SPORTSDAY

Posted by Alain Neuilly @ 1:22 PM Sat, May 26, 2007

Of course Emmitt was the greatest. How many SBs did Barry win?

Posted by Dave @ 2:28 PM Sat, May 26, 2007

If I had to gain yards in any situation, I'd pick Earl Campbell over all the other guys, but that's just me.

I love Dale Hansen's quote on this from years ago - "I'd buy a ticket to watch Barry Sanders first, but if I want to win a game, I pick Emmitt Smith."

Posted by Evilinc @ 3:48 PM Sat, May 26, 2007

Kevin is nuts. Give us identical teams--good, bad, mediocre, I don't care. He can take Barry, I'll take Emmitt. My team will kick his team's butt. Barry was a flashy player, and did lots of exciting things, but Emmitt was a better player and made those around him better. He did everything well. I still remember a play against Denver at home near the end of his career. He stayed in to block the blitzing LB whom he knocked on his butt, then went out and caught a pass for a first down. It was a sweet play and indicative of what Emmitt did. Further, however you slice it, he was a winner. Barry was a quitter. Explain how unhappy he was at Detroit all you want, and it still boils down to quitting.

And by the way, every team Detroit had wasn't bad. They did make the playoffs (where BArry stank--I seem to recall a 16 yard performance) and Barry had the advantage of running against nickle and dime defenses because of Mouse Davis' run and shoot--an offensive alignment that catered very well to Barry's open field running skills.

As for Jim Brown and Payton, both were outstanding players. Jim's numbers were incredible but he was so much more talented than everyone around him it's hard to compare. I certainly don't criticize anyone who continues to rank him number 1. Payton ranks as my number 1, but Emmitt is no lower than 3rd.

Posted by Gincy Hartin @ 3:56 PM Sat, May 26, 2007

Emmitt definitely benefitted from playing behind mammoth offensive lines, and having other superstars on offense (Aikman, Irvin, Novacek) didn't hurt his stats either.

Barry unfortunately played on pathetic Lions teams throughout his career. If Barry had been surrounded by the supporting cast that Emmitt had in Dallas, he probably wouldn't have retired prematurely, and he'd easily be the NFL's all-time rushing leader.

Having said this, it's pretty pointless to argue about who was the better back, since they played in different offensive systems on different teams. But you've gotta admit that three Super Bowl rings for Emmitt versus none for Barry makes for a pretty compelling argument.

Posted by anthony @ 4:51 PM Sat, May 26, 2007

I just don't understand why reporters and columnist and some fans question Emmett’s place in football history as the best running back ever. Jerry Rice is widely recognized as the greatest receiver to ever play the game. Why? Did he have the best hands? No, Chris Carter and Raymond Berry had much better hands. Was he the fastest? No, Bob Hayes and Willie Gault were among the fastest. Was he the toughest? No, Fred Biletnikoff and Steve Largent were tougher. Was it because of the touchdowns, the yardage, the superbowl rings, or a combo of all? In his prime, Randy Moss was probably a combination of all these and more, and was more feared than Rice. So why is he considered the greatest. He had 2 hall of fame quarterbacks throwing to him. He had the westcoast offense to thrive in. The same question could be asked of Montana. Did he have the strongest arm? The best touch on the long ball? The most touchdown throws? NO! But what these two players do have in common is that they were not only nearly perfect playing their positions but they raised the level of their teammates to championship level. They made everyone around them better and they won championships because of them. That's what Emmitt did for the Cowboys and his teammates. Michael Jordan in the beginning had all the tools and stats, but it wasn't until he made the players around him better that they began to win championships. Looking at all the running backs, who displayed this ability the most? Who raised the level of their team to championships status again and again? I love Walter Payton, but the Bears were perennial losers until the '85 defense won the superbowl for them. Barry Sanders? Just look at the Lions regular season records and then their playoff records. He could never get them over the hump. Would any hall of fame back have gotten -1 yards in a playoff game ever? 386 total yards and 1 touchdown in 6 playoff games! You can talk about how powerful Jim Brown was, or how graceful Gale Sayers was, or how quick Barry Sanders was, but if you the running back who could win a game for you or could raise his team to the superbowl, with all the stats to go with it, who is better than Emmitt. He had the stats, and the ability to win it all. There shouldn't be any argument who the best running back, and arguably the best player was. BTW, when people make incorrect comments on how Emmitt had such a great supporting cast of players, such as the front line, when Emmitt held out in '93 how many games did the Cowboys win? How many did they win when he was not playing? How well did running backs run in that offense when Emmitt was out?

