TLH: Emmitt vs. Barry, a Favorite Debate

[khiladi]

Whe factoring in statistics 'per game', one also has to factor in Emmitt playing 6 more years in the league, three of them one can consider truly washed up.

 

[Nova]

I've never understood why it was so hard to understand that Emmitt was the better player.

Sure, Barry was more talented and a heck of a lot more skilled, but Emmitt was the better running back. There's more to a RB than just athleticism.

But for simplicity sake I'll just say it like this. Everyone knows that on a pro level, a QB can't go out and street ball and expect to win. It doesn't matter how good he is, he has to work with his teammates to defeat the all world talent the opposing team is bringing to the table. This is true for all positions in the NFL.

Barry was a street baller. A one man army, if you will. And while it's incredibly impressive that he was able to dance around defenders, make routine plays into highlight reels, and amass very impressive stats, it didn't do much for his team-- and when faced with actual playoff contenders his one man act was easily defeated by eleven.

That is the overall goal isn't it? To win? Emmitt's style allowed him to do that everywhere he went (except for Arizona of course!).

 

[Woody Runner]

Walter Payton was the greatest Rb ever, and after that personal opinion and preference will rank Jim Brown, Emmitt Smith and Barry Sanders to round out your top 4. If all four aren't in your top 4 you don't know what you're talking about. No other back should be ranked ahead of those four.

 

[Nova]

I've also never understood the affinity for good players on bad teams. There's always the people who will cry "If only he had more help he'd be unanimously considered the greatest of all time " in their defense. But you'll never objectively hear "Well the team was also hindered at times BECAUSE that player was on it."


I think it's the allure of 'what if' vs accepting what actually happened. Winners are usually hated on and people will find anything to take away from what they accomplished.

 

[Nova]

Walter Payton was the greatest Rb ever, and after that personal opinion and preference will rank Jim Brown, Emmitt Smith and Barry Sanders to round out your top 4. If all four aren't in your top 4 you don't know what you're talking about. No other back should be ranked ahead of those four.

I'd take Brown over Payton-- more yards per game, more ypa (both receiving and rushing) more TDs per game and overall more TDs despite playing in something like 80 less games.

There will probably not be a more dominant back than Jim Brown ever again. But I also understand he played in a slightly weaker era, so I don't knock people for having Payton over Brown.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

I've also never understood the affinity for good players on bad teams. There's always the people who will cry "If only he had more help he'd be unanimously considered the greatest of all time " in their defense. But you'll never objectively hear "Well the team was also hindered at times BECAUSE that player was on it."

Maybe because that makes so little sense. How does the best player by far on the team hold a team back? Maybe it's the lousy players on the team, especially the QB, that are holding them back instead?

Crazy talk, I know.

 

[Nova]

Maybe because that makes so little sense. How does the best player by far on the team hold a team back? Maybe it's the lousy players on the team, especially the QB, that are holding them back instead?

Crazy talk, I know.

I could go on for a few pages, but I'll try to keep the answer as short as possible, because I don't want to bore anyone.

First off, It was just worded poorly (also I never said anything about a 'best player'). And don't get me wrong, I'm not making some sweeping statement that is true for all players-- speaking in absolute is asinine.


It was more of a criticism of the 'what iffers'. They often fail to realize circumstantial differences. For instance...

most talented =/= best player
most talented =/= good fit in current situation
most talented =/= good fit in better situations either
And perhaps most importantly, the most talented player on a team doesn't necessarily maximize the team's ability to win, especially if he plays outside of a system to where he appears to be a one man team.

So to answer your question in bold, the 'best player' wouldn't hinder a team. But the perception of the 'best player' isn't always accurate, especially if he's hanging his teammates out to dry

 

[Hook'em#11]

I'd take Brown over Payton-- more yards per game, more ypa (both receiving and rushing) more TDs per game and overall more TDs despite playing in something like 80 less games.

There will probably not be a more dominant back than Jim Brown ever again. But I also understand he played in a slightly weaker era, so I don't knock people for having Payton over Brown.

I am still taking Emmitt over all of em'..

 

[DFWJC]

Maybe because that makes so little sense. How does the best player by far on the team hold a team back? Maybe it's the lousy players on the team, especially the QB, that are holding them back instead?

Crazy talk, I know.

No offense to him, but he has been talking circles this entire thread.
IMHO

 

[IAmLegend]

Anyone who takes Emmitt over Barry Sanders here is just being a homer. Barry Sanders is, imo, and most others, the greatest RB of all time. The guy was unbelievable. He almost broke Walter Peyton's rushing record in only 10 seasons. And. most impressive, he did it WITHOUT a QB and rather porous O-Line for most of his career. Seriously, think about that for a second. You put him on the 90's Cowboys teams and he'd easily have the rushing record imo and would almost certainly be the unanimous GOAT RB. As for now, Barry, Jim Brown, and Walter Peyton are my top 3 greatest RB's of all-time. Emmitt's 4th.

 

[DFWJC]

Anyone who takes Emmitt over Barry Sanders here is just being a homer. Barry Sanders is, imo, and most others, the greatest RB of all time. The guy was unbelievable. He almost broke Walter Peyton's rushing record in only 10 seasons. And. most impressive, he did it WITHOUT a QB and rather porous O-Line for most of his career. Seriously, think about that for a second. You put him on the 90's Cowboys teams and he'd easily have the rushing record imo and would almost certainly be the unanimous GOAT RB.

