UPDATE: Sorry if this post seemed out of the blue. There was a clamor for me to explain why I ranked Emmitt over Barry in my initial post. And yeah underrated is probably, like, overstated.
So, I'm sure that the folks over at Cold Hard Football Facts will do a stat analysis and prove much of this post wrong, but what the hell. Let me say right out the gate that Barry Sanders was an incredible back, and the most exciting player of his time (I actually rank Deion Sanders and Randall Cunningham right after Barry). I particularly love the move Barry put on a Patriot d-back where he spun the guy around in a circle. It took a while for me to write this post, in part because I was trying to find video of that move. No dice.
I'm going to make a very short critique of Barry, mostly because I don't want to nitpick. Furthermore, it is true that Barry played for a bad team with a mediocre coach. Having said that, I just want to enter into the record that Barry Sanders holds the NFL record for most yards lost, and that he was running on a home field (the Silverdome) that was simply butter for running backs. I think that accounts for some of his more lackluster playoff performances (only one touchdown in six playoff games), as the Lions were rarely playing at home. Like I said, I don't want to rip on Barry--I think he's either the fourth or fifth greatest back of all time (yeah, I'm hedging some on Dickerson).
Anyway, my case for Emmitt Smith relies on straight up consistency. Emmitt was less exciting than Barry, but constantly, constantly great. People love to note that Barry played for the marginal Wayne Fontes. But Emmitt--after a relatively short stint with Jimmy Johnson--played for the likes of Barry Switzer, Chan Gailey, and Dave Campo. I also hear a lot of people saying that Emmitt was running behind arguably the greatest o-line in history and virtually anyone could have been running in that situation. It should be noted that Emmitt Smith actually racked up most of his yards post-1995, after the Cowboys began to decline and after Jimmy Johnson was gone. In that period, Emmitt racked up six straight 1,000-yard seasons. It also should be noted that as good as the Cowboys line was, there probably is only a single Hall of Famer (Larry Allen) among them. That's the same number of HOFers as the Lions in the Barry Sanders era (Lomas Brown). Emmitt was great running behind the Cowboys line at its peak, but as they declined he stayed great and consistent. He was the constant, not the Cowboys O-Line--if anything, he made them look better than they were.
Still, the "any back could run behind that line" theory lingers. People
forget about 1993, when Jerry Jones learned the folly of such reasoning.
Jones refused to pay Emmit what he was worth and decided to start a
rookie named
Derrick Lassic. The Boys were promptly smashed off by two of their most
hated rivals--the Bills and the Redskins. After Emmitt came back in the
third game, the Cowboys only lost two more for the rest of the season
en route to a second Super Bowl. And here is the reason why Emmitt Smith
exceeds Barry Sanders. That year, the beat-up Cowboys desperately needed to
beat the surging Giants to secure a first-round bye. Emmitt Smith
willed the Cowboys to victory that game--and he did it with a separated shoulder.
Smith rushed for 168 yards and caught ten passes in what is arguably the greatest performance by any running back in history. Understand what I mean by "greatest." Other backs have had better days. But very few have had better days with that sort of significance. The Cowboys went on to the Super Bowl in large measure because of the bye Smith secured. When the Cowboys were losing to the Bills in the Super Bowl, they handed off to Smith seven straight times on one drive for 64 yards and a touchdown. That was the game.
Maybe it's wrong, but as a football fan, I live by the credo that great
players come up big in great games. I've seen a lot of Ray Lewis, but what defines him for me is the 2002 Super Bowl run where he's battling Eddie George. I've seen a lot Steve Young, but what I'll remember is him hitting Terrell Owens in the end zone against the Packers for the game-winner in 1998. What do I remember of Barry Sanders? Some really great runs that ultimately signified entertainment, but not winning. Oh, and this: setting an NFL record by rushing for negative one yards on 13 carries--in the playoffs.
