He deserves his own thread.....

[Schmidty]

The most exciting player I have ever watched in any sport, and that includes Jordan. Good Lord, I miss him.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UUVFZYYzHPU&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UUVFZYYzHPU&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

http://www.lionbacker.com/images/photos/barry_sanders1.jpg

http://bengals.enquirer.com/img/photos/080997myers_600x307.jpg

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e276/dopeboy1102/barrysanders3.jpg

[Greyroofoo]

At least this thread isn't about Jesus

[Sun Tzu]

At least this thread isn't about Jesus

Amen

[Schmidty]

Even Jesus couldn't tackle Barry.

[stevew]

Barry Sanders is love. Emmit Smith is not.

[jeff061]

You mean Barry "2 yard loss cause it's the playoffs" Sanders? Most overrated NFL player of the last 20 years. Great breakaway ability but I'll take the guy who runs primarily North-South over the scat back.

Not so much on a team that has no other discernible talent whatsoever. North-south doesn't work so well when you are surrounded by stiffs.

[stevew]

it sucks that he came when we were young and could not truly appreciate him. Like if the first girl you had sex with was Scarlett Johansen when you were 16. Probably will go the rest of our lives and never see another.

[Sun Tzu]

You mean Barry "2 yard loss cause it's the playoffs" Sanders? Most overrated NFL player of the last 20 years. Great breakaway ability but I'll take the guy who runs primarily North-South over the scat back.

Barry Sanders and Tommy Dreamer are both, by far, the greatest ever.

Eat it.

[Tigercat]

You mean Barry "2 yard loss cause it's the playoffs" Sanders? Most overrated NFL player of the last 20 years. Great breakaway ability but I'll take the guy who runs primarily North-South over the scat back.

Sanders went backwards and hesitated because he could. He had the instincts that he could have gotten 1500 yards going north and south more, but why do that when he could pull of the big runs? The Lions fortunes were not determined by Sander's lack of ability to get short yardage. The Lions lacked consistent QB play, they needed the Sanders who could make the big play. Those Lions QBs didn't look even worse because teams had to account for big play Sanders.

To assume that the lions would have been better off all those years if Sanders had the same yardage numbers only with a more consistent but less big play style is misguided and nothing but a gallon jug of haterade.

[azjoe_02]

Sanders went backwards and hesitated because he could. He had the instincts that he could have gotten 1500 yards going north and south more, but why do that when he could pull of the big runs? The Lions fortunes were not determined by Sander's lack of ability to get short yardage. The Lions lacked consistent QB play, they needed the Sanders who could make the big play. Those Lions QBs didn't look even worse because teams had to account for big play Sanders.

To assume that the lions would have been better off all those years if Sanders had the same yardage numbers only with a more consistent but less big play style is misguided and nothing but a gallon jug of haterade.


Well said Tigercat, well said.

[JeeberDMack]

Barry Sanders is love. Emmit Smith is not.

Emmitt's just THE MOTHERFUCKING MAN is all...

[Kodos]

Barry Sanders is love. Emmit Smith is not.

You are wise, young man.

[CU Tiger]

Emmitt's just THE MOTHERFUCKING MAN is all...

^ This


A great player makes those around him better, I am a huge cowboy and Aikman fan, but I'd wager that if you take 22 off those cowboy teams that Troy never sees Canton.

Its funny how selective media forgets thet Lions signing big money Freee Agent OL talent year after year and it never equaling W's. And the WR corp wasn't exactly a bunch of stiffs either

[molson]

Kind of weird to remember how shocking Sanders' retirement was, when looking back, he was already 30 and coming off a down year. He probably would have been an ordinary player if he came back.

So I was never a fan of him blaming the Lions being bad for his retirement. It's kind of accepted as fact now that they were terrible. But there were a lot worse teams in the 90s. When was the last time a great player quit his sport because his team wasn't good enough?

[EagleFan]

Best in my lifetime. My favorite football player of all time.

Thanksgiving day isn't the same without him in a game.

[EagleFan]

Best in my lifetime. My favorite football player of all time.

Thanksgiving day isn't the same without him in a game.

[thesloppy]

So I was never a fan of him blaming the Lions being bad for his retirement. It's kind of accepted as fact now that they were terrible. But there were a lot worse teams in the 90s. When was the last time a great player quit his sport because his team wasn't good enough?

I don't think Barry quit because of the 'team' in terms of the specific players and talent surrounding him, so much as the culture of the organization in its entirety, and how he was being used....and for whatever it's worth, the head coach gave up & quit in the middle of the following season, mentally and physically exhausted, so it's not hard to imagine that something was seriously wrong with the team at that time, beyond even the usual Lions frustrations and tragi-comedy.

