For Skins fans: Is Emmitt the best RB ever?

[Rack]

BigDFan ill be honest with you. I was born in 1982, therefor was not old enough to remember Monk when he played in his prime. I just remember him during early 90's. I saw Irvin play for most of his career and I remember being a great receiver for his team, just like Monk was for his. Its hard to compare the 2 if you didnt get to see them both play equally ya know? But Irvin is in the HOF before Monk so the general public sees it as Irvin being better. 24 just started so i gotta go.

You didn't see Monk play in his prime yet you can say with certainty that he was better then Clark?

I saw both play in their prime, Clark was better. Like I said, I feared Clark, not Monk. Monk was Keyshawn Johnson, Clark was Steve Smith (lesser version of SS).

 

[apickmans]

You didn't see Monk play in his prime yet you can say with certainty that he was better then Clark?

I saw both play in their prime, Clark was better. Like I said, I feared Clark, not Monk. Monk was Keyshawn Johnson, Clark was Steve Smith (lesser version of SS).

Ok so since you as a fan feared Clark more than Monk, maybe you can help us start a "Send Gary Clark to the HOF" campaign. Whatta ya say?

 

[random Cs]

I'd put Jim Brown and Sweetness ahead of him.

 

[Rack]

Ok so since you as a fan feared Clark more than Monk, maybe you can help us start a "Send Gary Clark to the HOF" campaign. Whatta ya say?

I would... if he were worthy of being in the HOF. He isn't.

 

[dbair1967]

I think skins fans should stop crying and just wait its obvious that Monk will be inducted before the mandatory date, so stop crying just because our boy from the U got in first its not a race both were great

the only thing Mike was better at was being a bigger personality which definitley helped his case into the hall

this is entirely untrue...Irvin was a dominant player on a dominat team, Irvin was the ebst WR in football from 1991-1996...Monk was never a dominant player, and thats why he isnt in the Hall yet...there was never a time when one could say Monk was the best WR in football

and Irvin's postseason numbers are better than Monk's

David

 

[YosemiteSam]

Monk was better WR than Irvin because he had 8l00 more yards and 3 more TDs

Monk played four more years than Irving and has stats that Irvin could have easily matched if he had only finished his finial year without injury. Irvin avg .4 TD per game in his career (159 games) Monk only had .3 TDs a game. (224 games) If Irvin played the extra 65 games he would have had another 26 TDs if he had followed his TD to game ratio giving him 90 TDs overall. Irvin avg 74.8 ypg, Monk only managed 56.7 ypg. If he had followed his receving avg for 65 more games, he would have finished with 16,766 total receiving yards. Easily blowing Monk's number out of the water. Top that off with the fact that Irvin was a big play receiver that made big plays when the team needed them. Without question Irvin was far and away superior to Monk. (no disrespect to Monk. He was a great receiver)

 

[WV Cowboy]

Using Skins fans logic (note NOT all of them)


Monk was better WR than Irvin because he had 8l00 more yards and 3 more TDs


So I was wondering if these same guys feel Emmitt is the best RB in history

I mean he is number 1 in rushing attempts, rushing yards and rushing TDs

So guys tell me is Emmitt the best RB to ever play the game?

I always try not to be a homer when asked this question but I suppose I am.

But truthfully, if I was picking a RB to try and get me to the Super Bowl I would pick Emmitt.

He had no weaknesses, he could do it all.

• Tough
• Durable
• Didn't fumble
• Great at picking up the blitz
• Great at short yardage or goal line
• Huge heart
• Humongous competitor
• Great balance
• Great vision
• Great at catching the ball out of the backfield
• Strong legs / lower body
• Ran downhill, north and south
• Big in big games
• Played hurt

The guy could do it all !
He only lacked true break-away speed, although he was not slow at all.

For people who disagree, ... fine, you can have whoever you want and I will take Emmitt and we will both be happy, ... but I will have the Lombardi trophy.