While Barry was flash and beauty, Emmitt was workmanlike. And when the Cowboys needed yardage, Emmitt almost always got it for them. He might not break off one for 75 yards, but he would just beat teams down four, six, three, two, eight yards at a time. Barry broke ankles the way most of us walk down the street. But Emmitt elevated his team, and he did it when it counted. Were it not for Troy Aikman throwing all those picks in '94, Emmitt probably would have led the Cowboys to four championships. In that sense, in terms of impact, Emmitt may have even exceeded Walter Payton. I can't think of a single positive Sanders performance that even comes close to the significance of that separated shoulder game vs. the Giants. The
Cowboys won big games without Aikman. They won big games without
assorted lineman, without defenders. But they never won big games without Emmitt Smith.
He
is the only irreplaceable element of the team in the '90s, and arguably
the greatest big-game running back in history. One other thing I'll
add: Unlike Barry, Emmitt really was a complete back. He could run,
catch the ball out the backfield, and pick up the blitz. He
really was the total package. And we haven't even discussed the fact
that he simply has rushed for more yards than any other player in
history.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
All good, except that the Cowboys SUCK!
/sorry... 49ers fan
No mention of Sweetness?
This post makes me think I may miss Matt and his NBA problem more than I thought I would. Is this really an issue. Who would disagree with this post?
barry sanders was like a prolific HR hitter who also struck out 180 times a year... Consistency is key in the NFL.. Barry was too volatile to be considered the best ever..
I think we need to add to the methodology of evaluating great running backs what they did in their post-NFL life. Much as Jimmy Carter rose in stature post White House, Emmitt has been diminished by his retirement.
Come on, the man CANNOT be forgiven for the Just For Men commercials. They just aren't right.
"I also hear a lot of people saying that Emmitt was running behind arguably the greatest o-line in history and virtually anyone could have been running in that situation."
I have a man crush on Barry Sanders and always have. He made football fun to watch. And, regardless of what other folks may say, I had a ton of respect for the way he walked away from the game (and, in more than a few instances, easily from attainable records). All that being said, as much as I found it decidedly not enjoyable to watch Emmitt (probably largely because of the uniform he wore), the guy was a beast.
A few years ago, in my eagerness to prove that Emmitt was simply the beneficiary of playing behind cow-boys, I looked up his yards-per-carry versus the YPC of other running backs on the team in the same season for the duration of his career. Folks who play fantasy football (and many who don't) know that it's not uncommon for the backup to play just as well if not better than the star back. Logic would dictate that if Emmitt was taking all the glory while the line did all the work, just about any decent back could do just as well. My memory is rusty - and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong - but it seemed like, in almost every season, he was almost a full yard per carry better than the next best guy on the team. While certainly not definitive - there's lot's o' strategic reasons that might happen - it made a pretty strong case for ES in my book.
I don't even know where to begin to dispute this post. So I won't. Your logic is difficult to argue with, but I'm sure many will.
Will you be introducing Smith at his Hall of Fame induction?
It's genuinely difficult to isolate individual performances in football -- teammates and the context matter so much that there's almost no such thing as an individual performance. Punters and placekickers are probably the only exception.
This is one reason I'm glad I'm a baseball fan primarily. Arguments that come down to grit and heart and "coming up big in big situations" are almost inevitably anecdotal and rhetorical exercises. It seems much, much harder to come up with analytical tools and criteria to distinguish the best among a group of good running backs or DEs or even QBs -- so it comes down to which person tells their anecdotal stories best. Baseball has enough individual match-ups (and large enough samples of them) to make informed judgments about individual players and their performances. Arguing about the best football player seems to me more like arguing about the best band.
It just seems like under your standards, Walter Payton should be the top back of all time. He had all of Emmitt's consistency and willingness to play through pain and injury.
Like Barry Sanders, Walter was stuck on bad teams for most of his career. The difference being, of course, that Walter toughed it out through years and years of Bear mediocrity, never running out of bounds, smashing into two or three defenders at a time.
To answer your "great players in great games" theory, I don't think its as applicable in football as it is in basketball or baseball. Especially for a running back, who is really at the mercy of his coaches and offensive line. If there are three guys in the backfield on every play, I don't care who is back there with the ball, they're going nowhere.
Still think Barry was the better back, but I'm a Giants fan, and I remember that game when Smith kept playing after separating his shoulder. That was one of the guttier performances I've seen.
Another back for consideration (maybe for the top 10), even though he didn't have a particularly long career and probably doesn't lead in many stats: Tiki Barber. At his peak, he was arguably the best all-purpose back in the league.