[judicial clerk]

Didn't Emmitt say Barry was better?

[Autumn]

Whether you'd prefer a different style back or not, Barry was an athletic talent on a level you very rarely see in any sport. He could do things which seemed to defy physics, and who wouldn't want to watch that?

[Ksyrup]

Unless I missed it, that video doesn't include the TB play where he is 1-on-1 with Lynch coming out of the backfield and completely jukes him out of his shorts before sprinting by for a 60-something-yard TD. Indefensible.

It's the play at 36 seconds in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NjIRwMQApI

[Axxon]

Unless I missed it, that video doesn't include the TB play where he is 1-on-1 with Lynch coming out of the backfield and completely jukes him out of his shorts before sprinting by for a 60-something-yard TD. Indefensible.

It's the play at 36 seconds in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NjIRwMQApI

They also missed the Lynch/Sanders encounter at 1:28 here. :)

<object style="height: 344px; width: 425px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3Uf2BaXDCAE"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3Uf2BaXDCAE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></object>

[albionmoonlight]

Biggest sadness for me was him having to waste years of his prime stuck in the run n shoot with guys like Rodney Peete and Erik Kramer as QB.

I remember some quote from Mouse Davis or someone saying that once they got the passing game on track, Barry would be able to rush for 2,000 yards easily. OK. And if Spud Webb could have dunked from half court, then the Atlanta Hawks would have been really hard to defend. Doesn't mean that it was ever going to happen or that you should try to build a team around it.

[tarcone]

Sanders saw things on the field that 99.9% of the world would miss. I saw many north-south runs. He just tried to do a lot on the field. And sometimes it just didnt work. At that point the Lions didnt have a QB that could help.
Why get 3 yards, when you could 35?

[MizzouRah]

Barry Sanders is love. Emmit Smith is not.

QFT

[cartman]

Answer me this:

If Barry's moves were out of this world, how come Emmitt has a DWTS crown while Barry doesn't?

:D

[molson]

I don't think Barry quit because of the 'team' in terms of the specific players and talent surrounding him, so much as the culture of the organization in its entirety, and how he was being used....and for whatever it's worth, the head coach gave up & quit in the middle of the following season, mentally and physically exhausted, so it's not hard to imagine that something was seriously wrong with the team at that time, beyond even the usual Lions frustrations and tragi-comedy.

The Lions were 8-8 and 9-7 the two years after Sanders retired.

They weren't a historically bad team. By Sanders' reasoning, he would have had to quit the sport if he ended up on any of about half of NFL teams.

[Noop]

He will never be better than Michael Jordan.

[thesloppy]

The Lions were 8-8 and 9-7 the two years after Sanders retired.

They weren't a historically bad team. By Sanders' reasoning, he would have had to quit the sport if he ended up on any of about half of NFL teams.

That was kind of the point of the post you quoted....despite whatever platitudes Sanders may have spouted after the fact about 'winning', I don't think it was about the talent, the stats or the wins. Let alone that they were 5-11 the year Barry quit, I don't think you can fault him for not knowing they would be 8-8 in his absence. Also despite their moderate achievements in the win column, note that under Ross'es command, the Lions offense went from an being ranked 2nd, to 14th, to 21st, to 27th, and still had won a single playoff game since 1958.

I don't think it's coincidence that head coach Bobby Ross also quit the team in the middle of what ended up being a winning 9-7 team, citing mental and physical exhaustion, and a team that had supposedly given up on him...a team which went on to do better in his immediate absence. Personally, I think it came down to the simple fact that Barry didn't like Bobby Ross, or Chuck Schmidt, and felt disrespected on and off the field, and basically just chose to quit because he didn't like his workplace environment. Not necessarily the most graceful exit for such an epic talent, but something I personally can't fault the man for....of course, my analysis is based on a fair bit of assumptions and make-believe, so your mileage may vary.

[Atocep]

Barry was the most entertaining player to ever play in the NFL. I don't think there's any dispute there.

He's also overrated. He led the league in rushes for a loss every year of his career and fumbled 41 times, which goes against everything advanced stats are telling us is important in football.

His O-Lines weren't as bad as people have made them out to be and the Lions really weren't any worse the 2 seasons after he left.

Great player, but not the greatest ever or even in the top 5 as far as running backs are concerned.

[Schmidty]

Great player, but not the greatest ever or even in the top 5 as far as running backs are concerned.

