Jimmy Johnson Hints Zeke is Wee Bit Better than Emmitt

CalPolyTechnique

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,684
Reaction score
44,609
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/j...el-elliott-might-be-better-than-emmitt-smith/

Ezekiel Elliott has been so good through the first 11 games of his rookie season that he might just be better than Emmitt Smith. That's not just crazy talk either, that's coming from someone who probably actually knows: Jimmy Johnson.

During a recent interview on Speak For Yourself, Johnson was asked if he thought Elliott was already better than Smith ever was from a "skill-wise" standpoint.

The short answer: Yes.

"Norv Turner and I were talking about this a couple of days ago," Johnson said on the Fox Sports show. "Elliott's bigger, stronger, maybe even a step faster than Emmitt Smith, but they're both very similar. I think, you know, Ezekiel Elliott is a more powerful runner. He runs over people. Both of 'em can make people miss, so you don't really get a big shot on 'em. But Elliott will take on tacklers, whereas, you know, Emmitt never did this."

That's a pretty strong statement coming from Johnson, who won two Super Bowls during his five years in Dallas. However, the former Cowboys coach did give Smith the edge in two categories: Longevity and vision.

"Emmitt Smith had longevity. In professional football, running backs don't last very long. Emmitt Smith was the exception," Johnson said. "He lasted a long time, and he played at a high level for a long time."

Of course, there's no reason Elliott can't last as long as Smith did as long he continues to stay healthy.

As for the vision thing, Johnson pointed out that Elliott has a better offensive line in front of him, which means Smith had to have better vision to get through holes.

"Emmitt might have been a little bit better vision-wise, but I really don't think the power of the talent in front of him, the offensive line, was as good as the power in [Elliott's] line," Johnson said. "This line is a bigger, stronger group than what had with the Cowboys."

Comparing a running back who played for 15 years (Smith) to a running back who's only played for 11 games (Elliott) isn't exactly easy, so here's a more apples-to-apples comparison.

Through 11 games, Elliott has 1,199 rushing yards and 11 touchdowns. Through the first 11 games of his rookie year (1990), Smith had 522 yards and four touchdowns. Smith finished that 1990 season with 937 yards and was named rookie of the year. The Cowboys would end up finishing 7-9 during Smith's rookie year.

Elliott is currently on pace for 1,744 yards in 2016, a number that Smith only topped once during his entire 13 year career in Dallas.
 

chris1995

Well-Known Member
Messages
682
Reaction score
955
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/j...el-elliott-might-be-better-than-emmitt-smith/

Ezekiel Elliott has been so good through the first 11 games of his rookie season that he might just be better than Emmitt Smith. That's not just crazy talk either, that's coming from someone who probably actually knows: Jimmy Johnson.

During a recent interview on Speak For Yourself, Johnson was asked if he thought Elliott was already better than Smith ever was from a "skill-wise" standpoint.

The short answer: Yes.

"Norv Turner and I were talking about this a couple of days ago," Johnson said on the Fox Sports show. "Elliott's bigger, stronger, maybe even a step faster than Emmitt Smith, but they're both very similar. I think, you know, Ezekiel Elliott is a more powerful runner. He runs over people. Both of 'em can make people miss, so you don't really get a big shot on 'em. But Elliott will take on tacklers, whereas, you know, Emmitt never did this."

That's a pretty strong statement coming from Johnson, who won two Super Bowls during his five years in Dallas. However, the former Cowboys coach did give Smith the edge in two categories: Longevity and vision.

"Emmitt Smith had longevity. In professional football, running backs don't last very long. Emmitt Smith was the exception," Johnson said. "He lasted a long time, and he played at a high level for a long time."

Of course, there's no reason Elliott can't last as long as Smith did as long he continues to stay healthy.

As for the vision thing, Johnson pointed out that Elliott has a better offensive line in front of him, which means Smith had to have better vision to get through holes.


"Emmitt might have been a little bit better vision-wise, but I really don't think the power of the talent in front of him, the offensive line, was as good as the power in [Elliott's] line," Johnson said. "This line is a bigger, stronger group than what had with the Cowboys."

Comparing a running back who played for 15 years (Smith) to a running back who's only played for 11 games (Elliott) isn't exactly easy, so here's a more apples-to-apples comparison.

Through 11 games, Elliott has 1,199 rushing yards and 11 touchdowns. Through the first 11 games of his rookie year (1990), Smith had 522 yards and four touchdowns. Smith finished that 1990 season with 937 yards and was named rookie of the year. The Cowboys would end up finishing 7-9 during Smith's rookie year.

Elliott is currently on pace for 1,744 yards in 2016, a number that Smith only topped once during his entire 13 year career in Dallas.
That is great coming from Jimmy Johnson-the seal of approval.
 

CATCH17

1st Round Pick
Messages
67,664
Reaction score
86,205
90s oline and Emmitt were better at running power schemes.

2016 Oline and Elliot are better at zone schemes.


This current offense has a lot more talent in the passing game.
 

muck4doo

Least-Known Member
Messages
3,877
Reaction score
2,190
Dorsett, Emmitt, Walker, and Zeke are(were) all immense talents playing in different schemes in different eras. Does Zeke have the opportunity to put up the greatest numbers of them all? Yes. It won't take away from the greatness of the others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BAT

Reality

Staff member
Messages
31,231
Reaction score
72,769
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
One difference between Emmitt and Elliott is that Emmitt tried to avoid contact which allowed him to run with better balance at a cost of power on impact. Once Elliott clears the line, if he sees someone in front of him, he tends to start leaning forward a little to give him more power for the impact and to help break tackles. Both methods can work, but the downside to Elliott's technique is that once he starts leaning a little, he's not breaking off a 30+ yard run at that point unless the defender helps him regain his balance.

