11/21/24
February 01, 2005
Emmitt Smith will be retiring today: to join an investment group trying to buy the Minnesota Vikings, according to the St. Paul Pioneer Press. To put his 18,355 yards in perspective, Curtis Martin must gain another 4,989 yards to catch 22.
I think Emmitt stayed in the game for one purpose: Pushing the all-time yardage number as high as he could. It's a shame he couldn't have retired as a Cowboy. He wouldn't have done any worse as a spot runner for Dallas than Eddie George.
posted by rcade at 10:14 AM on February 01, 2005
He's still no Barry Sanders...
posted by MeatSaber at 10:21 AM on February 01, 2005
Emmitt Smith is still one of the Best Running Backs of all time and nobody can take that away from him....Houston Texans Fan.....
posted by hairwizard at 10:25 AM on February 01, 2005
Remind me again how many rings Barry Sanders has. You can say it's because of their teams, but remember that Sanders' Lions reached the playoffs five times in the '90s. Looking at his postseason stats, he came up big once and laid four eggs. Sanders averaged 64 yards in six playoff games and scored 1 touchdown. Smith averaged 93 in 17 games and scored 19. Emmitt Smith will be remembered as one of the strongest and most determined running backs in NFL history. His game with a separated shoulder against the New York Giants in 1994, with 168 yards rushing and 61 yards receiving in spite of the injury, ranks as one of the greatest performances of all time. As good as Sanders was, Smith was a much tougher back who could carry his team in the postseason no matter how good the opponent was.
posted by rcade at 10:44 AM on February 01, 2005
I think the difference between Sanders and Smith is how they got their yards. Smith was consistent; you could give him the ball and expect a gain. Sanders was erratic; his yards came in big clumps. Most of the time, you'd get a small gain or a loss, but they'd be offset by periodic huge gains. Really exciting to watch, but tough to plan a game around. Actually, the Vikings' offense suffers from the same problem now: it's all built around erratic-but-big plays.
posted by cobra! at 11:04 AM on February 01, 2005
We'll never know how Barry Sanders would have turned out on the all time yardage chart. That is if he would have played longer. To me Smith is the best all around back. However Jim Brown had a marvelous career and must be in the picture! It not all about the yardage.
posted by daddisamm at 11:20 AM on February 01, 2005
True Emmitt is and will be one of the best backs in football. Redskin fan
posted by COACH.RACCCK at 11:24 AM on February 01, 2005
We knew this day was coming, and sooner rather than later. I'm glad Emmitt made sure he had gotten as much playing out of his system as he could. (Doubtless he could have strung this out another few years if he really wanted to, but if the opportunity to step into the owner's box is there now, good on him.)
posted by chicobangs at 11:30 AM on February 01, 2005
So let's follow the chain of events here. Vikes trade the farm to Dallas for Herschel Walker, Dallas drafts Emmitt Smith, they win a bunch of Superbowls, Emmitt is one of the greatest RBs ever, he retires, joins group to buy the Vikes. My favorite Smith story. I was young, don't remember how old, but all I wanted for Christmas was a "E. Smith / 22" jersey. Mom goes shopping, buys me a "Smith / 22" jersey. I pout like a child because it doesn't have the "E", so it's not authentic. It gets returned.
posted by emoeby at 11:35 AM on February 01, 2005
Remind me again how many rings Barry Sanders has. I have no horse in this supposed race, but I can't agree with this notion that your career means nothing unless you win a ring. How many did Dan Marino win? Bruce Smith? Fran Tarkenton? Warren Moon? Gayle Sayers? Rod Woodson? etc, etc, etc ... I just don't think that winning a championship is the defining moment in INDIVIDUAL achievments. We were discussing Smith, et al, and their contributions to the individual career rushing. Claiming that Barry Sanders achievements don't measure up because he never won the Super Bowl isn't fair. Heck, Barry Sanders apparently came close to not even getting to run in college, let alone the NFL.
posted by scully at 12:09 PM on February 01, 2005
Lebron, Carmelo, and Dwayne don't have a ring. Darko does.
posted by charlatan at 12:34 PM on February 01, 2005
Seems that everyone is focused on Barry vs. Emmitt. Remember a guy by the name Jim Brown? Not sure Emmitt could carry this guys jock strap around. Played only ten years and left on top. His career stats are pretty damn good and the first years of his career he fueded somewhat with his coach or they'd probably be better. Just a thought.
