View Full Version: Who is the greatest running back ever?

Haven Of Wiidom > Members' Zones > Who is the greatest running back ever?


Title: Who is the greatest running back ever?
Description: Your choice


Wingman - April 16, 2008 03:38 PM (GMT)
The poll says it all. Chose wisely. Post if you have a write in. Of the greats, I'm torn between Walter Payton and Barry Sanders. Barry was pure running, but Walter was stronger and more multipurpose. I'll go with Walter, but Barry's a close second. His highlights on Youtube are breathtaking.



Post now!! Or I will come to your house and beat you over the head with a rubber chicken.

super_wolverine_Man - April 16, 2008 07:02 PM (GMT)
darn you wingman for making it so tough, alright as for me it's between jim brown and Barry, Barry got 15,000+ yards in just what 10 years? with a team that was absolutely horrible, plus he retired, after yet another 1,500+ season, all amazing.

meanwhile jim brown played for 9 years, retired in his prime, and got 12,000 some yards, but most shockingly, he was only playing 12 game schedules.


so to me it's a toss up

Wingman - April 16, 2008 07:47 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 16 2008, 03:02 PM)
darn you wingman for making it so tough, alright as for me it's between jim brown and Barry, Barry got 15,000+ yards in just what 10 years? with a team that was absolutely horrible, plus he retired, after yet another 1,500+ season, all amazing.

meanwhile jim brown played for 9 years, retired in his prime, and got 12,000 some yards, but most shockingly, he was only playing 12 game schedules.


so to me it's a toss up

What about Walter Payton? The guy set the all time rushing record, broken only recently by Emmitt Smith, and he was one of the most dynamic players to ever step onto the field. I've heard people say this, even white people: God was a black man, who wore the number 34 and played for the Chicago Bears. Watch some of his highlights on Youtube. Like I said in my original post, Barry, even as awesome as he is, seems to be more one dimensional: just running. Walter could run, catch, and occasionally pulled a Randal El and passed! But this is "The Greatest Running Back", not Wide Receiver, isn't it? That comes next. ;) ;)

super_wolverine_Man - April 16, 2008 08:32 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 16 2008, 07:47 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 16 2008, 03:02 PM)
darn you wingman for making it so tough, alright as for me it's between jim brown and Barry, Barry got 15,000+ yards in just what 10 years? with a team that was absolutely horrible, plus he retired, after yet another 1,500+ season, all amazing.

meanwhile jim brown played for 9 years, retired in his prime, and got 12,000 some yards, but most shockingly, he was only playing 12 game schedules.


so to me it's a toss up

What about Walter Payton? The guy set the all time rushing record, broken only recently by Emmitt Smith, and he was one of the most dynamic players to ever step onto the field. I've heard people say this, even white people: God was a black man, who wore the number 34 and played for the Chicago Bears. Watch some of his highlights on Youtube. Like I said in my original post, Barry, even as awesome as he is, seems to be more one dimensional: just running. Walter could run, catch, and occasionally pulled a Randal El and passed! But this is "The Greatest Running Back", not Wide Receiver, isn't it? That comes next. ;) ;)

problem the length that he played, 13 years, 16,726 yards

barry got 15,000 plus in just ten years, for a team that was terrible, Payton's team was decent.

super_wolverine_Man - April 16, 2008 08:35 PM (GMT)
another thing to take into consideration is that barry had no offense line

Wingman - April 16, 2008 09:07 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 16 2008, 04:35 PM)
another thing to take into consideration is that barry had no offense line

Well, even the greatest running back needs a good blocking offensive line. So either the Lions were better than you state, or Barry was out of this world, phenomonally godly. I suspect it's the former, after watching the clips. He had good blocking.

super_wolverine_Man - April 16, 2008 09:10 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 16 2008, 09:07 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 16 2008, 04:35 PM)
another thing to take into consideration is that barry had no offense line

Well, even the greatest running back needs a good blocking offensive line. So either the Lions were better than you state, or Barry was out of this world, phenomonally godly. I suspect it's the former, after watching the clips. He had good blocking.

