Larry Allen Top 100 Greatest Players

[LAZARUS_LOGAN]

So, you think it has to do with the blocking scheme?

Uh no. It had to do with Barry's impatience, like I said.

 

[Cr122]

Then explain after the Cowboys won their 3rd (1st SBs featuring the Triplets), when Emmitt held out for two games because he wanted "Thurman Thomas money", and the Cowboys inserted the backup, what happened?

Tommy Agee, Derrick Gainer, Curvin Richards? lol

Don't go there. So I take it Mel Gray and Eric Lynch would of done just as well if Sanders was holding out.

 

[Midswat]

In my opinion, Emmitt was the better back than Sanders.

I agree that Sanders was the more naturally gifted guy. But you tell me I need a running back, and Emmitt and Barry are both available, I'm taking Emmitt without hesitation.

Truth be told, I don't understand why this is even a debate. Everyone looks at Jerry Rice - who holds all the crucial receiving records - as the GOAT without question. But the same doesn't apply to Emmitt Smith?

Did Emmitt have a great team around him? Yes. Did Jerry as well, to include playing with two Hall of Fame QB's? Yes.

Barry was exciting. I won't knock him one bit. I'd probably rank the top 5 backs in NFL history as follows:

1. Emmitt Smith
2. Jim Brown
3. Walter Payton
4. Barry Sanders
5a. LT
5b. OJ

As an aside, I kind of hate how the NFL is more a back by committee type league now. I grew up loving running backs, and I really used to enjoy tracking what each teams workhorse did weekly.

Outside of AP and CJ, there really isn't any year to year premier runners anymore.

 

[Cr122]

Uh no. It had to do with Barry's impatience, like I said.

Impatience? C'mon Laz I know your smarter than this. :wha?

 

[sbk92]

Tommy Agee, Derrick Gainer, Curvin Richards? lol

Don't go there. So I take it Mel Gray and Eric Lynch would of done just as well if Sanders was holding out.

lol

 

[Midswat]

I guess the only knock on Sanders, IMO, is he was an impatient/instictual runner, and didn't follow his blocks. He was such a boom or bust back.

Take a look at some of his game logs, where they break down his carrys. He'd literally go for 1, -1, -2, 3, 1, etc... then break a 70 yarder.

While that 70 yarder was a highlight, it's very hard for an offense to have success or sustain long drives when they're continually put in 2nd and third and long.

 

[sbk92]

Sure you did. Just like you watched Sam Young for all four years of his career at Notre Dame, because you are a big time Notre Dame fan.

No. I'm a big college football fan and Notre Dame is on extensively every year.

Ya know who else saw a ton of Sam Young? Every other diehard college football fan.

 

[Cr122]

In my opinion, Emmitt was the better back than Sanders.

I agree that Sanders was the more naturally gifted guy. But you tell me I need a running back, and Emmitt and Barry are both available, I'm taking Emmitt without hesitation.

Truth be told, I don't understand why this is even a debate. Everyone looks at Jerry Rice - who holds all the crucial receiving records - as the GOAT without question. But the same doesn't apply to Emmitt Smith?

Did Emmitt have a great team around him? Yes. Did Jerry as well, to include playing with two Hall of Fame QB's? Yes.

Barry was exciting. I won't knock him one bit. I'd probably rank the top 5 backs in NFL history as follows:

1. Emmitt Smith
2. Jim Brown
3. Walter Payton
4. Barry Sanders
5a. LT
5b. OJ

As an aside, I kind of hate how the NFL is more a back by committee type league now. I grew up loving running backs, and I really used to enjoy tracking what each teams workhorse did weekly.

Outside of AP and CJ, there really isn't any year to year premier runners anymore.

I do think Barry was the better of the two backs, not by much, but do you really think if Sander's could of played longer Barry would be the one holding the record?

I do. And I think Emmitt was a great back, but if Barry played as long as Emmitt it would be a whole different debate. Just do the math and Barry would be the one who holds the record.

I'm not taking anything away from Emmitt, because he was great. My only bitch is Emmitt had it a little better than Barry, that's all. Just switch the roles for a minute, how do you think Barry would of done as a Cowboy?

Or Smith as a lion? But, believe me I'm greatful that it turned out the way it did and we won those Super Bowls with Emmitt.

I've always wondered though how Barry would of done on our team though.

 

[sbk92]

I would never put Sanders ahead of Emmitt because Barry never showed the most important trait in any player and one that's often overlooked, the "it" factor.

