders, in some areas considerably, even though Barry was IN the situation his fans rave would have allowed him to crush Smith's production easily.

But that didn't happen. And that's a fact.




I believe I just did. G'day to ya, sir...

:starspin















Peace and Love

- PoetTree -

Way to break it down.

 

[hmcorp]

its not about who you would take. its about being intelligent and realizing that barry would have absolutely smashed the rushing record.

it doesnt take a genius ot see that.

he was 30 when he retired and he had 15,000 yards.

dood was one of the best. no reason to compare the two. they are both two of the greatest runners of all time.

 

[lonestar6]

Rather than spend more time challenging your opinions stated as facts, and re-reading restated assertions when refuted by statistics, I'll simply use your own logic to make a point.

1997

Team Passing: Virtually identical numbers

Lions 304/540 3334yds 19TD/17Int 5.7YPA
Cowboys 314/553 3141yds 19TD/12Int 5.3YPA

BS 335 2053yds 11TD 6.1YPA
ES 261 1074yds 4TD 4.1YPA

You could even argue that 1997 (which I also brought up before) is a more relevant year to compare than 1995 (btw, that's comparing Emmitt's best yardage year vs Barry's 5th best), since that's the first year Barry had a blocking fullback and thus for the first time was in a Cowboy-like offense built around the run.

I've also thought total yards was not a very good way of statistically evaluating a running back, as of course a running back that got more carries should get more yards. Given a minimum amount of carries (say 250+), I prefer to use YPC. My rule of thumb is that a 5.0+ YPC average is elite status, 4.5-5.0 YPC very good, 4.0-4.5 good, and below 4.0 mediocre. Barry maintained a 5.0+ YPC average for an entire season 5 times in his career. Emmitt just once (1993). Not coincidentally, I've always thought 1993 was subjectively Emmitt's most dominant year ever.