actually it was the later i pretty sure no one on barry's line ever had a pro bowl selection

Wingman - April 17, 2008 05:11 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 16 2008, 05:10 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 16 2008, 09:07 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 16 2008, 04:35 PM)
another thing to take into consideration is that barry had no offense line

Well, even the greatest running back needs a good blocking offensive line. So either the Lions were better than you state, or Barry was out of this world, phenomonally godly. I suspect it's the former, after watching the clips. He had good blocking.

actually it was the later i pretty sure no one on barry's line ever had a pro bowl selection

I like Walter because he wasn't afraid to go through the middle and take a two to four yard gain instead of always going outside, and 70% of the time, losing yardage. That's what Barry was, mostly. But he was sure as heck good at it.

super_wolverine_Man - April 17, 2008 06:53 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 17 2008, 05:11 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 16 2008, 05:10 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 16 2008, 09:07 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 16 2008, 04:35 PM)
another thing to take into consideration is that barry had no offense line

Well, even the greatest running back needs a good blocking offensive line. So either the Lions were better than you state, or Barry was out of this world, phenomonally godly. I suspect it's the former, after watching the clips. He had good blocking.

actually it was the later i pretty sure no one on barry's line ever had a pro bowl selection

I like Walter because he wasn't afraid to go through the middle and take a two to four yard gain instead of always going outside, and 70% of the time, losing yardage. That's what Barry was, mostly. But he was sure as heck good at it.

so we agree to disagree with each other, about our favorite running back?

Wingman - April 18, 2008 12:33 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 17 2008, 02:53 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 17 2008, 05:11 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 16 2008, 05:10 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 16 2008, 09:07 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 16 2008, 04:35 PM)
another thing to take into consideration is that barry had no offense line

Well, even the greatest running back needs a good blocking offensive line. So either the Lions were better than you state, or Barry was out of this world, phenomonally godly. I suspect it's the former, after watching the clips. He had good blocking.

actually it was the later i pretty sure no one on barry's line ever had a pro bowl selection

I like Walter because he wasn't afraid to go through the middle and take a two to four yard gain instead of always going outside, and 70% of the time, losing yardage. That's what Barry was, mostly. But he was sure as heck good at it.

so we agree to disagree with each other, about our favorite running back?

I guess... :unsure: They're both awesome, and when I asked both my dad and my pastor, both of whom are avid football fans, the first thing they said was, "Oooh, that's tough." Dad liked Walter so much because of his work ethic, in that, you knocked him flat on his back, and he popped right back up and patted the guy who took him down on the back. Pastor said that Barry was a big gain kind of guy: he'll try three on the outside or through the middle for small gains or a loss, then the next play, he'll bust one for 70 yards. He said that if Barry'd continued his career, he might very well have become as great as Walter Payton. But we'll never know, unfortunately.

I don't now who to believe. :wacko: :wacko:

super_wolverine_Man - May 10, 2008 02:25 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 18 2008, 12:33 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 17 2008, 02:53 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 17 2008, 05:11 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 16 2008, 05:10 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 16 2008, 09:07 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 16 2008, 04:35 PM)
another thing to take into consideration is that barry had no offense line

Well, even the greatest running back needs a good blocking offensive line. So either the Lions were better than you state, or Barry was out of this world, phenomonally godly. I suspect it's the former, after watching the clips. He had good blocking.

actually it was the later i pretty sure no one on barry's line ever had a pro bowl selection

I like Walter because he wasn't afraid to go through the middle and take a two to four yard gain instead of always going outside, and 70% of the time, losing yardage. That's what Barry was, mostly. But he was sure as heck good at it.

so we agree to disagree with each other, about our favorite running back?

I guess... :unsure: They're both awesome, and when I asked both my dad and my pastor, both of whom are avid football fans, the first thing they said was, "Oooh, that's tough." Dad liked Walter so much because of his work ethic, in that, you knocked him flat on his back, and he popped right back up and patted the guy who took him down on the back. Pastor said that Barry was a big gain kind of guy: he'll try three on the outside or through the middle for small gains or a loss, then the next play, he'll bust one for 70 yards. He said that if Barry'd continued his career, he might very well have become as great as Walter Payton. But we'll never know, unfortunately.

