For Skins fans: Is Emmitt the best RB ever?

[Wheat]

Smith was awesome. Best ever? I don't know. Very possible.

Maybe. I think he's up there with Jim Brown and Barry Sanders for sure.

 

[skinsngibbs4life]

I don't chase you around the forum, and thus I do not follow nor read all of your posts.

Perhaps you should understand the point of a thread before making remarks.

Well considering i made the comment within this thread

And I do understand the point of the thread( once agian). But if someone brings up the monk/irvin thing within this thread im going to comment on it.

 

[superpunk]

I think we can all agree on one thing.

:suxskins:

I'm glad we had this talk.

 

[EMMITTnROY]

1. Emmitt Smith
2. Walter Payton
3. Jim Brown
4. Barry Sanders


I think these four stand out above the rest.. And I think you can make a good argument for the top 3 as the best ever.. But I will never, ever consider Barry Sanders the greatest RB of all-time.. You can't lead the league in all-time yards lost or be yanked from the lineup in favor of a scrub in short yardage and goallline situations and be considered the greatest of all-time..

 

[lurkercowboy]

No, I guess All 80's decade team with 3 other HOF receivers isn't elite.

Or first receiver to have 100+ catches in a season in a run oriented offense.

I know you'll roll your eyes, but take a few mins to watch this piece. He did a lot more than 4 yard curls.

http://www.redskinsdb.com/resources/Monk4theHall.wmv

Nice video. A little too heavy on the celebrations and congratulations, but I love old plays like this.

 

[WV Cowboy]

1. Emmitt Smith
2. Walter Payton
3. Jim Brown
4. Barry Sanders


I think these four stand out above the rest.. And I think you can make a good argument for the top 3 as the best ever.. But I will never, ever consider Barry Sanders the greatest RB of all-time.. You can't lead the league in all-time yards lost or be yanked from the lineup in favor of a scrub in short yardage and goallline situations and be considered the greatest of all-time..

Precisely, I don't know why that is so hard for some fans to grasp.

Myself, I would take Herschel Walker, Earl Campbell, Eric Dickerson before BS, but that is just because of the type of RB I like.

But no way is BS the best ever.

 

[skinsngibbs4life]

1. Emmitt Smith
2. Walter Payton
3. Jim Brown
4. Barry Sanders


I think these four stand out above the rest.. And I think you can make a good argument for the top 3 as the best ever.. But I will never, ever consider Barry Sanders the greatest RB of all-time.. You can't lead the league in all-time yards lost or be yanked from the lineup in favor of a scrub in short yardage and goallline situations and be considered the greatest of all-time..

I think thats a good point. Any of those top 3 could have a good argument as GOAT. Even though some might have a better case than the other two, they were all amazing in there own right

 

[Rack]

Precisely, I don't know why that is so hard for some fans to grasp.

Myself, I would take Herschel Walker, Earl Campbell, Eric Dickerson before BS, but that is just because of the type of RB I like.

But no way is BS the best ever.

All three of those RBs had different styles. Maybe you meant cuz it's the BUILD of a RB you like, but those three guys weren't the same "Type" of RB.

 

[WV Cowboy]

All three of those RBs had different styles. Maybe you meant cuz it's the BUILD of a RB you like, but those three guys weren't the same "Type" of RB.

I remember all three as being the same "type" of RB, ... all 3 ran north and south, straight downhill, without much wiggle.

Unlike BS.

 

[Rack]

I remember all three as being the same "type" of RB, ... all 3 ran north and south, straight downhill, without much wiggle.

Unlike BS.

All three were very much unlike BS, but they all also had their own style. Dickerson was more of a slasher. Big back, but he wasn't a bull dozer. Campbell was the ultimate bulldozer. Walker was a combo of the two, but with more speed then both.

 

[WV Cowboy]

All three were very much unlike BS, but they all also had their own style. Dickerson was more of a slasher. Big back, but he wasn't a bull dozer. Campbell was the ultimate bulldozer. Walker was a combo of the two, but with more speed then both.

I guess one could say that every back has his own style because everyone is different with different strengths and weaknesses.

Good description of each back.

I hope you got my point that BS is way down on my list of RB's I want on my team.

Fun to watch, and worth the price of a ticket at times, but not what I am looking for in a back.

 

[Rack]

I guess one could say that every back has his own style because everyone is different with different strengths and weaknesses.

Good description of each back.

I hope you got my point that BS is way down on my list of RB's I want on my team.

Fun to watch, and worth the price of a ticket at times, but not what I am looking for in a back.

Yeah I think all RBs share some similiarities but there's also a few different specific styles. And I agree with you about BS. Great big play RB, but wouldn't be my choice for a franchise RB. I'd also take Dickerson, Campbell, and Walker before I'd take BS.

 

[jackrussell]

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.

Could you possibly get anymore horsecrap into one post?