I'm a big Barry fan, but you (and remembering that 1995 playoffs where he went 10 carries for -13 yards) have convinced me to some degree.
Alright, I'm not going to dispute your arguments, because I think they are right on.
But to call Emmitt Smith underrated is just ridiculous.
One annoying thing about Emmitt Smith was the deal where every time he scored a touchdown they put the ball in that big chest on the sideline (so he could sell them on Hammacher Schlemmer later?). Contrast that with Barry's practice of simply handing the ball to the ref.
You cannot leave out sweetness and Marcus Allen.
Emmitt is the Hank Aaron of running backs - a classic compiler. You play a lot of seasons at a high level, you compile big stats. But Emmitt was never the most dangerous running back in the league when he played - not once. Barry was a better RB early in Emmitt's career, and Marshall Faulk was a better RB late in Emmitt's career. Same with Hank - he was never the best home run hitter in the league during his career; guys like Mays, Mantle, McCovey and Killebrew were all better players at one time or another during Aaron's era. But Aaron was consistent for a long time, and so you get people saying that Aaron was the best home run hitter of all time. I don't think that's right, just like I don't think Emmitt is the best of all time.
I agree with just about everything you said, but I think it is a bit of a stretch to call Emmitt underrated. While L.Allen may "technically" be the only Hall of Fame lineman, as a whole the Cowboy line during the 90's were monsters. Erik Williams and Nate Newton belong in the Hall, Stepnoski,Gogan, Tuinei, hell even Ray Donaldson made multiple pro-bowls. Flo Adams surely is on the way to the Hall.
At any rate I think it is myth that any old rb can run behind a good line. It takes a special talent to consistently hit the whole at the right time and exploit every crack no matter the size to maximum gain.
That being said, the greatest rb in Cowboy history was Tony Dorsett...enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_9mr8Ib6wc&feature=related
I agree with just about everything you said, but I think it is a bit of a stretch to call Emmitt underrated. While L.Allen may "technically" be the only Hall of Fame lineman, as a whole the Cowboy line during the 90's were monsters. Erik Williams and Nate Newton belong in the Hall, Stepnoski,Gogan, Tuinei, hell even Ray Donaldson made multiple pro-bowls. Flo Adams surely is on the way to the Hall.
At any rate I think it is myth that any old rb can run behind a good line. It takes a special talent to consistently hit the whole at the right time and exploit every crack no matter the size to maximum gain.
That being said, the greatest rb in Cowboy history was Tony Dorsett...enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_9mr8Ib6wc&feature=related
Uh, the Bills were hardly the hated rivals of the Cowboys. Not even close (on either side). You might want to steer clear of NFL analysis.
Ta-Nehisi, I'm pretty sure that the stat geeks will say exactly what you said. Football Outsiders always likes to point out that the most important thing for a running back to do is to get four yards on first down consistently. The point isn't the home runs, it's the first downs. Football is about maintaining possessions, just like baseball is about conserving outs. A running back who goes forward a lot helps his team keep the ball, just like a baseball player with a high on-base percentage keeps his team up to bat.
Emmitt Smith was great at going forward, Barry Sanders was not. Obviously Barry was a great back, but he was precisely the sort of back that would get overrated by traditional methods, including Yards Per Carry.
YAY for the end of Matthew Y's tyrannical focus on basketball! Im glad to see some football coverage here on the Atlantic blog...i mean, where else would one go for sports analysis?
Some very good points, but I'm not persuaded. Emmitt was great, and the Giants game was unforgettable; he just wasn't better than Sanders.
1) Quarterbacks: I can accept the claim that Aikman was made much better as a result of Emmitt (though he was a #1 pick). But here is the collection of qurterbacks that Barry played with: Peete, Erik Kramer, Gagliano, Scott Mitchell, Dave Krieg, and Charlie Batch. What's amazing is that these guys played in the run and shoot, with Barry Sanders as an incredible running threat, and none of them could stick.
2) The offensive line comparison is laughable. How many Pro Bowlers appearances were there for the respective offensive lines? Nate Newton was a beast, as were Mark Tuinei and Stepnoski. Yes, Emmitt kept producing, but for a number of years he went untouched into the secondary on a ridiculous percentage of runs. Lomas Brown in the HoF? Don't see it.