I don't now who to believe. :wacko: :wacko:

your right there both great runners, but i like barry more because of what he did in such a short amount of time

granobulax - June 2, 2008 04:09 PM (GMT)
I've got to go with Emmitt Smith here. The question is "Who's the greatest running back ever?" not "Who's the greatest runner?" Emmitt has almost every running back record there is. Most toughdowns, most rushing yards, most consecutive 1,000 yard seasons, etc. A great running back shouldn't be penelized just because he played for a longer period of time. The fact that Emmitt played so long and still produced 1,000 yard seasons is a testament to his longility.

super_wolverine_Man - June 2, 2008 09:17 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 2 2008, 04:09 PM)
I've got to go with Emmitt Smith here. The question is "Who's the greatest running back ever?" not "Who's the greatest runner?" Emmitt has almost every running back record there is. Most toughdowns, most rushing yards, most consecutive 1,000 yard seasons, etc. A great running back shouldn't be penelized just because he played for a longer period of time. The fact that Emmitt played so long and still produced 1,000 yard seasons is a testament to his longility.



if Emmitt only played for his first ten years like barry he would only have

13963 Yards

barry 15269


also barry played for a team that was absolutely horrible, smith played for one of the greatest teams of all-time, and carried the ball a lot more than Barry. If you would have switched their teams, Barry would've easily gotten 20,000, and who knows what would have happened if Barry played for another 4 years, which would be equivalent to how many years smith played

well heres what i figure

it be more than 1000 every year, on his last season he for 1049, yards rushing and the previous year he ran for 2053, and that was when his heart was into it

So the bottome line is: Barry had more running skill than smith, but smith had the better team, and the longer career, which is why he owns the record book.



granobulax - June 2, 2008 11:27 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 2 2008, 09:17 PM)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 2 2008, 04:09 PM)
I've got to go with Emmitt Smith here. The question is "Who's the greatest running back ever?" not "Who's the greatest runner?" Emmitt has almost every running back record there is. Most toughdowns, most rushing yards, most consecutive 1,000 yard seasons, etc. A great running back shouldn't be penelized just because he played for a longer period of time. The fact that Emmitt played so long and still produced 1,000 yard seasons is a testament to his longility.



if Emmitt only played for his first ten years like barry he would only have

13963 Yards

barry 15269


also barry played for a team that was absolutely horrible, smith played for one of the greatest teams of all-time, and carried the ball a lot more than Barry. If you would have switched their teams, Barry would've easily gotten 20,000, and who knows what would have happened if Barry played for another 4 years, which would be equivalent to how many years smith played

well heres what i figure

it be more than 1000 every year, on his last season he for 1049, yards rushing and the previous year he ran for 2053, and that was when his heart was into it

So the bottome line is: Barry had more running skill than smith, but smith had the better team, and the longer career, which is why he owns the record book.

There's really no way to tell weather player from one team would be better on another team. In THEORY, yes, but I look at the bottom line. Emmitt DOES have all the records. I think of it this way, at one point in Randy Moss's carreer, he was on pace to break all of the records Jerry Rice had made. If Moss had retired early, would that have made him the best because he COULD have broken the records? No, Jerry Rice is the best reciever of all time. Don't get me wrong, I respect your opinion and can see your mind set in your opinion. There's nothing wrong with thinking Barry Sanders is the best of all time because, barring injury, he probably would have broken all the records. My argument is that Emmitt DID break the records and he won a lot of games and superbowls because he made his team that much better.

