Barry Sanders is the best runningback in NFL history
 

Gotta agree, though if he had just stayed around for a few more years nobody would be able to argue this.

Not going to argue there. A little biased though as his is my Favorite Player in NFL History.

Hi, my name is Walter Payton aka DA SWEETNESS.

That is all.

Payton was something to see.

Emmit Smith was the go to guy for so long. He was dominant.

Oh and both those guys won.

No one has ever claimed Marino was the best QB in the NFL ;)


we all know that Gus Ferrotte takes the cake for that one :roll:

Barry was amazing to watch in his day, but I have always had the feeling that he left with more to prove.

I think Barry was the best running back in NFL history, but his legacy will always be tainted by the Bobby Ross situation. If he had stuck around for a couple more years, we wouldn't even be having this debate, like The Sink said.

There wasn't anything he couldn't do. He had amazing "downhill" speed, great lateral moves, and was as hard to tackle as anyone I've ever seen play. Once he got into the open field, he wasn't going down.

He was what some people would call a "beast".

I agree.

I was always in awe of him when he played. His hands were amazing; it was almost unheard of for him fumble the ball. And I always took the Lions in every football game I ever played, just to be able to use him.

He is a class act. Too bad he'll never have a Superbowl ring.

Class guy.

No doubt Barry was the best. Emmitt and Payton were good, don't get me wrong, but look at the teams each player played for. Emmitt played for a team that had a DOMINANT offensive line, and Payton played for extremely good Bears team that was at the top of there division for a while. Barry was the Lions, they would have done so much worse if they didn't have him (not that they were that great anyway). P.S. Keep in mind, Thurman Thomas ranks up there also. He was probably the best Multi-Purpose back in NFL history.

Tough call... Barry Sanders, Walter Payton, Emmit Smith, Gale Sayers, all great backs.

me, I'm going w/ Jim Brown.

Not just is he the best all-time back, if you want to compare apples to oranges the guy might be the best all-time NFL player.

Bronko Nagursky or Moe Williams. :love:

you could make a case that he was the best athlete period

Brown averaged 14 TD's a year and plus when comparing him to Walter, Barry, and Emmit you have to look at the fact that he never played 16 games in a season

His physical size/speed he could have been an all-pro LB if he wanted.

Yeah I was considering Jim Brown too, but he was before my time and never really followed football enough to look up stats on him. I do know though that a lot of people consider him the best.

Question (not to take away from Sanders) where would you rank OJ in this?

I thought about him.

If I'm going Brown #1.

Peyton #2.

Sanders #3

OJ #4

Emmit Smith #5

Mawelde :rant:

Jim Brown is the player people call "the greatest" to make them sound like experts.

Because you see, if you never got to see him play, and don't know the context of the game in the time he played, then you really can't be a judge... but it sure makes you seem smart.

Kind of like only listening to music made before 1980.

Mewelde is the next big thing in running backs, but Moe Williams is an established legend.

I made the statement that I didn't see him play and was only going on other people's opinions that he was great. But that I personally do not know.
(in case you're dissing on me)

nope thats wrong

sorry

Talent wise its Sanders, but since he retired early i think its gotta be Sweetness.
But if you asked me if i could have any running back in their prime on my team, i would pick Sanders.

Ok, hold your ankles tight... meanwhile we'll pull on your neck and hopefully be able to get your head out of your ass. :D

I agree with AlphaBean. Most people posting in here, NOT ALL OF YOU, but most are old enough only to see Barry Sanders play, and even then most of us were pretty young. Nobody here is an expert, so guys my age saying Jim Brown and Walter Payton etc are just saying what sounds right to try and look smart. I doubt anybody here has seen enough of the three main guys in question to be an accurate judge.

seriously how hard is it to turn on ESPN Classic?

I think he's talking to other people

yeah I'm agreeing with you McNobb.

Pinball clemons

Yeah it's not hard to watch, ya know, past tapes and whatnot.

Ok, I'm sure random guys on TPWW are studying archived tapes of Jim Brown.

Hold on, when we get Beans head disloged from his arse, we'll work on yours.

I just went through this thread, I was the first person to say Jim Brown, and no, I never saw him play live, I've seen tapes, Clips, Highlights, Stats, Reports, Interviews, etc...

The question was not "BEST RUNNING BACK YOU HAVE SEEN PLAY"

The question was
If that was the question, I couldn't and wouldn't have gone w/ Jim Brown, since I never saw him play live.

After me was Stima, who while is young (I think around your age) follows sports pretty well, and has probably seen and read things about him.

The 3rd mention was Hero, who probably was alive then, but just lies about his age to hit on Cheeba and not feel dirty...

As for Payton.

Wadding said him first, and again another younging, who didn't seem him play live, but follows football (even if he forgets anything before or after the Rams last Superbowl win)

Hero who was alive and probably watched him play.

E of E (I have no idea his age)

Me Who only caught the tail end of his career.

So, the only ones around your age would be wadding and stima... and saying they're just trying to say what "sounds right to try and look smart" is crap.

No, you don't need to watch a players entire career to make a judgement. You don't need to study film to have an opinion.

Back to the original topic... was disucssing this w/ a friend and he brought up one.

Terrell Davis... Look at his stats when he was healthy and Denver won those two Superbowls... You could argue he was one of the best and more productive then Barry Sanders.

So, if we go with "Best player at thier peek" you have to put TD in there.

