The Greatest Running Back of All-Time

[brinoch]

 

Why do I want my QB running?

 

are you suggesting that an act that results in positive stats may not be the best play a player could make.

 

thanks for helping me make a point.

 

 

your position is untenable.

 

Your position is no better. You act as if you've taken the "objective" viewpoint, yet it comes in as choosing the player whom your a biased for.

 

While I may not always want my QB running, I definitely want my RB running and scoring TD's and Emmit did that better than any back in the history of the game.

 

Comparatively, Sanders was a better running back during the years they were both in the league, together.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

Why do I want my QB running?

 

are you suggesting that an act that results in positive stats may not be the best play a player could make.

 

thanks for helping me make a point.

 

 

your position is untenable.

 

Your position is no better. You act as if you've taken the "objective" viewpoint, yet it comes in as choosing the player whom your a biased for.

 

While I may not always want my QB running, I definitely want my RB running and scoring TD's and Emmit did that better than any back in the history of the game.

 

Comparatively, Sanders was a better running back during the years they were both in the league, together.

 

But when you add the Emmit's longevity, I think he surpasses Sanders. I think the longevity was one of Smith's strengths. Look at the career length for most backs. Most aren't productive for long periods. Smith was great for a good portion of his career and at least productive for the remainder.

 

Smith had a toughness that showed in how he ran as well as how he was able to keep going long after a time when most RB's had quit.

 

Once again, for anecdotal evidence I present his game against the Giants in which he accumulated more than 100 yds all while running with a seperated shoulder that he could hardly hold his arm up in the huddle.

[jjgman21]

 

Why do I want my QB running?

 

are you suggesting that an act that results in positive stats may not be the best play a player could make.

 

thanks for helping me make a point.

 

 

your position is untenable.

 

Your position is no better. You act as if you've taken the "objective" viewpoint, yet it comes in as choosing the player whom your a biased for.

 

While I may not always want my QB running, I definitely want my RB running and scoring TD's and Emmit did that better than any back in the history of the game.

 

but that's not what my position is. I've never said I am being objective. I've readily admitted the only way to do such comparisons is subjective.

your position, that statistics is the best way to measure a football player, is absurd. it's just the way it is, and that false argument is the only thing holding "Emmitt was the greatest" together.

 

so based on the comparison, who was the better QB, Anderson or Aikmen. Anderson leads by a wide margin in alot of catagories. Aikmen lead by a small margin in a couple. clearly Anderson, right? right? that is your point, is it not? that football stats show who is best and therefore Emmitt is best, so clearly it translates to QB too, and Anderson was better, right?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

If you want me to say Anderson is better, I will. I don't think Aikman is the best all-time QB. In fact, I don't think he's top twenty...maybe even not top thirty. He was a good QB, probably a very good one that bordered on great. He fit within the system and distributed the ball like he should. He has three Super Bowl rings which is more than a lot of QB's can claim. I'd take Archie Manning over Aikman, but Manning was the only decent player on some horrible Saints teams.

 

On the other hand, even subjectively, I think Emmit Smith is the best back in NFL history. He followed his blockers with precision and showed an incredible burst through the hole. He was hard-nosed and tough and had an inate ability to get the ball in the endzone, season after season.

 

He played with tenacity and heart though he lacked the physical skills of many other backs. He was smaller than most and not nearly as fast, but that didn't stop him from getting the most out of his abilities.

 

As if my subjective analysis isn't enough, he also has the numbers to back up the claim as the best back of all time.

 

And if I want to take it one step further, he's a proven winner helping produce three championships for his team.

[soccer10k]

As it is, I'll still take the raw data stats over your subjectiveness.

 

Just curious Vance, but who do you consider the better quarterback, Tom Brady or Peyton Manning? I don't need an explanation, just a name.