But really, there is no wrong answer when it comes to the greats like Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, or Jim Brown.

super_wolverine_Man - June 3, 2008 12:04 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 2 2008, 11:27 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 2 2008, 09:17 PM)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 2 2008, 04:09 PM)
I've got to go with Emmitt Smith here. The question is "Who's the greatest running back ever?" not "Who's the greatest runner?" Emmitt has almost every running back record there is. Most toughdowns, most rushing yards, most consecutive 1,000 yard seasons, etc. A great running back shouldn't be penelized just because he played for a longer period of time. The fact that Emmitt played so long and still produced 1,000 yard seasons is a testament to his longility.



if Emmitt only played for his first ten years like barry he would only have

13963 Yards

barry 15269


also barry played for a team that was absolutely horrible, smith played for one of the greatest teams of all-time, and carried the ball a lot more than Barry. If you would have switched their teams, Barry would've easily gotten 20,000, and who knows what would have happened if Barry played for another 4 years, which would be equivalent to how many years smith played

well heres what i figure

it be more than 1000 every year, on his last season he for 1049, yards rushing and the previous year he ran for 2053, and that was when his heart was into it

So the bottome line is: Barry had more running skill than smith, but smith had the better team, and the longer career, which is why he owns the record book.

There's really no way to tell weather player from one team would be better on another team. In THEORY, yes, but I look at the bottom line. Emmitt DOES have all the records. I think of it this way, at one point in Randy Moss's carreer, he was on pace to break all of the records Jerry Rice had made. If Moss had retired early, would that have made him the best because he COULD have broken the records? No, Jerry Rice is the best reciever of all time. Don't get me wrong, I respect your opinion and can see your mind set in your opinion. There's nothing wrong with thinking Barry Sanders is the best of all time because, barring injury, he probably would have broken all the records. My argument is that Emmitt DID break the records and he won a lot of games and superbowls because he made his team that much better.

But really, there is no wrong answer when it comes to the greats like Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, or Jim Brown.

well i thank you for hearing my side of it and respecting my opinion, because to me it's mroe than just numbers but i just want to point out one thing. barry didn't retire because of injury he retired, because he was fed up with his coach, and with the lions organization.



granobulax - June 3, 2008 12:29 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 3 2008, 12:04 AM)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 2 2008, 11:27 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 2 2008, 09:17 PM)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 2 2008, 04:09 PM)
I've got to go with Emmitt Smith here. The question is "Who's the greatest running back ever?" not "Who's the greatest runner?" Emmitt has almost every running back record there is. Most toughdowns, most rushing yards, most consecutive 1,000 yard seasons, etc. A great running back shouldn't be penelized just because he played for a longer period of time. The fact that Emmitt played so long and still produced 1,000 yard seasons is a testament to his longility.



if Emmitt only played for his first ten years like barry he would only have

13963 Yards

barry 15269


also barry played for a team that was absolutely horrible, smith played for one of the greatest teams of all-time, and carried the ball a lot more than Barry. If you would have switched their teams, Barry would've easily gotten 20,000, and who knows what would have happened if Barry played for another 4 years, which would be equivalent to how many years smith played

well heres what i figure

it be more than 1000 every year, on his last season he for 1049, yards rushing and the previous year he ran for 2053, and that was when his heart was into it

So the bottome line is: Barry had more running skill than smith, but smith had the better team, and the longer career, which is why he owns the record book.

There's really no way to tell weather player from one team would be better on another team. In THEORY, yes, but I look at the bottom line. Emmitt DOES have all the records. I think of it this way, at one point in Randy Moss's carreer, he was on pace to break all of the records Jerry Rice had made. If Moss had retired early, would that have made him the best because he COULD have broken the records? No, Jerry Rice is the best reciever of all time. Don't get me wrong, I respect your opinion and can see your mind set in your opinion. There's nothing wrong with thinking Barry Sanders is the best of all time because, barring injury, he probably would have broken all the records. My argument is that Emmitt DID break the records and he won a lot of games and superbowls because he made his team that much better.

But really, there is no wrong answer when it comes to the greats like Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, or Jim Brown.

well i thank you for hearing my side of it and respecting my opinion, because to me it's mroe than just numbers but i just want to point out one thing. barry didn't retire because of injury he retired, because he was fed up with his coach, and with the lions organization.