Let's also remember, weather by lack of ability or lack of use, Sanders was not known for his pass catching ability...

VEL, your point on Terell Davis is the same reasoning I used for mentioning Emmitt Smith. He was running through people, strong offensive line or not. Of all the runningbacks I ever seen dominate a game, no one did it like Smith.

:eek: You mean there's been football since 1999? :eek:

and after 1999 :p

Sanders is great no doubt about that, but his claim to fame is the juke 5 guys and run 80 yards for a score.

It is really tough to say the best ever at a position because the teams have different guys surrounding them.

I've got to go with Walter.

That's a pretty good claim to fame when talking about best runningbacks, Gonzo.

Bo Jackson was fun to watch. Too bad he didn't last so long.

BO KNOWS TOUCHDOWNS.

:'( Tecmo Super Bowl :'(

More often than not however, he was losing one or two yards on his runs because he tried to do too much.

He averaged 5 yards a carry for his career.

Also, when a runningback does run for negative yards on a carry, alot of the time that is because the line missed a block and he got hit right after he got the ball.

Well yeah, his line sucked. But if you run say 4 runs for -2 yards each that is -8 yards. You run your next run for 12 yards. 10 total yards. 2 yard average on your runs, doesn't mean you get 2 yards every play.

Stats lie so meh.

He was great but I don't think he was the greatest.

If you put your head down and push ahead, you will get 3 YPC every time and never lose yards.

If you juke and jive, you're likely to be stuffed once in a while, but if you can make the defender miss, you're off to the races.

You can't have it both ways. On defense, you can blitz, but you will be leaving one player uncovered. You can go for an interception, but you're risking being burned for a touchdown. You can throw the ball long, and risk it getting intercepted. You can run a trick play, but the trickier the play, the greater the chances of a mistake nullifying it, or a turnover occurring.

You pick and choose. In some systems, a 3 YPC workhorse back is ideal. But if your system includes never making the playoffs, and pretty much just sucking year in and year out, then a home-run threat at HB is great.

Also, like someone said... his line sucked. And like someone else said, stuffs usually occur when the line breaks down.

So my rant might have been wasted. With a better line, he'd be averaging a lot more than 5 ypc.

I think what he is trying to say is that for all the big plays Barry made he had a lot of bad plays too. Like one play he would run for thirty yards, then the next try to do it again but just get tackled negative five yards. You put those together and his average is like 12.5 yards then. I think what his point is that Barry would get big runs and pad his stats, but he would also make mistakes trying to get those runs more often and thus costing his team a drive or what not.

That is just what I think he is trying to say, not my personal opinion. In a way it would make sense because the Lions were never a Super Bowl caliber team, but also he was far and away the best player on the team and one player can't do it all, so it goes both ways.

If you're the only good player on your team, then you're damn right they're going to key off on you.

Listen. Think about it in terms of gambling:

You go to a casino, you put 10 bucks in. You lose 5. You win 20. You lose 5. You win 20 more.

You get rich. Say, the monetary equivalent of 10 straight 1,000 yard seasons, or a career 5 ypc average. Whatever that might be.

Will you whine about all the times you lost? Or the fact that, at the end of the day, you're rich?

It's called an average for a reason.

And I HIGHLY doubt that 5 YPC comes from one huge run and several short losses. That's absurd.

Do you have any idea how many carries it would take to gain 200 yards if you kept getting stuffed?

Yeah, I understand and think the same way, I was just trying to clear up what Gonzo was saying

Thank you. I realize that he is a great back, it is foolish to not think that. I'm just saying what BCWWF cleared up for me and that I think there are better that have played.

Hes one of the best, but like always when dealing with the "best" you can't really say for sure. He was def. one of the most entertaining backs to watch though. I think he played long enough to be considered one of the top backs though, I wouldn't really compare his career to Terrell Davis's. Davis's career was pretty short IMO, not taking anything away from him though, I loved watching Davis play but he really only had 3 or 4 seasons in his "prime" whereas just about all of Sanders 10 (I think he played 10 seasons?) seasons where probably considered his "prime"

I don't think you can compare any of Denver's backs in the last ten years to be the best ever. Not to take away their outstanding performaces but it is largely thanks in part to the system they are in. They are mostly products of the system. Denver is a RB factory.

I was going to say the same thing.

While all of Denver's backs could rush for 1,000 yards, only TD could get 2,000.

Basically, all HBs are a part of their system. You'll have far better numbers if your offense rules. That's a given. But TD did more than just "run well," he had moves on top of moves, and before the injury, hell when he came back for two games AFTER his injuries, he just had insane vision and moves. We'll never know for sure, but I'm positive TD belongs in the top 25 backs of all time. Not a very "bold" claim, but still a claim.

I think Clinton Portis could have if he was given a few years to get really settled down to Shanahan's system. I mean he played for 2 years and had 1,500+ yards each year.

Portis I think is a very good back. We can put him and TD on par with each other when Portis gets a Superbowl MVP...

I agree that Terrell Davis was on a different level than Portis, but I think the team he played on is what elevated his stats and that as a player wasn't a Barry Sanders or Jim Brown.

Also, I don't think Portis would have been a 2000 yard guy on Denver. He didn't really have the same style, Portis is my favorite kind of running back, the guy who is just a brick speeding down the field. Davis was more of a finesse guy, like Sanders.