Emmit Smith Vs Barry Sanders

[Sifillest]

now i know emmitt is better, but i dont know enough bad thigns about barry to effectively argue my point.....and all sanders fans can say is that emmitt had a better line in front of him and if barry had that line there would be no telling how much farther he could have gone....i will agree that barry had some of the most breathtaking runs ever seen,but so did emmitt and he usually did it straight up the gut......help me out guys

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

now i know emmitt is better, but i dont know enough bad thigns about barry to effectively argue my point.....and all sanders fans can say is that emmitt had a better line in front of him and if barry had that line there would be no telling how much farther he could have gone....i will agree that barry had some of the most breathtaking runs ever seen,but so did emmitt and he usually did it straight up the gut......help me out guys

Can't do it. I believe Emmitt was the more complete back but I believe Barry was the better runner. Not sure you can prove the point that Emmitt was a better runner then Barry.

 

[doomsday_II]

Can't do it. I believe Emmitt was the more complete back but I believe Barry was the better runner. Not sure you can prove the point that Emmitt was a better runner then Barry.

Emmitt being the most prolific runner is fine by me.

 

[dargonking999]

Apples to oranges,

Barry is the flash guy, he has the abilty to juke twist turn and break your ankles for how many yards he wants.

Emmitt has the abilty to CUT and cahnge dirrection to achieve all the yards he wants

emmitt is more of a complete back as

Barry was more of the take the ball and just do what you do.

 

[Roughneck]

I always thought the argument was kind of lame.

They were 2 runners who, while both being truly elite, were completely different types of backs. A team would be amazingly lucky to have either one of them. Personally? I'd prefer Emmitt but I can see why somebody would choose Barry instead.

 

[Crown Royal]

The argument that "Barry would be better with Emmitt's line" is false. Barry's line hated blocking for him - because Barry's success wasn't dependent upon set plays. He had very little 'vision' - the number of holes he passed up is amazing to this day. He just made people miss.

Interesting stat - Sanders holds the career NFL record of most yards lost from the LOS. A bit too much bouncing outside, methinks?

Barry was a great back, but if I had a game I had to win, or if I were in the playoffs, my money would be on Emmitt.

 

[NorthTexan95]

* Barry could give you a breathtaking 50 yard run and then be held to no gain for 4 plays.

* Barry was taken out of the game on the goal line.

* Emmitt was a great blocker, Barry wasn't.

I love Barry -- he was a great back. But if I was picking a team I'd take Emmitt over him. I rather have someone give me consistency play by play rather than one big play and a bunch of lost yards.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Emmitt being the most prolific runner is fine by me.

Of this, there can be no argument. In my opinion, the best approach to any discussion of this type is simply to point out that Emmitt is the all time leading rusher. EOS.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

If I had to choose one, I would take Barry Sanders but with that been said...

http://www.dallascowboyz.com/articles/Emmitt_Smith_Haters.asp?QVal=&SearchKey=

- Mike G.

 

[LeonDixson]

Sanders would have had the record if he had kept on playing. He was faster and more elusive. That said, I'm glad we had Emmitt and not Sanders. Emmit was definitely the better all around back. His blitz pickup was second to none and he had more heart than Sanders.

You can play "coulda shouda woulda" all day long when you talk about RBs like Sanders, Jim Brown, etc. But two facts remain. Emmitt ran for more yards than all of them and Emmitt scored more TDs than all of them.

If you consider Jerry Rice the greatest ever wide receiver, you have to consider Emmitt the greatest running back of all time. They both did it with heart, conditioning, longevity and, yes, skill to burn. Rice had two HOF QBs throwing to him most of his career and played in a pass friendly offense. You can't take away Emmitt's title by pointing to his supporting cast.

I consider them both the best ever at their positions.

 

[WV Cowboy]

I guess if I were watching SportsCenter to see who had the single most exciting run of the day, I would be watching Sanders.

But if I were watching SportsCenter to see who carried his team into, and through the playoffs, and on to winning the Super Bowl, then I would be watching Emmitt.

Sanders was an exciting RB, but to argue who was the most complete NFL RB between him and Emmitt is ridiculous.

 

[aikemirv]

Sanders would have had the record if he had kept on playing. He was faster and more elusive. That said, I'm glad we had Emmitt and not Sanders. Emmit was definitely the better all around back. His blitz pickup was second to none and he had more heart than Sanders.

You can play "coulda shouda woulda" all day long when you talk about RBs like Sanders, Jim Brown, etc. But two facts remain. Emmitt ran for more yards than all of them and Emmitt scored more TDs than all of them.