What I meant to say is that if Barry didn't retire, barring injury he would have broken the records. Sort of a 'what if' comment.

super_wolverine_Man - June 3, 2008 01:48 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 3 2008, 12:29 AM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 3 2008, 12:04 AM)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 2 2008, 11:27 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 2 2008, 09:17 PM)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 2 2008, 04:09 PM)
I've got to go with Emmitt Smith here. The question is "Who's the greatest running back ever?" not "Who's the greatest runner?" Emmitt has almost every running back record there is. Most toughdowns, most rushing yards, most consecutive 1,000 yard seasons, etc. A great running back shouldn't be penelized just because he played for a longer period of time. The fact that Emmitt played so long and still produced 1,000 yard seasons is a testament to his longility.



if Emmitt only played for his first ten years like barry he would only have

13963 Yards

barry 15269


also barry played for a team that was absolutely horrible, smith played for one of the greatest teams of all-time, and carried the ball a lot more than Barry. If you would have switched their teams, Barry would've easily gotten 20,000, and who knows what would have happened if Barry played for another 4 years, which would be equivalent to how many years smith played

well heres what i figure

it be more than 1000 every year, on his last season he for 1049, yards rushing and the previous year he ran for 2053, and that was when his heart was into it

So the bottome line is: Barry had more running skill than smith, but smith had the better team, and the longer career, which is why he owns the record book.

There's really no way to tell weather player from one team would be better on another team. In THEORY, yes, but I look at the bottom line. Emmitt DOES have all the records. I think of it this way, at one point in Randy Moss's carreer, he was on pace to break all of the records Jerry Rice had made. If Moss had retired early, would that have made him the best because he COULD have broken the records? No, Jerry Rice is the best reciever of all time. Don't get me wrong, I respect your opinion and can see your mind set in your opinion. There's nothing wrong with thinking Barry Sanders is the best of all time because, barring injury, he probably would have broken all the records. My argument is that Emmitt DID break the records and he won a lot of games and superbowls because he made his team that much better.

But really, there is no wrong answer when it comes to the greats like Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, or Jim Brown.

well i thank you for hearing my side of it and respecting my opinion, because to me it's mroe than just numbers but i just want to point out one thing. barry didn't retire because of injury he retired, because he was fed up with his coach, and with the lions organization.

What I meant to say is that if Barry didn't retire, barring injury he would have broken the records. Sort of a 'what if' comment.

ah yes of course

Wingman - June 3, 2008 02:21 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 3 2008, 09:48 AM)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 3 2008, 12:29 AM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 3 2008, 12:04 AM)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 2 2008, 11:27 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 2 2008, 09:17 PM)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 2 2008, 04:09 PM)
I've got to go with Emmitt Smith here. The question is "Who's the greatest running back ever?" not "Who's the greatest runner?" Emmitt has almost every running back record there is. Most toughdowns, most rushing yards, most consecutive 1,000 yard seasons, etc. A great running back shouldn't be penelized just because he played for a longer period of time. The fact that Emmitt played so long and still produced 1,000 yard seasons is a testament to his longility.



if Emmitt only played for his first ten years like barry he would only have

13963 Yards

barry 15269


also barry played for a team that was absolutely horrible, smith played for one of the greatest teams of all-time, and carried the ball a lot more than Barry. If you would have switched their teams, Barry would've easily gotten 20,000, and who knows what would have happened if Barry played for another 4 years, which would be equivalent to how many years smith played

well heres what i figure

it be more than 1000 every year, on his last season he for 1049, yards rushing and the previous year he ran for 2053, and that was when his heart was into it

So the bottome line is: Barry had more running skill than smith, but smith had the better team, and the longer career, which is why he owns the record book.

There's really no way to tell weather player from one team would be better on another team. In THEORY, yes, but I look at the bottom line. Emmitt DOES have all the records. I think of it this way, at one point in Randy Moss's carreer, he was on pace to break all of the records Jerry Rice had made. If Moss had retired early, would that have made him the best because he COULD have broken the records? No, Jerry Rice is the best reciever of all time. Don't get me wrong, I respect your opinion and can see your mind set in your opinion. There's nothing wrong with thinking Barry Sanders is the best of all time because, barring injury, he probably would have broken all the records. My argument is that Emmitt DID break the records and he won a lot of games and superbowls because he made his team that much better.

