Seth Joyner: Zeke better than Emmitt Smith

[plymkr]

Well if you take Randy Moss and transport him to the 1980's and let him play with Joe Montana and Steve Young than he is better than Jerry Rice.


Why does the Dallas line apply to Emmitt Smith but any other player in history isn't judged by the same standard?


Let Zeke carry this team to a few Superbowls, win a league MVP, and break a few records before we say he is better than his greatness.

good point

 

[jazzcat22]

Yeah the leagues all time leading rusher was just good. Ok Seth. If I had to pick just one guy to be the back to win one playoff game. I take 22. Sanders was great, so was emmitt.

Sanders was great but he was not Emmitt is more like it...........

I just don't buy the put Barry behind the Dallas OL bit...it's a poor excuse....Sanders ran behind 3 pro bowl / all pro OL also...so that argument does not fly. And I believe 2 were pro bowl before Barry got there, but not sure. The Dallas OL was considered rag tag guys before Emmitt.

No one talked about how good the Dallas OL was until Emmitt started winning rushing titles.
Seems to me Troy still took a beating with that OL.

 

[tyke1doe]

Better than all 29,000 of your worthless posts

You mean some of those worthless posts you liked?

Of course, you don't believe that. Otherwise, you wouldn't engage me. But yet, you do. You're not fooling anyone.

 

[Nightman]

You mean some of those worthless posts you liked?

Of course, you don't believe that. Otherwise, you wouldn't engage me. But yet, you do. You're not fooling anyone.

How do you shoot the Devil in the back...what if you miss(like you did)

 

[tyke1doe]

I can actually see and appreciate his point. As a staunch "let's wait and see" kinda guy that's usually late to the party due to reserving judgement, it's really not hard to see that zeke is a special talent.

Sigh. Who said Zeke wasn't a special talent?

See, this is why I wonder whether people actually understand what's the topic of discussion. The topic isn't whether Zeke is special or not. Nor is it if Zeke is talented or not. The topic is whether Zeke is better than Emmitt.

I say, "no." And I defined why I said "no." Better is a loaded word. Some interpret it to mean one has more talent; another interprets it as being more durable.
I define it as the entirety of a back's career and his impact on his team and on the game of football.

By "my" definition, Zeke isn't even in the conversation.

At some point pedigree and and situation come into play and allow a little more latitude in projection. Sometimes fringe players explode on the scene and it's safe to be skeptical. Sometimes highly touted players start slow and it's safe to exercise patience. And sometimes hype and reality intersect and what you see is what you get. Zeke has been the real deal before, is the real deal now, has the cast in place to continue, and won't be a surprise at all if he does. Very early for career comparisons, but very easy to get excited.

I agree with everything you said above. But that doesn't address the issue of whether Zeke is better than Emmitt. That just says he might be better based on his past performance. And we should be excited about what he's doing now. You can be excited about Zeke without proclaiming that he's better than Emmitt.

 

[tyke1doe]

How do you shoot the Devil in the back...what if you miss(like you did)

I don't even know what this means. Be that as it may, you seem like you want travel the road of insignificant banter. Have at it.
I'm not taking that journey with you.
Bye, bye.

 

[Proof]

Sigh. Who said Zeke wasn't a special talent?

See, this is why I wonder whether people actually understand what's the topic of discussion. The topic isn't whether Zeke is special or not. Nor is it if Zeke is talented or not. The topic is whether Zeke is better than Emmitt.

I say, "no." And I defined why I said "no." Better is a loaded word. Some interpret it to mean one has more talent; another interprets it as being more durable.
I define it as the entirety of a back's career and his impact on his team and on the game of football.

By "my" definition, Zeke isn't even in the conversation.



I agree with everything you said above. But that doesn't address the issue of whether Zeke is better than Emmitt. That just says he might be better based on his past performance. And we should be excited about what he's doing now. You can be excited about Zeke without proclaiming that he's better than Emmitt.

I didn't mean to address your post directly, just reading the exchange led to me quasi pondering both sides, and then just putting my thoughts down as a quote reply for context.

