Support NeoGAF

[SickBoy]

If you don't think he's the greatest running back of all time, that's fine. If you don't think he's at least in the top half-dozen or so, I'd wonder about your judgment. But the record is indisputable -- he played a LONG time, was productive over that time, and earned the career rushing record. There's no asterisk involved.

You're right. I can't think of a top half-dozen without Emmitt (though I consider him closer to six than one). I think in his prime his abilities were overrated (I think he's a beneficiary of a great team like Denver's string of backs over the past several years have been -- Reuben Droughns is not a 1200-yd back) but you can't deny his consistency and the fact that he did a lot in his career. So yeah, I think Dallas was great for him, but Dallas alone isn't why he made a lotta yards. And though I've never been a Cowboys fan, the guy is classy.

I do have to take issue with the Marshall Faulk derision in the thread though. I think Faulk may be a number-10ish back when all is said and done. But given the scoffs in this thread, I took a look at the numbers, comparative to Smith's (as Emmitt is so often defined by his huge numbers)

NOTE: I AM NOT SAYING MARSHALL FAULK IS BETTER THAN EMMITT SMITH

Marshall Faulk:
2771 runs, 11987 yards, 4.3/carry, 100TD
723 catches, 6584 yards, 9.1/catch, 35TD
7 pro bowls
In sum, it's 18,571 yards from scrimmage, 135TDs.

Emmitt Smith:

4409 runs, 18355 yards, 4.2/carry, 164TD
515 catches, 3224 yards, 6.3/catch, 11TD
8 pro bowls
So 21,579 yards from scrimmage, 175TDs.

That's 3000 (~16%) more yards on 1,423 (~41%) more touches and four more years of play.

I've always thought Faulk has been a better-than-average, but not great runner (with the exception of a couple of his best years on the Rams -- when I thought he was going to continue proving me wrong long-term). However, his achievement as an all-purpose back is exceptional.

As far as Rams/Colts backs, though, the better all-time runner is Eric Dickerson... another top-10 sort of back.

And an interesting (maybe) contribution to the thread: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/dr_z/02/03/drz.runningback.list/

 

[Eminem]

Please forgive my lack of reading comprehension, I was blinded by your stupidity. I guess using the word average three times in describing his career is your idea of giving him props?

oh my. i think someone just got fucking owned.

 

[D'ultimate]

It's about f'king time. While I respect him as a great runner and pillar of longevity, his reluctance to retire in order to pad his numbers really irks me. And don't bother trying to "own" me on that. He's said it interviews more than once. Although not in those words.

I think people need to put some things into perspective about the Emmitt vs Barry comparo. Emmitt might have had those monstrous numbers but he was the type of back that wanted those numbers. That meant something to him and he was fortunate enough to be on a great team, with great coaches and system, that he was able to achieve those numbers. He was not the type of back that would say... concede a rushing title to Christian Okoye...like Barry did in one of his earlier seasons.

Also Barry played most of his years without a FB. Emmitt had Moose, one of the best FB's of his time, throughout most of his career. Look what happened when Barry got a FB...2053 yds. This lack of FB and oh so porous offensive line can be blame for a great deal of his runs for losses. There's not much he could've done when he got the ball and is getting swarmed by the many 8 man fronts he faced?

Also, whose fault is it that Barry didn't catch the ball out of the backfield. His, or his coaches who were more interested in Run-and-Shoot, one back offense? And TD's. In his first 3 seasons Barry average 14.3 TDs per. Those numbers declined because the coaches are using one back, 4/5 wide sets and pulling him on the goal line. Unless Barry was breaking a long TD then he wasn't gonna get a chance near the goal line like the oh-so-many times Emmitt did.

Now, I'm not saying Emmitt is not great. But, I believe that he is somewhat overrated by many of you. Interestingly, until he got the rushing record, the press didn't give him as much credit as you guys do. Yes they acknowledge his greatness. But, in list after list of greatest running backs he was not usually in the top 5. Despite all his achievements. Even among his peers his name rarely comes up when asked about top backs of all time.

 

[DJ Sl4m]

while you're at it maybe you should check out dictionary.com. They have some good definitions of what the word average means, cause you have no clue.

& you 2 both need to learn reading comprehension, I didn't say he was an average RB, I said he had average running skills, but great hands, blocking etc etc

Of course he's a great back, just not the greatest overall ever, in some catagories possibly.

 

[AirBrian]

Here's my list:

1) Jim Brown
2) Walter Payton
3) Barry Sanders
4) Emmitt Smith

 

[Shinobi]

How can Emmitt not be in the top 5?

I already said...Emmitt had the best offensive line of all time blocking for him. Sanders in comparison didn't have shit.

Why doesn't anyone talk about Troy Aikman being the best quarterback of all time? He's got three rings, and his passing and playoff stats are among the best in NFL history. Why doesn't Michael Irvin get more respect for being one of the best wideouts of all time? I don't see what the difference is here.

It's about f'king time. While I respect him as a great runner and pillar of longevity, his reluctance to retire in order to pad his numbers really irks me. And don't bother trying to "own" me on that. He's said it interviews more than once. Although not in those words.

I think people need to put some things into perspective about the Emmitt vs Barry comparo. Emmitt might have had those monstrous numbers but he was the type of back that wanted those numbers. That meant something to him and he was fortunate enough to be on a great team, with great coaches and system, that he was able to achieve those numbers. He was not the type of back that would say... concede a rushing title to Christian Okoye...like Barry did in one of his earlier seasons.

Also Barry played most of his years without a FB. Emmitt had Moose, one of the best FB's of his time, throughout most of his career. Look what happened when Barry got a FB...2053 yds. This lack of FB and oh so porous offensive line can be blame for a great deal of his runs for losses. There's not much he could've done when he got the ball and is getting swarmed by the many 8 man fronts he faced?

Also, whose fault is it that Barry didn't catch the ball out of the backfield. His, or his coaches who were more interested in Run-and-Shoot, one back offense? And TD's. In his first 3 seasons Barry average 14.3 TDs per. Those numbers declined because the coaches are using one back, 4/5 wide sets and pulling him on the goal line. Unless Barry was breaking a long TD then he wasn't gonna get a chance near the goal line like the oh-so-many times Emmitt did.

Now, I'm not saying Emmitt is not great. But, I believe that he is somewhat overrated by many of you. Interestingly, until he got the rushing record, the press didn't give him as much credit as you guys do. Yes they acknowledge his greatness. But, in list after list of greatest running backs he was not usually in the top 5. Despite all his achievements. Even among his peers his name rarely comes up when asked about top backs of all time.

Good post. I remember reading an SI story when Barry didn't want to be put back in a game late to rack up like six more yards to win the rusing title. It simply wasn't a big deal to him.

And I don't get how people can ride Emmitt's dick while deriding Faulk. Give him anyone other then that idiot Martz as coach the last few years and he'd be near the top of the all time list in rushing yardage.