wow that's impressive ... Barry Sanders was the best running back ever in the NFL IMO
(as far as overall skill set) No way Emitt Smith would have done what Barry Sanders did
in Detroit.

Wow thats actually really awesome.. 9 More touchdowns Wow... If he returns to anything close to his near form from the knee injury I think that he might be regarded as one of the best Running Backs ever to play in the NFL.

That is interesting. Barry Sanders was an increbile running back. I grew up a fan of Eric Dickerson but when I saw Barry Sanders run, that all changed quickly. Barry if he wanted to, could have smashed the all-time rushing record. With that being said, seeing AP's numbers next to Barry's after five years in the NFL, I am impressed with AP even more.

And you know Emmitt Smith wouldn't have done as good as Barry based on what?

Even as a Vikes fan I'm so tired of hearing about the line comparison and who would be better where. They played where they played. Emmitt was an amazing back and has the most rushing yards in NFL history. Good line or not, what he did was nothing short of astonishing. And what's even more amazing is for how long he was productive and how durable he was.

Say what you want, but I have Emmitt #1. All this line and team talk is overrated IMO.

I know I'm interjecting myself in the conversation here, but I disagree. Why?

Smith surpassed Sanders on only 2 statistics (total yards and TDs). Smith also played 4 years longer than Sanders to achieve those stats.

Check this Link for the stats. What stands out to me (and why there is a debate) is that Smith looks "head and shoulders" better in playoff games. But in almost every other category (avg per game/carry/etc - regular season) Sanders is better. While the author concludes that Smith played "big in big games" I tend to recall that with Aikman and Irvin and the rest of the Cowboy cast, defenses couldn't just focus on Smith. The reverse is not true with the Lions. Everyone knew that if you wanted to beat the Lions, you shut down Barry Sanders. If you tried that with Dallas and Smith, Aikman would tear you apart. I don't think the team talk is "overrated." I think it goes right to the heart of the debate...

Just my 2 cents...

I totally accept your 2 cents. I will agree to disagree.

The people who say he was big in big games are totally correct. Emmitt was the epitome of a big game performer. The numbers won't lie there. When you look at Barry, I'm not looking at the stats in front of me, but I can remember him gaining like 15-20 yards in playoff games.

And look, I'm not stupid and I understand he was the focus of their offense, but I also think that sometimes gets overstated a bit. Look at our own AP for example. He still can get his yards with the box packed.

All I'm saying is Barry was an amazing back, and he played on an inferior team. That is a fact. What's also a fact is Emmitt surpassed him and he played huge in big games. And yes I know, he played more years than Barry but it's still astonishing what he did. I don't think anyone will ever pass him.

The stats on the link I provided actually show that he averaged 4.2 yards per carry in the six postseason games he played. Smith averaged 4.5. There is no disputing that Smith played better in playoff games, however I don't think the disparity is as great as people seem to be recalling. The biggest factor, in my opinion, is the disparity between touchdown scores in postseason play. 19 to 1. And if scores are the measure of your evaluation, then I can see why you would think Smith played better.

I just think Sanders was an amazing back. When taking into consideration that he was the only legitimate weapon on that offense and was playing behind a suspect line, his abilities are even more amazing. I know I won't convince you to change your mind, nor will you change mine, but it's entertaining to kick it back and forth.

The Lions were a mediocre-to-bad team for much of Sanders' career and he was easily their best player so I think there's a tendency to forget that he was not, in fact, the only legitimate weapon on that offense. They had Herman Moore, a superb receiver who broke the record for most receptions in a season in 1995 by catching 123 passes for 1686 yards. That was part of a streak of 4 straight 1000+ yard receiving seasons. They also had WR Brett Perriman who wasn't great but, for a few seasons, was an extremely productive #2 WR. For example, during that 1995 season, he balanced Moore's 1686 yards with 1488. Those two receivers and Sanders combined for over 5000 yards of offense that season. Mind boggling!

Anyway, Sanders never had a great o-line in front of him and in many seasons, he was the primary focus of defenses facing the Lions so what he accomplished was amazing. I just think it's worth mentioning that, like Smith, there were seasons where Sanders was surrounded by some very productive offensive players.

Overall, I think Sanders was the better RB but they were both great. I don't consider either the greatest RB of all time but they were sure fun to watch.

Yeah, I don't mind some back in forth, it's all in fun! Anyhow, I actually wasn't too concerned about his yards per carry but more his yards per (playoff) game and like you said, his TD production. His yards per game was a pedestrian 64.3 while Emmitt was 93.3. That coupled with the TD's is a big deal to me.

The reason why I'm not as concerned with yards per carry is because as you said, Barry only played in 6 playoff games and gaining 169 yards in one of them greatly increased his YPC. If you look deeper into his other 5 playoff games, they were mediocre at best and he gained -1 yards in one of them (1994). He never gained over 70 yards in any of the other 5 playoff games.