He most-likely would have the rushing record on any team if he had kept playing. He had a nice lead when he retired and was still dominating. I don't even want to begin to imagine what he would have done on Dallas' team. That would have been one the most explosive teams of all time.

However, I would not call him the best RB of all time.

As for Emmitt; if you included redzone, blocking, receiving, and rushing...people are not out of line to say he was the overall better back. In any case, these topics are opinion-based only.

 

[Nova]

No offense to him, but he has been talking circles this entire thread.
IMHO

Talking about me? Duh man, I always talk in circles. I've come to realize my thought process doesn't work like most and I have a tough time relating my thoughts to others because I over complicate what I'm saying.

I was a horrible math tutor in college.

 

[superpunk]

Maybe because that makes so little sense. How does the best player by far on the team hold a team back? Maybe it's the lousy players on the team, especially the QB, that are holding them back instead?

Crazy talk, I know.

I get this now.

I used to be on the nitpick Barry bandwagon. Oh he comes out at the goalline, oh he doesnt follow his blocks, etc.

Reads like Romo criticism. You can't take the best part of those Lions teams (Barry), nitpick his few faults (noone is perfect) and then declare him a hinderance based on that. If the rest of the team was good enough it wouldn't matter that Barry is a bad goalline back.

 

[DFWJC]

Talking about me? Duh man, I always talk in circles. I've come to realize my thought process doesn't work like most and I have a tough time relating my thoughts to others because I over complicate what I'm saying.

I was a horrible math tutor in college.

No worries.
I'm easily confused

 

[mldardy]

Anyone who takes Emmitt over Barry Sanders here is just being a homer. Barry Sanders is, imo, and most others, the greatest RB of all time. The guy was unbelievable. He almost broke Walter Peyton's rushing record in only 10 seasons. And. most impressive, he did it WITHOUT a QB and rather porous O-Line for most of his career. Seriously, think about that for a second. You put him on the 90's Cowboys teams and he'd easily have the rushing record imo and would almost certainly be the unanimous GOAT RB. As for now, Barry, Jim Brown, and Walter Peyton are my top 3 greatest RB's of all-time. Emmitt's 4th.

His o-line wasn't porous . Lomas Brown and Kevin Glover were Pro Bowl lineman. People give too much blame to the o-line when discussing Barry much like they give too much credit for Emmitt's success. Barry's o-line wasn't that bad. The RB needs to have the vision and Emmitt had it better than anyone I ever saw and Barry really didn't and instead used his natural talented ability to make something out of nothing. Also I'm not sure what the QB's Barry played with have to do with his ability to run. The Lions ran a run and shoot offense so Barry was always going to have room to run when the threat of Herman Moore, Brett Perriman and then later Johnnie Morton. All those receivers enjoyed 1,000 yard seasons multiple times so please stop with 'he did it without a QB'. No his QB's weren't HOFers but if your QB is throwing to receivers putting up 1,000 and sometimes two 1000 yard receivers in one season he doesn't exactly suck. BTW it's Walter PAYTON.

 

[DFWJC]

....... The RB needs to have the vision and Emmitt had it better than anyone I ever saw and Barry really didn't ......... .

Hold it.

Did I read that right?

You just said that BARRY SANDERS DID NOT HAVE GOOD VISION?



Hard to ever, EVER, make a more crazy football-related statement than that.

You should apologize to this forum. lol

 

[mldardy]

Hold it.

Did I read that right?

You just said that BARRY SANDERS DID NOT HAVE GOOD VISION?



Hard to ever, EVER, make a more crazy football-related statement than that.

You should apologize to this forum. lol

YES I DID SAY BARRY SANDERS DIDN'T HAVE GOOD VISION. LOL you act like that's some over the top statement. Doesn't mean he didn't have it all it just wasn't as good and definitely not better than Emmitt's. The guy ran himself into and out of trouble more than any running back in NFL history. Let me know when you have gotten off of your soap box.

 

[DFWJC]

YES I DID SAY BARRY SANDERS DIDN'T HAVE GOOD VISION. LOL you act like that's some over the top statement. Doesn't mean he didn't have it all it just wasn't as good and definitely not better than Emmitt's. The guy ran himself into and out of trouble more than any running back in NFL history. Let me know when you have gotten off of your soap box.

Can't imagine agreeing with you on that on anytime soon.
Let me know if you find even 1% of football fans out there that will agree you that Barry Sanders "really didn't" have good vision.


No big deal...we just dont agree on that one.

 

[LatinMind]

I'd take Brown over Payton-- more yards per game, more ypa (both receiving and rushing) more TDs per game and overall more TDs despite playing in something like 80 less games.

There will probably not be a more dominant back than Jim Brown ever again. But I also understand he played in a slightly weaker era, so I don't knock people for having Payton over Brown.

im sorry but anybody thinking theres ever going to be a more dominating back then Adrian Peterson is fooling themselves. Peterson is destroying the NFL. Brown never played against the quality of athletes there are today. When teams play the vikings they have 8 and 9 in the box and he still does what he does. All of you Jim Brown is the most dominating RB ever rants can sit down. AD is the one. Im not saying he's the best ever, but he is for sure by far and away the most dominating RB EVER.

 

[Lonestar94]

I'd take Brown over Payton-- more yards per game, more ypa (both receiving and rushing) more TDs per game and overall more TDs despite playing in something like 80 less games.

There will probably not be a more dominant back than Jim Brown ever again. But I also understand he played in a slightly weaker era, so I don't knock people for having Payton over Brown.

Ask Emmitt who the best RB of all time and he will tell you otherwise.