The Greatest Running Back of All-Time

[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.

 

Mikan changed the game 10x more than Wilt did

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

 

huh? that was my point. your barking up the wrong tree.

I was just incorrect about who they changed some of the rules for.

[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.

 

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.

 

Just becasue you think "Mikan was the first dominant player in professional basketball" doesn't mean he necessarily changed the game more than Wilt did and definately didn't do it 10x more than Wilt.

[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.

 

I think I can do a little better than a wisecrack about your sig.

 

it just occurred to me that you said this earlier

 

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.

 

which is it? take a comparison through time or isolate on the way they played against the competition. you seems to want the best of both arguments. despite what you say, Mikan was completely dominant. scoring and rebounding titles up the yang, as well as rings. so why are you so quick to discount his greatness?

[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.

 

I think I can do a little better than a wisecrack about your sig.

 

it just occurred to me that you said this earlier

 

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.

 

which is it? take a comparison through time or isolate on the way they played against the competition. you seems to want the best of both arguments. despite what you say, Mikan was completely dominant. scoring and rebounding titles up the yang, as well as rings. so why are you so quick to discount his greatness?

 

Mikan was great there is no doubt about it. My comparision is that Brown is still considered one of the greatest RB's while Miken is below many big men when he is compared to them. If you asked the question...who is the greatest big man in basketball history who would be among the top 3?

[da bears]

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

 

I'm with you. Although I was too young to see most of those guys play, so since my usernam is da bears, I'll go ahead and say Payton was the best, with Brown a close second. Smith is a distant fifth.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

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.

 

When discussing the best backs in history, there are only four invited into the discussion: Payton, Smith, Brown, Sanders. The others don't have the resume' to get in.

 

There is a lot of evidence that can be used to support a case for each. To exclude the guy who holds the top spot in the key rushing categories is stupid, ludicrous, outrageous, and many other adjectives. I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking the belief that you don't include in the discussion the back who holds the key records.

 

The same is true if we're discussing the best HR hitters of all time. To begin the discussion without including Aaron is ludicrous. We may after debate decide he isn't the top HR hitter, but to leave him out of the discussion is stupid. I'm not attacking anyone in particular, but the idea of such. My opinion on that doesn't change.

 

If you don't like team generated stats, fine. Show me a metric...that measures on-field production independent of "team" and we'll use it. Until you can do that, my conjecture is as good as yours.....and I have at least some stats to back up my claim that Smith is the best. You have nothing but conjecture and unsubstantiated opinion.

[AI]

Smith is in the conversation, to be sure. But I highly doubt that any GM, past or present takes Smith over Brown, Sanders or Payton.

 

You keep citing Smith's longevity, but to me, it was his complete inability to walk away from a game that had passed him by. He's not to be rewarded for this. He wanted Payton's record and he has it, but he's not a better back.

 

Payton had a better yd/carry, yds/rec. and is only one behind Smith in 100 yard games, while having played less games. He would have tied smith for 11 straight 1000 yd seasons if it wasn't for the strike.

 

Jim Brown only led the league in rushing EIGHT TIMES, three more than anyone else. His 5.22 yd/carry is absurd.

 

The fact that you are a Cowboy fan clouds your judgment, which is unfortunate. I'm a Steeler fan and I hate everything ever associated with the Cleveland Browns, but the guy was the best ever.

[BigSlick]

 

IThe same is true if we're discussing the best HR hitters of all time. To begin the discussion without including Aaron is ludicrous. We may after debate decide he isn't the top HR hitter, but to leave him out of the discussion is stupid. I'm not attacking anyone in particular, but the idea of such. My opinion on that doesn't change.

 

 

I'd like to address this. Of course Aaron should be in the discussion, but is he the best all time?

 

Listen, he had 40 more home runs than Babe Ruth. In terms of raw numbers, he had more home runs.

 

But he also accomplished this in 4,000 more at bats. So is he really the best all time?

 

I mean, its the same with some of these running backs and Emmitt Smith, in my opinion. Yes, in terms of raw totals, he has the market cornered...but he also played much much longer and thus had less "impact" seasons, and not to knock Emmitt, but for all that longevity and consistency, it sure took him a long time to crack those records.

[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.

 

huh? that was my point. your barking up the wrong tree.

I was just incorrect about who they changed some of the rules for.

 

i knew that was your point

that post was more in support / counterpoint of the post above you, prbly shouldnt ahve quoted yours.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

IThe same is true if we're discussing the best HR hitters of all time. To begin the discussion without including Aaron is ludicrous. We may after debate decide he isn't the top HR hitter, but to leave him out of the discussion is stupid. I'm not attacking anyone in particular, but the idea of such. My opinion on that doesn't change.

 

 

I'd like to address this. Of course Aaron should be in the discussion, but is he the best all time?