If you consider Jerry Rice the greatest ever wide receiver, you have to consider Emmitt the greatest running back of all time. They both did it with heart, conditioning, longevity and, yes, skill to burn. Rice had two HOF QBs throwing to him most of his career and played in a pass friendly offense. You can't take away Emmitt's title by pointing to his supporting cast.

I consider them both the best ever at their positions.

I'll second that!!!!

 

[AJM1613]

If you consider Jerry Rice the greatest ever wide receiver, you have to consider Emmitt the greatest running back of all time. They both did it with heart, conditioning, longevity and, yes, skill to burn. Rice had two HOF QBs throwing to him most of his career and played in a pass friendly offense. You can't take away Emmitt's title by pointing to his supporting cast.

Payton and Brown?

 

[KDWilliams85]

This comparison is bogus. You can't compare those two.

 

[LeonDixson]

Payton and Brown?

Read the whole post, AJM1613. Which one of them had more yards or TD's than Emmitt?

 

[AJM1613]

Read the whole post, AJM1613. Which one of them had more yards or TD's than Emmitt?

I read your post, but they were better players.

Jerome Bettis, Curtis Martin, Eric Dickerson, and Tony Dorsett all had more yards than Brown, Marcus Allen had more touchdowns.

Are they the better players?

Smith carried the ball 2050 more times than Brown, which is the reason why he has more yards and touchdowns (2050 rushing attempts is more than Roger Craig or Herschel Walker had in their career).

 

[LeonDixson]

I read your post, but they were better players.

Jerome Bettis, Curtis Martin, Eric Dickerson, and Tony Dorsett all had more yards than Brown, Marcus Allen had more touchdowns.

Are they the better players?

Smith carried the ball 2050 more times than Brown, which is the reason why he has more yards and touchdowns (2050 rushing attempts is more than Roger Craig or Herschel Walker had in their career).

They were better at doing some things. You are playing the coulda, shoulda, woulda game. If they had played longer than they did. If they stayed healthy. If they had not walked away from the game for an acting career or because they didn't want to get beat up any more.

Hey, look. I happen to agree that Jim Brown, had he kept playing and stayed healthy would have set records nobody would have broken. He didn't. Emmitt did.

 

[AJM1613]

Records don't make a player great. Playing does.

 

[johnnybluestar]

Emmitt is the better back no questions asked IMHO. Comparing him and Barry is like comparing a real QB to Michael Vick. Vick is flashy, immensly talented and electric to watch. But if you need to win a game who do you want? Vick or Brady? Vick or Manning? Vick or Aikman?
If you picked Vick in any of those instances you like flash over substance.

Emmitt was great on all three downs. Barry was not because he couldn't or didn't want to block.

Emmitt was a threat from any where on the field. Barry was taken out at the goal line. The greatest RB of all-time would have been his team's best option at the goal line, don't you think?

Emmitt made his team better. Barry did not. The mighty 93 Cowboys, coming off their first Super Bowl, went 0-2 without Emmitt. Barry's team went 5-11 his last year. He quit, a la Ricky Williams and his team went 8-8. Hmm? Doesn't seem like a team that unexpectedly lost the greatest RB of all-time would improve by three games.

Emmitt didn't quit on his team. Barry didn't have the heart to play anymore for a bad team. Emmitt went from a bad team to a horrible team. Emmitt just loved to play the game.

Emmitt is the greatest running back of all-time. Barry was the flashiest, most exciting running back of all-time. There is a big difference here. If flash and excitment are the indicators of greatness then Michael Vick is the greatest QB ever. Way better than Montana or Marino or anybody else you want to throw into the mix. Vick has proven over the last 3 years what a difference he makes to his team's record. So he must be a great QB, right? Vick makes his team better because he is a threat, not because he is a great QB.
My apologies to Jim Brown fans. I am only 30, so I can't speak of Jim Brown with any true knowledge. I group him before the modern era. He was bigger than many of the lineman and linebackers of his day. The game was so much slower and weaker than today's game. Apples to oranges. To be fair, maybe I should say that Emmitt was the greatest RB of his era since I'm not really qualified to compare Emmitt and Jim Brown.
If anybody could challenge Emmitt for the throne of the modern era it certainly wasn't Barry. If anybody was better all around than Emmitt it was Walter Payton.

 

[LeonDixson]

Records don't make a player great. Playing does.

It's obvious we won't agree. That's fine. But to lable anyone the greatest of all time using any criteria other than the record is introducing arbitrariness (sp) and /or bias into the analysis. Who gets to decide which criteria really constitute greatness. Who gets to say which one of those criterion makes for the greatest ever?

What's your definition of what constitutes the greatest ever and give your criteria. I guarantee the conclusions will be debatable.