3) You miss part of what was truly amazing about Barry Sanders; he averaged 5.0 yards a carry, despite losing lots of yards, without a lot of long touchdown runs. In 5 of his 10 seasons, his longest run was 55 yards or shorter. He compiled tons of 8-12 yards runs. By the way, in his 2053 yard season he averaged 6.1 yards per carry.
4) 2nd all-time in rushing yards per game (99.8), behind Jim Brown. Emmitt is 17th (81.2). Even if you remove the AZ years, it's not close.
5) While I appreciate that Emmitt wom 3 Super Bowls, football is different from other sports in which a single guy can consistently will you victory. This leads to a couple of points:
a) The Cowboys had a terrific defense that was ranked in the top 10 in points and yards allowed (and 2nd for several years) in 8 of Emmitt's seasons. The Lions defense was ranked in the top 10 in those categories twice.
b) see QB and OL points above. Oh, and can you name a TE that played for the Lions. No Jay Novacek there.
6) Your claim about completeness is overstated. Barry averaged 35 catches a year, lower than Emmitt, but not a big margin. Emmitt was a better blocker, though that's a miniscule part of the evaluation here.
7) By the way, in his junior year at Oklahoma State Sanders had 2628 yards rushing (record) and 39 TDs (37 rushing) (records). Those are not typos.
8) There is no great response to his playoff troubles. I do think that if you're playing against a team with a great RB and poor QB, you gang up on the run and let the QB try to beat you. See Earl Campbell limited success in playoffs. I also think that playoff rushing yardage is more likely to come late when you are winning and the defense is tired. Sanders rarely got those opportunities. Be careful on the playoff greatness claim. I LOVE the Steelers, but Franco Harris is nowhere near these guys despite his great playoff numbers (and I have his throwback jersey).
Emmitt is way up there, but Jim Brown was so above and beyond the competition of his time, that he still has to be considered the best (no one player has ever dominated football like he did). But Emmitt deserves props for his consistency. To quote him: "Don't quit. Don't even quit."
TC,
I know that, like Obama, you were too good to be true. I just didn't know what your issue was until I read this column and know I know the horrible, awful truth: you are Cowboy jock sniffer!!
Saddened,
HR
I don't see how Ta-Nehisi can say Emmitt's underrated though. When he started out, but certainly not today. If we're talking the "underrated greatness" of running backs the whole post should be about Curtis Martin.
It took me a while to get over my hate of the Cowboys and recognize the true greatness of Emmitt Smith. His stats are impressive, but his longevity is what's truly deserving of respect. Not only was he extremely talented, but he was extremely tough.
There was a point in the late 90s when the best running back in the world was a guy named Terrell Davis. Great rusher, goal line threat, and all around great guy. But....made of glass.
Emmitt...Ole Emmitt was forged in steel!
Marshall Faulk is the best all-purpose back of all-time. The guy could have been a perennial pro-bowler as a WR if he wanted, and had one of the best three year periods of any RB ever. He could have, and probably should have, won the MVP the two years that Kurt Warner did.
"Here's what I see," Jim Brown says. "Emmitt is a great player in a great system, a system that suits him perfectly. He is a hell of a warrior, and he fits into the Dallas scheme better than anybody."
But after that talented bit of fence-straddling, and after being sure to say he means no disrespect to anybody, Brown was more forthcoming. "As far as a pure running back is concerned," he says, "Barry Sanders is the most talented running back in the game. On the other hand, if you're Dallas, I don't think you'd get rid of Emmitt for anybody."
...In many ways, Smith vs. Sanders comes down to the company they keep.
Gale Sayers: "I wish Barry had a better line to run behind. I'd like to see what would happen then. Many times when you see him, he's making moves behind the line of scrimmage, trying to get away. A lot of times Emmitt isn't touched until he's five yards past the line. When Barry's five yards into the secondary, he's gone. People talk about whether Barry can gain 2,000 yards in a season. Well, if he had Dallas' line, we'd be asking how many years he'd be gaining 2,000 yards. Look at his stats now: He's gaining 1,500 or 1,600 yards anyway. I think Emmitt is a good second-effort runner, a strong runner, but I go with Barry."