posted by bigwhisky at 01:05 PM on February 01, 2005
Damn it charlatan, you stole my point... I don't want to start a pissing match over who's better...they're both easily in the top 5 or 10 of all time. My opinion is that Barry Sanders was better than Emmitt Smith, and I'm sticking to that opinion. I can spout my reasons if you want, but everybody here probably knows them all anyway... =D
posted by MeatSaber at 01:15 PM on February 01, 2005
Barry Sanders was more exciting. Emmitt Smith was more consistent. Jim Brown was more dominating. Walter Payton was a mix of all three features. That's how I see it.
posted by grum@work at 01:27 PM on February 01, 2005
you make a good point grum.
posted by bigwhisky at 02:02 PM on February 01, 2005
I don't want to start a pissing match over who's better... You already did. Claiming that Barry Sanders achievements don't measure up because he never won the Super Bowl isn't fair. That's not what I'm claiming. Barry had six chances in the postseason to show up, and he only did once. For all we know, if he was more like Emmitt and could elevate his game in the playoffs, the Lions might have reached the Super Bowl. I don't fault anyone for leaving the NFL early -- the sport takes a huge toll, especially on running backs. But when we're judging the greatness of Emmitt Smith, to say that he's no Barry Sanders is a joke. Sanders had five shots in the postseason, and he made the most of none of them. Smith came up big year after year in the playoffs. Smith lacked some of Sanders' speed and athleticism, but he made up for it in fortitude, determination, and power. I don't see how anyone could judge Sanders the better back.
posted by rcade at 02:10 PM on February 01, 2005
Easily my favorite NFL films to watch, ever, are of Jim Brown stomping all over about 5 guys--runs where you think he's finished three or four times, but then he's the only one standing at the end. So I think he was the best, but that's because I like to watch those kinds of plays. At the level of excellence we're talking about with Smith, Sanders, Payton, et al, I guess rankings sometimes wind up reflecting personal preferences. If games with Sanders and Smith were on different channels, I'd be really torn. They were all a blast to watch, no? And Emmitt sure was fun to watch on Letterman, too.
posted by Uncle Toby at 02:34 PM on February 01, 2005
Trying to drag this back on topic, I wonder: Is Smith "just" an investor in this group or, like Gretzky, will he become the senior executive?
posted by billsaysthis at 02:51 PM on February 01, 2005
Well, anyone who suggests that Smith wasn't hanging on at the end is fooling themselves. Did it affect his legacy? Well, a few Superbowls might argue otherwise, but on the whole he's probably underrated - maybe the most rugid, dependable back in history. Sanders really doesn't warrant a lot of mention - the Vince Carter of running backs. It ain't like he retired with nothing left to prove. He had EVERYTHING to prove.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:01 PM on February 01, 2005
He's still no Barry Sanders... I can't stand the Cowboys and I never was an Emmett fan...always felt he got more respect than Sanders. I always had the impression that he cared more about stats than anything else (saving every TD ball for himself as an example). My opinion of Emmett changed after I saw a dual interview with him and Barry. When they were asked who was the better back, Emmett jumped in quickly and said that Barry was, hands down. Imagine how many yards Barry would have put up on that same Cowboys team? Yikes. Emmett was an awesome runner to be sure...but you could drive two trucks through some of the holes that O-line gave him.
posted by stofer71 at 03:03 PM on February 01, 2005
Trying to drag this back on topic, I wonder: Is Smith "just" an investor in this group or, like Gretzky, will he become the senior executive? All of the Twin Cities media makes it sound like Fowler is the central figure in the group. I think Smith would just be a partner.
posted by cobra! at 03:07 PM on February 01, 2005
That's not what I'm claiming. Barry had six chances in the postseason to show up, and he only did once. And you base this all on Barry's numbers? Were all the offensive linemen healthy, and blocking well against the pass rush as well as blocking well for the rushing game? Hell, did the quarterback even establish a passing game, and therefore give the rushing game a chance? There are far too many variables in any given game to simply say that so-and-so didn't "show up." Again, I don't have a horse in this race, but this is comparing apples and oranges. I am glad to see Emmitt is looking after his future and doing his part to help establish minority ownership. The White Men's Sports Club needs to have its glass ceiling smashed.
posted by scully at 03:09 PM on February 01, 2005
Double post warning!! Just did the ever so exciting Emmitt (spelled correctly in this post) poll on ESPN, and this question was part of it: 6) Emmitt Smith vs. Barry Sanders: Which statement is more accurate? 61.0% Emmitt Smith would not be the NFL's all-time leading rusher had he played for Detroit. 17.7% Both are equally true. 17.3% Neither is true. 4.1% The Cowboys would not have won as many Super Bowls with Barry Sanders. PS...I voted with the majority, Emmitt got his rings (and a bunch of extra yards) because the Cowboys were good. He was part of why they were good...not the reason why they were good.
