 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Greatest Running Back (With Poll Insights)
| Poll: Greatest Running Back (With Poll Insights) | |
|---|---|
| Jim Brown | 11 |
| Walter Payton | 4 |
| Barry Sanders | 3 |
| Emmitt Smith | 1 |
| Ladainian Tomlinson | 0 |
| Other | 0 |
drunkengoat
I'll add the 'other' option since names like O.J. Simpson (forget the damn murder case for a minute.. this guy could run), Eric Dickerson... Hell, I could name 10 guys in history at least who are better than Tomlinson.
But nonetheless, I'll spoil the espn poll for you right now, which I'm hoping won't affect your vote, because, well... if it does, you have no brain.
Sure, my state voted for Payton, but that was after I was able to sway them to my line of thinking.
Here's how the electoral vote would've played out if we were going by who would win for President based on their popularity as a star running back in the NFL (which could very well become a major plus in the electoral consideration)...
Barry Sanders 413
Walter Payton 88
Emmitt Smith (Guess which state he won... dunderheads...) 34
Undecided 3 (Washington DC has the country to look after...)
Landslide... I still vote for Payton over the rest of the field.
Greatest Running Back (With Poll Insights)
November 29, 2005 at 07:11AM View BBCode
Yeah, we'll start this one out... But here's something to think about. This question was already on ESPN.com, possibly to get some LT press going in order to get some Charger love what with the press fellating Peyton Manning and their 11-0 start.I'll add the 'other' option since names like O.J. Simpson (forget the damn murder case for a minute.. this guy could run), Eric Dickerson... Hell, I could name 10 guys in history at least who are better than Tomlinson.
But nonetheless, I'll spoil the espn poll for you right now, which I'm hoping won't affect your vote, because, well... if it does, you have no brain.
Sure, my state voted for Payton, but that was after I was able to sway them to my line of thinking.
Here's how the electoral vote would've played out if we were going by who would win for President based on their popularity as a star running back in the NFL (which could very well become a major plus in the electoral consideration)...
Barry Sanders 413
Walter Payton 88
Emmitt Smith (Guess which state he won... dunderheads...) 34
Undecided 3 (Washington DC has the country to look after...)
Landslide... I still vote for Payton over the rest of the field.
kujayhawks15
1. Sanders
2. Payton
3. Brown
4. Smith
5. Tomlinson
I can already see YAZ arguing...
November 29, 2005 at 07:16AM View BBCode
I voted Sanders, although it was between him and Payton. They were both so good, but I think that if Barry played on the teams that Walter played on, and the Lions ever had a real defense, he would be more highly regarded because he didn't do everything himself. Also, (and I know that everyone and their brother has used this arguement before) had Barry not retired when he did, he very likely would have passed Walter on the all time rushing list. It was a tough call, but I think it is Sanders. From that list, I think it is:1. Sanders
2. Payton
3. Brown
4. Smith
5. Tomlinson
I can already see YAZ arguing...
drunkengoat
But of course there as one can reasonably assume with nationwide polls like this that there will always be a homer bias. Throwing those out... Sanders loses 17, Payton loses 21, Smith loses ALL of his votes...
Revised electoral vote:
Sanders 396
Payton 67
Not very much changed...
November 29, 2005 at 07:20AM View BBCode
I was surprised when Brown didn't even win his home state of Ohio... battleground state... lolBut of course there as one can reasonably assume with nationwide polls like this that there will always be a homer bias. Throwing those out... Sanders loses 17, Payton loses 21, Smith loses ALL of his votes...
Revised electoral vote:
Sanders 396
Payton 67
Not very much changed...
whiskybear
I don't know what Lawrence Taylor has to do with the San Diego Chargers.
November 29, 2005 at 07:27AM View BBCode
Originally posted by drunkengoat
Yeah, we'll start this one out... But here's something to think about. This question was already on ESPN.com, possibly to get some LT press going in order to get some Charger love what with the press fellating Peyton Manning and their 11-0 start.
