The Greatest Running Back of All-Time

[fiver]

Vincent Edward Jackson

 

4.18 40 yard dash + quick feet + stronger than Jim Brown + 5.4 ypc = best running back ever

[BigbadB]

Barry Sanders had a chance to surpass Walter as the greatest, but he quit. Sorry Barry.

 

Greatest back of all time is Walter. And that is absolutely not a homer pick even though I'm a Bears fan. Comparing Emmitt to Walter is quite comical. Emmitt played on teams that went to the playoffs year after year. How many players on teams that Emmitt played on are going to be in the Hall of Fame? Better QB, better receivers, better offensive line. Emmitt had it all. Emmitt wasn't even the best of his generation. Barry did circles around Emmitt.

 

Walter created most of his yardage despite playing on poor offenses year after year. Same argument can be made for Barry, but he's a quitter.

 

Defenses keyed on Walter because he was the offense. Especially in the days prior to McMahon and Gault. But, he still managed to get downfield. Teams couldn't key on Emmitt because of the threats to Irvin and whatever stud receiver was on the other side of the field from Irvin. Emmitt just had to follow Nate Newton and Co. to get all the yardage he got.

[Mizzou]

Where do you rank Marshall Faulk?

[BigbadB]

Where do you rank Marshall Faulk?

 

If you are asking me, he's probably top 10, but not among the elite. I might even have Gale Sayers ahead of Faulk.

 

I'm not a fan of either guy, but O.J. "Bloody Glove" Simpson and Eric "I'm so full of myself" Dickerson are somewhere in the lower 10 as well.

 

Heck, Shaun Alexander will be mentioned with this group in time.

 

Walter and Barry are the two best ever, but Walter wasn't a quitter.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

Most overrated:

Emmitt Smith- a great back with great legs, but Matt Suhey could have rushed for 1000+ with some of his Cowboy lines.

 

It's hard to over-rate when you have the most yardage from scrimmage by a RB, most rushing yards, and most rushing TD's.

 

Saying Smith is over-rated would be the same as saying Hank Aaron is over-rated. You can do it, but it's pretty ridiculous.

[rocket]

christian okoye was ridiculous in tecmo super bowl. linebackers and cornerbacks literally bounced off of him (about 10 yards too) if they even touched him.

[MikeyLikesCubbies]

Hall of "What Could Have Beens"

 

Barry Sanders

Bo Jackson

James Brown (remember, he retired at 29!)

Gale Sayers

 

What about Terrell Davis?

[jjgman21]

Emmitt Smith does not even belong in this discussion for all the aforementioned reasons, and another mentioned below. You can point to his stats, but stats carry far less meaning in football than in baseball. The game changes too much from generation to generation, and the game is so team dependant, for stats arguments to carry much weight.

 

Although he was great and an incredible athlete and would have been great in any era, I think James Brown has to be excluded as well. First, all the arguments made against Smith can be said about Brown as well. He played for championship teams and was surrounded by hall-of-famers. Second, he was bigger than all the defensive lineman and linebackers. It’s like saying George Mikan was one of the greatest centers ever. He would have been a capable player in any era, but his “greatness” was more a product of being ahead of his time physically as compared to the players he competed against.

 

To me, it comes down to Sanders, Jackson and Payton. I think the debate depends on how you define running back. If you are talking about the greatest runner from scrimmage, it goes to Sanders IMO. He did it longer than Jackson, and like Payton, he did it for crappy teams.

 

But you have to consider that at least half the downs in every game, the quarterback does not hand the ball to the running back. Thus, Payton, hands down. Of all the names mentioned, his receiving skills were only matched by Smith, and Smith did not block, even though once in awhile a broadcaster would try to give him credit for doing so.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

The only way to discount Smith is to play the "what if" game. "What if" Sanders had Smith's O-line, "what if" Payton had played for better teams, "what-if" Jim Brown hadn't quit? The problem is those "ifs" didn't happen.

 

If you want to play that game, you could argue that Archie Manning might be the best QB at all time. Not only did he not have an O-line, he didn't have any receivers or running backs either.

 

It's pretty ridiculous to say the RB with the best stats doesn't belong in the discussion. That's just stupid.