But really, there is no wrong answer when it comes to the greats like Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, or Jim Brown.

well i thank you for hearing my side of it and respecting my opinion, because to me it's mroe than just numbers but i just want to point out one thing. barry didn't retire because of injury he retired, because he was fed up with his coach, and with the lions organization.

What I meant to say is that if Barry didn't retire, barring injury he would have broken the records. Sort of a 'what if' comment.

ah yes of course

There are innumerable "what if" moments in sports history. It's mindblowing the number of times great things happened because of small, seemingly trivial errors or choices. You could fill books with them.

granobulax - June 3, 2008 02:47 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Jun 3 2008, 02:21 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 3 2008, 09:48 AM)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 3 2008, 12:29 AM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 3 2008, 12:04 AM)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 2 2008, 11:27 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 2 2008, 09:17 PM)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 2 2008, 04:09 PM)
I've got to go with Emmitt Smith here. The question is "Who's the greatest running back ever?" not "Who's the greatest runner?" Emmitt has almost every running back record there is. Most toughdowns, most rushing yards, most consecutive 1,000 yard seasons, etc. A great running back shouldn't be penelized just because he played for a longer period of time. The fact that Emmitt played so long and still produced 1,000 yard seasons is a testament to his longility.



if Emmitt only played for his first ten years like barry he would only have

13963 Yards

barry 15269


also barry played for a team that was absolutely horrible, smith played for one of the greatest teams of all-time, and carried the ball a lot more than Barry. If you would have switched their teams, Barry would've easily gotten 20,000, and who knows what would have happened if Barry played for another 4 years, which would be equivalent to how many years smith played

well heres what i figure

it be more than 1000 every year, on his last season he for 1049, yards rushing and the previous year he ran for 2053, and that was when his heart was into it

So the bottome line is: Barry had more running skill than smith, but smith had the better team, and the longer career, which is why he owns the record book.

There's really no way to tell weather player from one team would be better on another team. In THEORY, yes, but I look at the bottom line. Emmitt DOES have all the records. I think of it this way, at one point in Randy Moss's carreer, he was on pace to break all of the records Jerry Rice had made. If Moss had retired early, would that have made him the best because he COULD have broken the records? No, Jerry Rice is the best reciever of all time. Don't get me wrong, I respect your opinion and can see your mind set in your opinion. There's nothing wrong with thinking Barry Sanders is the best of all time because, barring injury, he probably would have broken all the records. My argument is that Emmitt DID break the records and he won a lot of games and superbowls because he made his team that much better.

But really, there is no wrong answer when it comes to the greats like Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, or Jim Brown.

well i thank you for hearing my side of it and respecting my opinion, because to me it's mroe than just numbers but i just want to point out one thing. barry didn't retire because of injury he retired, because he was fed up with his coach, and with the lions organization.

What I meant to say is that if Barry didn't retire, barring injury he would have broken the records. Sort of a 'what if' comment.

ah yes of course

There are innumerable "what if" moments in sports history. It's mindblowing the number of times great things happened because of small, seemingly trivial errors or choices. You could fill books with them.

Here's a big what if. What if Michael Jordan hadn't retired to play baseball for two seasons? Now that's a big 'what if'. :D

Wingman - June 3, 2008 02:56 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 3 2008, 10:47 AM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Jun 3 2008, 02:21 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 3 2008, 09:48 AM)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 3 2008, 12:29 AM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 3 2008, 12:04 AM)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 2 2008, 11:27 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 2 2008, 09:17 PM)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 2 2008, 04:09 PM)
I've got to go with Emmitt Smith here. The question is "Who's the greatest running back ever?" not "Who's the greatest runner?" Emmitt has almost every running back record there is. Most toughdowns, most rushing yards, most consecutive 1,000 yard seasons, etc. A great running back shouldn't be penelized just because he played for a longer period of time. The fact that Emmitt played so long and still produced 1,000 yard seasons is a testament to his longility.



