Emmitt Smith

[Cowboy212]

My answer to those who limit what Emmitt Smith accomplished by saying we had the best offensive line is; how come we started 0-2 without Emmitt in 1993 (when he held out)?

If you could drive a "bus" through the holes then why didn't our back-ups get it done?

I also remind them that Emmitt has 1,486 rushing yards and 9 touchdowns after he ended the holdout.

Exactly and Emmitt wasn't only productive behind that line, he was consistently productive throughout his career even behind less than stellar o-lines.

 

[rcaldw]

How many of Emmitt's O-linmen are in the HOF?

How many for Barry Sanders?

How many for Walter Payton?

I will wait.

The saddest thing to me, as a lifelong Cowboys fan, is to see how people try to diminish our star players by an offensive line that was good, but it sure wasn't that good until the stars showed up.

Here is how the arguments run:

Aikman wasn't that great because he had Emmitt and a great offensive line
Irvin wasn't that good because he had Aikman and Emmitt
Emmitt wasn't that good because he had the offensive line and a great passing game (which Sanders didn't have)

What drives me crazy about this is that the three players that Cowboys fans often fight over, don't fight among themselves. They all acknowledge that they needed each other.

Some of the arguments get downright silly. "The Cowboys couldn't win a game without Emmitt". This is based on his 2 game hold out in 1993. Flat out stupid. In 1990 Dallas had climbed right back into the playoff picture with 2 games to go. Aikman went down in Philly and Dallas LOST OUT. Emmitt was there. Dallas lost both games.

These three WERE GREAT TOGETHER. The triplets. And they had a very good offensive line. SO WHAT?!

Did Montana do it alone? (Jerry Rice, John Taylor, Roger Craig)
Did Bradshaw do it alone? (Harris, Swann, Stallworth, Steel Curtain)

On and on we could go.

Emmitt was a great back. He is the NFL's all-time leading rusher. He was the greatest pass protection star running back I have ever seen. For my taste I like Tony Dorsett better. BUT WHO CARES. EMMITT WAS A HALL OF FAMER, AND ONE OF THE GREATEST BACKS EVER.

Lets stop tearing our own people down in stupid ways.

 

[Stautner]

I agree with the extra years and the 16 game schedule that Emmitt played, but would you also agree that the defenses that Brown played against weren't anywhere near as tough as the defenses that Emmitt and Barry Sanders faced?

Why would we assume the defenses back then weren't as tough as they are now? They were less sophisticatd than they are now, but offenses were too.

 

[THUMPER]

Why would we assume the defenses back then weren't as tough as they are now? They were less sophisticatd than they are now, but offenses were too.

I agree. In fact if anything, defenses were tougher back then than they are now since most of the rule changes over the past 40 years have favored the offense.

I love how these kids spout stuff that they have no knowledge about. I was there, I saw it first hand and I KNOW. :geezer:

 

[Hook'em#11]

IF the O-line was the reason(which it isn't) that Emmitt fared so well, then Jerry Rice isn't close to being the best, seeing as he went to a team that was LOADED with talent on the offensive side of the ball for most of his career.


It's such a weak argument. "The O-line was so good". LOL. Not for all the years Emmitt was in Dallas, not even close. 2-3 yrs? yes. Explain the rest of the years when he was still going and producing.

 

[Cowboy212]

I agree. In fact if anything, defenses were tougher back then than they are now since most of the rule changes over the past 40 years have favored the offense.

I love how these kids spout stuff that they have no knowledge about. I was there, I saw it first hand and I KNOW. :geezer:

I guess I'm the "kid" that's spouting stuff that I have no knowledge about lol. I think there's an argument that the players may have been tougher back then, being that they played without alot of the pain medicine and ammenities, but I said DEFENSES. Are you telling me that you don't see the difference in the SIZE, SPEED, and STRENGTH of Defensive players compared to that generation. Jim Brown may have been bigger, stronger, and faster than most defensive players back then, but that would not have been the case had he played in this generation. I think you may be spouting something that you have no knowledge about.

 

[ANTHONYSCOTT]

How many of Emmitt's O-linmen are in the HOF?

How many for Barry Sanders?

How many for Walter Payton?

I will wait.

Great POINT!!!

 

[Stautner]

I agree. In fact if anything, defenses were tougher back then than they are now since most of the rule changes over the past 40 years have favored the offense.

