Emmit Smith Vs Barry Sanders

[Hostile]

I like the post. It's thoughtful, but I disagree on the points that he had the supporting cast. IMO there weren't great players around him.

Many of the RBs I'd take over Barry played with even lesser teams than he had around him. My preference in running style has nothing whatsoever to do with Barry's teammates and whether they could or could not get the job done. It has to do with the fact that offenses are less effective when they get stuck 2nd and long, and 3rd and long so many times in a game. That's where he left them too often. He was great, when he got free. When he couldn't his style hurt his team.

They depended on him too much and I think that's where the team failed during his time there. He ran up the middle. The way you put it, he NEVER ran up the middle. That's just not true.

He would not grind out yards to move the chains.

On the "hard yards" I thought maybe Barry tried too hard to make something happen ... I do agree he wasn't the best short-yardage back, but he wasn't awful either. I put a lot of that on the line.

I agree with you. He tried too hard to make something happen, and not hard enough to make a difference. If he had ever pushed himself on every carry in a game I'd love him. I think he danced a lot and was spectacular. Big deal. That doesn't win football games when it counts.

He was amazing to watch ... and I agree he would have gotten the record had he kept playing. I'd be a bigger dummy than I already am to think differently.

He really was. I'm grateful to have seen his entire career. I'm also glad he didn't play for us. I don't believe we'd have won 3 of 4 with him instead of Emmitt Smith. I don't believe we'd have won even 1. That was a disciplined offense and he was a free lance runner. Bad mix.

He just wasn't that short-yardage hammer-style back, but he accomplished a lot more than 99% of RBs can say they did. He was so elusive ... I don't know if I'll ever witness a guy with those moves again.

I don't disagree with you one bit on any of this. I prefer the RB who will lay it all on the line. I said I could easily name 20 RBs I'd rather have. I wasn't joking. As amazing as he was it did not translate to winning. There is a reason for that. Football is 11 guys working together. Not 10 guys trying to figure out a way to let 1 guy do his amazing thing.

I also think he is a very humble guy and would be willing to do what it takes for his team to win. It's just that his team wasn't willing to put the pieces in place for them to win - other than him. This has been what Barry has been saying since he retired.

I've heard all that for years and I don't agree. On him being a nice, humble guy...yeah. To some extent. he also held out several tiems and walked away leaving his team high and dry then threatened to go into the Hall of Fame not wearing Lions gear. To me that is a bit prima donna.

He tried to come back and play for another team ... Detroit wouldn't let him. I just don't think Detroit was the best fit for Sanders. As where Emmitt had the perfect situation.

Actually, according to him and his father he never seriously considered a comeback. He admitted that he didn't like football that much. I really wasn't surprised to hear that. I thought he played without much passion. Not talking about emotion. Passion, as in left every ounce he had on the field. Can't say i ever saw him do that.

I don't believe any team he was on would have won. In the NFL discipline wins. His style is anything but. Again, it is just my opinion and I know it is not popular. I say again, he was amazing. I am so relieved he never wore the star.

 

[Sifillest]

wow.....lol man you guys are adamant about your posting over here.....lol thanks a lot five pages on my first thread.....something of an enigma in my message board posting career.....

 

[WV Cowboy]

You guys can debate all day between Emmitt & Barry, and if given the choice, I would always take Emmitt.

But if I really could choose, I would take Herschel Walker.

 

[Irvinite]

If I were an Owner and wanted to put butts in the seats I would take Barry...

If I were an Owner and wanted to win I would take Emmitt...

 

[PullMyFinger]

Barry was the more complete runner, but Emmitt had a better all around game. The thing I remember the most about Barry was all his negative runs, he'd be at -35 yrds in the 3rd qtr, then he'd break like 2 65 yrd plays and his stats would look good for the game.

 

[Jarv]

Emmitts record will be broken sometime soon. RB's no longer have the "Fear" of the dreaded "Horse collar" tackle. Soon, hitting them too hard will be illeagle. Sheesh, JJ might get 30,000 yards if the rules keep changing.

 

[Kangaroo]

I agree ABQ ... Sanders was a better runner and had a worse line. Put Barry Sanders behind Dallas' line and you've got a monster of a runner that is suspect at pass protection.

But who knows what Emmitt would have done behind Detroits line ... surely, it'd be somewhere between what he did in Dallas and what he did in Arizona.