Jim Brown: "I don't think Barry's ever been used properly, but that's a different story. If I had my pick of anybody in the league, and I was picking in terms of talent -- maybe not even winning and losing games, but just pure talent -- I'd take Barry. He's the most talented running back in the NFL."
The Sporting News, July 21, 1997 (by Tim Keown)
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_n29_v221/ai_19625066/pg_3?tag=artBody;col1
ColdHardFootballFacts? Ugh.
Try Footballsiders.com instead.
I'm sorry I got here late - HW has a better response than I could muster, but I'd still have tried.
One thing I'll admit - you did make me realize that Emmitt Smith was better than I thought. But I agree with the thought that he's a classic compiler. And -- I totally disagree with the home run hitter analysis - if I could have a player who gets a base hit every game or a guy who hits 50-60 home runs a year, I'm going with the latter. He changes the whole game around him.
I agree with the above mentioned lines about o-lineman, there's no argument that Smith had a better one. I was surprised though by how poorly the Cowboys sometimes performed without Smith - that's one reason I underestimated him.
And I still don't think we should hold Sanders' lack of playoff success against him - his career coincided with the rise of Brett Favre in the central, the dynastic Cowboys, and the Joe Montana-Steve Young Niners (the former version of which, particularly the '89 brand, woulda whipped any of the Cowboys SB teams)- and and all three of them had spectacular defenses (though GB's bloomed a little later than the other two). His numbers in the playoffs are inauspicious, of course, but I'll throw out the sample size canard. Sanders played in 6 playoff games, 5 of them losses. The Lions were blown out in three of those games - and the strange thing was that the biggest splits were against the '93 Packers and the '94 Packers - he had his greatest performance in '93 with 169 yds and '94 was the infamous -1 game. I'd like to argue that Wayne Fontes froze up and lost his bearings, throwing every down or whatever, like Mike Martz in that awful, awful SB against the Pats that we will never ever talk about again, but I don't remember much about those games and don't have the willingness to go look at them in depth.
Let's not discount Moose Johnston either - the Cowboys had a traditional pro-style offense with a lead blocker, the Lions had that dreadful Run 'n' Shoot, which may have worked like a charm in the Tecmo games, but its effect on the Barry Sanders Lions was to deprive him of a blocking back and inflate the stats of a host of wide receivers and one Scott Wilifred Mitchell (I have no idea if that's his middle name). If anything, it's more impressive that Barry Sanders did as well as he did with that offense in place for so many years.
Howevuh, it may be the case that we're at the level of rarified athlete where the big difference is style, not ability.
I suck at arguing, I'll freely admit that, but I cobbled shit together as best I could. And, I always hated the Cowboys, both the scary dynasty and the current version with that doofus of a quarterback. As a Chiefs fan, I don't get to argue a whole lot on behalf of my favorite players, except that Derrick Thomas is third to only LT and Reggie White as a pass rusher (who the EFF woulda thought LT would outlive both of them, by the way?), Tony Gonzalez is the greatest TE ever, and since I was twelve at the time, it wasn't so very awkward seeing Joe Montana in a Chiefs jersey.
So let us now settle the debate - John Elway, with all his open-collared shirts, horse teeth, and interceptions, couldn't hold a candle to Joe Montana. He woulda gone nowhere without Terrell Davis.
JoePo has it with Moose, and I'll add to an equal extent, Jay Novacek. Barry had no TE, no FB, terrible QBs, and only one good lineman ever (Lomas Brown, who was terrifyingly good in his day). The only other decent OL he had as Mike Utley, who was paralyzed in a game.
In a fantasy parallel world the Emmitt and Barry switch teams and Barry reels of 5 straight 2000 yard seasons, Cowboys win 4 straight SBs and 6 out of 8, and Emmitt puts up Lorenzo White-esque numbers for a about 11 seasons.
Take it from two of the best:
Running debate: Barry or Emmitt?
The Sporting News, July 21, 1997
by Tim Keown
"Here's what I see," Jim Brown says. "Emmitt is a great player in a great system, a system that suits him perfectly. He is a hell of a warrior, and he fits into the Dallas scheme better than anybody."