posted by stofer71 at 03:12 PM on February 01, 2005
you make a good point grum. It's a "looking-at-stats, seeing-2-of-them-run-in-their-prime, one-at-the-end-and-one-strictly-through-NFL-films-highlights, never-having-played-the-game-because-I'd-be-snapped-in-two-on-the-first-hit, only-a-one-team-regular-season-and-league-playoffs-fan" point. I'd have no problem defering to the more informed and passionate fans of the game on a matter like this.
posted by grum@work at 03:35 PM on February 01, 2005
Whoa, whoa for a second. He was part of why there were good, but not the reason? So any running back with a modicum of talent could have won all those rings? Specious reasoning to be sure. At some point yu have to give credit to the guy who actually got the job done - the rest is such unsupportable speculation that it makes.... websites like this possible.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:43 PM on February 01, 2005
So, he was good, very good. Not any shmuck plugged into his place could have won all those rings- most of the running backs the league has ever seen would have been worse, and probably won fewer titles. But I have to agree with the phrasing of the ESPN poll- Sanders was better. In the glory years, Emmitt had one of the great offensive lines of all time and one of the most efficient, reliable QBs of all time. Sanders had... well, neither of those things :)
posted by tieguy at 03:58 PM on February 01, 2005
And you base this all on Barry's numbers? Were all the offensive linemen healthy, and blocking well against the pass rush as well as blocking well for the rushing game? Sheesh. Now I know how Brady fans feel. This isn't fantasy football; scoreboard matters. How far are we willing to go to excuse Sanders for weak numbers in five of the six playoff games he played? How can a running back be considered the best ever without a single year in which his team -- good enough to reach the postseason five times in one decade -- only won one playoff game? Yes, Smith was elevated by great teams. But Sanders was not another Corey Dillon running for the woebegotten Bengals. A year before Smith won his first Super Bowl with the Cowboys, the Lions were the better team, beating Dallas 38-6 in the playoffs. The next year, Smith was the biggest reason that Dallas beat the Niners in San Francisco in the NFC Championship game. He took over in the second half, and gained 114 rushing yards and 59 receiving yards, with two touchdowns. Shouldn't the best back ever -- as people often say about Sanders -- have been able to take a good team at least to a conference championship?
posted by rcade at 04:23 PM on February 01, 2005
That's just stupid. It is stretching it a bit even for basketball (where a great player will get 19-20% of the minutes played in a game by his team) to say that one player makes it- Jordan didn't win anything without Pippen, Shaq without Kobe, etc. In football, even the greatest running back plays maybe 5% of the team's total minutes (assuming his play makes the team hold the ball longer, and he never gets subbed out situationally), and on 1/2 of those plays he doesn't touch the ball. So, no, the best running back can't carry a team with mediocre D and a poor QB to the conference championship, or even the playoffs. The best running back I've ever seen play football in person (Troy Davis) had not one but two 2,000 yard seasons in college playing against 8 and 9 man fronts because his teams had no other threats. His teams were 3-8 and 2-9 those two years.
posted by tieguy at 05:28 PM on February 01, 2005
... the best running back can't carry a team with mediocre D and a poor QB to the conference championship, or even the playoffs. Not what I said. The best back ever, on a team good enough to reach the playoffs five times in 10 years, should have been able to play well enough for his team to win more than one measly playoff game. Sanders wasn't a big-game player. Jim Brown, the player to whom Sanders is most often compared, led his team to one title and another conference championship game.
posted by rcade at 05:52 PM on February 01, 2005
I'll lay it out for you all :) Jim Brown is not only the greatest RB of all time, he's arguably the greatest football player ever. He did in 9 years of 12 and 14 game seasons what took the rest of them over 10 years of 16 game seasons to pass. 9 years, 9 pro bowls, led the league 8 times. 9 years of being the entire team, the focus of every defensive player and cheap shot in the league...never missed a play. On the Barry v. Emmit front I have to go with Barry. The man rushed for 2000 one season playing for the Lions. The LIONS! He got the Lions to the playoffs. These are Herculean feats in and of themselves. In case you didn't know, the Lions haven't been what you'd call a good team since Bobby Layne was under center. Emmitt, while a great back, was also on one of the best teams in NFL history. He was part of the triplets. He had a great O-Line and Daryl Johnston. He also had some nice career longevity to help him out. And please, with the rings argument. It doesn't really hold in most sports, but definitely not for football. What is this, a Jeter thread? ;)
posted by pivo at 06:42 PM on February 01, 2005
Ouch.