Posted by Michael @ 6:05 PM Sat, May 26, 2007

Silly debate. Emmitt and Barry were two very different types of runners. It's like trying to compare Walter Payton to Gayle Sayers.

Additionally, Emmitt played behind an awesome line, Barry did not. Emmitt was a great blocker out of the backfield, Barry was not.

Anyone who wants to define "greatest" as the all time leading yards rusher, well, Barry would have set that bar WAY higher than Emmitt finished, had he continued to play. And to call Barry a "quitter" is quite unfair as well. He signed a contract with the understanding the team was working towards getting better, yet he saw NOTHING of the sort taking place. Why continue to take the beatings he was taking for an organisation that had no real desire to compete at the highest level?

Posted by Mike @ 6:54 PM Sat, May 26, 2007

The offensive line had nothing to do with Emmitt making all those people miss and breaking all those tackles.

Posted by Saint Jimmy @ 7:00 PM Sat, May 26, 2007

I can't stand people who say Jim Brown is better than Emmitt. Why do they make this claim? Jim Brown was a man among boys before the NFL actually grew up and caught up with him. Jim Brown would be nothing but a Ron Dayne or TJ Duckett if he played in the modern NFL. I gaurantee you that Ray Lewis, DeMarcus Ware, Shawne Merriman, Adailius Thomas, and many more would absolutely destroy Jim Brown. Who did Jim Brown have to play against? I can't think of a single LB'er from the 50's that strikes fear league wide into a player like those guys I mentioned.

Posted by chris graham @ 7:20 PM Sat, May 26, 2007

emmit's better cuz barry is a quiter,he could have waited juz like tomlinson and payton 4 his team 2 get better.sure emmit had a better team but he was the best player on that better team.when he sat out dallas didnt win but when he came in they were in the superbowl again.

Posted by Otis Campbell @ 7:41 PM Sat, May 26, 2007

You guys are leaving out the Greatest Running Back in the Universe, DUANE THOMAS!

According to Hunter S. Thompson: "All he did was take the ball and run every time they called his number-which came to be more and more often, and in the Super Bowl Thomas was the whole show."

If it wasn't for that Conspiracy, Duane would've surpassed, and lapped, every rushing record known to mankind and alien life-forms!

Emmitt is still Top-4!

Posted by Jim @ 9:46 AM Sun, May 27, 2007

Jim Brown was a man among lesser at the time, true. However, I take issue that he would not be one of the greatest RB's in the modern game. He could do it all and he was much faster than apparently some of you think.
You stick Brown behind the same line that Emmitt had...and you would see the same results and then some.
Comparing Sanders to Emmitt or Brown or Payton is not fair. Compare him instead to Gayle Sayers, who was as good as Barry Sanders or better. Only his injury kept Sayers from proving it.

Could those guys play in the modern era?

Just about as well as Mantle, Koufax or Marichal could play in today's watered down, steriodic version of major league baseball.

Posted by Jeff L. @ 11:43 AM Sun, May 27, 2007

I'd also like to flip the argument/question around and ask if today's modern athletes could have played in the old era.

Sure, they may be bigger, faster, etc. But, how would they handle having to get a job in the offseason because the NFL salary wasn't enough to live year round on? How would they handle playing for the love of the game instead of the almighty millions? No pampering, no limos, no signing bonuses, no coming out of the game because you're 'tired'.