I am a much bigger Emmitt Smith fan now that he is retired though.

I am tired of this old worn out BS argument that is thrown out there about Dallas and it's oline. How many HOF on that line 1 Larry Allen who only played on 1SB team. Newton will not get in; Eric W tore up his knee so he will not make it Tunei nope Step is a maybe. Ray Donaldosn came way late in his career and played what 2 years for us. Kevin Gogan not going to make it; Rone Stone not even close come on that is hogwash. Plus if the line was so great how come guys like Lassic; Cadlic Williaws etc etc sucked at getting yards behind it. Because it was more than just the line

Then lets not get into what team had offenses that ranked in the top 5 most years how many times did the Cowboys have a top 5 offense.

It was not the oline fault when Barry went for -13 yards against Greenbay in the playoffs. All Greenbay did was pinch of the ends on barry and cut of the outside corner on him game ever.

 

[WV Cowboy]

I think it would be interesting to see who some of the best NFL coaches would pick between Emmitt & Barry, .. in their respective prime.

I'm fairly certain most would pick Emmitt. Especially those who predominately like to run the ball.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

A few points:

Barry was taken out of the game in running situations. That wasn't his line's fault, because the linemen stayed in. There is a reason that every OC and HC that Barry had in the pros wanted Barry out of the game in running situations and it wasn't his OL. How can a RUNNING back be considered the best ever if he has to be taken out of the game in RUNNING situations? Can you imagine someone making the argument that a QB or WR was the best ever... but you don’t want them in the game in passing situations...


Brown dominated his era more than any other RB then or now. However, he dominated against slower, smaller, weaker players. Emmitt never dominated like Brown but he didn’t get to play against 240 pound DLs, and LBs who were 210 pounds and ran 5.1 40s. Brown could have played in today’s NFL, and been very good. However, competition does matter. He would have been much less dominant had he played in the 90’s. Plus, he was a quitter. Emmitt’s longevity and desire to play the game is a plus, not a minus.


If longevity and long term production didn’t matter, I’ll take Bo Jackson over any back in NFL history.

In the end it is a numbers game. If you want to know who is better take a look at the scoreboard. The rest is just opinion.

Brown did not play against 210 pound LBs who ran 5.10 40s or 240 pound DLs. They were smaller but not that much smaller. I think you do Brown a diservice here. It's true that the modern backs play against better athletes but you also have to look at the game.

The blocking that Brown ran behind was not nearly as good as the blocking modern backs get today. Why? Because blocking technique in those days were pretty limited. You could not extend your arms as an OL and you couldn't use your hands. Both had to be tucked neatly into your chest in those days. In addition, the passing game was not as previlent. The running game was used 70% of the time. What does this mean? It means that defenses played the run much more then then they do now. Defenses played from the hash in rather then from the hash outs. You had defensive players playing much closer to the line. There wasn't as much room in those days to run as there is now because offenses couldn't spread defenses out.

Fewer games ment fewer carries.

The game was much more rough. Physically, the players might be bigger now but back then, your talking about a different bread of players. In the 50s and early 60s, you had guys who went to Korea and fought for there lives. It was a different mind set in those days. The game itself was much rougher. Figure you also didn't have the advantage of year round training. Sports medican was none existant. Diet and Vitamin suppliments were never even heard of. Your body didn't bounce back like it does today.

In the long run, the players of that era faced many obsticals that todays players don't. If you look at it from this perspective, I think things more then even out.

JMO

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think it would be interesting to see who some of the best NFL coaches would pick between Emmitt & Barry, .. in their respective prime.

I'm fairly certain most would pick Emmitt. Especially those who predominately like to run the ball.

I think it would completely depend on what kind of team you had.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

Wow... that befuddles me... but message boards are all about opinions, that's what makes them work... I certainly respect you and your opinions as you are an intelligent guy... but I would take Emmitt ANY day over Brown...

Brown had SERIOUS character issues as he liked to knock around women...

You also need to realize that Brown was the biggest factor in Duane Thomas' and his meltdown... attitude counts for alot!

I will NEVER dispute Brown and his talent... but I will always question his character... that is never something we dealt with in regards to Emmitt...

Sup Trickblue!!!

It is always fun to debate these things .