I love how these kids spout stuff that they have no knowledge about. I was there, I saw it first hand and I KNOW. :geezer:

Us old guys have to stick together.

IF the O-line was the reason(which it isn't) that Emmitt fared so well, then Jerry Rice isn't close to being the best, seeing as he went to a team that was LOADED with talent on the offensive side of the ball for most of his career.

It's such a weak argument. "The O-line was so good". LOL. Not for all the years Emmitt was in Dallas, not even close. 2-3 yrs? yes. Explain the rest of the years when he was still going and producing.

Are there really that meany people on here claiming Emmitt's success was only due to the O-line? I'm not saying that. The O-line contributed for sure, but Emmitt was a great RB anyway.

I guess I'm the "kid" that's spouting stuff that I have no knowledge about lol. I think there's an argument that the players may have been tougher back then, being that they played without alot of the pain medicine and ammenities, but I said DEFENSES. Are you telling me that you don't see the difference in the SIZE, SPEED, and STRENGTH of Defensive players compared to that generation. Jim Brown may have been bigger, stronger, and faster than most defensive players back then, but that would not have been the case had he played in this generation. I think you may be spouting something that you have no knowledge about.

If you are going to look at it that way then you have to say the opposite is true. You can't, for the sake of your argument, assume only defensive players are bigger, stronger and faster compared to that generation. O-linemen are as well. Fullbacks and Tight Ends are as well. All the people blockign and helping open running lanes have gotten bigger, faster and stronger along with the defensive players.

In fact, this argument helps make a point for Jim Brown. He would still be a big, fast and strong RB even today, so for his day, when players were smaller, he was the most dominant running back anybody had ever seen, and the most dominant running back of any era.

THINK ABOUT THIS:

* Jim Brown led the NFL in rushing EVERY YEAR HE PLAYED except one.

* In the years Brown led the NFL in rushing (all but one year he played) he AVERAGED 370 yards more per season than the 2nd leading rusher.

 

[Cowboy212]

I wasn't assuming only defensive players are bigger, however I was speaking only of the defenses that each of them faced and I don't feel they were as tough back then. When everyone says that Jerry Rice is the best they point to his numbers, there's no mention of the two hall of fame QB's that he played with or how great his teams were, only his numbers, but with Emmitt the numbers don't matter for some reason. He did it all and the numbers show it. Jerry Rice did what no other WR did and Emmitt did what no other RB did. Tell me what categories matter more than Yards, Touchdowns, and Rings?

 

[Stautner]

I wasn't assuming only defensive players are bigger, however I was speaking only of the defenses that each of them faced and I don't feel they were as tough back then. When everyone says that Jerry Rice is the best they point to his numbers, there's no mention of the two hall of fame QB's that he played with or how great his teams were, only his numbers, but with Emmitt the numbers don't matter for some reason. He did it all and the numbers show it. Jerry Rice did what no other WR did and Emmitt did what no other RB did. Tell me what categories matter more than Yards, Touchdowns, and Rings?

I understand what you said about defenses, but that doesn't change the fact that if offenses have become bigger, stronger and faster along with defenses, defenses haven't gained any advantage. It's a non-point.

And what in the world does Jerry Rice have to do with this? I'm not commenting on Emmitt in relation to Rice, I'm commenting on Emmitt and Brown relative to their status as a top RB.

As far as your comment about yardage and TD's, Brown was much more proficient in those areas than Emmitt. You must have forgotten or ignored it, but yesterday I specifically responded to you with the following information, and you even responded to my post that contained this information ...........

As for stats, Brown averaged a full yard per carry more than Emmitt, 23 rushing yards per game more than Emmitt, 3 yards per reception more than Emmitt, more TD receptions than Emmitt, more rushing TD's per game than Emmitt - really there was no area that he didn't surpass Emmitt except that Emmitt's career totals were higher because he played 4 more years and played 16 game schedules as opposed to Brown's 12 game schedule.

This all tells us that Brown performed much better, but he just didn't do it as long. The only stats in Emmitt's favor are totals that come from playing more games. All the stats dealing with actual game day performance are in Brown's favor.

The rings are great, and certainly Emmitt was a big part of earning them, but if that was the key stat for RB's Franco Harrris would be a better RB than Emmitt, and we all know that isn't the case.