I will say though it's pretty condescending to wonder if people know the topic and in the same breath mention varying levels of interpretation. If you consider "better than" to be in regards to a career, cool. Pretty silly to even bother arguing that position though since clearly no one is saying zeke has a better career than enmit

 

[KJJ]

Emmitt didn't always have holes you could drive a truck through, he slithered through many a crack to make some huge plays. He had an uncanny ability to come out of piles while maintaining his balance and no RB had a nose for the endzone like he did. He could play injured and his heart was second to none. The Cowboys were 0-2 without him at the start of the 93 season and his replacement did little behind our great OL because the back matters!

 

[Nightman]

I don't even know what this means. Be that as it may, you seem like you want travel the road of insignificant banter. Have at it.
I'm not taking that journey with you.
Bye, bye.

Step up or step off....you chose wisely

 

[KJJ]

Zeke is bigger and faster than Emmitt but he has a long way to go to be the player Emmitt was. The talent and potential is certainly there but for anyone to say he's better than Emmitt after only 7 games is being silly.

 

[tyke1doe]

I will say though it's pretty condescending to wonder if people know the topic and in the same breath mention varying levels of interpretation. If you consider "better than" to be in regards to a career, cool. Pretty silly to even bother arguing that position though since clearly no one is saying zeke has a better career than enmit

To the bold statement, I apologize. But it does get "frustrating" - not really but for lack of a better word - when people jump into conversations not knowing the context. That's what it appeared you were doing. Hence, my comment. But I likely was a bit too harsh, so I apologize.

To the last statement, the problem is that people AREN'T giving their definition of what "better" is. They're just arguing Zeke is "better" than Emmitt. And I gave the definition of what "better" means. And I cited "career" accomplishments, which is how people generally tend to evaluate whether a person is "better" than another. Talent, opportunity, skill and all those things come into play. But when we judge "things" in life, we tend to evaluate on the basis of longevity. That's why we have a Hall of Fame and why those who get in are measured based on their longevity in the game.

What other way can you evaluate this to the degree that you say one is "better" than another?

 

[Nightman]

I didn't mean to address your post directly, just reading the exchange led to me quasi pondering both sides, and then just putting my thoughts down as a quote reply for context.

I will say though it's pretty condescending to wonder if people know the topic and in the same breath mention varying levels of interpretation. If you consider "better than" to be in regards to a career, cool. Pretty silly to even bother arguing that position though since clearly no one is saying zeke has a better career than enmit

That is the thing around here......people want to parse and fight over every word

I said Joyner had a point because so far Zeke has been better than Emmitt....but fans need to turn that into something silly by saying "Zeke isn't better than the all time rushing leader"....it is a classic strawman

If Zeke gets over 1000 yds he will have a better rookie season than Emmitt...that is a fact
Add that to the spark that you see and it is fun to project greatness
I'm sure people scoffed when fans compared Emmitt to Tony D

 

[Stryker44]

How could he surpass Alfred Morris, a 1600 yard a year running back, so fast?

 

[Proof]

To the bold statement, I apologize. But it does get "frustrating" - not really but for lack of a better word - when people jump into conversations not knowing the context. That's what it appeared you were doing. Hence, my comment. But I likely was a bit too harsh, so I apologize.

To the last statement, the problem is that people AREN'T giving their definition of what "better" is. They're just arguing Zeke is "better" than Emmitt. And I gave the definition of what "better" means. And I cited "career" accomplishments, which is how people generally tend to evaluate whether a person is "better" than another. Talent, opportunity, skill and all those things come into play. But when we judge "things" in life, we tend to evaluate on the basis of longevity. That's why we have a Hall of Fame and why those who get in are measured based on their longevity in the game.

What other way can you evaluate this to the degree that you say one is "better" than another?

No need to apologize I don't get ruffled much, and was admittedly spitballing and not really sticking to a specific train of thought, while interjecting. So no worries.