posted by rcade at 08:35 PM on February 01, 2005
He's still no Barry Sanders... And Sanders was no Emmitt Smith. Towards the end of his career I remember the lions taking barry out on goal line plays because he'd always get stuffed. Big controversy. Of course, that's one place where emmitt excelled. Two different backs, two different talents. If I wanted my back to go 60 yards in one play, I'd pick barry. If it was fourth and 4 at the goal line, smith. Remember a guy by the name Jim Brown? Not sure Emmitt could carry this guys jock strap around. Nonsense. Many people think brown is the best football player ever, but can't carry his jock strap? The alltime yards leader? 3 rings? You have to be joking. Imagine how many yards Barry would have put up on that same Cowboys team? Yikes. All we CAN do is imagine, because we don't know how barry would have done. Emmitt waited for the line to open holes. The offense was designed for smith. Barry didn't wait for anything. To take it as fact that barry would have done better than emmitt on the cowboys is a mistake. He was part of why they were good...not the reason why they were good. You might want to ask troy that question, or either Johnson. Many here might not remember this, but when emmitt was out the cowboys completely broke down. He was the glue. During the cowboys run it was widely accepted that emmitt was the glue for the offense. He was far more than a "part". Emmitt, while a great back, was also on one of the best teams in NFL history. See, that's why the debate is meaningless. The logic: Emmitt was on great teams and Barry was on bad teams, so Barry must be better than Emmitt. Emmitt will never be able to overcome that logic, no matter how faulty. Who knows if Barry would have kept at his pace or slowed down quickly. It happens to running backs sometimes. But because Barry just left, we all assume he had a ton more great seasons in him. Combine all this with Barry's flashy play, and Emmitt doesn't have a chance.
posted by justgary at 08:36 PM on February 01, 2005
Puh-leeze, You know in most of these who's better arguments you've got one guy with all the stats and one guy with all the rings. Well, Emmit's got all the stats and all the rings. What ... are we supposed to be blown away by Barry's career *yards per carry*?
posted by Mike McD at 08:54 PM on February 01, 2005
As good as Sanders was, Smith was a much tougher back who could carry his team in the postseason no matter how good the opponent was. Sanders probably wishes he was rushing behind all those Pro Bowlers every year like Emmit did. It seemed like every yard Sanders gained was all on his own. It makes a huge difference rcade.
posted by smithnyiu at 08:56 PM on February 01, 2005
Fine. Emmitt benefited from being surrounded by great players. So, then did Barry benefit from playing for the Lions? Sure he did. How many teams cared how many yards he got when they knew that the Lions weren't going to win anyway? It's like Marc Bulger throwing for 400 yards in a loss against New England. Does that make Bulger a better quarterback than Brady? Wouldn't it mean that he's so much better because he doesn't have the defence that Brady does? Of course not. Was Sanders more talented than Smith? Absolutely - but who gives a shit? Who produced when it counted the most? And how can that not matter?
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 09:35 PM on February 01, 2005
It seemed like every yard Sanders gained was all on his own. The key word there is "seemed".
posted by justgary at 09:42 PM on February 01, 2005
The lack of support for Sweetness in these discussions is quite interesting. I never would have suspected he didn't rank that high with the experts...
posted by grum@work at 10:38 PM on February 01, 2005
So, then did Barry benefit from playing for the Lions? Sure he did. Let me see if I got this straight: Barry Sanders gained more yards because he played on a shitty team. Did you really just say that?
posted by smithnyiu at 10:42 PM on February 01, 2005
Jim Brown is not only the greatest RB of all time, he's arguably the greatest football player ever. He did in 9 years of 12 and 14 game seasons what took the rest of them over 10 years of 16 game seasons to pass. Amen to that, and I'll add did it outside on grass and in a system that was decidedly pro-defense. Neither Emmitt nor Barry can hold a candle to JB, and I say that as someone who saw Barry several times while he was still at Ok. State.