[BigbadB]

It's pretty ridiculous to say the RB with the best stats doesn't belong in the discussion. That's just stupid.

 

I'm not saying that. And I don't think Emmitt should be off the radar. However, you do have to take the strength of the team each guy played for into consideration.

 

Emmitt's line blew open tremendous holes play after play. Barry and Walter had to create their own holes and then get creative to get downfield.

[jjgman21]

 

It's pretty ridiculous to say the RB with the best stats doesn't belong in the discussion. That's just stupid.

 

where's the warning for personal attacks?

 

it's not stupid. this is football. the entire sabremetric movement is possible because the game of baseball changes little and stats are pretty much exclusively a measure of individual performance. the stat has much greater meaning in baseball. in football, they have meaning, but certainly aren't determinitive of who was or was not great or the greatest. Dan Marino has all the passing records. was he the greatest quarterback? not by a fricken long shot. probably in the same league as Archie Manning.

 

edit: another example of the meaningless of stats. at one time it was "who will reach Brown first, Payton or Harris?" yet the name Franco Harris hasn't even come up in this debate.

[bukie]

Smith deserves points for longevity, which is why he has many of those longevity-based records.

 

YPC-wise, though, it's Brown-Sayers-Sanders-Payton-Smith, and unfortunately, 4 of those careers were cut shorter than they needed to be.

 

Smith didn't do anything spectacular, he just did it long enough to get his all-time records. Watching Brown, Sayers, Sanders, and Payton was spectacular. Smith deserves consideration due to his longevity, but the other 4 were simply better at what they did for less time.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

It's pretty ridiculous to say the RB with the best stats doesn't belong in the discussion. That's just stupid.

 

I'm not saying that. And I don't think Emmitt should be off the radar. However, you do have to take the strength of the team each guy played for into consideration.

 

Emmitt's line blew open tremendous holes play after play. Barry and Walter had to create their own holes and then get creative to get downfield.

 

You didn't, but the poster above the post where I responded with that did.

 

I agree that Sanders was fun to watch and Payton was a great back. Payton is number two on all the lists that have Smith as number one. Payton definitely has the numbers.

 

I'm not going to argue that Smith didn't have a great O-line. He did. But why does everyone play the "what-if" game with Smith, but not a reciever like Rice?

 

Rice is considered the greatest reciever ever because he has the numbers to back it up. But would Rice have been as good without Montana and Young throwing to him all those years? Could another receiver have been just as good with those QB's in the same system? Maybe. But those didn't and Rice did. He put up the numbers and so he's the best ever. No argument.

 

Smith put up the numbers. Yardage. TD's. Championships. He's the best in my opinion.

 

I'd rank the best backs:

1. Smith

2. Payton

3. Brown.

 

Looking at video, I'd probably put Brown first, but he quit early because he wanted to make movies or be an activist or something. I could "what-if" him to the top, but what if he had gotten hurt. We don't know. What we do know is that Smith played with guts and likely did more with less talent than the others. He's at the top of the statistical measures and should also be at the top of any list discussing the best back ever.

[wekse]

christian okoye was ridiculous in tecmo super bowl. linebackers and cornerbacks literally bounced off of him (about 10 yards too) if they even touched him.

 

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/4140/flex5yg.jpg

[bukie]

It's pretty ridiculous to say the RB with the best stats doesn't belong in the discussion. That's just stupid.

 

I'm not saying that. And I don't think Emmitt should be off the radar. However, you do have to take the strength of the team each guy played for into consideration.

 

Emmitt's line blew open tremendous holes play after play. Barry and Walter had to create their own holes and then get creative to get downfield.

 

You didn't, but the poster above the post where I responded with that did.

 

I agree that Sanders was fun to watch and Payton was a great back. Payton is number two on all the lists that have Smith as number one. Payton definitely has the numbers.

 

I'm not going to argue that Smith didn't have a great O-line. He did. But why does everyone play the "what-if" game with Smith, but not a reciever like Rice?

 

Rice is considered the greatest reciever ever because he has the numbers to back it up. But would Rice have been as good without Montana and Young throwing to him all those years? Could another receiver have been just as good with those QB's in the same system? Maybe. But those didn't and Rice did. He put up the numbers and so he's the best ever. No argument.