if Emmitt only played for his first ten years like barry he would only have

13963 Yards

barry 15269


also barry played for a team that was absolutely horrible, smith played for one of the greatest teams of all-time, and carried the ball a lot more than Barry. If you would have switched their teams, Barry would've easily gotten 20,000, and who knows what would have happened if Barry played for another 4 years, which would be equivalent to how many years smith played

well heres what i figure

it be more than 1000 every year, on his last season he for 1049, yards rushing and the previous year he ran for 2053, and that was when his heart was into it

So the bottome line is: Barry had more running skill than smith, but smith had the better team, and the longer career, which is why he owns the record book.

There's really no way to tell weather player from one team would be better on another team. In THEORY, yes, but I look at the bottom line. Emmitt DOES have all the records. I think of it this way, at one point in Randy Moss's carreer, he was on pace to break all of the records Jerry Rice had made. If Moss had retired early, would that have made him the best because he COULD have broken the records? No, Jerry Rice is the best reciever of all time. Don't get me wrong, I respect your opinion and can see your mind set in your opinion. There's nothing wrong with thinking Barry Sanders is the best of all time because, barring injury, he probably would have broken all the records. My argument is that Emmitt DID break the records and he won a lot of games and superbowls because he made his team that much better.

But really, there is no wrong answer when it comes to the greats like Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, or Jim Brown.

well i thank you for hearing my side of it and respecting my opinion, because to me it's mroe than just numbers but i just want to point out one thing. barry didn't retire because of injury he retired, because he was fed up with his coach, and with the lions organization.

What I meant to say is that if Barry didn't retire, barring injury he would have broken the records. Sort of a 'what if' comment.

ah yes of course

There are innumerable "what if" moments in sports history. It's mindblowing the number of times great things happened because of small, seemingly trivial errors or choices. You could fill books with them.

Here's a big what if. What if Michael Jordan hadn't retired to play baseball for two seasons? Now that's a big 'what if'. :D

That is one of the biggies. Or what if Mario Lemieux hadn't retired in the late 90's, but kept going?

granobulax - June 3, 2008 03:36 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Jun 3 2008, 02:56 PM)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 3 2008, 10:47 AM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Jun 3 2008, 02:21 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 3 2008, 09:48 AM)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 3 2008, 12:29 AM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 3 2008, 12:04 AM)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 2 2008, 11:27 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 2 2008, 09:17 PM)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 2 2008, 04:09 PM)
I've got to go with Emmitt Smith here. The question is "Who's the greatest running back ever?" not "Who's the greatest runner?" Emmitt has almost every running back record there is. Most toughdowns, most rushing yards, most consecutive 1,000 yard seasons, etc. A great running back shouldn't be penelized just because he played for a longer period of time. The fact that Emmitt played so long and still produced 1,000 yard seasons is a testament to his longility.



if Emmitt only played for his first ten years like barry he would only have

13963 Yards

barry 15269


also barry played for a team that was absolutely horrible, smith played for one of the greatest teams of all-time, and carried the ball a lot more than Barry. If you would have switched their teams, Barry would've easily gotten 20,000, and who knows what would have happened if Barry played for another 4 years, which would be equivalent to how many years smith played

well heres what i figure

it be more than 1000 every year, on his last season he for 1049, yards rushing and the previous year he ran for 2053, and that was when his heart was into it

So the bottome line is: Barry had more running skill than smith, but smith had the better team, and the longer career, which is why he owns the record book.

There's really no way to tell weather player from one team would be better on another team. In THEORY, yes, but I look at the bottom line. Emmitt DOES have all the records. I think of it this way, at one point in Randy Moss's carreer, he was on pace to break all of the records Jerry Rice had made. If Moss had retired early, would that have made him the best because he COULD have broken the records? No, Jerry Rice is the best reciever of all time. Don't get me wrong, I respect your opinion and can see your mind set in your opinion. There's nothing wrong with thinking Barry Sanders is the best of all time because, barring injury, he probably would have broken all the records. My argument is that Emmitt DID break the records and he won a lot of games and superbowls because he made his team that much better.