posted by Ufez Jones at 01:12 AM on February 02, 2005
just gary it seems you have a hard on for Emmitt. Not saying he wasn't one of the greats but be honest w/yourself. On sunday who would you rather watch. Emmitt for three yards and a cloud of dust or Barry and a forty yard misdirection three yard gain. Also in reference to Brown's jockstrap, have you seen the power runs this man put together. He could have played in this league today with his skills and power and intelligence. Not sure Emmitt scared the shit out of anyone like Brown or even Payton for that matter. Mi encanta!
posted by bigwhisky at 03:04 AM on February 02, 2005
Emmitt Smith in his prime rolled over the best teams in the league. If you don't think the Niners, Giants, Packers, and Bills had to game-plan their defense around the guy in the first half of the '90s, you must have been watching a different league than I did. The Lions were not a shitty team when Sanders played for them. They had a winning record in five of his 10 years, including one 12-4 and two 10-6 seasons, and he ran behind seven-time Pro Bowler Lomas Brown and three-time Pro Bowler Kevin Glover. The team also had another offensive threat: four-time Pro Bowl receiver Herman Moore.
posted by rcade at 08:15 AM on February 02, 2005
just gary it seems you have a hard on for Emmitt. No, I think you have a hard on for barry. Works both ways, huh? On sunday who would you rather watch. Emmitt for three yards and a cloud of dust or Barry and a forty yard misdirection three yard gain. You're asking the wrong person. I'll take execution over style any day. Each to his own. I don't know who the better back is, but these constant assumptions that barry would have been better than emmitt if he had played for the cowboys and if he hadn't retired wouldn't have seen a decline in skills are just that, assumptions. Can't prove them, can't disprove them. Also in reference to Brown's jockstrap, have you seen the power runs this man put together. I've seen the same 10 grainy video clips of brown running through and over people. I'm guessing that's what everyone here is basing their opinions on also. He could have played in this league today with his skills and power and intelligence. And emmitt could have played back then. Meaningless. Not sure Emmitt scared the shit out of anyone like Brown or even Payton for that matter. I'm with rcade on this one, we must have been watching different leagues. Neither Emmitt nor Barry can hold a candle to JB, and I say that as someone who saw Barry several times while he was still at Ok. State. The unfettered worship of Jim Brown has always amused me. Here we have a running back who's constantly number one on anyone's list. Spofi is no different, and yet I'm guessing no one here saw him play. We all go by a few old clips and second hand accounts. And he may have been the greatest of all time, but this whole "can't carry his jock strap" and "can't hold a candle to" is almost comical. You take the top five running backs of all time and there is simply no truth in those statements. They were all great, and the differences are minor compared to the similarities.
posted by justgary at 08:41 AM on February 02, 2005
I’ll just tell a story I remember about Emmit. Raiders/Cowboys game. Cowboys at the one or two yard line. They run Emmit up the gut. One of the Raiders LBs jumps over the line, his body is parallel to the ground. It was a once in a lifetime jump, he collides squarely with Emmit’s shoulder pads. What you think happened? Does Emmit go down? Nope. The hit staggers Emmit … his knees buckle and he stumbles but somehow he keeps his balance and keeps going forward, going in for the TD. Just imagine how much strength it took to absorb a hit from a 250 lb airborne LB and keep going? That dude was a champ. And I think that is essentially what the argument comes down to, who could exert their will when they needed to. Some of you seem to be forgetting the point of football. Football is a physical game. One team is trying to move the ball four yards up the field and the other team is trying to stop them. And at that … I don’t think there’s any question that Emmit was better than Barry. I think Barry could have been the greatest of alltime at a game of *tag* though. For everyone who’s questioning what Emmit would have done on another team, I think it is incumbent on you to explain to me how he rushed for 937 yards for the Arizona freaking Cardinals at age 35? Back when the Florida Gators weren’t that good Emmit was cranking out 100 yard games with staggering consistency. In fact, one of the first Smith covers on SI was ‘The 100 Yard Rusher’. It documented how remarkably consistent Emmit was at cranking out 100 yard games. He would have been great wherever he was.
posted by Mike McD at 10:22 AM on February 02, 2005
I don't think anyone in this thread is saying any of these guys were less than great. Emmitt was Great, Sandrs was Great, Payton and Jim Brown were certainly Great too. No one's disputing that. The question is, do you value raw talent over ultimate achievement? Sanders was the most talented back to ever play the position. Was the case for him hurt by his retiring too soon? Maybe. Was Emmitt's case hurt by going to the Cardinals instead of going to play golf? Maybe. But just like Marino, Moon and Tarkenton were great QBs despite never winning the Big One, Sanders belongs in this discussion. Behind Emmitt Smith. Who, with Jim Brown, sits one step on the all-time list behind the Greatest Running Back of All Time, someone who excelled in both short-yardage and big-play situations with equal class and style, and who has a ring himself: Walter Payton.