[jjgman21]

Brown was dominate at RB and many consider him the greatest while very few ever consider Mikan as the greatest player in NBA history. Mikan changed the game but Brown simply was the guy all teams keyed on to stop the Browns. Brown had records Rushing and TD's that were only erased because players played 2 to 4 games more a year. He could have been the MVP in every year he played. Mikan was great but not one of the elite of the NBA and I can't think of any records he had broken. Ask a NBA GM if he would take Mikan, Russell or Chamberlain and I'd be surprised if Mikan would get picked 5 out of 100 times. You put Brown against the top RB's of all time and he would get at least 25 votes by NFL GM's.

 

not the point

 

You're comparing a 6'8" that can move to guys that are shorter but what your missing is that Mikan didn't dominate the game like Brown did. Yes, Mikan was a cordinated big guy but Brown owned defenses like no other. Chamberlain made the NBA change the key rule not Mikan. Mikan was an inovator but don't confuse that with being the best ever and IMO that's what you are doing.

 

Mikan dominated every bit as much as Brown. they had to change all the rules because of Mikan, or he would've dominated even more. you're still missing the point. I never said Brown wasn't the great. I repeatedly said he was great and would have been in any era. the point is he played with that body in that era. had he played with that body in a later era, he would not have had the mind boggling stats he did.

 

That can be said about a lot of players. Campbell or Bo Jackson could have that said about them. I understand what you're saying and maybe I'm not expressing what I'm thinking well enough. Yes, both Mikan and Brown had superior bodies to their opponents. I don't understand why you would punish them for it though? If some RB could run a 3.6 40 in the NFL and rush for 2500 yards per year I wouldn't say that just because he can do that he should not be considered one of the best. I think that's what you are saying and IMO it's wrong for you to claim that against them. Just because he can do things others can't isn't his fault and shouldn't be counted against him.

 

what I am saying is Mikan dominated because of talent, AND because he was 6'10" when everone else in the game was 6'4" and shorter. Brown dominated because of talent, AND because he was bigger than all the linemen and linebackers he faced. today Brown would be a nice big running back, not one of the biggest players in the game, and the fastest/strongest to boot. put his body and his skills in today's game, and he's damn good, but not average 5+ ypc over the course of his career good.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

As it is, I'll still take the raw data stats over your subjectiveness.

 

Just curious Vance, but who do you consider the better quarterback, Tom Brady or Peyton Manning? I don't need an explanation, just a name.

 

Manning.

[soccer10k]

Brown was dominate at RB and many consider him the greatest while very few ever consider Mikan as the greatest player in NBA history. Mikan changed the game but Brown simply was the guy all teams keyed on to stop the Browns. Brown had records Rushing and TD's that were only erased because players played 2 to 4 games more a year. He could have been the MVP in every year he played. Mikan was great but not one of the elite of the NBA and I can't think of any records he had broken. Ask a NBA GM if he would take Mikan, Russell or Chamberlain and I'd be surprised if Mikan would get picked 5 out of 100 times. You put Brown against the top RB's of all time and he would get at least 25 votes by NFL GM's.

 

not the point

 

You're comparing a 6'8" that can move to guys that are shorter but what your missing is that Mikan didn't dominate the game like Brown did. Yes, Mikan was a cordinated big guy but Brown owned defenses like no other. Chamberlain made the NBA change the key rule not Mikan. Mikan was an inovator but don't confuse that with being the best ever and IMO that's what you are doing.

 

Bingo. Wilt's 50.4 ppg average will never be touched. Wilt changed the game, not Mikan.

[jjgman21]

If you want me to say Anderson is better, I will.

 

you're fricken nuts. Aikmen was far better than Anderson.

 

sacrificing Aikmen for Smith. whatever. I prefer intellectual honesty myself.

[jjgman21]

 

You're comparing a 6'8" that can move to guys that are shorter but what your missing is that Mikan didn't dominate the game like Brown did. Yes, Mikan was a cordinated big guy but Brown owned defenses like no other. Chamberlain made the NBA change the key rule not Mikan. Mikan was an inovator but don't confuse that with being the best ever and IMO that's what you are doing.

 

Bingo. Wilt's 50.4 ppg average will never be touched. Wilt changed the game, not Mikan.

 

Mikan forced them to change the shotblock rule, the width of the lane, and institute the three second rule. not sure what rules you are saying they changed for Wilt.