Emmitt had it. The bigger the game, the better he played. Barry never showed it. Whether he lacked it or it was simply a product of the teams he played with. I just can't put a stat compiler over a proven champion.

 

[sbk92]

Let's put it this way. If these two played QB, there would be no debate.

Nobody considers Dan Marino a better QB than Joe Montana.

My only argument is those that want to discredit Sanders' greatness. The guy was a freak of nature all timer. Even Emmitt himself has said he wished he could have ran like him.

 

[pdom]

A truly underrated RB in NFL history? Corey Dillon.

Truly a pathetic OL and truly a pathetic team...yet, Dillon was able to have solid and consistent success during his time with the Bengals.

 

[Rock Slamdance]

Let's put it this way. If these two played QB, there would be no debate.

Nobody considers Dan Marino a better QB than Joe Montana.

My only argument is those that want to discredit Sanders' greatness. The guy was a freak of nature all timer. Even Emmitt himself has said he wished he could have ran like him.

This. This. And This again.

 

[Midswat]

A truly underrated RB in NFL history? Corey Dillon.

Truly a pathetic OL and truly a pathetic team...yet, Dillon was able to have solid and consistent success during his time with the Bengals.

I'd say Curtis Martin gets some consideration. Not because he played with bad teams - he didnt'. But because he's fourth all time, but never gets any mention amongst the greats.


Also, just checking Pro-Football-Reference.com, and shocked to see that if Thomas Jones can get approximately 1600 more yards, he'll end up in the top 15 in NFL history.

 

[Midswat]

Off topic, but just realized that Marion Barber is only 27 years old. I would've wagered he was at least 29-30.

 

[LAZARUS_LOGAN]

Tommy Agee, Derrick Gainer, Curvin Richards? lol

Don't go there. So I take it Mel Gray and Eric Lynch would of done just as well if Sanders was holding out.

You forgot Derric Lassic, afterall, he was the starter for those two games. But look you laughing fool, you're the one that said:

Ayuh. Stop Barry Sanders and you stopped the Lions. They didn't have anything else.

Stopped Emmitt Smith and you got a dose of Aikman to Irvin or Aikman to Harper. And so on.

So all I did, was present a scenario where not that Emmitt was stopped, but was altogether out of the equation. So "ayuh", the Cowboys had Lassic, Agee, and Gainer; but shouldn't the "dose of Aikman to Irvin or Aikman to Harper, and so on..." been enough to compensate for Emmitt's absence due to his hold out? Evidently it wasn't.

 

[LAZARUS_LOGAN]

I'd say Curtis Martin gets some consideration. Not because he played with bad teams - he didnt'. But because he's fourth all time, but never gets any mention amongst the greats.


Also, just checking Pro-Football-Reference.com, and shocked to see that if Thomas Jones can get approximately 1600 more yards, he'll end up in the top 15 in NFL history.

Allow me to piggy-back off with Thomas Jones. Let's forget about the Cowboys and Emmitt for a moment, because Barry fans just keep bringing up the o-line excuse.


Let's look at Thomas Jones in 2006, had

--- no dominate WRs (Barry had Moore 123 rec., Perriman 108 rec., and Morton 48 rec.)

--- they were about even on the Oline (Barry had Kevin Glover at C and Lomas Brown at T, Jones had Kreuze at C and Brown at G).

--- and dare I say, Rex Grossman at QB (Barry had Scott Mitchell 4,338 yds, 32 tds, & 92.3 rtg).

The Bears D wasn't the force it was early in the season with the loss of Mike Brown and Tommie Harris.

How did Thomas Jones make play after play and get the Bears in the Super Bowl?

Thomas Jones' career playoff numbers are 4 games with 75 rushes, 381 yds., 5.1 avg., 4 TDs, 2 victories, and a trip to the Super Bowl.


Barry Sanders' career playoff numbers are 6 games with 91 rushes, 386 yds., 4.2 avg., 1 FREAKING TD, 1 victory, and no trip to the Super Bowl; and let's not forget the horrible choke job of 15 rushes and -1 yards performance against Green Bay.


Thomas Jones had less than Barry but took his team to the Super Bowl and out-performed Barry in the playoffs.


Yet Jones took Grossman to the show but Barry couldn't take two 100+ rec. WRs (both Moore and Perrimen apiece had more receptions than the Bears WRs of Muhammad and Berrian COMBINED), a 3rd WR with 48 rec., and a 4,000+ yard passer. Did Troy ever pass for 4,000?