I don't know what Lawrence Taylor has to do with the San Diego Chargers.
youngallstar
Smith was deceptively fast and very strong for his size. At 5-foot-10 and 216 pounds, Smith not only broke tackles he could block as well
Emmit was not only consistent, but he was also very tough. In a game against the New York Giants, Smith, with a separated shoulder, gained 229 yards rushing in a must win game.
Smith had great vision and rarely went out of bounds. To do the things he did and yet still have people say other backs were better is not giving this man his due credit. There are five categories to base how great a back is: competition, stats, championship's and performance in big games.
First, let's look at competition. Who was better than Smith when he played? No one. Not even Barry Sanders. Barry couldn't run from people, nor could he run people over, but Smith could. Smith led the NFL in rushing touchdowns three times.
He was NFL MVP during 1993 and that year and he also won the Super Bowl MVP by rushing for 130 yards and two touchdowns. He led the NFL in rushing yards from 1991 until 1993 and again during 1995.
Smith's stats are off the charts. 18,355 rushing yards, 164 rushing touchdowns, and 78 games with 100-yards rushing are NFL records
November 29, 2005 at 07:54AM View BBCode
Smith deserves an argument :)Smith was deceptively fast and very strong for his size. At 5-foot-10 and 216 pounds, Smith not only broke tackles he could block as well
Emmit was not only consistent, but he was also very tough. In a game against the New York Giants, Smith, with a separated shoulder, gained 229 yards rushing in a must win game.
Smith had great vision and rarely went out of bounds. To do the things he did and yet still have people say other backs were better is not giving this man his due credit. There are five categories to base how great a back is: competition, stats, championship's and performance in big games.
First, let's look at competition. Who was better than Smith when he played? No one. Not even Barry Sanders. Barry couldn't run from people, nor could he run people over, but Smith could. Smith led the NFL in rushing touchdowns three times.
He was NFL MVP during 1993 and that year and he also won the Super Bowl MVP by rushing for 130 yards and two touchdowns. He led the NFL in rushing yards from 1991 until 1993 and again during 1995.
Smith's stats are off the charts. 18,355 rushing yards, 164 rushing touchdowns, and 78 games with 100-yards rushing are NFL records
whiskybear
November 29, 2005 at 07:56AM View BBCode
And from where did you copy-and-paste this, Sean?
youngallstar
People tend to make the mistake of overlooking Smiths greatness because the end of his career was so horrid.
[Edited on 11-29-2005 by youngallstar]
November 29, 2005 at 08:03AM View BBCode
Living in Dallas and all Smiths info have been drilled into my headPeople tend to make the mistake of overlooking Smiths greatness because the end of his career was so horrid.
[Edited on 11-29-2005 by youngallstar]
whiskybear
Smith and Shaun Alexander are very similar players: stout, powerful but fairly agile backs that pile up gaudy statistics behind a dominating line (and solid fullbacks--Mack Strong is every bit the player Daryl Johnston was, but has lived in obscurity here in the Northwest). Both are tremendous backs, but lack the speed and agility of a Barry Sanders or LaDainian Tomlinson.
But the greatest of all-time is the perfect synthesis of both types: Jim "Ewell" Brown.
November 29, 2005 at 08:08AM View BBCode
He also played his entire behind an overpowering offensive line.Smith and Shaun Alexander are very similar players: stout, powerful but fairly agile backs that pile up gaudy statistics behind a dominating line (and solid fullbacks--Mack Strong is every bit the player Daryl Johnston was, but has lived in obscurity here in the Northwest). Both are tremendous backs, but lack the speed and agility of a Barry Sanders or LaDainian Tomlinson.
But the greatest of all-time is the perfect synthesis of both types: Jim "Ewell" Brown.
youngallstar
I copy and paste one analysis in your boring music thread so its not just the same four yawners posting and all of a sudden I never write my own stuff? Smocko, when did you become so lame?
Shouldnt you be making lopsided offers in the OGL instead of shedding no light on who the greatest RB ever is? :)
[Edited on 11-29-2005 by youngallstar]
November 29, 2005 at 08:11AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Smocko
I know Tyler, he never writes his own <b>[Censored]</b> .
I copy and paste one analysis in your boring music thread so its not just the same four yawners posting and all of a sudden I never write my own stuff? Smocko, when did you become so lame?