[soccer10k]

As it is, I'll still take the raw data stats over your subjectiveness.

 

Just curious Vance, but who do you consider the better quarterback, Tom Brady or Peyton Manning? I don't need an explanation, just a name.

 

Manning.

 

Thank you Vance and I now understand how you look at things. This isn't a good or bad thing, I just wanted to know how you rated football players and now know why you back Emmitt Smith. Again, not a bad thing, just information for me.

[CuseCubFan69]

Brown was dominate at RB and many consider him the greatest while very few ever consider Mikan as the greatest player in NBA history. Mikan changed the game but Brown simply was the guy all teams keyed on to stop the Browns. Brown had records Rushing and TD's that were only erased because players played 2 to 4 games more a year. He could have been the MVP in every year he played. Mikan was great but not one of the elite of the NBA and I can't think of any records he had broken. Ask a NBA GM if he would take Mikan, Russell or Chamberlain and I'd be surprised if Mikan would get picked 5 out of 100 times. You put Brown against the top RB's of all time and he would get at least 25 votes by NFL GM's.

 

not the point

 

You're comparing a 6'8" that can move to guys that are shorter but what your missing is that Mikan didn't dominate the game like Brown did. Yes, Mikan was a cordinated big guy but Brown owned defenses like no other. Chamberlain made the NBA change the key rule not Mikan. Mikan was an inovator but don't confuse that with being the best ever and IMO that's what you are doing.

 

Mikan dominated every bit as much as Brown. they had to change all the rules because of Mikan, or he would've dominated even more. you're still missing the point. I never said Brown wasn't the great. I repeatedly said he was great and would have been in any era. the point is he played with that body in that era. had he played with that body in a later era, he would not have had the mind boggling stats he did.

 

That can be said about a lot of players. Campbell or Bo Jackson could have that said about them. I understand what you're saying and maybe I'm not expressing what I'm thinking well enough. Yes, both Mikan and Brown had superior bodies to their opponents. I don't understand why you would punish them for it though? If some RB could run a 3.6 40 in the NFL and rush for 2500 yards per year I wouldn't say that just because he can do that he should not be considered one of the best. I think that's what you are saying and IMO it's wrong for you to claim that against them. Just because he can do things others can't isn't his fault and shouldn't be counted against him.

 

what I am saying is Mikan dominated because of talent, AND because he was 6'10" when everone else in the game was 6'4" and shorter. Brown dominated because of talent, AND because he was bigger than all the linemen and linebackers he faced. today Brown would be a nice big running back, not one of the biggest players in the game, and the fastest/strongest to boot. put his body and his skills in today's game, and he's damn good, but not average 5+ ypc over the course of his career good.

 

But you're holding the fact that they both had bigger and better bodies against them and I don't see how that's fair? I could see it if blacks or another race wasn't allowed to play but in Browns case that isn't it. What if there is a 6'8" 320 pound RB that could run a 3.8 40....is that his fault that others can't? Should that be held against him in the future when there may be scores of RB's that are that size and can run that fast? I look at how a player dominated their particular era and Brown was a man among boys and I think he should get credit for that and not compared to how he would do now. Besides, Jim is in his 60's and even averaging 4 a carry would be pretty good for a guy that age.

[soccer10k]

 

You're comparing a 6'8" that can move to guys that are shorter but what your missing is that Mikan didn't dominate the game like Brown did. Yes, Mikan was a cordinated big guy but Brown owned defenses like no other. Chamberlain made the NBA change the key rule not Mikan. Mikan was an inovator but don't confuse that with being the best ever and IMO that's what you are doing.

 

Bingo. Wilt's 50.4 ppg average will never be touched. Wilt changed the game, not Mikan.

 

Mikan forced them to change the shotblock rule, the width of the lane, and institute the three second rule. not sure what rules you are saying they changed for Wilt.

 

During his career, his dominance precipitated many rules changes. These rules changed included widening the lane, instituting offensive goaltending and revising rules governing inbounding the ball and shooting free throws (Chamberlain would leap with the ball from behind the foul line to deposit the ball in the basket).