But really, there is no wrong answer when it comes to the greats like Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, or Jim Brown.

well i thank you for hearing my side of it and respecting my opinion, because to me it's mroe than just numbers but i just want to point out one thing. barry didn't retire because of injury he retired, because he was fed up with his coach, and with the lions organization.

What I meant to say is that if Barry didn't retire, barring injury he would have broken the records. Sort of a 'what if' comment.

ah yes of course

There are innumerable "what if" moments in sports history. It's mindblowing the number of times great things happened because of small, seemingly trivial errors or choices. You could fill books with them.

Here's a big what if. What if Michael Jordan hadn't retired to play baseball for two seasons? Now that's a big 'what if'. :D

That is one of the biggies. Or what if Mario Lemieux hadn't retired in the late 90's, but kept going?

Thats very true.

Wingman - June 3, 2008 07:36 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 3 2008, 11:36 AM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Jun 3 2008, 02:56 PM)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 3 2008, 10:47 AM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Jun 3 2008, 02:21 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 3 2008, 09:48 AM)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 3 2008, 12:29 AM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 3 2008, 12:04 AM)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 2 2008, 11:27 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 2 2008, 09:17 PM)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 2 2008, 04:09 PM)
I've got to go with Emmitt Smith here. The question is "Who's the greatest running back ever?" not "Who's the greatest runner?" Emmitt has almost every running back record there is. Most toughdowns, most rushing yards, most consecutive 1,000 yard seasons, etc. A great running back shouldn't be penelized just because he played for a longer period of time. The fact that Emmitt played so long and still produced 1,000 yard seasons is a testament to his longility.



if Emmitt only played for his first ten years like barry he would only have

13963 Yards

barry 15269


also barry played for a team that was absolutely horrible, smith played for one of the greatest teams of all-time, and carried the ball a lot more than Barry. If you would have switched their teams, Barry would've easily gotten 20,000, and who knows what would have happened if Barry played for another 4 years, which would be equivalent to how many years smith played

well heres what i figure

it be more than 1000 every year, on his last season he for 1049, yards rushing and the previous year he ran for 2053, and that was when his heart was into it

So the bottome line is: Barry had more running skill than smith, but smith had the better team, and the longer career, which is why he owns the record book.

There's really no way to tell weather player from one team would be better on another team. In THEORY, yes, but I look at the bottom line. Emmitt DOES have all the records. I think of it this way, at one point in Randy Moss's carreer, he was on pace to break all of the records Jerry Rice had made. If Moss had retired early, would that have made him the best because he COULD have broken the records? No, Jerry Rice is the best reciever of all time. Don't get me wrong, I respect your opinion and can see your mind set in your opinion. There's nothing wrong with thinking Barry Sanders is the best of all time because, barring injury, he probably would have broken all the records. My argument is that Emmitt DID break the records and he won a lot of games and superbowls because he made his team that much better.

But really, there is no wrong answer when it comes to the greats like Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, or Jim Brown.

well i thank you for hearing my side of it and respecting my opinion, because to me it's mroe than just numbers but i just want to point out one thing. barry didn't retire because of injury he retired, because he was fed up with his coach, and with the lions organization.

What I meant to say is that if Barry didn't retire, barring injury he would have broken the records. Sort of a 'what if' comment.

ah yes of course

There are innumerable "what if" moments in sports history. It's mindblowing the number of times great things happened because of small, seemingly trivial errors or choices. You could fill books with them.

Here's a big what if. What if Michael Jordan hadn't retired to play baseball for two seasons? Now that's a big 'what if'. :D

That is one of the biggies. Or what if Mario Lemieux hadn't retired in the late 90's, but kept going?

Thats very true.

I'm too tired to think of any more, but there are.

super_wolverine_Man - June 3, 2008 10:08 PM (GMT)
what if len bias, hadn't died of a crack cocaine overdose?




Hosted for free by zIFBoards