Just a thought. In Emmitt's case, I have no question he could have done it, because I believe he's one that truly does love the game. Some of the others in today's game? Not so much.

Posted by Joe Stemme @ 1:12 PM Sun, May 27, 2007

Actually, that poor Barry Sanders game referenced earlier wasn't for 16 yards, but for ONE yard - yup,ONE as in the singular!
I found it sad when some sports writers were griping that Emmitt just "hung around" to break the record that Barry "should" have had. He quit - that's Emmitt's fault, somehow?
I'll echo the statements that refer to Barry having the better ESPN highlight reel, but Emmitt was the better play by play guy (you have to know that Barry often led the league in runs for a LOSS. That's fine if you're just chasing stats on a losing team and looking for that breakout run, but when you chasing CHAMPIONSHIPS you can't afford the luxury of losing yards on too many plays.
Go back and watch the 2nd Super Bowl the Cowboys won over the Bills. The drive that put the Cowboys ahead in the 3rd quarter. Pure Emmitt!

Posted by Goober Pyle @ 4:19 PM Sun, May 27, 2007

Does anybody but me remember the "run and shoot" offense that the Lions used to run? That's four WRs in patterns, guys... pretty much keeps defenses from putting 8 defenders "in the box" and usually meant nickel defenses with only 6 guys in the box. That's what Barry Sanders ran against most of his career. Emmitt routinely faced 8 guys. Everybody knew who was going to get the ball. Didn't matter though, did it?

And of course Barry Sanders quit. He quit on his team, quit on his teammates, quit on his fans. Am I the only one that remembers the circumstances? He waited as long as he could, seemingly to screw the aforementioned people over as much as he could. Nobody twisted his arm to sign that contract.

Posted by Calhoun @ 4:53 PM Sun, May 27, 2007

you guys are all idiots. Blair Thomas.

Posted by Dan Terry @ 9:07 PM Sun, May 27, 2007

I am so tired of hearing if Barry played for the same team Emmitt did. Lets get this straight, Detroit drafted higher than Dallas most of the time the 2 RB's played for their respected teams. using this fact why didn't detroit draft better O-lineman and how many of Dallas O-Line was drafted high? Its called development by the Jimmy johnson coaching staff. Ok Barry made more people miss yea for him. when was the last time Brry played with a separated shoulder and carried his team to the division title ala Emmitt vs the NY Giants? When was the last time Barry knew what it meant to pick up a blitzer or catch a pass or gasp actually block for a WR down field after he had caught a pass please. Stats dont lie, Smith is number 1, I dont care about Jim Brown the league was full of the athletes that played when Smith did, Sweetness was the man and hes missed but Smith is still number 1 period. And oh yea Barry fans if you dont win a ring it just doesn't matter just ask Marino.......

Posted by danny lewis @ 11:05 AM Mon, May 28, 2007

when i look at a player i look at his heart .and i look at emmitt and the new york giants game when the season was on the line and he played with a seperated shoulder and played one of his best games.

Posted by Dennis @ 10:36 AM Wed, Dec 26, 2007

Have any of you even played in the NFL,did'nt think so!When Jim Brown,Gayle Sayers and even Emmitt himself say Barry was better how can you even argue.

Posted by Mike @ 5:17 PM Sat, Feb 02, 2008

If you guys are willing to bring up Barry's playoff abomination in GB (13 for -1)...please bring up his 169 yard effort vs the same team (playoffs) in 93...I don't believe Smith ran for that much in a playoff game.

Also...Sanders played in a run and shoot from 89-91...from then on, the Lions went away from it. Sanders faced more 8-9 man fronts than Smith could ever dream of. I admit that Smith was a better blocker, but as a runner...not even CLOSE to Barry Sanders. Sanders made yards out of nothing...Smith made runs out of gaping holes provided by one of the greatest lines in NFL history. The goaline thing is overhyped and exaggerated...if not, Fridge Perry is worlds better than Walter.

Great teams win Super Bowls, not great individual players.