 

Chamberlain forced rule changes as well.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

If you want me to say Anderson is better, I will.

 

you're fricken nuts. Aikmen was far better than Anderson.

 

sacrificing Aikmen for Smith. whatever. I prefer intellectual honesty myself.

 

Well, initially I said the stats I looked at pointed to Aikman. My point was that neither Aikman nor Anderson are good enough to be included in the best ever. Aikman's superbowl rings might get him an invite to the table, but he has no chance of taking the seat. That right now belongs to Marino who is tops in all the statistical categories that matter.

 

And intellectually honest, Smith is still the best RB of all time.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

As it is, I'll still take the raw data stats over your subjectiveness.

 

Just curious Vance, but who do you consider the better quarterback, Tom Brady or Peyton Manning? I don't need an explanation, just a name.

 

Manning.

 

Thank you Vance and I now understand how you look at things. This isn't a good or bad thing, I just wanted to know how you rated football players and now know why you back Emmitt Smith. Again, not a bad thing, just information for me.

 

In anything, I'll go for objectivity as much as I can. In baseball, that's much easier than in football.

 

I'll admit, I'm subjectively inclined to go with Smith as well. I can also understand arguments for Payton, Sanders, and Brown.

 

What I do have a problem with, and it has been displayed here, are those who ignorantly claim that Smith isn't even in the discussion. Maybe if you're discussing size of running backs or times in the forty, then Smith isn't in the discussion, but if best has any ties to productivity, then the back who has the best numbers should begin the discussion. While we are able to come to differing conclusions, partly because more than any other sport, production in football is team dependent, the stats may not tell the whole picture.

 

That being said, it is also ludicrous to discount a player because he has good team mates as well.

 

Furthermore, just like in baseball, the stats are a good way to battle subjectivity because it is unlikely anyone has watched every game of every season with an eye critical enough to make a valid observation apart from statistics.

[RynoRules]

Smith is clearly in the conversation, but here is my Top 5:

 

1) Sanders

2) Payton

3) Brown

4) Smith

5) The Juice

 

And I am a Bears fan, BTW. Payton was my hero as a kid.

[jjgman21]

Brown was dominate at RB and many consider him the greatest while very few ever consider Mikan as the greatest player in NBA history. Mikan changed the game but Brown simply was the guy all teams keyed on to stop the Browns. Brown had records Rushing and TD's that were only erased because players played 2 to 4 games more a year. He could have been the MVP in every year he played. Mikan was great but not one of the elite of the NBA and I can't think of any records he had broken. Ask a NBA GM if he would take Mikan, Russell or Chamberlain and I'd be surprised if Mikan would get picked 5 out of 100 times. You put Brown against the top RB's of all time and he would get at least 25 votes by NFL GM's.

 

not the point

 

You're comparing a 6'8" that can move to guys that are shorter but what your missing is that Mikan didn't dominate the game like Brown did. Yes, Mikan was a cordinated big guy but Brown owned defenses like no other. Chamberlain made the NBA change the key rule not Mikan. Mikan was an inovator but don't confuse that with being the best ever and IMO that's what you are doing.

 

Mikan dominated every bit as much as Brown. they had to change all the rules because of Mikan, or he would've dominated even more. you're still missing the point. I never said Brown wasn't the great. I repeatedly said he was great and would have been in any era. the point is he played with that body in that era. had he played with that body in a later era, he would not have had the mind boggling stats he did.

 

That can be said about a lot of players. Campbell or Bo Jackson could have that said about them. I understand what you're saying and maybe I'm not expressing what I'm thinking well enough. Yes, both Mikan and Brown had superior bodies to their opponents. I don't understand why you would punish them for it though? If some RB could run a 3.6 40 in the NFL and rush for 2500 yards per year I wouldn't say that just because he can do that he should not be considered one of the best. I think that's what you are saying and IMO it's wrong for you to claim that against them. Just because he can do things others can't isn't his fault and shouldn't be counted against him.