 

Listen, he had 40 more home runs than Babe Ruth. In terms of raw numbers, he had more home runs.

 

But he also accomplished this in 4,000 more at bats. So is he really the best all time?

 

I mean, its the same with some of these running backs and Emmitt Smith, in my opinion. Yes, in terms of raw totals, he has the market cornered...but he also played much much longer and thus had less "impact" seasons, and not to knock Emmitt, but for all that longevity and consistency, it sure took him a long time to crack those records.

 

It took him a long time mainly because the one who held the record (Payton) was also noted for his longevity.

 

It also should be noted that Smith broke Payton's rushing record his final season in Dallas (13th). Payton also played in 13 seasons. Even without those final years in Arizona, Smith would still be the rushing yards leader and the leader in rushing TD's. He would have still trailed Payton in total yards from scrimmage by a back and total TD's by a RB.

 

Those last two records he needed the season in Arizona to accomplish.

 

Furthermore, Smith's last season in Arizona was nearly if not as good as Payton's last season in Chicago.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

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.

 

Hank Aaron is overrated. He had incredible longevity and consistency, but he never had ridiculous years like Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, etc. had. I don't think he ever had more than ~45 homers in a season, not saying thats not great, but he isn't the best home run hitter of all time. Just for some comparison, Aaron had 40 more homers than Babe Ruth in 4,000 more at bats.

 

BTW, just to add to the discussion, Payton is the best, end of discussion.

 

C'mon, Emmitt Smith isn't better, don't be ridiculous.

 

And by what metric do you support this?

 

I'm not being ridiculous.

 

Smith: #1 Rushing TD's.

Smith: #1 Rushing yards.

Smith: #1 Yards from scrimmage by a RB.

Smith: #1 TD's by a RB.

 

He was the most productive RB in the history of the NFL. Sure that was due to longevitiy which should be a credit to him. Look at the average career of an NFL running back. The fact that Smith showed the toughness to stick it out and be productive through all those seasons is a testament to his greatness.

 

The same could be said about Aaron in baseball. He was remarkably consistent in hitting HR's. Whether or not he is the greatest HR hitter, I'm not sure, but he certainly isn't overrated.

 

So if someone rated Aaron as the greatest HR hitter, what would he be?[/b]

[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.

 

Hank Aaron is overrated. He had incredible longevity and consistency, but he never had ridiculous years like Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, etc. had. I don't think he ever had more than ~45 homers in a season, not saying thats not great, but he isn't the best home run hitter of all time. Just for some comparison, Aaron had 40 more homers than Babe Ruth in 4,000 more at bats.

 

BTW, just to add to the discussion, Payton is the best, end of discussion.

 

C'mon, Emmitt Smith isn't better, don't be ridiculous.

 

And by what metric do you support this?

 

I'm not being ridiculous.

 

Smith: #1 Rushing TD's.

Smith: #1 Rushing yards.

Smith: #1 Yards from scrimmage by a RB.

Smith: #1 TD's by a RB.

 

He was the most productive RB in the history of the NFL. Sure that was due to longevitiy which should be a credit to him. Look at the average career of an NFL running back. The fact that Smith showed the toughness to stick it out and be productive through all those seasons is a testament to his greatness.

 

The same could be said about Aaron in baseball. He was remarkably consistent in hitting HR's. Whether or not he is the greatest HR hitter, I'm not sure, but he certainly isn't overrated.

 

So if someone rated Aaron as the greatest HR hitter, what would he be?[/b]

 

I would say someone could say that Aaron is the greatest HR hitter of all time and be fully justified in that opinion.

[BigSlick]

 

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.

 

Hank Aaron is overrated. He had incredible longevity and consistency, but he never had ridiculous years like Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, etc. had. I don't think he ever had more than ~45 homers in a season, not saying thats not great, but he isn't the best home run hitter of all time. Just for some comparison, Aaron had 40 more homers than Babe Ruth in 4,000 more at bats.

 

BTW, just to add to the discussion, Payton is the best, end of discussion.

 

C'mon, Emmitt Smith isn't better, don't be ridiculous.

 

And by what metric do you support this?

 

I'm not being ridiculous.

 

Smith: #1 Rushing TD's.

Smith: #1 Rushing yards.

Smith: #1 Yards from scrimmage by a RB.

Smith: #1 TD's by a RB.

 

He was the most productive RB in the history of the NFL. Sure that was due to longevitiy which should be a credit to him. Look at the average career of an NFL running back. The fact that Smith showed the toughness to stick it out and be productive through all those seasons is a testament to his greatness.

 

The same could be said about Aaron in baseball. He was remarkably consistent in hitting HR's. Whether or not he is the greatest HR hitter, I'm not sure, but he certainly isn't overrated.

