vance_the_cubs_fan

see my point earlier about Brown. I wonder how all the post 1970 RB's would like to play against defenses that didn't have a single player bigger than he was. He also could outrun those guys that were smaller or the same size as him. Obviously you're comparing different era's, but Jim Brown was a man amongst boys like Babe Ruth was in baseball. He had the total package as a runner and had some insane production. 1. Jim Brown 2. Walter Payton 3. Barry Sanders 4. Emmit Smith That's it, that's the list. like I said earlier, the better comparison for Jim Brown is George Mikan. Mikan completely dominated basketbal...but he was 6-8 inches taller than the next tallest guy on the court. same with Brown. Brown would have been great in any era, but to assume he would dominate like he did in the 50's against the defenses of the 70's - 00's is absurd. not a single guy could tackle Brown by himself when he was playing. most linebackers playing today could bring him down no problem. And that right there is why the "what-if" game is somewhat ridiculous here. We don't know what if, we do know what happened. Successful = productivity. Emmit Smith was the most productive back in history. That's true if you look at yardage or touchdowns. He even has the championships as well.

From what I read, the final ballot is selected by MLB from the pool of players who received the most votes on the player's ballots, but did not make the team. Statistically, AJP is the second best starting offensive catcher in the AL, by any measure, and is having a better season than the fan's choice. He was also on the 2002 AL AS team, selected by Joe Torre, during a lesser season than he is having now. I agree Hafner and Liriano should be on the ballot, but why the assumption that Liriano should be on the team? Liriano wasn't even a starting pitcher until seven weeks ago, and so far has only started against three teams in his own league- Seattle, Baltimore and LA Angels, all of which are at the bottom of the AL in offense. Throw in his NL starts, and he's only pitched against one team with an above average offense. I agree he will probably be an All Star in the future, but why not let him actually pitch around the league once or twice to prove it first? Have you followed baseball AT ALL outside of Chicago? Liriano is a freak and has been putting up stats at every level. Who cares if he started out in the pen? He's still the best pitcher in baseball. FWIW, I voted for Hafner. Once. With a confession like that, they're going to take away your WhiteSoxInteractive posting privledges. Didn't you hear the call to the Sox Army? ;)

Brewer fans talk up Cruz a bit, but I'm leary of 26 year old guys who have had 5 big league at bats. His AAA numbers are good this year, but the guy is in his 6th minor league season. Can he play CF, or is he strictly a corner outfielder? If he can play CF he is a little more intresting. That's my feeling as well. Cruz is a bit old for a prospect. I'd look at some other guys within the system. I'd push for Hart and then accept a lower prospect if necessary. I don't know much about Hart or what the Brewers needs are but couldn't the Cubs include a bullpen arm (Nova?) if Maddux wasn't enough by himself to get Hart? That's possible. I'd rather include Williamson than Novoa. Novoa could be a part of the Cubs' pen next season. Williamson will not.

I'm getting the feeling that we may not see Mulder until August or September.

This one should be closed early due to the mercy rule.

My list: 1. Smith 2. Payton 3. Brown 4. Sanders

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.

The number fifteen out to an early but commanding lead.

While that is funny, it is not the best Dusty quote of all time. That would be this one: The second best Dusty quote would be the Grudzielanek-girlfriend quote. I can't find that one right now. This one can compete for number three on the list.

I doubt it. Everyone else is wrong but the White Sox when it comes to pretty much anything baseball-related. And when did Hawk have the right to appropriate Andre Dawson's nickname? Dawson won an MVP for a last place team. Hawk Harrelson is best known for firing Tony Larussa And trading away a young Bobby Bonilla for nothing.

He was an ok blocking back. Surely not the greatest, but in Dallas' schemes with Moose Johnston on board, he wasn't asked to stay behind and block much.

We should do a FJM-like thread and dissect that chat piece by piece.

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

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.

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.

Brewer fans talk up Cruz a bit, but I'm leary of 26 year old guys who have had 5 big league at bats. His AAA numbers are good this year, but the guy is in his 6th minor league season. Can he play CF, or is he strictly a corner outfielder? If he can play CF he is a little more intresting. That's my feeling as well. Cruz is a bit old for a prospect. I'd look at some other guys within the system. I'd push for Hart and then accept a lower prospect if necessary.

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.

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.

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.

This could be the first upset in the tourney.

Mettalica is an easy vote here.

As much as I love Jimi Hendrix, I had to go with my metal past and vote Slayer.

I think The Who will win this one in a landslide.

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.

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.