Shouldnt you be making lopsided offers in the OGL instead of shedding no light on who the greatest RB ever is? :)
[Edited on 11-29-2005 by youngallstar]
whiskybear
Done.
November 29, 2005 at 08:14AM View BBCode
Originally posted by youngallstar
...who the greatest RB ever is?
Done.
youngallstar
Stuarts death marked the end of confederate superiority on horseback
November 29, 2005 at 08:20AM View BBCode
yes indeedStuarts death marked the end of confederate superiority on horseback
Smocko
November 29, 2005 at 08:24AM View BBCode
Actually he had ceased to be useful two years earlier, and superiority was alive in the West, with Forrest, who is going to be a hell of a player.
whiskybear
November 29, 2005 at 08:27AM View BBCode
Smocko is closer to correct, but Stuart's death was another symbol of the shifting power in both the cavalry and in the war. It's almost Shakespearean the way Lee's prominent generals were slowly thinned out, until he had mediocre subordinates like Ewell and Hill leading corps at Petersburg. Stuart basically lost his significance after Gettysburg, and he was too drawn up in the romance of the cavalry to truly be of strategic value anyway---probably the Derek Jeter of Civil War officers.
Benne
November 29, 2005 at 08:30AM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
The greatest RB is Trung Canidate. This conversation's over.
Benne
November 29, 2005 at 08:31AM View BBCode
And I neither know anything nor give a fuck about the Civil War. That converstion's over as well.
youngallstar
Not entirely correct Smocko although you have a point about Forrest.
Stuart was usefull at Chancellorsville where he took over command of Stonewall Jackson's Corps after he had been wounded by his own men. Returning to the cavalry shortly after, he commanded the Southern horsemen in the largest cavalry engagement ever fought on the American continent, Brandy Station, 1863. The confederates ended up holding the field
Also during Grant's drive on Richmond in the spring of 1864, Stuart halted Sheridan's cavalry at Yellow Tavern on the outskirts of Richmond
[Edited on 11-29-2005 by youngallstar]
November 29, 2005 at 08:38AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Smocko
Actually he had ceased to be useful two years earlier, and superiority was alive in the West, with Forrest, who is going to be a hell of a player.
Not entirely correct Smocko although you have a point about Forrest.
Stuart was usefull at Chancellorsville where he took over command of Stonewall Jackson's Corps after he had been wounded by his own men. Returning to the cavalry shortly after, he commanded the Southern horsemen in the largest cavalry engagement ever fought on the American continent, Brandy Station, 1863. The confederates ended up holding the field
Also during Grant's drive on Richmond in the spring of 1864, Stuart halted Sheridan's cavalry at Yellow Tavern on the outskirts of Richmond
[Edited on 11-29-2005 by youngallstar]
whiskybear
Chancellorsville was seen as a lost opportunity for the South, which had Hooker's forces reeling. Though rain certainly prevented a more destructive attack, part of the reason for Lee's less-than-decisive victory was Stuart's mediocre and disorganized performance in the battle, much like Mike Martz managing a football game.
Brandy Station was of little strategic signficance and is really more reflective of Stuart's passion for the Romance of the cavalry. His grand review at Brandy Station and subsequent engagement shows a passion for glory over strategy, something revisited upon the Confederates harshly just a month later when Stuart tried an ill-advised ride around the Union Army, causing him to arrive two days late to the battle.
And Stuart was killed at Yellow Tavern. Yeah, quite the illustrious career.
November 29, 2005 at 08:44AM View BBCode
Originally posted by youngallstar
Stuart was usefull at Chancellorsville where he took over command of Stonewall Jackson's Corps after he had been wounded by his own men. Returning to the cavalry shortly after, he commanded the Southern horsemen in the largest cavalry engagement ever fought on the the American contenint, Brandy Station, on June 9, 1863. The confederates held the field
Also during Grant's drive on Richmond in the spring of 1864, Stuart halted Sheridan's cavalry at Yellow Tavern on the outskirts of Richmond
Chancellorsville was seen as a lost opportunity for the South, which had Hooker's forces reeling. Though rain certainly prevented a more destructive attack, part of the reason for Lee's less-than-decisive victory was Stuart's mediocre and disorganized performance in the battle, much like Mike Martz managing a football game.
