The Underrated Greatness Of Emmitt Smith

GhettoxCowboy

Dem Boyz
Messages
1,776
Reaction score
0
Social D;2226299 said:
after reading this article I wanted to see some Emmitt videos, so I go to youtube and type out "Emmitt" and what comes out first some dancing with the stars crap. :banghead:


:bow: :laugh2:
 

Thomas82

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,650
Reaction score
3,424
PoetTree;2226931 said:
I agree with you, as this thread (by yours truly) will affirm:

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124452

Additionally, what those who only look at statistics won't glean is that before a set of substantial injuries slowed Emmitt's pace for a few years (in his prime), he was set to SHATTER the all-time rushing record long before he actually did.

The beginning of the 1996 season, first game out of the gate, the Cowboys fake a hand-off and Emmitt, seeking to "sell" the fake, dives over the line and lands awkwardly on his head. He lays motionless on the field for several minutes until finally being carted off.

It was revealed that he had sustained a contusion to his spinal cord, an injury which would limit his explosion, agility, power... basically, much of what made him "Emmitt"... for the entire season. Smith recalls waking up one night during that season, putting his feet on the floor to stand up and crumpling to the ground as he did -- because his legs were completely numb. He finished that campaign, just one season following his record-setting production in 1995, with 1,204-yards & 12-touchdowns; a 3.7 ypc average.

But the injury bug didn't stop there. During that season, purportedly due to a change in "step" caused by the spinal injury, Emmitt developed bone-spurs in both ankles. But he didn't know it. No one did. And over the next two seasons, the NFL world watched Smith's production dwindle (on poor Cowboys teams) to 1,074-yards and 1,332-yards in 1997 and 1998, respectively.

The sports world said he looked like a back in decline. They said it looked like he was hitting a wall, and pretty much pronounced his career "over". But then, between the '98-'99 seasons, Emmitt discovered the bone-spurs in his ankles and he had surgery to remove them. 1999 would be the year that proved Emmitt still "had it".

Under new coach Chan Gailey, healthy for the first time in 3 seasons, Emmitt came out of the gate firing on all cylinders! For most of the season, Emmitt was the leading rusher in the NFL. He was, once again, on his usual record-setting pace. Who can forget that Monday night game against Minnesota on the eve of Walter Payton's death? Emmitt came out in honor of his idol, and had 140 yards at half-time! The Cowboys were dominating the Vikes.

But, to me, in what is one of the most unfortunate moments in Emmitt's hallowed career, just before half-time as Emmitt was breaking off a 63-yard touchdown run, he stiff-armed a Vikings cornerback as he raced into the endzone, got his fingers tangled in his face-mask and broke bones in the back of his hand. At the half, on record-setting pace, Emmitt was done for the game. And the next game. And was significantly limited in the game after that.

He still ended the season with a very respectable 1,397-yards, 11-TDs and a healthy 4.2-ypc average. A very good season. But one that was robbed by a damned broken hand of all it could have been. With the pace he was on pre-injury, he almost certainly would have led the league in rushing for a nearly unprecedented 5th time, and would have very likely compiled 16-1,700+ yards and 15 TDs (or more) while doing so.

The following years began the perpetual 5-11 Dave Campo era, where Emmitt was surrounded by astoundingly little talent (particularly on offense), and then, as is inevitable for ALL athletes, Smith finally did start to slow down. However, as the 1999 season demonstrates, had Emmitt's talent and production not been slowed considerably by injuries following the 1995 season, he would have smashed Payton's record (much like Barry had the opportunity to do) far earlier than he actually did and likely could have eclipsed the 20,000 career rushing-yards mark -- as was his aim.

No excuses. Injuries happen. This is football. But all this is just to say that there's more to the story than what the stats alone can possibly tell. In my opinion, Emmitt is the greatest, most productive, most important running back in NFL history. No back has ever contributed to the success of their team like Emmitt did. No franchise rode a back harder, longer or to as many championships as the Cowboys did with Emmitt. If I could pluck any back from the midst of time in their prime to play on "my" team, I'd take Emmitt over any other who's ever played.


And that's really all I have to say about that!

:starspin

Let's not forget that also in '96 Emmitt got hurt in a preseason game against the Broncos when one of his linemen (I believe it was Erik Williams) rolled over his ankle, and it bothered him all season long. That's really when the injuries started for Emmitt that year. It also didn't help that Michael Irvin was suspended for the first 5 games of the season. Emmitt basically played 1996 and 1997 on one good leg.
 

lonestar6

Member
Messages
58
Reaction score
2
It seems this debate has been beaten to death in multiple threads, and it's no surprise who most on this board would pick (none of the arguments I've seen would change my pick of Barry going by what I remember seeing with my own eyes).

Apparently Emmitt wins a lot points for his Superbowl trophies. So answer this, if you replace Barry (who, as one poster puts it, was part of the "problem" there) with Emmitt on the 1989-1998 Detriot Lions, how many Superbowl trophies does he carry home for Erik Kramer/Rodney Peete/Scott Mitchell and the rest of Wayne Fontes' crew? After all, reading some of these posts, it seems the Lions were about as good as the Cowboys and the missing component for that franchise was a great running back, right?
 

PoetTree

Well-Known Member
Messages
484
Reaction score
438
lonestar6;2228972 said:
It seems this debate has been beaten to death in multiple threads, and it's no surprise who most on this board would pick (none of the arguments I've seen would change my pick of Barry going by what I remember seeing with my own eyes).

Apparently Emmitt wins a lot points for his Superbowl trophies. So answer this, if you replace Barry (who, as one poster puts it, was part of the "problem" there) with Emmitt on the 1989-1998 Detriot Lions, how many Superbowl trophies does he carry home for Erik Kramer/Rodney Peete/Scott Mitchell and the rest of Wayne Fontes' crew? After all, reading some of these posts, it seems the Lions were about as good as the Cowboys and the missing component for that franchise was a great running back, right?

Actually, I think you've missed the point. Or at least, "my" point...

No, I don't think Emmitt would have won a bunch of Superbowls with the Lions. Detroit never fielded a championship team. However, I do think that if Emmitt & Barry had swapped places, the Cowboys would not have won three Superbowls... and I think the Lions win/loss percentage would have improved through the 90s from what it was with Sanders.

My reasoning?

Whereas Emmitt saw that the blocking had created a 2-yard cusion and would lower his head, collide with the pile and drive it on for another 3-yards... leaving his offense in a 2nd & 5... Barry would see the same crease, and instead try to backtrack around the tackles (looking only for the homerun) and get caught for a 3-yard loss, leaving his offense in a 2nd & 13.

That alone is often the difference between winning and losing. Emmitt produced positive yardage on almost every play, every time he touched the ball. Because of his running style; his power, willingness to plow ahead, to slide off tackles and keep churning forward.

Several of Barry's own linemen have lamented that Barry rarely just took the yards that were there & made the most out of it, often leaving his team in a hole on the next down. Sanders' constant pursuit of the homerun... which, make no mistake, he was better at hitting than anyone in an NFL backfield ever has been... was not the most conducive way to "win" in professional football. Ask Reggie Bush.

Sanders' homerun ability was legendary. No back in NFL history has been able to break the long one like Barry. The problem was, his hitting percentage wasn't very good. Oh, I mean, over a career? Yeah, he's got the greatest assortment of highlights and homeruns of any back, ever. But it's all those "other" runs that hurt his team the most.

There were many games where Barry would have something like 14-carries and 32 yards in the 4th quarter; a 2.28-ypc average. And then he'd rip off an 60-70-80-yarder, have a few more carries after that... and end the game with 130-yards on 19-carries, with a robust 6+ ypc average; and everyone would see the "amazing" highlight on Sportscenter & gush about how incredible he was.

And make no mistake, he was! No one else before or since could break off some of those runs he made. The trouble was, it was all the "other" runs that sometimes contributed to his team's failures on offense. Because 2nd & 5 is a lot easier to convert in this league.... than 2nd & 13. First downs contribute greatly to winning, and winning contributes greatly to being a championship team.

So, no, I don't think Emmitt would have elevated the Lions to Superbowl Champions. But I do think they would have won more games. And conversely, I think Dallas would have lost more games..... because Barry's style wouldn't have put the rest of his team in as good a position to succeed on the next play.

Smith didn't have the same highlight-reel talent that Sanders had. But he did possess traits that definitively contributed to his TEAM's overall success in a way that Barry rarely offered his own squad, or would have offered Dallas had they switched spots.


As Jimmie Johnson said on the matter:

"Barry Sanders is very amazing with the things he does with the ball. So if I'm a fan and I want to watch someone run with the ball, I'd want to watch Barry. But if I'm a coach and I want to win Championships, I'd take Emmitt Smith."


Barry Sanders is the most elusive, sudden, explosive back the league has ever seen.

Emmitt Smith is the greatest Running Back in NFL History.



And that's really the difference between them...

:starspin
 

DaBoys4Life

Benched
Messages
15,626
Reaction score
0
lonestar6;2228972 said:
It seems this debate has been beaten to death in multiple threads, and it's no surprise who most on this board would pick (none of the arguments I've seen would change my pick of Barry going by what I remember seeing with my own eyes).

Apparently Emmitt wins a lot points for his Superbowl trophies. So answer this, if you replace Barry (who, as one poster puts it, was part of the "problem" there) with Emmitt on the 1989-1998 Detriot Lions, how many Superbowl trophies does he carry home for Erik Kramer/Rodney Peete/Scott Mitchell and the rest of Wayne Fontes' crew? After all, reading some of these posts, it seems the Lions were about as good as the Cowboys and the missing component for that franchise was a great running back, right?

I enjoyed watching barry sanders play it was thrilling and it was sadden when he decided to retire and not go after Payton's record. I think thats the difference between Emmitt and barry. That extra drive and motivation to want to be the greatest ever.
 

cowboyeric8

Chicks dig crutches
Messages
5,563
Reaction score
496
This may sound odd. But does anybody have highlights of Emmitt as a Cardinal. I'm an Emmitt fan, surely he had some pretty good runs or TDs with that ugly bird on his helmet.
 

Thomas82

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,650
Reaction score
3,424
cowboyeric8;2230529 said:
This may sound odd. But does anybody have highlights of Emmitt as a Cardinal. I'm an Emmitt fan, surely he had some pretty good runs or TDs with that ugly bird on his helmet.

I'm sure you can find some on You Tube, you might have to dig for them though.
 
Top