 

[Thomas82]

I always try not to be a homer when asked this question but I suppose I am.

But truthfully, if I was picking a RB to try and get me to the Super Bowl I would pick Emmitt.

He had no weaknesses, he could do it all.

• Tough
• Durable
• Didn't fumble
• Great at picking up the blitz
• Great at short yardage or goal line
• Huge heart
• Humongous competitor
• Great balance
• Great vision
• Great at catching the ball out of the backfield
• Strong legs / lower body
• Ran downhill, north and south
• Big in big games
• Played hurt

The guy could do it all !
He only lacked true break-away speed, although he was not slow at all.

For people who disagree, ... fine, you can have whoever you want and I will take Emmitt and we will both be happy, ... but I will have the Lombardi trophy.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Ok whatever u say. Clark himself has said that Monk was the better receiver.

and Michael Clayton said Skyler Green was the best WR on LSU's squad, so what?

 

[cj7]

Emmit Smith was no doubt a great running back. But he wasn't the all time greatest. He had one of the best all time o-lines that certainly helped his cause, and of course I will use the Barry Sanders argument. If you put Barry in dallas and Emmit in Detroit, Barry would be well over 20,000 yards and Emmit wouldn't even be in this discussion. Not only that, but if Barry wouldn't have retired as soon as he did, Emmit would be #3 in all time rushing, becuse he wouldn't have stuck around so long, the only reason he kept playing, was to break the record.

As for the Monk, Irvin debate. Irvin was very good, he was big and tough, he made great plays, and yes, he was a playmaker. One big thing that makes a huge difference is that Irvin also had only one qb throwing to him his whole career, and they knew each other so well, and had great chemistry, also, that qb is a hall of famer, which is a huge advantage, that right there is the X factor of this debate. Monk had many different qb's throwing to him, and he still put up better numbers. Irvin's personality was larger than life, Monk was quiet and wasn't one for the spotlight, so his name wasn't as big as Irvin's which certainly helped irvin's cause.

 

[jimmy40]

You didn't see Monk play in his prime yet you can say with certainty that he was better then Clark?

I saw both play in their prime, Clark was better. Like I said, I feared Clark, not Monk. Monk was Keyshawn Johnson, Clark was Steve Smith (lesser version of SS).

I saw them play in their prime and when Washington absolutely had to have a play in the passing game they went to Monk, not Gary freaking Clark.

 

[Rack]

I saw them play in their prime and when Washington absolutely had to have a play in the passing game they went to Monk, not Gary freaking Clark.

*yawn*


Clark > Monk

 

[skinsngibbs4life]

I think this whole topic between Irvin and Monk needs to stop. They are two seperate players, and obviously VERY different players.

It is what it is, and there is nothing any fan can do about it now.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I think this whole topic between Irvin and Monk needs to stop. They are two seperate players, and obviously VERY different players.

It is what it is, and there is nothing any fan can do about it now.

yes, one is in the HOF and the other isn't

ZING!

 

[AmishCowboy]

Let's put this whole thread to bed.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Or course not.

Unless he was a Commander.

Then he'd be the best and the greatest ever, without a shadow of a doubt, and no one would be able to touch his awesomeness.

 

[skinsngibbs4life]

yes, one is in the HOF and the other isn't

ZING!

im not even going to respond to that because it is only trying to incite.

way to be bigger

 

[skinsngibbs4life]

Or course not.

Unless he was a Commander.

Then he'd be the best and the greatest ever, without a shadow of a doubt, and no one would be able to touch his awesomeness.

yes, because we all already considered him one of the greatest of all time, but of course you couldnt bring anything we ever say in to consideration right? Generalzation is the only thing you know.

 

[Way 'nuff]

So then....

Gary Clark for the Hall....right?

 

[SultanOfSix]

yes, because we all already considered him one of the greatest of all time, but of course you couldnt bring anything we ever say in to consideration right? Generalzation is the only thing you know.

LOL. You really don't get the point of this thread.