Here Today... Gone To Hell!

I am a Jets fan but the best running back of all time IS Barry Sanders.....If someone wants to argue that it is Jim Brown, I would not have a problem with that....I wasn't alive when he played but he WAS Superman. I have a lot of footage on him. The only other name in this argument to me could be Walter Payton....but that's it. Anyway....Barry Sanders = Best running back of all time......Who disagrees?.....

I disagree for the following reasons:

1.? He was mediocre in cold weather, grass (check out his career stats playing in Green Bay);

2.? He was useless in short yardage and goal line situations;

3.? After several of his spectacular maneuvers to get behind the defense, he'd almost always get caught from behind; and

4.? He ran for negative yardage in a playoff game (again, vs. Green Bay; was something like 15 rushes for -7 yards), which is beyond unacceptable if you want to call yourself the greatest of all time.?

Jim Brown was the best by far.? I'll just agree that Barry Sanders was the best highlight reel guy.

?

1. Jim Brown (2 NFL championships with no one around him-- come on, Milt Plum at QB?)
2. Barry Sanders (Best highlight reel guy, did it with QB's like Rodney Peete, Scott Mitchell, and only two decent players on the o-line in Lomas Brown and Kevin Glover)
3. Walter Payton
4. Emmitt Smith (only the top yardage guy because of an amazing offensive line, great QB, and great WR's-- Barry and Brown had NONE of those)

Well, you're wrong with a few things....Barry's lifetime avg per carry is better on grass than on turf.....he NEVER got caught from behind...I have a shit load of tape...of entire games....HE RAN A 4.3- 40. He was great at short yardage when given the chance....early in his career he was fine....but then Detroit started using bigger backs because the entire defense would know that he was getting the ball and they NEVER play-actioned with him.....The Green Bay game??  did you see the WONDERFUL blocking he got in that game....shitty qb and shitty line = everyone gang up on Barry....he didn't have ONE carry that game where he didn't get hit at least once as soon as he got the ball...and that was one game on a bad team that barely made the playoffs...Barry has had good playoff games before......as great as he was, they completely misused him for his entire career....who was there top notch coach? ummmm, yeah moron # 1 an # 2.....they should have used him like they use L.T for San Diego.......Jim Brown will always be the man but he NEVER played for shitty teams like Barry..

Jim Brown had a terrific offensive line for several years and a good defense to get him back on the field.....it was also a much different game then.....what's funny is that the only other good runner in the league at the time was Jim Taylor.

No question he benefitted tremendously from the great players around him - but, even during the Cowboys' dynasty in the early/mid 90s, if Emmitt was out with an injury, they'd lose. ? Also, except maybe Marcus Allen, there's no one else you'd want to give to ball to on 1st and goal or 3rd and short for a crucial first down. ?Plus, he was a great running back for long drives to run out the clock.

Very true......the line Emmit had was maybe the BEST offensive line ever...they were lights out......and Emmit was great at running out the clock behind them.....You know who would be in this conversation if he just played football and never got hurt?? Bo Jackson.....

Well, avg yards per carry is a misleading statistic because all it takes is one long run to mask the fact that you couldn't get past the line of scrimmage all game. ?

I'm sorry, I've watched my share of football and I've seen him get caught from behind on long runs.

As far as your excuses for the Green Bay game, he wasn't the first running back on a bad team that everyone knew was getting the ball (Walter Payton). ?Yes, the circumstances were understandable for having a bad game... but negative yardage?

Absolutely.  Sure, he was a good baseball player, but he should have focused on football.

Oh those werent excuses...that's just what happened....Believe me, I agree that it wasn't his best game.....he played enough on grass where avg per carry IS a factor......the only time he has EVER got caught from behind is if someone had the angle on him or if he ran around a bit, breakin' tackles and ankles and someone with full wind got lucky.....that said....there was only ONE long run that Barry EVER had in his ENTIRE career where he didn't score a touchdown.....I believe it was against Tampa in 94' on ?a Sunday night game that I was taping......I don't care how much football you have seen brother....Barry always scored a touchdown on the long runs....look it up..

Yeah....it's a fuckin' shame...he was ridiculous at times.

Don't need to look it up, I saw it then, but I will admit it seemed to happen more often earlier in his career than later... for some reason he seemed faster in his late 20s.

Also, I agree that he was misused (run and shoot offense first few years of his career with no tight ends!); but in all fairness, he wasn't a traditional running back so I'd imagine it must have been hard to tailor plays and games plans to his unique talents.  All of his big runs looked like busted plays.