 

[cj7]

What exactly are you saying is horsecrap?

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Clark only opened things up for Monk. He didn't take anything away.

When I was a kid and the cowboys played the skins, I never worried about Art Freakin' Monk. The guy I feared out of that recieving group was Gary Clark. Art Monk was nothing more then a Keyshawn Johnson. Solid, not great. That's not a bad thing. But it does mean he's not worthy of the HOF.

That is exactly what Rick Gosselin was saying today. So it isn't just Cowboys fan bias.

And I believe he even said that in the years the Skins won their SBs, Monk didn't even make the Pro Bowl those years -- Clark did.

The fact is, to be a Hall of Famer, you should be one of the very best in the league at your position while you played. Monk never was.

 

[jrumann59]

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.

I always love this BS arguement, Barry was so good because he had to rely upon his improvisation skills to gain 1 yard. He holds the NFL record for most yards lost. He would not be a good running back behind a good offensive line I would say he would look more like JuJo running. He wasn't a power back like Smith. hence why he was usually taken out in goal line situations. He is a very good back but I put him below Sayers, Smith, Payton, and Brown.

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.

How is that Irvins's problem. It isn't Irvin's fault that you have coach that thinks he is the great QB Reclamator. To has been thru a few QB's and seems to perform reasnably, even Rice, what about McCardell, Cris Carter. Monk should be in and I think his media savvy is what is costing him but he isn't a better WR than Irvin.

 

[cj7]

I certainly agree that Emmitt was a much more of a power running back, but the thing about Barry is that he did have to use his improv skills to pick up, or lose, as many yards as he did, but once he finally got past his paper thin o-line is where he stands out and makes him one of the greatest of all time. His moves to get past linebackers and db's were a thing of beauty. His open field moves are like no other. By no means would he look like Julius Jones if he had Dallas' o-line, Jones doesn't have any of the vision or moves Sanders had, there is no comparison there. I believe if Emmitt had just an average line, then he would still be a very good running back, but not near the back he ended up being.

I'm not saying that it's Irvin's fault that he had Aikman throwing to him his whole career, he was still a damn good reciever regardless,(even if he did always push off ) I am just saying that it goes to show how good Monk was, with many different qb's throwing to him, not one being a hall of famer, and still putting up the incredible numbers that he did. Especially in a run oriented offense.

 

[gbrittain]

I certainly agree that Emmitt was a much more of a power running back, but the thing about Barry is that he did have to use his improv skills to pick up, or lose, as many yards as he did, but once he finally got past his paper thin o-line is where he stands out and makes him one of the greatest of all time. His moves to get past linebackers and db's were a thing of beauty. His open field moves are like no other. By no means would he look like Julius Jones if he had Dallas' o-line, Jones doesn't have any of the vision or moves Sanders had, there is no comparison there. I believe if Emmitt had just an average line, then he would still be a very good running back, but not near the back he ended up being.

I'm not saying that it's Irvin's fault that he had Aikman throwing to him his whole career, he was still a damn good reciever regardless,(even if he did always push off ) I am just saying that it goes to show how good Monk was, with many different qb's throwing to him, not one being a hall of famer, and still putting up the incredible numbers that he did. Especially in a run oriented offense.

One of your points earlier was that Emmitt ran behind a great offensive line...and he did.

I what like to know though when you think the OL became a great one and what year they came back down to earth?

Emmitt is a lot of things, but a product of his OL is not one of them. Of course he benefited, not denying that, but the OL was not near as good for as long a period of time as people think.

 

[gbrittain]

1. Emmitt Smith
2. Walter Payton
3. Jim Brown
4. Barry Sanders


I think these four stand out above the rest.. And I think you can make a good argument for the top 3 as the best ever.. But I will never, ever consider Barry Sanders the greatest RB of all-time.. You can't lead the league in all-time yards lost or be yanked from the lineup in favor of a scrub in short yardage and goallline situations and be considered the greatest of all-time..

Many people confuse best runner with best RB. I will admit, from a moves big play stand point, Barry was the best ever.

He is not even close to being better than Emmitt when it comes to being a total RB.

 

[skinsngibbs4life]

I always love this BS arguement, Barry was so good because he had to rely upon his improvisation skills to gain 1 yard. He holds the NFL record for most yards lost. He would not be a good running back behind a good offensive line I would say he would look more like JuJo running. He wasn't a power back like Smith. hence why he was usually taken out in goal line situations. He is a very good back but I put him below Sayers, Smith, Payton, and Brown.






How is that Irvins's problem. It isn't Irvin's fault that you have coach that thinks he is the great QB Reclamator. To has been thru a few QB's and seems to perform reasnably, even Rice, what about McCardell, Cris Carter. Monk should be in and I think his media savvy is what is costing him but he isn't a better WR than Irvin.

You lost me when you used Barry Sanders and Julius Jones in the same sentence.