But after that talented bit of fence-straddling, and after being sure to say he means no disrespect to anybody, Brown was more forthcoming. "As far as a pure running back is concerned," he says, "Barry Sanders is the most talented running back in the game. On the other hand, if you're Dallas, I don't think you'd get rid of Emmitt for anybody."
...
In many ways, Smith vs. Sanders comes down to the company they keep.
Gale Sayers: "I wish Barry had a better line to run behind. I'd like to see what would happen then. Many times when you see him, he's making moves behind the line of scrimmage, trying to get away. A lot of times Emmitt isn't touched until he's five yards past the line. When Barry's five yards into the secondary, he's gone. People talk about whether Barry can gain 2,000 yards in a season. Well, if he had Dallas' line, we'd be asking how many years he'd be gaining 2,000 yards. Look at his stats now: He's gaining 1,500 or 1,600 yards anyway. I think Emmitt is a good second-effort runner, a strong runner, but I go with Barry."
Jim Brown: "I don't think Barry's ever been used properly, but that's a different story. If I had my pick of anybody in the league, and I was picking in terms of talent -- maybe not even winning and losing games, but just pure talent -- I'd take Barry. He's the most talented running back in the NFL."
Thanks, Aaron. And Brown and Sayers made those comments before Barry had his 2000 yard season.
I'm glad people have reminded me of the greatness of Sweetness. He was a truly awesome player who did everything amazingly well. Of course, he didn't start winning playoff games until he got a devastating defense and a very good (if oft-injured) quarterback.
"Maybe it's wrong, but as a football fan, I live by the credo that great players come up big in great games."
My sentiments exactly. This is why I will always contend that Tom Brady is the superior QB to Petyon Manning.
Thanks, Aaron. And Brown and Sayers made those comments before Barry had his 2000 yard season.
I'm glad people have reminded me of the greatness of Sweetness. He was a truly awesome player who did everything amazingly well. Of course, he didn't start winning playoff games until he got a devastating defense and a very good (if oft-injured) quarterback.
barry sanders was like a prolific HR hitter who also struck out 180 times a year... Consistency is key in the NFL.. Barry was too volatile to be considered the best ever..
"So let us now settle the debate - John Elway, with all his open-collared shirts, horse teeth, and interceptions, couldn't hold a candle to Joe Montana. He woulda gone nowhere without Terrell Davis."
You said you were a Chiefs fan, right JoePo? Not saying I even disagree with you, but I think your view MIGHT be a bit bias. So c'mon, couldn't hold a candle? Joe Montana had Jerry Rice. Who's the best receiver Elway ever played with? A younger Rod Smith? Just saying...
Also, I'll Kellen Winslow, AND Shannon Sharpe over Tony Gonzalez any day...
Okay, maybe I don't mean that, but I figured it might get a rise out of you.
Stacy writes: "Not saying I even disagree with you, but I think your view MIGHT be a bit bias."
The word you're looking for is "biased." I see this misuse of "bias" everywhere these days and it's annoying.
As for Smith - I'd forgotten the separated shoulder game. Amazing stuff.
I don't know, MLandJ, 'bias' and 'biased' can both be adjectives. I was desribing his view, which is a noun. I'm not insisting I'm right, but care to shed a little extra light on it? Unless 'bias' only counts as adjective when talking about textiles or cuts.
The video you were looking for where Barry spins the Patriots' D-back in a circle is on this clip, in the middle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OOeq_8AMR4
JoePo has it with Moose, and I'll add to an equal extent, Jay Novacek. Barry had no TE, no FB, terrible QBs, and only one good lineman ever (Lomas Brown, who was terrifyingly good in his day). The only other decent OL he had as Mike Utley, who was paralyzed in a game.
In a fantasy parallel world the Emmitt and Barry switch teams and Barry reels of 5 straight 2000 yard seasons, Cowboys win 4 straight SBs and 6 out of 8, and Emmitt puts up Lorenzo White-esque numbers for a about 11 seasons.