 

what I am saying is Mikan dominated because of talent, AND because he was 6'10" when everone else in the game was 6'4" and shorter. Brown dominated because of talent, AND because he was bigger than all the linemen and linebackers he faced. today Brown would be a nice big running back, not one of the biggest players in the game, and the fastest/strongest to boot. put his body and his skills in today's game, and he's damn good, but not average 5+ ypc over the course of his career good.

 

But you're holding the fact that they both had bigger and better bodies against them and I don't see how that's fair? I could see it if blacks or another race wasn't allowed to play but in Browns case that isn't it. What if there is a 6'8" 320 pound RB that could run a 3.8 40....is that his fault that others can't? Should that be held against him in the future when there may be scores of RB's that are that size and can run that fast? I look at how a player dominated their particular era and Brown was a man among boys and I think he should get credit for that and not compared to how he would do now. Besides, Jim is in his 60's and even averaging 4 a carry would be pretty good for a guy that age.

 

I'm very much holding the fact that they had bigger and better bodies against them. that's the entire point. it is not a question of talent, it is a question of what would they have done if they had to play in an era where they didn't have bigger and better bodies. I'm trying to put things into context so there is a reasonable basis for comparison. put any of today's all pro running backs into the backfield of 1950-60's NFL, and they too probably would have approached Brown's numbers. so who's not being treated fairly in the comparison?

[CubinNY]

Smith is clearly in the conversation, but here is my Top 5:

 

1) Sanders

2) Payton

3) Brown

4) Smith

5) The Juice

 

And I am a Bears fan, BTW. Payton was my hero as a kid.

 

Emitt Smith couldn't hold OJ's Bruno Magli's.

 

Here are five more running backs better than Smith:

 

Gayle Sayers

Earl Campbell

Billy Simms

Franco Harris

LaDaneon Tommelson

 

Emitt's one and only claim to fame is that he played a long time. And he mostly on very good teams where he wasn't even the most important player on the team.

[jjgman21]

 

That being said, it is also ludicrous to discount a player because he has good team mates as well.

 

Furthermore, just like in baseball, the stats are a good way to battle subjectivity because it is unlikely anyone has watched every game of every season with an eye critical enough to make a valid observation apart from statistics.

 

for the first part...then stop arguing with people about the greatness of Andy Pettitte.

 

for the second part, where do I look up the stat for all the pancake blocks Payton put on blitzing linebackers?

[CuseCubFan69]

But you're holding the fact that they both had bigger and better bodies against them and I don't see how that's fair? I could see it if blacks or another race wasn't allowed to play but in Browns case that isn't it. What if there is a 6'8" 320 pound RB that could run a 3.8 40....is that his fault that others can't? Should that be held against him in the future when there may be scores of RB's that are that size and can run that fast? I look at how a player dominated their particular era and Brown was a man among boys and I think he should get credit for that and not compared to how he would do now. Besides, Jim is in his 60's and even averaging 4 a carry would be pretty good for a guy that age.

 

I'm very much holding the fact that they had bigger and better bodies against them. that's the entire point. it is not a question of talent, it is a question of what would they have done if they had to play in an era where they didn't have bigger and better bodies. I'm trying to put things into context so there is a reasonable basis for comparison. put any of today's all pro running backs into the backfield of 1950-60's NFL, and they too probably would have approached Brown's numbers. so who's not being treated fairly in the comparison?

 

Why not compare the Romans vs todays USA to see who would a war between the 2? You're also dealing with what if's and I'm talking about players playing against the competition of their day. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree because we see things 2 different ways on how to compare players from different era's.

[jjgman21]

 

You're comparing a 6'8" that can move to guys that are shorter but what your missing is that Mikan didn't dominate the game like Brown did. Yes, Mikan was a cordinated big guy but Brown owned defenses like no other. Chamberlain made the NBA change the key rule not Mikan. Mikan was an inovator but don't confuse that with being the best ever and IMO that's what you are doing.

 

Bingo. Wilt's 50.4 ppg average will never be touched. Wilt changed the game, not Mikan.