 

So if someone rated Aaron as the greatest HR hitter, what would he be?[/b]

 

I would say someone could say that Aaron is the greatest HR hitter of all time and be fully justified in that opinion.

 

LKASD;LKFJASD;LKJF;LASDKJF

 

SDAFJ;LKASDJF;LASKDJLFJASF

 

COPY PASTED FROM MY PREVIOUS POST:

 

I'd like to address this. Of course Aaron should be in the discussion, but is he the best all time?

 

Listen, he had 40 more home runs than Babe Ruth. In terms of raw numbers, he had more home runs.

 

But he also accomplished this in 4,000 more at bats. So is he really the best all time?

 

I mean, its the same with some of these running backs and Emmitt Smith, in my opinion. Yes, in terms of raw totals, he has the market cornered...but he also played much much longer and thus had less "impact" seasons, and not to knock Emmitt, but for all that longevity and consistency, it sure took him a long time to crack those records.

_________________

[AI]

 

IThe same is true if we're discussing the best HR hitters of all time. To begin the discussion without including Aaron is ludicrous. We may after debate decide he isn't the top HR hitter, but to leave him out of the discussion is stupid. I'm not attacking anyone in particular, but the idea of such. My opinion on that doesn't change.

 

 

I'd like to address this. Of course Aaron should be in the discussion, but is he the best all time?

 

Listen, he had 40 more home runs than Babe Ruth. In terms of raw numbers, he had more home runs.

 

But he also accomplished this in 4,000 more at bats. So is he really the best all time?

 

I mean, its the same with some of these running backs and Emmitt Smith, in my opinion. Yes, in terms of raw totals, he has the market cornered...but he also played much much longer and thus had less "impact" seasons, and not to knock Emmitt, but for all that longevity and consistency, it sure took him a long time to crack those records.

 

It took him a long time mainly because the one who held the record (Payton) was also noted for his longevity.

 

It also should be noted that Smith broke Payton's rushing record his final season in Dallas (13th). Payton also played in 13 seasons. Even without those final years in Arizona, Smith would still be the rushing yards leader and the leader in rushing TD's. He would have still trailed Payton in total yards from scrimmage by a back and total TD's by a RB.

 

Those last two records he needed the season in Arizona to accomplish.

 

Furthermore, Smith's last season in Arizona was nearly if not as good as Payton's last season in Chicago.

 

you do realize payton lost a part of year in his prime because of the '82 strike. without that, i think emmitt would need the arizona debacle to break the record.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I would likely go with Ruth as the best HR hitter, but if someone argued Aaron that wouldn't be over-rating him. They would be justified in that opinion.

 

Taking everything into account, I do believe that Smith is the best running back of all time.

 

He had a 9-year run nearly as good as Brown. Throw in his longevity, touchdowns, and yes, championships and the scale tips even further.

 

Would Jim Brown have been just as good if he had played longer than nine seasons? I don't know, but he wanted to be an actor. Bad career choice in my opinion.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Furthermore, this article was posted earlier in this thread. I disagree with his conclusion, but the data is good.

 

I suggest you look at it.

 

The data shows this:

 

Dealing with rushing numbers:

It depends on the argument you want to make here. In the first nine seasons, Emmitt Smith had the most rushing yards in the games he could play while Jim Brown had the best yards per game, yards per carry and tied with Emmitt for how often he scored a touchdown. Barry Sanders actually had the most yardage in the first nine seasons played.

 

Dealing with receiving numbers:

Emmitt again comes out on top overall in number of games and receptions, but Payton covered the most yardage and still Brown was the best at actually scoring on a pass. Looking at per game averages, Brown was the best at gaining yards and scoring while Payton had the slightly better yardage per game.

 

Here are the conclusions drawn over the first nine years of each of these four backs.

Once again, Emmitt shows up as the heavy use back and the most durable. Sanders rushing yards made him as the best in the first nine seasons at running down the field while defenders chased him and likely looked silly trying to keep up. Per game, Jim Brown was the best at yards, scores and yards per touch. Pretty important.

 

So considering these numbers, with the career marks, allow me to make some awards. Quite simply, there is no answer to the question "Who is the greatest running back ever" because that quality relies on what you are measuring. All four running backs here were the best at something, so it is only fair to give them all equal props on their accomplishments. Let's be serious - an offensive coordinator would say a prayer of thanks each day if he had any of these four players. After four decades, these are the best runners by any measure.

 

So, in using only the first nine years of each player's career, Smith holds his own versus Payton, Brown, and Sanders.

 

Given that is fairly equal and that Emmitt was able to stay productive longer, I give the nod to him based on career numbers.

[jaydee]

 

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.