 

[DallasEast]

I guess I'm the "kid" that's spouting stuff that I have no knowledge about lol. I think there's an argument that the players may have been tougher back then, being that they played without alot of the pain medicine and ammenities, but I said DEFENSES. Are you telling me that you don't see the difference in the SIZE, SPEED, and STRENGTH of Defensive players compared to that generation. Jim Brown may have been bigger, stronger, and faster than most defensive players back then, but that would not have been the case had he played in this generation. I think you may be spouting something that you have no knowledge about.

umm. THUMPER knows his stuff.

Leaving thread now.

 

[Cowboy212]

I never said rings were the key stat but rings, yards, and touchdowns all together do matter. For that matter what does Franco Harris have to do with this lol. Jerry was relevant to what I was saying because no one debates his numbers and subtracts from what he did by saying "well if he played without Montana he wouldn't have done this and he only had those yards because he played longer" You only hear that when it comes to Emmitt. It's obvious that had Jim Brown continued to play his numbers would only be that more impressive but he didn't. Neither did any of the others, so let's just go off of the facts. Why not just say Terrell Davis was better than Emmitt too then? He was amazing the whole time he played too, wasn't he?

 

[Stautner]

I never said rings were the key stat but rings, yards, and touchdowns all together do matter. For that matter what does Franco Harris have to do with this lol. Jerry was relevant to what I was saying because no one debates his numbers and subtracts from what he did by saying "well if he played without Montana he wouldn't have done this and he only had those yards because he played longer" You only hear that when it comes to Emmitt. It's obvious that had Jim Brown continued to play his numbers would only be that more impressive but he didn't. Neither did any of the others, so let's just go off of the facts. Why not just say Terrell Davis was better than Emmitt too then? He was amazing the whole time he played too, wasn't he?

Here's the funny thing, you keep talking about stats, yet you conveniently and consistently ignore the fact that Brown is way above Emmitt in actual game production in EVERY category, and that the only stats Emmitt has that surpass Browns are career totals that are a function of having played more games. I'm not trying to downgrade Emmitt's accomplishments, but there is no way to dispute the fact that Brown easily and clearly produced more on game days than Emmitt did.

As for Rice and Emmitt, I have never said this, so it is completely irrelevent to your discussion with me. You are trying to make a point with me that has nothing at all to do with anything I am saying. Whether Emmitt is treated differently than Rice has absolutely nothing to do with a comparison of Emmitt to Jim Brown, so bringing it up with me amounts to nothing more than meaningless fluff.

As for rings, those are team accomplishments, and as I said, although Emmitt was a huge factor in getting those rings, it is not an indication of being the best RB in history. Lots of mediocre RB's have rings.

 

[Cowboy212]

I haven't ignored Brown's stats, but clearly you are ignoring Emmitt's. I wasn't aware that the back who averages the most per carry was automatically considered the best ever. Are you honestly saying that Brown's accomplishments overshadow Emmitt's? Plenty of backs have been better than Emmitt in one category or another for a period of time, but where it counts Emmitt is second to none. It seems as though you feel Jim Brown was better so you're gonna stick with it, and that can be said about myself as well with Emmitt. The difference is I'm not subtracting or adding or hypothetically speaking about anything I'm saying. I'm simply saying that Emmitt has done more in his career as a whole than any other running back. Any runningback at the end of the day would choose Emmitt's career over all others because he accomplished more, plain and simple. Jim Brown included. Who knows what he would've done had he not retired in his prime, but the fact is he did retire early and we're talking about their careers not a fraction of it. Good day fellow Cowboy Fan, there's nothing wrong with a healthy debate.

 

[ZeroClub]

I don't think there is a single greatest running back, because running backs have several responsibilities and each of the greatest running backs had a different skill set.

Instead of asking which back was better, it makes more sense to ask which was better at what.

Back during the Emmitt and Barry years, I used to say that Sanders was a better running back (as in pure runner), but Emmitt was the better football player (combination of running, blocking, catching, focus / intensity...).

Clearly, Emmitt's durability and longevity was remarkable. Being able to do what he did for so many years and at such a high level is a big deal in and of itself.

A random thought.... for a two to three year stretch, one of the most impressive RBs I recall was John Brockington with the Green Bay Packers in the early 1970s. He wasn't dynamic, but he was a reliable road grader. The Packers really didn't have much else on offense. He did it on his own.