Brandy Station was of little strategic signficance and is really more reflective of Stuart's passion for the Romance of the cavalry. His grand review at Brandy Station and subsequent engagement shows a passion for glory over strategy, something revisited upon the Confederates harshly just a month later when Stuart tried an ill-advised ride around the Union Army, causing him to arrive two days late to the battle.
And Stuart was killed at Yellow Tavern. Yeah, quite the illustrious career.
youngallstar
His reports on union troop movements were a huge asset to the confederate army and he was called "the eyes of the army" by general Lee.
November 29, 2005 at 08:51AM View BBCode
Illustrious? Id say so.His reports on union troop movements were a huge asset to the confederate army and he was called "the eyes of the army" by general Lee.
rkinslow19
Who knows how much more he could have accomplished if he hadn't retired so early (at his peak no less).
It's hard to evaluate Jim Brown, because I've never really seen him run.
November 29, 2005 at 09:30AM View BBCode
I'm going with Sanders. He was the most exciting player I've ever seen.Who knows how much more he could have accomplished if he hadn't retired so early (at his peak no less).
It's hard to evaluate Jim Brown, because I've never really seen him run.
rkinslow19
November 29, 2005 at 09:32AM View BBCode
And, to be fair, I could have run for 800 yards a year behind the line Smith had in the mid-90's. Those guys were some serious hogs.
barterer2002
The truth of the matter is that Jim Brown is the greatest running back of all time.
Over his career he averaged 104 yards/game and scored 106 touchdowns. His rushing totals stood as the all time record for twenty years after his retirement.
Brown and Simpson are the only running backs to have garnered 10,000 yards before the 16 game season came into the NFL. His accomplishment is more akin to Walter Johnson striking out 3600 batters than Greg Maddux becoming just another member of the 3000 strike out club.
If you project his seasons out to a 16 game season (like the ones that Smith and Sanders played in all their career, his numbers would look like this:
year Yards TDS
1957 1256 12
1958 2036 23
1959 1772 15
1960 1676 12
1961 1609 9
1962 1138 15
1963 2129 14
1964 1653 8
1965 1765 19
Totals 15034 127
Of course you can't just project forward with any legitimacy but as we all know there are people who can't make the adjustment through different eras. For Jim Brown's actual stats http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/BrowJi00.htm
Brown was not only the greatest running back of the fifties and sixties but he was the greatest running back of a forty year period. From the retirement of Red Grange in the thirties until the coming of OJ Simpson in the seventies, Brown was the unparallelled at his position.
Here are the top five ever
1. Brown
2. Payton
3. Simpson
4. Dickerson
5. Smith
November 29, 2005 at 02:01PM View BBCode
Yaz you make some good arguments about Smith that might be valid if we were trying to Thurman Thomas. SayingFirst, let's look at competition. Who was better than Smith when he played? No one. Not even Barry Sanders. Barry couldn't run from people, nor could he run people over, but Smith could. Smith led the NFL in rushing touchdowns three times.totally ignores that most of the greatest running backs of all time were not his contemporaries.
The truth of the matter is that Jim Brown is the greatest running back of all time.
Over his career he averaged 104 yards/game and scored 106 touchdowns. His rushing totals stood as the all time record for twenty years after his retirement.
Brown and Simpson are the only running backs to have garnered 10,000 yards before the 16 game season came into the NFL. His accomplishment is more akin to Walter Johnson striking out 3600 batters than Greg Maddux becoming just another member of the 3000 strike out club.
If you project his seasons out to a 16 game season (like the ones that Smith and Sanders played in all their career, his numbers would look like this:
year Yards TDS
1957 1256 12
1958 2036 23
1959 1772 15
1960 1676 12
1961 1609 9
1962 1138 15
1963 2129 14
1964 1653 8
1965 1765 19
Totals 15034 127
Of course you can't just project forward with any legitimacy but as we all know there are people who can't make the adjustment through different eras. For Jim Brown's actual stats http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/BrowJi00.htm
Brown was not only the greatest running back of the fifties and sixties but he was the greatest running back of a forty year period. From the retirement of Red Grange in the thirties until the coming of OJ Simpson in the seventies, Brown was the unparallelled at his position.