As a longtime Packer fan who had to endure Barry Sanders and Emmitt Smith throughout the 1990s it is harder to separate Emmitt from the Cowboys than Barry from the Lions. The Lions sucked. There was no QB to worry about (whether it was Scott Mitchell or Rodney Peete)getting the ball to Herman Moore and so the entire defense could get ready to stop Barry Sanders. And yet he still managed to get his yards, break off big plays, and embarrass defensive players. And he couldn't count on the Detroit defense to stop anyone.
Not to take anything away from Emmitt Smith, but an offense that featured HOFers at QB (Aikman), WR (Irvin), and a stellar offensive line, and defense is not comparing apples to apples.
Emmitt Smith was a great player on a Super Bowl team dynasty. Barry Sanders was a great player on a team that would have finished third in teh Big Ten.
I highly recommend Greg Easterbook's old TMQ take on this at the bottom of:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=tmq/021029
Money quote:
"Next there's Emmitt, man of the hour. Rarely hath the football gods produced better. Power-rushing, breakaway speed (people forgot how many long runs he had), good blocker, skilled receiver. Excellent overall football smarts, and a leader by example. Everything the self-absorbed Sanders lacked in terms of helping motivate teammates, Smith had. The three Super Bowl rings Smith wears attest to the team-oriented nature of his game and the positive impact he had on those around him. Emmitt Smith has an excellent case for being best back of all time. There is only one reason he is not: Walter Payton.
Payton and Smith each ran for roughly the same stats in the same number of games, but Payton played with less able teammates. Consider Smith's magnificent supporting cast, at least eight others from his offense making the Pro Bowl -- Aikman, Allen, Irvin, Johnson, Newton, Novacek, Stepnoski, Tuinei, am I missing anyone? -- versus the basically average supporting cast for Sweetness. Jim McMahon, for example, was an average quarterback rendered potent by lining up next to a guy defenses were terrified of. Payton is both the Bears' all-time rusher and all-time receiver, and for good measure the best option-back ever, throwing eight TD passes. He was the best blocker of the elite RBs. He played tirelessly, never complained during the Chicago lean years, and was rewarded by the football gods with a ring.
As Greg Kelley of Great Falls, Mont., notes, Payton sat out for injury only once in his career, and always said his best-ever play was not a run but a block thrown for a teammate in a 1985 contest against the Vikings. Plus we have to be a bit sentimental, since Sweetness is now in Asgard, enjoying song and feasting with the football gods. Payton was best-ever -- who else would you pick to start a team? "
"Football Outsiders always likes to point out that the most important thing for a running back to do is to get four yards on first down consistently.
Emmitt Smith was great at going forward, Barry Sanders was not.
Posted by Joel W | August 6, 2008 11:06 AM"
Uhhhh, no. From FO's site, "A common historical misconception is that our preference for consistent running backs means that "Football Outsiders believes that Barry Sanders was overrated." Sanders wasn't just any boom-and-bust running back, though; he was the greatest boom-and-bust runner of all time, with bigger booms and fewer busts. Our play-by-play database only goes back to 1995, but Sanders led the league in rushing DYAR for 1996 and was second behind Terrell Davis in 1997."
http://footballoutsiders.com/pregame.php
That's an excellent argument, but I'm going to go with a much simpler rebuttal:
If you switch both players, the Cowboys still win titles, and Barry probably gains significantly more yards.
Put Smith on the Lions (and I am and was a Lions fan) and he doesn't even approach the all-time rushing record.
Sanders sucked in the playoffs because the Packers or whoever else would just stack the line with 9 men and stuff the run, knowing Detroit's shitty QBs couldn't throw it outside. Barry never had any trouble getting his outdoors.
Jim Brown is the greatest RB and probably the greatest football player of all time. If he takes Sanders, that's good enough for me.
T-
I'm a diehard Patriots fan. FYI, Harry Colon was the DB who Barry spun completely around. I remember watching it thinking, "man, that was ILL!"
Also, special mention to LT (the Chargers LT) who shook Ty Law out of his drawers in a Chargers?Chiefs game a couple of years back .
props.
Well-written, sir. As a Redskins fan, I give Emmitt Smith my highest possible accolade: Roger Staubach is Satan and Smith is the Son of Satan.
Well-argued. Still wrong though!
This argument is more interesting for the stats that AREN'T mentioned, rather than the stats that are.
1st off, of course - Yards per run. Barry's at 5. Emmitt clearly isn't.