The guy certainly had attitude problems and has been accused of battery. He even spent time in jail. But he has also done some good in the community as he has pumped alot of money into the inner city and goes around speaking to youngsters about the ills of the world.

Duane Thomas was in trouble way before Jim Brown got to him. He got heavily into drugs, he was one of the first guys to openly criticize the pay system (as you know the Cowboys players, although one of the better teams were one of the lowest paying teams) and the City of Dallas (overt Racism) also had a role in his downfall.

I am not going go "open season" on Emmitt Smith, but trust me the guy had his problems too.

Besides, when I see threads like this, I consider "all things equal". Meaning, I am judging the talent and not the baggage.

If I were judging the whole package, I still would take Jim Brown over Emmitt Smith. Jim Brown and Frank Clarke use to be roommates when Clarke was with the Browns. Clarke said everyday, when they were getting out of bed, Jim Brown would be yawning and stretching and would say, "yeah, I feel like 200 yards today" and he would go out and get it too. The ultimate run-between-the-tackles guy and was just unstoppable. All that and he still had to deal with the ugly side of football, which somebody like myself probably would have folded and gave into the ugliness.

Like Ray Lewis said about his great Ravens defense in 2001, "We were so good, not even the great Jim Brown could have ran on us".

Check out these stats of Jim Brown:

Rushing Att:289
Rush Yards:1544
Rush APC:5.3
Rush Touchdowns:17
Rec:34
Rec Yards:328
Rec YPC:9.6
Rec TDs:4

Nope folks those are not Jim Brown's rookie Season Stats, but his LAST. The ultimate workhorse who retired in his prime and still is something like 8th all-time in rushing.

Lawrence Taylor was a mofo off the field, but Parcells still put of with him because he was monster on the field as well.

- Mike G.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

Oh and when Jim Brown played, it was a tougher league where everything went. If Brown played today with these rules and these players that half of em dont even play hard, I wouldnt be surprised if he had numerous 2000 yard seasons.

- Mike G.

 

[WV Cowboy]

I think it would completely depend on what kind of team you had.

Like I said, .. those that predominately like to run the ball.

Those that like to wear down defenses, run on 1st down, set up play action, control the LOS with a lead in the 2nd half or 4th qtr.

You are right, if a team's philosophy was not smash mouth, they would not necassarily want Emmitt.

I wonder who Parcells would want in their prime ? ... hhmmmm

 

[Nightshade]

Walter Payton
The most complete Running Back in the history of the game.
Great Blocker, Runner, Vision, Character, Leader, Passer, Kicker, Longevity, Elusive, Teammate, Determination, HEART

When our teams started to suck after the last superbowl, you saw what Emmitt really was. There were so many games where Emmitt would disappear. If it was a big game he was amazing, but if it was regular season and we weren't in a playoff run, he'd mail it in.
Walter never had the successful teams to begin with. Yet he always gave everything he had. Every play.

Gayle Sayers - Barry Sanders were more elusive runners than Walter.
Earl Campbell- Jim Brown were more powerful, but... I wouldn't want any other than Walter in my backfield.

My 123 would be Walter a huge number 1.
Earl Campbell, Jim Brown, Bo Jackson, Herschel Walker number 2
Tony Dorsett - Emmitt - Sayers - The Juice - number 3

Honorable mention. Eric Dickerson, Marcus Allen, Ladanian Tomlinson, Barry Sanders

BTW this guy Julius got his self some moves too. It'll be neat to see where he fits in when he hangs em up.

 

[tyke1doe]

I get so sick of the "if, if, if" game.

The bottom line is Emmitt has the rushing record and three Super Bowls and Barry does. Not to mention Emmitt's desire for football was greater than Barry's.

So Emmitt is the best in my book.

 

[junk]

My 2 cents:

Emmitt was a move the chains back. Barry might have negative yards until the 3rd when his team was out of the game and he busted off an 80 yarder.

Emmitt was more complete. Much better blocker and receiver.

Emmitt was a guy that would win you games, Sanders could just as easily lose you games as he lost you yardage.

I am far from a fan of Emmitt Smith, but I will always argue that he is a better back than Sanders for winning football games.

 

[WV Cowboy]

After 5 FULL pages of posts, everything has been said, every quality NFL back has been mentioned, every strength & every weakness has been discussed, ... Emmitt wins the popular vote.

Close this thread !

 

[WV Cowboy]

I was only kidding ... :loser: