TLH: Emmitt vs. Barry, a Favorite Debate

[DCBoysfan]

I would take Emmitt over Barry because he was so much better at getting those tough yards for first downs that kept drives alive. But I would be hard press to find 3 backs I would take over Barry let alone 20.

 

[Tabascocat]

Emmitt had more heart and Barry had more skill. I'll take heart every day of the week in this regards. Smith was a complete football player, Barry was a highlight reel.

 

[BAT]

Emmitt was a winner. Barry was not. No contest. Shoulda, coulda, woulda arguments are for guys with Barry's mentality, losers.

 

[Vanilla2]

The argument for Barry over Emmitt is purely subjective.

I know you all know what Emmitt accomplished in his career and he belongs in the Rice type player stratosphere.

And the reason hes not held in that regard is because he was a Cowboy.

Put him in Pittsburgh, Chicago or just about any other team and he'd be celebrated as an all time legend.

 

[TX_Yid]

I agree with Hostile. No question, Barry had more break-away ability than Emmitt. But Emmitt was the better back. He never had to be taken out of the game like Barry did. Barry would take a team's breath away; Emmitt would destroy a team's will.

That's a great line right there.

 

[jaybird]

People who argue Barry over Emmitt confuse Barry "running ability" with him being a running back. Without a doubt Smith was a better football player thus making him the better running back.

If rbs were judged any like QBs, hands dow Emmit is the greastest of all time.
Silly to suggest otherwise- who's accomblished more than him?

 

[jimmy40]

Emmitt was a winner. Barry was not. No contest. Shoulda, coulda, woulda arguments are for guys with Barry's mentality, losers.

. Walter was better than either one.

 

[Hostile]

A friend pointed out to me that in a game against Chicago, Emmitt dove over the pile into the end zone and landed on his head.

He was a decoy on that play. he did not carry the ball. How many RBs can you name who would sell a play that hard?

 

[Mr_Bill]

http://thelandryhat.com/2013/07/13/dallas-cowboys-fans-have-a-favorite-debate/?utm_source=FanSided Daily&utm_medium=email

Happen upon a Dallas Cowboys forum, and at some point you are likely to find a spirited debate about who was better, Emmitt Smith or Barry Sanders. Last week in my article I made an off handed comment laughing at the idea of Barry being a better player than Emmitt. I felt it would be fun this week before players report to Training Camp in Oxnard, California to defend my “Pfft.” I won’t have an opportunity to do so once football is real again.

Let me begin by saying that I am possibly Barry Sanders’ harshest critic. I am not delusional. He was an exciting player, perhaps one of the most exciting to ever play the game. However, I am being serious when I tell you, that under no circumstance would I ever want Barry Sanders on my football team. In fact, I often say there are at least twenty Running Backs I would take over Barry Sanders. Is that silly of me? In the minds of some people I am sure it is. Allow me to defend my position.

There is no denying Barry Sanders’ big play ability. He was capable of things other RBs simply cannot do, except maybe Gale Sayers. My problem with Barry Sanders lies in the fact that he tried to do those big plays so often that he far too often handicapped his team.

I was a Fullback, and there is no greater feeling for a FB than having your lead block open a hole for the RB to hit. TheDetroit Lions rarely used a FB. The main reason for this was Barry did not hit holes. He danced around, making people miss until he could break free. Not going to lie, that drove me crazy. It was exciting, no doubt, but it drove me nuts. Give me a RB who is going to try to move forward over a ballerina any day of the week.

I won't go as far as you to say I wouldn't want Sanders on my team. But it is really difficult to rank him as one of the greatest of all times when two different coaching staffs substituted him out on goal-line and short-yardage situations for the likes of Cory Schlesinger. Truly great running backs thrive in those situations and are depended on for results by their teams. Instead, Sanders watched from the sidelines.

 

[punchnjudy]

I don't even see a debate on this issue. Given all the evidence that success in short yardage and goalline situations contribute to winning more than ypc (see every run vs pass thread from the last three years), I don't see how anyone could still pick Barry over Emmitt. It doesn't bother me when people think other players are more valuable than our favorite Cowboys, but with Barry I just don't see it. If I'm picking the guy who will help me win the most, it's a no-brainer.

 

[DFWJC]

I tend to agree with Hos on the vast majority of topics on this forum.
This most definitely IS NOT one of the.
Total crazy talk, IMO.

 

[jobberone]

Run success is a better indicator of running effectively and it does correlate with winning. There's a lot more to it including RZ success, scoring success %, yada though.

Who's the greatest is generally subjective even in a sport like baseball which is way stat oriented.

 

[Hostile]

Run success is a better indicator of running effectively and it does correlate with winning. There's a lot more to it including RZ success, scoring success %, yada though.

Who's the greatest is generally subjective even in a sport like baseball which is way stat oriented.

Of course it is subjective when using stats. If it wasn't, then Terry Bradshaw would be mentioned in the same sentences as Joe Montana among the greatest QBs ever, but he isn't. I forget who it was here that mentioned taking Walter Payton over either guy, but my article does too. I'd love to have seen Jim Brown running behind the 1990's Cowboys OL. I think it would have been unstoppable.

My point was, and is, Emmitt was driven by heart. That is something that cannot be measured, but it damn sure ought to be preferred. I do. Some here are saying it is silly of me not to put Barry Sanders higher up. That is their right. I never will. I respect his talent. Mentioned it multiple times in the article. I do not respect his efforts. I never will. Not even if Emmitt himself were to look me in the eye and tell me I am wrong. I sent him this article yesterday. Not even he can change my mind because this is my opinion, and opinions are always subjective.

Had Barry kept going would he be the all time rushing leader? Probably so. He didn't, and he isn't. Irrefutable facts. Still subjective. We can all hopefully agree Emmitt had more heart. Barry himself could agree with that. Still subjective.

 

[jobberone]

Of course it is subjective when using stats. If it wasn't, then Terry Bradshaw would be mentioned in the same sentences as Joe Montana among the greatest QBs ever, but he isn't. I forget who it was here that mentioned taking Walter Payton over either guy, but my article does too. I'd love to have seen Jim Brown running behind the 1990's Cowboys OL. I think it would have been unstoppable.

My point was, and is, Emmitt was driven by heart. That is something that cannot be measured, but it damn sure ought to be preferred. I do. Some here are saying it is silly of me not to put Barry Sanders higher up. That is their right. I never will. I respect his talent. Mentioned it multiple times in the article. I do not respect his efforts. I never will. Not even if Emmitt himself were to look me in the eye and tell me I am wrong. I sent him this article yesterday. Not even he can change my mind because this is my opinion, and opinions are always subjective.

Had Barry kept going would he be the all time rushing leader? Probably so. He didn't, and he isn't. Irrefutable facts. Still subjective. We can all hopefully agree Emmitt had more heart. Barry himself could agree with that. Still subjective.

I tried to make the point that saying who is the greatest is subjective and not completely objective and dealing with stats. I agree about it being subjective. I think Emmitt is better than Sanders. I don't think Emmitt was the greatest ever but he's at the top. I really don't know who the greatest is. Brown would be in the conversation. Sayers. OJ. Payton. Smith. Walker even IMO.

 

[ErikWilliamsHeadSlap]

Sayers didn't play long enough IMO to be in the conversation as the greatest ever. If he is, then I want Erik Williams in the conversation for best Tackle ever. But I might be biased.


As for Barry, no way he finishes THAT game vs the Giants with an injured shoulder.

 

[jobberone]

Sayers didn't play long enough IMO to be in the conversation as the greatest ever. If he is, then I want Erik Williams in the conversation for best Tackle ever. But I might be biased.


As for Barry, no way he finishes THAT game vs the Giants with an injured shoulder.

Yeah, that's often the case and I can't say I find a great deal of fault in that. Those that saw him play thought he was great and he's in the HOF where I think he belongs. I don't think he's the greatest but I could argue the point. I've always had Brown there but I probably need to rethink that issue.

 

[skinsscalper]

I didn't read the whole thread so if this has been mentioned already I apologize: My philosophy regarding great players is that TRULY great player play great on the biggest stage, in the biggest games, when their team needs them the most. Using that criteria, Barry couldn't carry Emmitt's jock.

 

[Muhast]

Of course it is subjective when using stats. If it wasn't,e. then Terry Bradshaw would be mentioned in the same sentences as Joe Montana among the greatest QBs ever, but he isn't. I forget who it was here that mentioned taking Walter Payton over either guy, but my article does too. I'd love to have seen Jim Brown running behind the 1990's Cowboys OL. I think it would have been unstoppable

My point was, and is, Emmitt was driven by heart. That is something that cannot be measured, but it damn sure ought to be preferred. I do. Some here are saying it is silly of me not to put Barry Sanders higher up. That is their right. I never will. I respect his talent. Mentioned it multiple times in the article. I do not respect his efforts. I never will. Not even if Emmitt himself were to look me in the eye and tell me I am wrong. I sent him this article yesterday. Not even he can change my mind because this is my opinion, and opinions are always subjective.

Had Barry kept going would he be the all time rushing leader? Probably so. He didn't, and he isn't. Irrefutable facts. Still subjective. We can all hopefully agree Emmitt had more heart. Barry himself could agree with that. Still subjective.

I could be wrong, but I believe Jim Brown ran behind 3-4 HOF offensive lineman. Is that correct? I think it's pretty clear, he ran behind the best offensive line in NFL history.

 

[Sarge]

Depends what you and your offense is looking for in a back. Some things Emmitt was better at and some things Barry was better at. They were both extremely dangerous, and both are always mentioned as two of the greatest RB's to ever play the game. All depends what your looking for. . . . . .02

 

[Mr_Bill]

I could be wrong, but I believe Jim Brown ran behind 3-4 HOF offensive lineman. Is that correct? I think it's pretty clear, he ran behind the best offensive line in NFL history.

Jim Brown played behind three linemen who became HOF'ers, Lou Groza, Mike McCormack and Gene Hickerson. Two others who fell just short of that level were Jim Ray Smith and Dick Schafrath. Both had multiple pro-bowl and first-team all-pro selections. Other notables were John Morrow, John Wooten and even Chuck Noll, who played some as a messenger guard as well as at linebacker. [For those who are unfamiliar with the term 'messenger guard', Paul Brown called plays from the sidelines (an innovation at the time) by shuffling his right guards in with the plays.]

It should be noted that, when Brown was playing, Groza was at the end of his career as an offensive tackle and Hickerson was just starting his.