As for your second point though, of course there are certain standard comparison points, of which career accomplishments is the gold standard. We're talking about a guy with a storied career and nearly unrivaled longevity vs a rookie 7 games into his first season lol. Does it really need to be explicitly stated that that's not the qualifier? I won't speak for anyone else, but I don't mind making the assumption that it's based on talent. Better meaning more talented. And while on the surface it comes across blasphemous, from a pure talent, pedigree, scouting and early performance standpoint it just may not be outlandish, hence my special talent comment. He's clearly in the upper class of current rbs already, so the next measuring stick is guys of the past and naturally it will land at the feet of the last great cowboy running back behind an dominant line. I have zero belief that he'll ever match emmits career, but he looks like he's every bit as talented so as bknight said it just takes a little imagination.

 

[tyke1doe]

No need to apologize I don't get ruffled much, and was admittedly spitballing and not really sticking to a specific train of thought, while interjecting. So no worries.

As for your second point though, of course there are certain standard comparison points, of which career accomplishments is the gold standard. We're talking about a guy with a storied career and nearly unrivaled longevity vs a rookie 7 games into his first season lol. Does it really need to be explicitly stated that that's not the qualifier? I won't speak for anyone else, but I don't mind making the assumption that it's based on talent. Better meaning more talented. And while on the surface it comes across blasphemous, from a pure talent, pedigree, scouting and early performance standpoint it just may not be outlandish, hence my special talent comment. He's clearly in the upper class of current rbs already, so the next measuring stick is guys of the past and naturally it will land at the feet of the last great cowboy running back behind an dominant line. I have zero belief that he'll ever match emmits career, but he looks like he's every bit as talented so as bknight said it just takes a little imagination.

The only problem I have with making talent the single criterion is that many backs were more talented than Emmitt were (I guess we need to define "talent" huh? ), but I wouldn't consider them better.
As for the special designation we bestow upon Elliott, let's say he suffers a career-ending injury next year, would he be "better" than Emmitt? Would people consider him "better"? Would YOU consider him "better" than Emmitt?

Again, my point is you can say Elliott is a special player without saying he's "better." Heck, I felt Emmitt was a special player. The only Dallas game I've seen in person was the last game of Emmitt's rookie season when he needed 63 more yards to get 1,000 and needed the Cowboys to beat the Falcons to clinch a playoff spot. Neither happened.
But I thought Emmitt was special even then. Fortunately, he went on to prove it.

 

[Proof]

The only problem I have with making talent the single criterion is that many backs were more talented than Emmitt were (I guess we need to define "talent" huh? ), but I wouldn't consider them better.
As for the special designation we bestow upon Elliott, let's say he suffers a career-ending injury next year, would he be "better" than Emmitt? Would people consider him "better"? Would YOU consider him "better" than Emmitt?

Again, my point is you can say Elliott is a special player without saying he's "better." Heck, I felt Emmitt was a special player. The only Dallas game I've seen in person was the last game of Emmitt's rookie season when he needed 63 more yards to get 1,000 and needed the Cowboys to beat the Falcons to clinch a playoff spot. Neither happened.
But I thought Emmitt was special even then. Fortunately, he went on to prove it.

I honestly try not to lend my opinion on conversations like this for the most part. I have never said Zeke is better than Emmitt. Couldn't bring myself if I wanted to at this point. But I didn't say it. Several other people did, and I just found myself playing devils advocate and it didn't feel too filthy lol. So that just has my perspective kinda clouded at the moment.

But no if Zeke's career ended tomorrow no I would not say he's better than Emmitt. Of course not, at that point there's two complete bodies of work to consider and one never amounted to anything. I'd still have no problem with someone saying he could have been, or was briefly or whatever because... who cares. But no of course not I wouldn't say it.

And lastly, getting really semantic... I do feel theres a minor distinction between special talent and special player. And funny enough, saying that out loud changes my stance. special player is the total package and put everything together, talent, opportunity, intangibles etc and emmit embodies that to the fullest. My line in the sand was talent = better so there's an argument... but rethinking special player trumps all. I side with emmitt.