A lot of them were busted plays....if there WAS a hole, Barry would run through it.....but there weren't too many for him. One of the main reasons for so many of the busted plays were this.......In a SPORTS ILLISTRATED? article years ago they had a pole for Head Cooaches on who they game planned for the most in the NFL.....Jerry Rice was #2....and Barry was #1 by a landslide..

Based on pure talent for the game?  I agree. As good a baseball player as Jackson was...he was a better football player.

Based on money and "injury factor", I disagree. 

Had Bo only played baseball, his career in that sport would very probably have been much longer than the abbreviated career we got in both sports.  But, given his love for both games....I don't think he would have had it any other way.

No question the money's better in baseball... and the 2-sport thing definitely made him his endorsement dollars.  But in terms of injury, I wonder if skipping football training camps, preseasons, etc., made him more prone to injury.

Then there's the "legacy" factor, which for him is that he was the most successful 2-sport athlete of all-time.  He might have been the greatest running back of all-time.  I guess you can't go wrong either way.

Jim Brown.? Without a doubt, Jim Brown is #1.

It's difficult to rate guys inter-generationally.? Judging each player against his peers of his particular era, which is how I do it, it's Jim Brown by a land-slide.? He was as ahead of his time as Babe Ruth was to baseball.? ?

Sweetness would be in the pack just behind Brown, Walter Payton.? His love for the game edges him past Barry Sanders, who admitted himself he didn't have a great love of the game.?

I believe Emmitt was a great running back, but how much of his stats came from being on a dominant team like the '90's Cowboys?? His team was too good around him.?

What about OJ Simpson?? Definitely the #1 slashing running back of all time.? ?;)

A guy I loved watching back in the day was Eric Dickerson.  His upright style and deceptive speed and power were fun to watch.   :beer:

I agree 100% I was living in Dallas and watched  almost  all the Cowboy's games. They were nothing without Emmit. He made the team go. He was not the fastest, the strongest, or the most talented. But he had an unbeatable drive and toughness. He had the will to be the best. He did the most with the  skills he had. His offensive line? Come on, any and every great back has a good offensive line. That is football 101. You can't be a great back unless you have good to great blockers.

Having said all of that, I don't think he was the best all time (but we need to define "best" more specifically). I would say Walter Payton, now that was a great back who played on losing teams and was surrounded by a dearth of talent.

Barry Sanders is the best in my lifetime.

Jim Brown is like Wilt Chamberlain. Brown had decisive physical advantages over everyone he played against. Not taking anything away from him but he played in an era where he was a man amongst boys.

Barry Sanders played on an absolute HORRIBLE TEAM.

WHy was Barry not great in goalline situtations?

1. He had a horrible Offensive line

2.Never played with a pro bowl QB

3. was the focus of every team.


He still managed to dominate, I havent researched the stats and my mind is a little fuzzy but didnt he go for back to back 2,000 yard seasons or damn close to it?

Imagine what Barry would've done had he played behind Emmitt Smith's offensive line in Dallas.

Not to mention had he not prematurely retired the rushing records would be so high no one would ever challenge them.

2051 yards in 1997.....at 6.2 yards per carry....those are fucking college stats...not to mention, 14 straight 100 yard games....an NFL record....he has many of them.... : ok:

D makes some great points about Barry Sanders.  Quarterback Scott Mitchell doesn't exactly strike fear into the hearts of opposing secondaries.   :hihi:  Aikman actually would, and did.

I'd have to put Barry above Emmitt.

Jim Brown was so ahead of his time he was just a freak.  I put him on a level of 5 guys who nobody can touch in their respective sports.  Baseball-Babe Ruth, Basketball-Michael Jordan, Golf-Tiger Woods, Hockey-Wayne Gretzky, Cycling-Lance Armstrong.

EVERYBODY puts Barry above Emmitt....it is not even a matter of opinion....You know NOTHING ABOUT FOOTBALL or the running back position if you think otherwise....Not you specifically, just people who think they know football but they know nothing but their own team.

Walter Payton  : ok:

His team was mediocre.. and got lit up in that game. You'll notice that he had only a few carries. That is because they got down and left the run for the pass to try and get back in the game.

He rushed for 1550 in 96 2053 in 97 and 1491 in 98.....
He never rushed for less than 1100 yards. He averaged 5 yards per carry for his entire career.