 

Smith put up the numbers. Yardage. TD's. Championships. He's the best in my opinion.

 

I'd rank the best backs:

1. Smith

2. Payton

3. Brown.

 

Looking at video, I'd probably put Brown first, but he quit early because he wanted to make movies or be an activist or something. I could "what-if" him to the top, but what if he had gotten hurt. We don't know. What we do know is that Smith played with guts and likely did more with less talent than the others. He's at the top of the statistical measures and should also be at the top of any list discussing the best back ever.

 

Your argument is akin to the argument that Pete Rose is the best hitter ever because he has the most hits. Or Cy Young being the best pitcher ever because he has the most wins. And championships? Championships is a personal stat now? If championships and intangibles counted towards the best player ever, they should just induct Jeter now.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

It's pretty ridiculous to say the RB with the best stats doesn't belong in the discussion. That's just stupid.

 

where's the warning for personal attacks?

 

it's not stupid. this is football. the entire sabremetric movement is possible because the game of baseball changes little and stats are pretty much exclusively a measure of individual performance. the stat has much greater meaning in baseball. in football, they have meaning, but certainly aren't determinitive of who was or was not great or the greatest. Dan Marino has all the passing records. was he the greatest quarterback? not by a fricken long shot. probably in the same league as Archie Manning.

 

edit: another example of the meaningless of stats. at one time it was "who will reach Brown first, Payton or Harris?" yet the name Franco Harris hasn't even come up in this debate.

 

I wasn't calling you stupid, just the argument that the back who has the best numbers doesn't belong in the discussion. That is stupid!

 

It would be the same as saying Marion doesn't belong in the discussion for best QB or that Rice doesn't belong in the discussion for best receiver.

[imb]

christian okoye was ridiculous in tecmo super bowl. linebackers and cornerbacks literally bounced off of him (about 10 yards too) if they even touched him.

 

NIGERIAN NIGHTMARE

[fiver]

Looking at video, I'd probably put Brown first, but he quit early because he wanted to make movies or be an activist or something. I could "what-if" him to the top, but what if he had gotten hurt. We don't know. What we do know is that Smith played with guts and likely did more with less talent than the others. He's at the top of the statistical measures and should also be at the top of any list discussing the best back ever.

 

Who would you rather have? Bo Jackson in '89 or '90 or any other running back during their prime? If we are "what-if"ing, Bo comes to the top of my list.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Looking at video, I'd probably put Brown first, but he quit early because he wanted to make movies or be an activist or something. I could "what-if" him to the top, but what if he had gotten hurt. We don't know. What we do know is that Smith played with guts and likely did more with less talent than the others. He's at the top of the statistical measures and should also be at the top of any list discussing the best back ever.

 

Who would you rather have? Bo Jackson in '89 or '90 or any other running back during their prime? If we are "what-if"ing, Bo comes to the top of my list.

 

And if we're what-ifing, then I nominate Archie Manning for best damn QB ever. He put up some great numbers with nothing to work with.

[jjgman21]

 

I'm not going to argue that Smith didn't have a great O-line. He did. But why does everyone play the "what-if" game with Smith, but not a reciever like Rice?

 

 

 

 

it's a damn argument about the greatest running back of all time. all 'greatest of all-time' arguments lend themselves to 'what it.'

 

but the game where the what if argument carries the least weight is baseball because, as I repeatedly have stated, it's individual v. individual and the game is rather static. thus you need not use the what if.

 

there has to be a way of comparing the players themselves as individuals, and the only way to do that in football is by using what if discussion.

 

and the reason you hear less of it about Rice is because he blew all the old records out of the water to such a vast degree. that can't be said for Smith, who hung on longer than he should, even signing with a crap team to break the record.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

I'm not going to argue that Smith didn't have a great O-line. He did. But why does everyone play the "what-if" game with Smith, but not a reciever like Rice?

 

 

 

 

it's a damn argument about the greatest running back of all time. all 'greatest of all-time' arguments lend themselves to 'what it.'

 

but the game where the what if argument carries the least weight is baseball because, as I repeatedly have stated, it's individual v. individual and the game is rather static. thus you need not use the what if.

