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

[Silver Surfer]

Just fyi,

During the years they were in the league together, Barry had more rushing yardage than Emmitt 5 of the 9 years, and had a YPC higher than Emmitt 7 of the 9 years.

Another interesting tidbit for the guys who talk about all the touchdowns Emmitt scored in 1995: 16 of those 25 were from inside of 5 yards - 10 of which were either 1 or 2 yard runs. Barry had 4 from inside 5, 3 of which were 1 or 2 yard runs. Average run distance per touchdown that year: Emmitt 9.24yds - Barry 26.00 yds.

Again, I'm not saying Barry was the better overall back ( I think Emmitt was), but I do think he was a better "pure runner" than Emmitt. I just have a hard time agreeing when someone wants to say Emmitt was clearly superior. The statistics don't support that position.

 

[Ben_n_austin]

Barry retired and preserved some of his dignity. Emmitt went to the Cardinals and Roy made him cry.

Barry could have shattered Emmitt's record.


End of story.

 

[Thomas82]

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.

This is true.

 

[Thomas82]

Bump!!

 

[EveryoneElse]

its about being intelligent and realizing that barry would have absolutely smashed the rushing record.

Sorry, but no.

You can't say that.

Barry could have played another year and went for the record and tore his ACL, or broke his leg trying to do it. Barry didn't smash any record, and nobody knows if he would have been able to do it. Injuries are a part of the game.....Emmitt stuck around and smashed Paytons record by a few 1000 yards and stayed relatively healthy doing it.

We will never know if Barry could have done it.

 

[Thomas82]

Sorry, but no.

You can't say that.

Barry could have played another year and went for the record and tore his ACL, or broke his leg trying to do it. Barry didn't smash any record, and nobody knows if he would have been able to do it. Injuries are a part of the game.....Emmitt stuck around and smashed Paytons record by a few 1000 yards and stayed relatively healthy doing it.

We will never know if Barry could have done it.

Good point, in Emmitt's 13 years with the Cowboys, he missed fewer games due to injury, despite playing longer than Barry.

 

[lonestar6]

Good point, in Emmitt's 13 years with the Cowboys, he missed fewer games due to injury, despite playing longer than Barry.

Barry was far from injury prone. He only missed significant time due to injury in 1993 (5 games). He started every game the last 5 years of his career.

At any rate, Emmitt's career rushing record is due more to his longevity than any "greatness" on his part. His last 4 seasons he rushed for about 3000 yards and had a below 4.0 YPC average (the mark of a mediocre back --- eg Julius Jones numbers), and averaged only 5 TDs a season. Most teams try to replace running backs with that level of production. Do these subpar seasons somehow contribute to Emmitt's greatness, even as he needed them to break the record? Even in the post-Superbowl era from 1996-2000, Emmitt was still a good back but barely a top 5 back yearly statistically speaking (in yards, YPC average, and TDs).

Barry, on the other hand, kept getting better as the years went on (his best years were in the latter half of his career), and I would say he pretty much was an elite back for most of the 10 years of his career (even his last year, below average by his standards, he still managed almost 1500 yards and a 4.3 YPC average).

Still, Barry Sanders would have needed 2 more 1500+ yard seasons to get to the numbers Emmitt ended up with, so I doubt he would have beaten the record Emmitt set anyway. Even had he not retired that year, the inevitable decline in running skills he would have had to suffer through probably would have caused him to retire anyway at some point a couple of years later, as Barry didn't strike me as the type of person that would have suffered through subpar years to get/extend a record he obviously didn't care about.

 

[Thomas82]

Barry was far from injury prone. He only missed significant time due to injury in 1993 (5 games). He started every game the last 5 years of his career.

At any rate, Emmitt's career rushing record is due more to his longevity than any "greatness" on his part. His last 4 seasons he rushed for about 3000 yards and had a below 4.0 YPC average (the mark of a mediocre back --- eg Julius Jones numbers), and averaged only 5 TDs a season. Most teams try to replace running backs with that level of production. Do these subpar seasons somehow contribute to Emmitt's greatness, even as he needed them to break the record? Even in the post-Superbowl era from 1996-2000, Emmitt was still a good back but barely a top 5 back yearly statistically speaking (in yards, YPC average, and TDs).

Barry, on the other hand, kept getting better as the years went on (his best years were in the latter half of his career), and I would say he pretty much was an elite back for most of the 10 years of his career (even his last year, below average by his standards, he still managed almost 1500 yards and a 4.3 YPC average).

Still, Barry Sanders would have needed 2 more 1500+ yard seasons to get to the numbers Emmitt ended up with, so I doubt he would have beaten the record Emmitt set anyway. Even had he not retired that year, the inevitable decline in running skills he would have had to suffer through probably would have caused him to retire anyway at some point a couple of years later, as Barry didn't strike me as the type of person that would have suffered through subpar years to get/extend a record he obviously didn't care about.

Fair assesment.

 

[NextGenBoys]

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.

Exactly. Couldnt have said it better myself. There is no answer to who is the best. It's all opinion on what runner you prefer.

 

[Thomas82]

Exactly. Couldnt have said it better myself. There is no answer to who is the best. It's all opinion on what runner you prefer.

That's the best way to put it.

 

[monkey]

Barry was far from injury prone. He only missed significant time due to injury in 1993 (5 games). He started every game the last 5 years of his career.

At any rate, Emmitt's career rushing record is due more to his longevity than any "greatness" on his part. His last 4 seasons he rushed for about 3000 yards and had a below 4.0 YPC average (the mark of a mediocre back --- eg Julius Jones numbers), and averaged only 5 TDs a season. Most teams try to replace running backs with that level of production. Do these subpar seasons somehow contribute to Emmitt's greatness, even as he needed them to break the record? Even in the post-Superbowl era from 1996-2000, Emmitt was still a good back but barely a top 5 back yearly statistically speaking (in yards, YPC average, and TDs).

Barry, on the other hand, kept getting better as the years went on (his best years were in the latter half of his career), and I would say he pretty much was an elite back for most of the 10 years of his career (even his last year, below average by his standards, he still managed almost 1500 yards and a 4.3 YPC average).

Still, Barry Sanders would have needed 2 more 1500+ yard seasons to get to the numbers Emmitt ended up with, so I doubt he would have beaten the record Emmitt set anyway. Even had he not retired that year, the inevitable decline in running skills he would have had to suffer through probably would have caused him to retire anyway at some point a couple of years later, as Barry didn't strike me as the type of person that would have suffered through subpar years to get/extend a record he obviously didn't care about.

Nice solid analysis. Both were very successful and would have been a boon to any team. To say I think Barry was the best doesn't diminish Emmitt's abilities. I'd agree that Barry would have not continued playing just to get the record and stopped when he was no longer enjoying the game.

 

[Thomas82]

Nice solid analysis. Both were very successful and would have been a boon to any team. To say I think Barry was the best doesn't diminish Emmitt's abilities. I'd agree that Barry would have not continued playing just to get the record and stopped when he was no longer enjoying the game.

That, plus he was tired of losing, and Lions management telling him one thing and doing another. The Lions record was 78-82 with 1 playoff win in his 10 years there.