IMO if he played for Dallas (and not retired early) he would have had somewhere in the ballpark of 20,000+ career yards in the time that Emmitt played. Alot of Emmitt's yards came grinding out the clock.

In order, my top 5 from 1945 to the present...

1. Jim Brown
2. Barry Sanders
3. Walter Payton
4. Emmitt Smith
5. Eric Dickerson
6. O.J. Simpson
7. Earl Campbell
8. Steve Van Buren
9. Thurman Thomas
10. LaDainian Tomlinson

if i was starting an NFL team with players in their prime, i'd take e. smith over barry sanders. and i would guess that many GMs agree with me.

people blame sanders' inability to pick up short yardage on his offensive line. but the fact is the coaching staff felt there were other RBs on the team that BETTER at picking up short yards.

nfl games are won and lost on 3rd and short. and sanders got benched in those situations.

If I'm not mistaken, Barry often led the league in "runs for a loss," so I'm sure that didn't make coaches too confident on 3rd down with Barry in the backfield.

my top 5:

1. w. payton
2. j. brown
3. e. smith
4. l. tomlinson
5. b. sanders

The seasons where Barry was the "sole" back for the Lions he rushed for 14 TD's (5.3 yards/carry) 13 TD's (5.1 yards/carry) 16 TD's (4.5 yards/carry)... Wayne Fonts made the decision to add a goal line back because he was affraid of injury more than anything.

That one playoff game is the only ammo anyone has against Barry for not producing, but he stopped getting the ball in the 1st quarter because they went down so quick (Due to bad Defense and a piss poor QB)... if given the opportunity to make up those yards I'm sure that would have been a 75-100 yard game and you would have been talking about how Scott Mitchell lost them the game.

Did you see the game?? I did, and I recall the low number of carries being attributable to a lot of 3 and outs.? Also, the game was reasonably close throughout (because Detroit's defense played well), so they wouldn't have abandoned the running game.?

Look, Barry Sanders was an amazing back, but he played like shit that day.? To debate how much weight to put on that one game is one thing, but to deny it...

As far as Scott Mitchell goes, no doubt he was brutal, but to blame him for that game might be a little unfair, since Dave Krieg was the one behind center for Detroit that day.

You are correct, it was Dave Krieg.

http://www.packersnews.com/favre/articles/favre_24361407.shtml

But I stand by the fact that people are trying to build a case around a players entire career based on one playoff game.

It's hard to claim that someone with these stats (who played on the teams he did) is anything but one of the three best backs of all times:

15,269 yards, 5.0 yards per carry, 99 rushing touchdowns, 18,190 total yards, 109 total touchdowns

He set 34 NCAA records during his Heisman Campaign.

He holds the college single-season rushing record with 2,628 rushing yards in 1988 at Oklahoma State University.

As a receiver, Sanders made 352 receptions for 2,921 yards and 10 touchdowns for the Detroit Lions
 
Sanders led the NFL in rushing four times. 1990, 1994, 1996 and 1997.

He rushed for over 1,500 yards in a season for an NFL record five times.

In 1997, he set an NFL record by rushing for at least 100 yards in 14 consecutive games and became only the third player to reach 2,000 yards in a single season. He shared the NFL MVP award with Brett Favre.

During the final 14 games of the 1997 season Sanders rushed for exactly 2000 yards on 310 carries (6.5 yd./carry), a figure which bears comparison with O.J. Simpson's 14-game mark of 2003 yards on 332 carries (6.0 yd./carry).

Over his professional career, he rushed for at least 100 yards in 76 games, just short of Walter Payton's 77 games and Emmitt Smith's 78 games.

At the time of his retirement, Sanders' 15,269 career rushing yards placed him second behind Walter Payton's 16,726 yards. At Sanders' then-current yearly yardage pace, he would have eclipsed Payton within one or two years.

If Sanders had gained an additional 31 yards over the course of his 153 games, he would have been only the 2nd NFL runner to average 100 yards per game.

Yo COma, I was just pointing out a stat I remembered from back in the day.  Even with the stat about runs for losses, he still carried an amazing yards/carry number.  It's a back-handed compliment, but a compliment none the less.

Barry's a great running back, but nobody dominated a game in his time like Jim Brown.  He was a man amongst boys in his time.  Somebody mentioned Thomlinson, and yes, he's coming on strong in the "all-time" debates.  He's so much fun to watch.

One game doesn't make or break Sanders.  He's easily one of the all-time greats no doubt.     :peace: 

are you fogetting a guy that did it ALL? run, catch, and block....marshall faulk