 

[LAZARUS_LOGAN]

In my opinion, Emmitt was the better back than Sanders.

I agree that Sanders was the more naturally gifted guy. But you tell me I need a running back, and Emmitt and Barry are both available, I'm taking Emmitt without hesitation.

Truth be told, I don't understand why this is even a debate. Everyone looks at Jerry Rice - who holds all the crucial receiving records - as the GOAT without question. But the same doesn't apply to Emmitt Smith?

Did Emmitt have a great team around him? Yes. Did Jerry as well, to include playing with two Hall of Fame QB's? Yes.

Barry was exciting. I won't knock him one bit. I'd probably rank the top 5 backs in NFL history as follows:

1. Emmitt Smith
2. Jim Brown
3. Walter Payton
4. Barry Sanders
5a. LT
5b. OJ

As an aside, I kind of hate how the NFL is more a back by committee type league now. I grew up loving running backs, and I really used to enjoy tracking what each teams workhorse did weekly.

Outside of AP and CJ, there really isn't any year to year premier runners anymore.

I've made this argument plenty of times against hypocrites. The same argument that they make for Barry, why can it not be made for say... Steve Largent and/or James Lofton? Steve Largent had Jim Zorn as his QB for the majority of his career, and Dave Krieg. Krieg was no slouch, but he was no Montana nor Young. What could have Largent accomplished if he had either one let alone both those two throwing him the ball? Lofton, what could he have accomplished with Montana and/or Young instead of Whitehurst and Dickey? Granted in his later years he had Jim Kelley, but at that time Lofton was past his prime to where he could have fully taken advantage of Kelly.

 

[LAZARUS_LOGAN]

I do think Barry was the better of the two backs, not by much, but do you really think if Sander's could of played longer Barry would be the one holding the record?

I do. And I think Emmitt was a great back, but if Barry played as long as Emmitt it would be a whole different debate. Just do the math and Barry would be the one who holds the record.

Barry couldn't get it done in the playoffs. See this is what fools like you all miss. Barry was great during the regular season but stunk it up in the playoffs. You cannot be considered better than Emmitt or the best, if you could not get it done in the playoffs as well as in the regular season. The playoffs is where you step your game up.

Can we agree upon this? Barry took less hits than Emmitt. Would you agree? Of course you would have to. You've seen the highlights. Barry was the most elusive RB to ever play the game. Emmitt on the otherhand took alot of hits and dished out plenty of hits of his own. That was his running style. Yet how come when the grind of the regular season came to an end and the playoffs began, Barry who took less hits than Emmitt, was all out of gas? Emmitt played with a FREAKING dislocated shoulder in a must win regular season game for the division title and the #1 seed in the playoffs.

I'm not taking anything away from Emmitt, because he was great. My only bitch is Emmitt had it a little better than Barry, that's all. Just switch the roles for a minute, how do you think Barry would of done as a Cowboy?

Or Smith as a lion? But, believe me I'm greatful that it turned out the way it did and we won those Super Bowls with Emmitt.

I've always wondered though how Barry would of done on our team though.

This has already been addressed. When you play Madden football, people like you think that you can plug-n-play players in actuality. Emmitt succeeded because he was in a type of offense that catered to his specific running style, and the same can be said for Barry. Emmitt was a power back, and played in a power offense, Barry was finesse, and his offense reflected that. Barry would be getting more hits in Emmitt's offense than he was in his own. Barry would not be able to work with a FB even as great as Johnston. Barry came from a single-set back offense. He played in the Run-n-shoot for nearly his entire career, and as dbair mentioned, in one year where he had to play with a FB, he b.itched and moaned about it, and the following year they switched back to the single-back set for him.

 

[Midswat]

So all I did, was present a scenario where not that Emmitt was stopped, but was altogether out of the equation. So "ayuh", the Cowboys had Lassic, Agee, and Gainer; but shouldn't the "dose of Aikman to Irvin or Aikman to Harper, and so on..." been enough to compensate for Emmitt's absence due to his hold out? Evidently it wasn't.

If Emmitt is in there, then defenses have to dedicate resources to contain him.

If Emmitt isn't in there, and the likes of Lassic, Agee, etc are, then those defensive resources can be dedicated to stoping Aikman, Irvin, Harper, Nova... etc.

 

[Cythim]

I skipped a few pages, has SBK stopped by to call you homers yet for picking Emmitt over Sanders?