posted by chicobangs at 12:15 PM on February 02, 2005
And about that line, does anyone remember who was on that line? I do (and trust me, they looked awful before Emmitt arrived). Anyway, there was Mark Tuinei (an undrafted FA) at LT, there was Nate Newton (an undrafted FA) at RG, Mark Stepnoski (3rd round pick) was the center, Kevin Gogan (an 8th round pick) was the LG, and Erik Williams (3rd Round) was the RT. So to summarize, 2 undrafted FA, an 8th round pick, and two 3rd round picks. My point (other than the fact Newton, Tuinei, and Gogan were all there but somehow couldn’t manage to bust Paul Palmer for monster yards) is that no one on that line was a superstar, no Orlando Paces, Jonathann Ogdens, or Tony Bosellis. Sure Hudson Houck was a great OL coach but there were no superstars on that line until 1995 when Larry Allen became a starter (Allen was a little raw and didn’t start as a rookie) and Emmitt had already had his best seasons by then. And for Jim Brown, unless you’re 65 years old I don’t want to hear about it … because I suspect you’re in the same boat as me which means all you’ve seen is a highlight tape of JB. Tell the truth pivo and Bigwhiskey, what have you actually seen of JB? And if all you’ve seen is highlights … of course he looks good, it’s a fricking highlight tape, it’s supposed to look good. JB was playing at a time when the linemen only averaged 230lbs. That means he was just as big as the guys trying to tackle him. You just can’t compare different era’s. I’m sure JB would be good but he just wouldn’t be able to run over the Chester McGlockton’s of the world.
posted by Mike McD at 12:43 PM on February 02, 2005
I think Erik Williams was a superstar-caliber O lineman until that car accident on the Dallas North Tollway in 1994 wrecked his knee.
posted by rcade at 01:57 PM on February 02, 2005
Emmitt was ONE of the greatest running backs b/c he had class and a love of the game that is sorely mission in today's "show me the money" sports arena. However, it must be noted that Jim Brown's average yards per carry are much higher than anyone's, including Emmitt's.
posted by EmmittLover at 07:44 PM on February 03, 2005
What does class and love of the game have to do with quality? I can find a zillion guys who never made an NFL roster who had those and yet there are players like Ray and Jamal Lewis, Terrell Owens, and so on, who are top quality players but not much class at all. Emmitt was a great back, not saying different, but not for those qualities.
posted by billsaysthis at 12:08 AM on February 04, 2005
Anyone who even thinks Emmitt is even close to Barry is out of their minds. Emmitt Smith was a tough hard nosed runner and a great running back but 70% of his runs he didn't even get touched until he was 5 yards down field. Barry was dodging linemen the second he took the handoff. We won't even get started with the fact that he played with a Pro Bowler almost at every position for most of his career. Give Barry Aikman and Irvin spreding it out with Novacek thrown in there. Let Barry run behind one of the greatest lines ever and you copuldn't even imagine the numbers he would have put up. Please don't give me that crap a fullback would have gotten in his way or his yards for loss. He was the sole threat on his team and had 8 men in the box constantly eyeing him. Everytime he had a hole the man hit the hole quicker than anybody. Unfortunately, those holes were few. Has anyone ever seen him in college? He had a line and a fullback and what did he do? He had the greatest single season in collegiate history. 2,600 yards and 39 touchdowns. Not to mention him and Jim Brown are the only two backs in history with over 5.0 yards a carry. Emmitt was a great back on a dynasty, and despite what all Emmitt fans say, he didn't elevate his teams play or make them better. They made him look a lot better than he was. Nobody ever had the talent Barry had.
posted by murph21 at 12:29 PM on March 10, 2005
One more thing, you can't compare running backs from 20, 30 years ago. I'm Sorry, Jim Brown dominated when he played but he also didn't line up against Ray Lewis, LT, 300 Lb defensive linemen who run 4.6 40's. The game is much bigger and faster nowadays. There's now way he would outrun a Rod Woodson or run through Ronnie Lott.
posted by murph21 at 12:35 PM on March 10, 2005
I'm all for the Vikings getting sold, as long as they stay up here, will the Fowler group get it done though? I guess I didn't expect Emmitt Smith to be a part of that group, but that's cool. That is an average of 1,223.67 yards a season, right?...unless he was trying to get over 20,000 what did he have left to do really?