 

Most yardage from scrimmage? Isn't that pointless? None of the great pass catching running backs have retired yet. Smith is overrated. Sanders was better. Payton was better. Brown was better. Sayers would of been better. Bo Jackson would of been as well.

[AI]

I would likely go with Ruth as the best HR hitter, but if someone argued Aaron that wouldn't be over-rating him. They would be justified in that opinion.

 

Taking everything into account, I do believe that Smith is the best running back of all time.

 

He had a 9-year run nearly as good as Brown. Throw in his longevity, touchdowns, and yes, championships and the scale tips even further.

 

Would Jim Brown have been just as good if he had played longer than nine seasons? I don't know, but he wanted to be an actor. Bad career choice in my opinion.

 

If Jim Brown, Walter Payton and Barry Sanders had been on the Cowboys at the same time (and obviously at their proper age and skill level) do you think that any of those three would have better numbers than Emmitt? I think they all would. Additionally, I think you are giving way too much credit to longevity. Big deal. He hung around until people laughed at him and called him washed up. I don't think he accomplished enough by that point to be considered the best ever. In comparison, Jordan did the same thing (hanging around too long) but his body of work through 1998 already made him the best ever.

 

Also, purely playing a numbers game makes it difficult when talking about football. Its easier with baseball because of the individualized nature of the sport as it relates to many statistics, but football is different because there is greater interdependency among teammates.

 

You can throw all the statistics you want at me, but can you really tell me that when you watched Emmitt that he was better than Payton, Brown or Sanders? I just can't.

[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.

 

Most yardage from scrimmage? Isn't that pointless? None of the great pass catching running backs have retired yet. Smith is overrated. Sanders was better. Payton was better. Brown was better. Sayers would of been better. Bo Jackson would of been as well.

 

In what way were they better. The numbers don't bear out that conclusion. Smith was the best RB in gaining yards over the course of his career and scoring touchdowns. Those are crucial to the work of a running back.

 

Jackson maybe would've been better, but the fact remains he wasn't. Is it a shame he got hurt? Of course, but that's sports. How many "would-be" greats are there in every sport who never reached that level because of injury?

 

Part of being great in any sport is staying healthy enough to be on the field.

[YearofDaCubs]

The last time Smith played at a high level was in 2000. From 2001-2004 he was terrible. Payton played at a high level every year that he played besides his last one and he retired at the right time. I don't even have Smith in my top 5, and I believe having him as the top RB of all time is laughable, very. It's pretty obvious Smith was doing more harm to his team than good by extending his career from 2001-2004. I'm a Bears fan and I believe the best to be Jim Brown, w/ Payton 2nd or 3rd. Smith top RB of all time? HAHA not even close.

[hawkcub]

Smith was a good RB who had excellent luck. Most average RB would have been Pro Bowlers with that team. With out the Cowboys of the '90's he has a good NFL career. With the Cowboys he is a Hall of Famer. Payton, Sanders, and Brown were the team. They achieved their yards with out the great supporting cast.

[Andy]

My list:

1) Brown (not by that much)

2) Sanders

3) Payton

4) Smith

 

And by the time his career is over, LT will pass Smith and quite possibly Payton depending how long he can maintain current performance.

 

Another thing: The NFL didn't expand to a 16-game schedule until 1978, Payton's fourth year. How many more yards then, one wonders?

[soccer10k]

My list:

1) Brown (not by that much)

2) Sanders

3) Payton

4) Smith

 

And by the time his career is over, LT will pass Smith and quite possibly Payton depending how long he can maintain current performance.

 

Another thing: The NFL didn't expand to a 16-game schedule until 1978, Payton's fourth year. How many more yards then, one wonders?

 

By extrapolation Payton would have ended up with around 17200 yards.

 

Doing the same thing for Jim Brown - 12 game schedule for his first 4 years and 14 game schedule for his last 5 - gives him around 15000 yards.

 

As long as we are bringing up 14 game seasons, FYI O.J. theoretically would have ended up with almost 2300 yards in 1973. Just thought I would throw that one out there.

[Outshined_One]

And by the time his career is over, LT will pass Smith and quite possibly Payton depending how long he can maintain current performance.

 

I think this will be a fun topic of conversation in a few years if Tomlinson can stay healthy. He's the one RB I've seen since Payton retired who actually reminds me of Walter, right down to his passing TDs, great blocking, and excellent ability to catch the ball out of the backfield.

 

He's 27 and entering his prime years. If SD gets a semi-competent offense in order, we could be slipping Tomlinson's name into this discussion in ten years. It's a shame most people only know him from highlights and fantasy football due to people ignoring the west coast; the guy is hands down the best RB in the NFL today.

[Jazz]

this thread pains me

because i know

if terrell davis had not had that injury

we would be talking about him in the same breath as these guys.

oh well.