 

Mikan forced them to change the shotblock rule, the width of the lane, and institute the three second rule. not sure what rules you are saying they changed for Wilt.

 

During his career, his dominance precipitated many rules changes. These rules changed included widening the lane, instituting offensive goaltending and revising rules governing inbounding the ball and shooting free throws (Chamberlain would leap with the ball from behind the foul line to deposit the ball in the basket).

 

Chamberlain forced rule changes as well.

 

obviously my mistake. again the relative greatness of Mikan and Brown is not relevant to point I was making.

[jjgman21]

But you're holding the fact that they both had bigger and better bodies against them and I don't see how that's fair? I could see it if blacks or another race wasn't allowed to play but in Browns case that isn't it. What if there is a 6'8" 320 pound RB that could run a 3.8 40....is that his fault that others can't? Should that be held against him in the future when there may be scores of RB's that are that size and can run that fast? I look at how a player dominated their particular era and Brown was a man among boys and I think he should get credit for that and not compared to how he would do now. Besides, Jim is in his 60's and even averaging 4 a carry would be pretty good for a guy that age.

 

I'm very much holding the fact that they had bigger and better bodies against them. that's the entire point. it is not a question of talent, it is a question of what would they have done if they had to play in an era where they didn't have bigger and better bodies. I'm trying to put things into context so there is a reasonable basis for comparison. put any of today's all pro running backs into the backfield of 1950-60's NFL, and they too probably would have approached Brown's numbers. so who's not being treated fairly in the comparison?

 

Why not compare the Romans vs todays USA to see who would a war between the 2? You're also dealing with what if's and I'm talking about players playing against the competition of their day. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree because we see things 2 different ways on how to compare players from different era's.

 

weren't you supposed to change that sig?

[Jazz]

 

You're comparing a 6'8" that can move to guys that are shorter but what your missing is that Mikan didn't dominate the game like Brown did. Yes, Mikan was a cordinated big guy but Brown owned defenses like no other. Chamberlain made the NBA change the key rule not Mikan. Mikan was an inovator but don't confuse that with being the best ever and IMO that's what you are doing.

 

Bingo. Wilt's 50.4 ppg average will never be touched. Wilt changed the game, not Mikan.

 

Mikan forced them to change the shotblock rule, the width of the lane, and institute the three second rule. not sure what rules you are saying they changed for Wilt.

 

During his career, his dominance precipitated many rules changes. These rules changed included widening the lane, instituting offensive goaltending and revising rules governing inbounding the ball and shooting free throws (Chamberlain would leap with the ball from behind the foul line to deposit the ball in the basket).

 

Chamberlain forced rule changes as well.

 

obviously my mistake. again the relative greatness of Mikan and Brown is not relevant to point I was making.

 

Mikan changed the game 10x more than Wilt did

Mikan was the first dominant player in the proffessional basketball, face facts.

[jjgman21]

 

What I do have a problem with, and it has been displayed here, are those who ignorantly claim that Smith isn't even in the discussion.

 

 

I missed this part in my haste...

 

hey, another little dance around the no personal attacks rule, that's twice in one thread. I'm the only one that said it, Vance. it's obviously directed toward me. yeah, I know 'what you said was stupid' and 'your claims are ignorant.' big diff.

 

NY makes the point. when a guy is lingering around 10, and probably not in single digits, he isn't in the discussion, and no reference to his team generated stats or how well he followed his blockers (Walter/Barry/ Juice say 'huh? what's that?') changes the fact that he simply wasn't as good as probably a dozen others.

 

maybe we should start discussing Mantle with Cobb, Ruth, Williams, Aaron and Bonds.

[AI]

I haven't taken the time to read the whole thread, but, to me, its absolutely absurd to claim that Emmit Smith is even in the top three greatest running backs of all time. Great? Yes. Consistent? You bet. Longevity? Absolutely, especially if you considering hanging on way past your prime.

 

If I needed a running back for one game, one season or ten seasons, I take...

 

1. Jim Brown - to me, its not a discussion

2. Walter Payton

3. Barry Sanders

4. O.J. Simpson

5. Emmit Smith