 

there has to be a way of comparing the players themselves as individuals, and the only way to do that in football is by using what if discussion.

 

and the reason you hear less of it about Rice is because he blew all the old records out of the water to such a vast degree. that can't be said for Smith, who hung on longer than he should, even signing with a crap team to break the record.

 

Smith was still a Cowboy when he broke the all-time rushing record. But thanks for playing.

[jjgman21]

It's pretty ridiculous to say the RB with the best stats doesn't belong in the discussion. That's just stupid.

 

I'm not saying that. And I don't think Emmitt should be off the radar. However, you do have to take the strength of the team each guy played for into consideration.

 

Emmitt's line blew open tremendous holes play after play. Barry and Walter had to create their own holes and then get creative to get downfield.

 

You didn't, but the poster above the post where I responded with that did.

 

 

 

you simply don't get it. and in fact, you're smartassedness and sarcasm is working against you. your point about Manning fits perfectly with what I have been talking about. great stats in football does not mean the player was great.

 

was Steve Largeant the third greatest receiver ever? was Marino the greatest QB ever? was Mark Gastineua great?

 

get it through your head. football stats are far less meaningful than baseball stats. its like trying to use RBI and runs scored to determine who the best players in baseball are. they are completely team dependant. you will defend that notion in baseball threads, why won't you acknowledge it here?

[jjgman21]

 

I'm not going to argue that Smith didn't have a great O-line. He did. But why does everyone play the "what-if" game with Smith, but not a reciever like Rice?

 

 

 

 

it's a damn argument about the greatest running back of all time. all 'greatest of all-time' arguments lend themselves to 'what it.'

 

but the game where the what if argument carries the least weight is baseball because, as I repeatedly have stated, it's individual v. individual and the game is rather static. thus you need not use the what if.

 

there has to be a way of comparing the players themselves as individuals, and the only way to do that in football is by using what if discussion.

 

and the reason you hear less of it about Rice is because he blew all the old records out of the water to such a vast degree. that can't be said for Smith, who hung on longer than he should, even signing with a crap team to break the record.

 

Smith was still a Cowboy when he broke the all-time rushing record. But thanks for playing.

 

your logic goes completely against everything you espouse in every other thread. thanks for going home.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I understand the argument just fine.

 

The numbers are certainly there to put Smith in the discussion.

 

Of course football is more team dependent than baseball. I get that. On the other hand, since we don't have ways of removing the "team" element doesn't mean we should throw everything to the wind and say the stats don't matter.

 

Would Payton have had the same number of yards if he had a better QB and receiving corp? In fact, he may have had less because his team would have had other options.

 

Isn't it telling that Dallas had a HOF QB, a receiver who likely gets there one day, and yet he was still the first option most of the time?

 

Smith put up outstanding numbers in an offense that had multiple options.

 

And while I can understand those who say he may not be the best all-time running back, it's pretty ridiculous to say he doesn't belong in the discussion.

 

And yes, Smith had longevity and rushed a bunch of carries. I think running for over 100 yds in a must-win against the Giants with a separated shoulder gets him in the discussion. He wasn't the speediest back. Definitely not the most elusive. He wasn't the largest either. But the numbers indicate he's the best.

 

Taking subjective opinions aside, I'll let the numbers decide it.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

I'm not going to argue that Smith didn't have a great O-line. He did. But why does everyone play the "what-if" game with Smith, but not a reciever like Rice?

 

 

 

 

it's a damn argument about the greatest running back of all time. all 'greatest of all-time' arguments lend themselves to 'what it.'

 

but the game where the what if argument carries the least weight is baseball because, as I repeatedly have stated, it's individual v. individual and the game is rather static. thus you need not use the what if.

 

there has to be a way of comparing the players themselves as individuals, and the only way to do that in football is by using what if discussion.

 

and the reason you hear less of it about Rice is because he blew all the old records out of the water to such a vast degree. that can't be said for Smith, who hung on longer than he should, even signing with a crap team to break the record.

 

Smith was still a Cowboy when he broke the all-time rushing record. But thanks for playing.

 

your logic goes completely against everything you espouse in every other thread. thanks for going home.

 

Not going anywhere... :P