Offensive lines and offenses. You make a case about offensive lines, based on the Hall of Famer's - but really, take a look at sacks totals. The offensive line of the Lions, was ALWAYS worse than the offensive line of the Cowboys, the Detriot line was often swiss cheese.
Not to mention - as has been stated above, the WHOLE OFFENSE of the cowboys includes a large number of Pro Bowlers - while Detroit had Barry, Dallas was always multi-dimensional.
Still - I do agree, Emmitt Smith was TOUGH. He is a GREAT back.
But, he simply wasn't a better runner than Sanders. It's pretty obvious, as attested to (above) by Jim Brown and Gale Sayers.
Again - it comes down to how you define.
Barry was the better running back. I can see the argument that Smith was the better PLAYER, given his versatility, consistency, and toughness.
You also neglect to mention two other stats - Barry's 2053 yard season.
And his 6.1 - 6.1!!! - average gain in 1997.
Also - is there any doubt that, given 3 more years, Sanders would have the most rushing yards?
Heck, really, Smith hardly beats Sanders in records held, even WITH the 3 year gap. 100 yard games? Smith 78, Sanders 76.
That Barry Sanders video didn't include one of my favorite Sanders moves -- the time he faked out that Jets DB so hard that the DB just fell sideways like a statue while Sanders cut the other way.
I love this post and the thread, though I didn't agree with all, I did most, of it. I'm admittedly so biased I could never even consider a player without a star on the side of his helmet to be the best football player at any position.
Still, I wouldn't call Emmitt underrated, and though Emmitt went on to surpass him in all the stats, my favorite running back will likely forever be Tony Dorsett.
1st off, of course - Yards per run. Barry's at 5. Emmitt clearly isn't.
And his 6.1 - 6.1!!! - average gain in 1997.
The obvious flaw in this logic is that both current RBs for the Atlanta Falcons have higher YPC averages than Barry. Michael Turner is 5.9 and Jerious Norwood is 6.2. And Norwood has spent his career behind a horrible OL. By your logic, these two must be greater than both Barry and Emmitt. You could call it the greatest backfield of all time.
Bo Jackson's career average was 5.4 and during his rookie season he gained 6.8 - 6.8!!! yards every time he carried the ball.
I think it boils down to how you define "greatness". Is it most raw talent? I think Barry was probably better in that case. But I think Bo was better than Barry, so he still doesn't crack to top 4. In my opinion, you have to include the intangibles. Bo Jackson didn't play long enough. Barry Sanders never delivered in the clutch. At some point it doesn't matter that Emmitt was a compiler. Does it really matter that Sanders fumbled more often? What matters is that Emmitt had the stronger will, was a more effective leader, and developed a greater number of skills.
For pure rushing beauty, I don't include Jim Brown in my top 5.
Just Karl writes: "For pure rushing beauty, I don't include Jim Brown in my top 5."
Nope. Few would. I still say he's the best RB ever, though.
Barry Sanders was the best running back ever between the 20s. I'll concede that. I don't think that will make his supporters happy.
"Barry Sanders was the best running back ever between the 20s. I'll concede that. I don't think that will make his supporters happy."
Take a look at the stats. He had 99 career rushing TDs and is 15th in career touchdowns (109). He averaged nearly 11 TDs per season, scored double-digit TDs 7 of 10 years, and led the league with 16 rushing TDs and 17 total TDs in 1991 and led the league in total TDs (16) in 1990. It's true that he was not always used at the goal-line as much as other elite backs; I always thought that was coaching error.
Furthermore:
I saw Emmitt Smith and former Dallas mayor Ron Kirk introduce Obama at his campaign rally in February in Dallas.
Emmitt was a strong magnetic presence and really fired them up for Obama. Definitely one of the more rhetorically and oratorically gifted pro athletes out there.
Obama was very admiring when he came on stage. "Emmitt, is there anything you can't do?" He asked. "I'm glad [Emmitt Smith] isn't running for president," he added.
SWEETNESS-- nobody better, on or off the field, on earth or in heaven.
SWEETNESS.
fantastic write-up, and i agree with you 100%.. i've argued many of the same points as you over the years.. nicely done!
Emmitt > Barry
period.