Here are the top five ever
1. Brown
2. Payton
3. Simpson
4. Dickerson
5. Smith
BrutusKhan
I'd rate them as follows:
1. Jim Brown
1A. Walter Payton
3. Barry Sanders
4. Emitt Smith
Oj had the advantage of the hash marks being moved in. When Jim Brown played, they were still real wide, which meant the defense had a high certainty of knowing which direction you were going to run. I don't think any other back in history even belongs on the list with those 4, as Gale Sayers, Dickerson, OJ, all lack certain quality/stats to put them in that class above.
I take Payton over Sanders for 3 reasons: 1) Pass blocking(walter may have been the best of all-time at this) 2) Style of running-while Sanders was disgusting, and could make that great play, Payton's straight forward pound the ball and punish the defense is easier to build a winner around. 3) Sanders never did it. Maybe if a coach actually gave him the ball 30+ times a game as I would have, or if they passed to him more, or he didn't retire earlier, are all things that just didn't happen. Walter Payton did his, and that's why I gave him the nod.
Smith is a great back, with the vision, blocking, heart & hands to get behind one of the greatest offense lines ever and use it to the max. Without a back as great as him, they wouldn't win that many Superbowls. But, I just don't put him into the top 3, as any of the great backs, even ones not on this list, ie Gale Sayers/Marcus Allen, Earl Cambell's, would have put up close to the same gaudy numbers Smith did behind that line.
Doug
November 29, 2005 at 05:43PM View BBCode
Jim Brown may have been the greatest athlete of all-time, as he's definately up there. I'm a major Walter Payton fan, and having watched a lot of Barry Sanders going to college in Michigan during his prime, and seeing him destroy my Bears, I can attest to his sickness as well.I'd rate them as follows:
1. Jim Brown
1A. Walter Payton
3. Barry Sanders
4. Emitt Smith
Oj had the advantage of the hash marks being moved in. When Jim Brown played, they were still real wide, which meant the defense had a high certainty of knowing which direction you were going to run. I don't think any other back in history even belongs on the list with those 4, as Gale Sayers, Dickerson, OJ, all lack certain quality/stats to put them in that class above.
I take Payton over Sanders for 3 reasons: 1) Pass blocking(walter may have been the best of all-time at this) 2) Style of running-while Sanders was disgusting, and could make that great play, Payton's straight forward pound the ball and punish the defense is easier to build a winner around. 3) Sanders never did it. Maybe if a coach actually gave him the ball 30+ times a game as I would have, or if they passed to him more, or he didn't retire earlier, are all things that just didn't happen. Walter Payton did his, and that's why I gave him the nod.
Smith is a great back, with the vision, blocking, heart & hands to get behind one of the greatest offense lines ever and use it to the max. Without a back as great as him, they wouldn't win that many Superbowls. But, I just don't put him into the top 3, as any of the great backs, even ones not on this list, ie Gale Sayers/Marcus Allen, Earl Cambell's, would have put up close to the same gaudy numbers Smith did behind that line.
Doug
FuriousGiorge
November 29, 2005 at 08:16PM View BBCode
How come when people discuss running backs they rarely take into account winning like they do when they discuss quarterbacks? People will talk about how Joe Montana is the greatest ever because of the Super Bowls he won, and how Marino is dogshit because he never got it done, and then they'll turn around and talk about how great Barry Sanders' numbers are and how he would have been even better if "his team had been better around him". I'm not knocking Sanders, but isn't the running back just as responsible for winning as the quarterback is? I find it bizarre that Emmitt Smith is discounted precisely because he won Super Bowls, as in "he was only great because he had great players around him - look at all the games they won". Isn't it possible that they won all those games because Emmitt was great, rather than vice versa?
DougB
November 29, 2005 at 08:25PM View BBCode
wrong. It was the galloping ghost. or one of the 4 horsemen. not one of these namby pamy whipersnappers of today. if forced to pick only from the modern era i guess i'll go with supreme court justice byron "whizzer" white. he was 100 times the player orlando "wizzinator" smith is.