If you look at Elliott's longer runs, it's because he gets through the line and gets into the middle of the field without someone directly in his way. He becomes much harder to catch and tackle than Emmitt was in that situation. However, if Elliott gets through the line and a linebacker or safety is squaring up to hit him, he starts to lean a little (not horribly, just a little) so even if he avoids or breaks the tackle, he's already on the way to the ground. Of course that leaning helps pick up a few extra yards on many of those plays so it's not a bad thing by any means.

Even Elliott though will get up after those plays mad at himself when he leaned into the run and ended up on the ground after barely being touched, realizing he could have broken off a really long run had he kept his balance. Emmitt's ability to spin and avoid contact not only prolonged his career, it also allowed him to continue some runs when defenders lowered their head to hit him and took their eyes off him.

Each of those guy's techniques work well for them, so this is not a criticism, but rather an observation of the difference in their styles.
 

J_Allen

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,507
Reaction score
7,781
Elliot is better. I was telling someone that a few weeks ago. He has a legitimate shot to break the single season rushing record over the next few years. As far as Emmit's record, I doubt it. He doesn't avoid contact like Emmitt did.
 

aikemirv

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,405
Reaction score
9,999
Emmitt= better vision, better making people miss in the hole, avoided contact (a plus)

Zeke, faster, more power, takes on tacklers (negative for longevity), better around the edge
 

J_Allen

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,507
Reaction score
7,781
Lost in this is Jimmy said the modern Cowboys have a better offensive line.

Smith over Tuinei
Leary over Newton
Frederick over Stepnoski
Martin over Gogan
Williams over Free


Post car wreck I'll take Free. And Allen over anyone but the center.
 

pansophy

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,162
Reaction score
4,240
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/j...el-elliott-might-be-better-than-emmitt-smith/

Ezekiel Elliott has been so good through the first 11 games of his rookie season that he might just be better than Emmitt Smith. That's not just crazy talk either, that's coming from someone who probably actually knows: Jimmy Johnson.

During a recent interview on Speak For Yourself, Johnson was asked if he thought Elliott was already better than Smith ever was from a "skill-wise" standpoint.

The short answer: Yes.

"Norv Turner and I were talking about this a couple of days ago," Johnson said on the Fox Sports show. "Elliott's bigger, stronger, maybe even a step faster than Emmitt Smith, but they're both very similar. I think, you know, Ezekiel Elliott is a more powerful runner. He runs over people. Both of 'em can make people miss, so you don't really get a big shot on 'em. But Elliott will take on tacklers, whereas, you know, Emmitt never did this."

That's a pretty strong statement coming from Johnson, who won two Super Bowls during his five years in Dallas. However, the former Cowboys coach did give Smith the edge in two categories: Longevity and vision.

"Emmitt Smith had longevity. In professional football, running backs don't last very long. Emmitt Smith was the exception," Johnson said. "He lasted a long time, and he played at a high level for a long time."

Of course, there's no reason Elliott can't last as long as Smith did as long he continues to stay healthy.

As for the vision thing, Johnson pointed out that Elliott has a better offensive line in front of him, which means Smith had to have better vision to get through holes.

"Emmitt might have been a little bit better vision-wise, but I really don't think the power of the talent in front of him, the offensive line, was as good as the power in [Elliott's] line," Johnson said. "This line is a bigger, stronger group than what had with the Cowboys."

Comparing a running back who played for 15 years (Smith) to a running back who's only played for 11 games (Elliott) isn't exactly easy, so here's a more apples-to-apples comparison.

Through 11 games, Elliott has 1,199 rushing yards and 11 touchdowns. Through the first 11 games of his rookie year (1990), Smith had 522 yards and four touchdowns. Smith finished that 1990 season with 937 yards and was named rookie of the year. The Cowboys would end up finishing 7-9 during Smith's rookie year.

Elliott is currently on pace for 1,744 yards in 2016, a number that Smith only topped once during his entire 13 year career in Dallas.
How did no one connect Emmitt NOT taking on tacklers with his longevity. It's not carries but hits that shorten careers.
 

TheSkaven

Last Man Standing
Messages
7,021
Reaction score
5,775
I love this - though to be fair, Jimmy did not say that Zeke is a better back than Emmitt. He has the potential to be better. Emmitt's best asset was his incredible durability. But if Zak plays 12 seasons - dare I say, he may just be the one to break Emmitt's record.
 

jrumann59

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,017
Reaction score
8,770
How did no one connect Emmitt NOT taking on tacklers with his longevity. It's not carries but hits that shorten careers.
with running backs it is not about hits per se but tackles, the more often you get caught in a scrum of a pile the possibility for knee and ankle injuries go up. Emmitt was fortunate not to have catastrophic injuries to his legs which is running backs life blood.

That is why I was against Murray re-signing, too many sprains and strains in his early career that only get exacerbated with age.
 

pansophy

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,162
Reaction score
4,240
with running backs it is not about hits per se but tackles, the more often you get caught in a scrum of a pile the possibility for knee and ankle injuries go up. Emmitt was fortunate not to have catastrophic injuries to his legs which is running backs life blood.

That is why I was against Murray re-signing, too many sprains and strains in his early career that only get exacerbated with age.
I was against resigning Murray too, though he has done alright.
 

jrumann59

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,017
Reaction score
8,770
I was against resigning Murray too, though he has done alright.
True but he had a lot of strains in Philly last year on limited carries. I credit his resurgence to a the lack of carries in Philly.
 
Top