So not only was Emmitt a better regular season back (I know he played more seasons), but he was a far better playoff performer as well. And I'm glad Jim chimed in with some good points. Barry didn't always play with a bunch of slouches. And to add even more, if you really delve deep into the Lions history, they had quite a bit of perennial pro bowlers on their offensive line while Barry was there. I always thought the whole "Barry had a bad line" argument was way overrated. But to each his own.

But at the end of the day I know I won't change your mind or anyone elses. And that's fine! Because like I said earlier, Barry was an amazing back!

I had actually forgotten about Moore, and that is a good point. The other good point that I will readily acknowledge is that Sanders stat line often looked similar to:

2, 0, -3, 1, 0, -1, 4, 77, 1, 0, -1, 3...

And you get the point. As to who was the best of all time, that is also debatable, but I remember after Sanders 2000+ season he was asked if this made him the "Best of all time"? Sanders replied that his dad said Jim Brown was the best of all time and there was no further discussion.

I'm inclined to agree. There are other great backs who deserve to be in the discussion: Payton, Campbell, Simpson, Sanders, Dickerson, Smith, etc. Hopefully, one day, Peterson will be a serious part of that discussion too. However, when you really look at what Brown accomplished, it's hard to argue against him.

His career stats:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... owJi00.htm

For anyone interested, here are links to a few videos about Brown worth watching:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4QQ9fnA ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6cCXNBeVfc

You meant Emmet and not Robert right? (I a homer - what can I say )

Thanks for the youtube links on Brown - Those were great!

yes, I met Emmitt, not Robert.



He was a bada##.

Injuries can cut a great back's career short, which is probably why Gale Sayers (who is always overlooked) and Terrell Davis aren't included in the above list. But they sure should be.

Sorry for the bad visual quality but for anyone who doesn't remember what a force Sayers was in his brief career, here are some highlights:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5l4HS9b08I

They certainly belong on any list of the all-time greats at the position. One of the reasons Brown makes such a great candidate for the top spot is he played and dominated for 9 years without getting injured, putting up numbers in the process that have never been matched.

I suppose it all depends on the criteria, which is why I always love this discussion. . Is the greatest RB of all time the one who had the best overall career in terms of performance, health, statistical excellence, etc. or is the greatest of all time the back who, in his prime, was arguably THE best. In other words, was Sayers at his best better than Brown at his best? What about Campbell, O.J., Payton, Sanders, Dickerson, etc. at their best? I'm not sure it's possible to determine but I know there are people who watched the Kansas Comet who believe that nobody has ever been better than Sayers was in his prime.

Sayers had an absolutely unbelievable combination of speed and agility. The only other player I've seen with that kind of speed/agility combination is Barry Sanders.

Thanks for the link, Craig.

I agree that for the best player on a Cowboys dynasty and the all-time leading rusher Emmitt Smith gets zero respect. he had incredible durability, upped his game for actual big games, and hardly built his stats "under the radar". He was targeted his entire career. Barry Sanders was a unique talent with freakish abilities, but his biggest games came sort of at random times, and Reggie White and the Packers also showed he could be stopped completely at times. All that being said, Jim Brown is the greatest RB of all-time and there will never be another, not even close. Even Barry Sanders' dad knew that

barry sanders had a bad o-line like adrian petersons. vikings may be worse. adrian gets alot of no gains then he will break a big one like barry sanders.

Imagine AP during the 98-99 O-Line era. Would have been incredible.

broncos won two super bowls mainly because of terrell davis and the offensive line.
i know its a passing league now but if vikings could build an outstanding defense like the 2002 buccaneers i feel they could win a super bowl. defense still wins championships, e.g. 2011 ny giants, and 2010 packers.

Purple milk wrote,

And you know Emmitt Smith wouldn't have done as good as Barry based on what?

Even as a Vikes fan I'm so tired of hearing about the line comparison and who would be better where. They played where they played. Emmitt was an amazing back and has the most rushing yards in NFL history. Good line or not, what he did was nothing short of astonishing. And what's even more amazing is for how long he was productive and how durable he was.

Say what you want, but I have Emmitt #1. All this line and team talk is overrated IMO.


First off the NFL is a team sport.

Secondly if you have one of the best OL ever in the NFL which emmitt did have his entire career. not too mention Aikman
, Moose Johnson, Micheal Irvin

I am not saying Emmitt was a bad player. My point is if he was on Detroit lions teams that Barry Sanders was on he would
have not made the hall of fame. If Barry Sanders was on Dallas I think he would have had four or five 2000 years seasons
easily. Its like Peterson.. If AD was on a better team he would break 200 yards a lot in my opinon. I love AD, but I feel
sorry for him at times. He probably would have a ring or two if he was on a better team than the Vikings.

Emmitt Smith was a product of other peoples talent as much as his own .. its a fact

emmitt smith was great. no one knows what he would have done behind another offensive line.