To me, that's just a ridiculous statement. I can hear the arguments over whether Emmitt, Brown, or Payton was better, but to say that he isn't even in the top 5 is blatantly wrong. I suspect you would get very little support from most experts on that view.

[Eaglesfan27]

I'd agree that he is in top 5 RB's, but not the top. That goes to Emmitt for me (even though I couldn't stand the cowgirls.) However, Sanders was the most exciting RB.

[Noop]

Walter Payton
Jim Brown
Earl Campbell
OJ Simpson
Tony Dorsett
Eric Dickerson

[Atocep]

To me, that's just a ridiculous statement. I can hear the arguments over whether Emmitt, Brown, or Payton was better, but to say that he isn't even in the top 5 is blatantly wrong. I suspect you would get very little support from most experts on that view.

IMO Payton, Smith, and Brown were clearly better players. After that you have a group of guys like Faulk, Dorsett, OJ, and Dickerson that Barry belongs in.

[thesloppy]

He's also overrated. He led the league in rushes for a loss every year of his career and fumbled 41 times, which goes against everything advanced stats are telling us is important in football.

Barry - 10 years, 41 fumbles
Payton - 13 years, 86 fumbles
Brown - 9 years, 57 fumbles


...in fact, I'd be surprised if there's a top back with anywhere near as few fumbles as Barry.

[Atocep]

Barry - 10 years, 41 fumbles
Payton - 13 years, 86 fumbles
Brown - 9 years, 57 fumbles


...in fact, I'd be surprised if there's a top back with anywhere near as few fumbles as Barry.

The fumbles might not be too bad. I was glancing at them. I wouldn't compare his fumbles to Payton or Brown, though. Different eras.

The most important thing in my statement is the carries for loss anyway. There's a reason the Lions couldn't get any consistency on offense and it started with Barry.

[Glengoyne]

Barry Sanders is love. Emmit Smith is not.

Yeah, but in a game that matters. I'd take Emmit over Barry most every time. I'd still throw Barry on a team of my choice every once in a while, just because he was undeniably awesome. Except when he wasn't.

I'm no Barry hater. I loved watching him in college, rooted for him to be allowed entry into the draft. I then drafted him as a rookie for my non-keeper fantasy team. It was only a few years later when I realized I didn't really mind going up against Barry in a fantasy situation, because while he was capable of putting up monster numbers, he was also very prone to have negative or at least negligible yards at halftime.

[larrymcg421]

I'm always amazed when we have these arguments that people just want to completely discount the talent surrounding a player when coming to these conclusions.

Are we really just going to blindly say Emmit was better and discount the obvious talent differences between the two teams? Yes, great players make players around them better, but you ain't turning Erik Kramer or Scott Mitchell into Troy Aikman.

And how about this stat? Top 10 Defenses..

Smith: 8 times
Sanders: 0 times

But yeah, the Lions real problem were Sanders 3 yard losses and not their shitty QB's or subpar defenses.

[Eaglesfan27]

I'm always amazed when we have these arguments that people just want to completely discount the talent surrounding a player when coming to these conclusions.

Are we really just going to blindly say Emmit was better and discount the obvious talent differences between the two teams? Yes, great players make players around them better, but you ain't turning Erik Kramer or Scott Mitchell into Troy Aikman.

And how about this stat? Top 10 Defenses..

Smith: 8 times
Sanders: 0 times

But yeah, the Lions real problem were Sanders 3 yard losses and not their shitty QB's or subpar defenses.

Look at how bad the Cowboys started the year when Emmitt held out. His running helped Troy immensely as well as the ball control helped that defense.

[path12]

I loved watching Sanders but I remember watching Payton. He's my number one.

[Radii]

I'm always amazed when we have these arguments that people just want to completely discount the talent surrounding a player when coming to these conclusions.

An equally big problem is elevating a player to epic mythical levels because he was a great individual player on a poor team. A lot of the "what if's" that will come up in these conversations get pretty absurd. This is a bigger issue for careers tragically cut short(Len Bias immediately comes to mind), but it happens for great players on bad teams too, Sanders more than anyone else I can think of.

[remper]

The fumbles might not be too bad. I was glancing at them. I wouldn't compare his fumbles to Payton or Brown, though. Different eras.

The most important thing in my statement is the carries for loss anyway. There's a reason the Lions couldn't get any consistency on offense and it started with Barry.

How are Sanders's fumbles "different" that Payton's? Different era...?

Barry may have had some inconsistency, but he also could hit the home run any time he touched the ball. That highlight against the Bears gets me every time. Barry runs right into what looks like half the Bear's defense and somehow squirts away for the TD. I remember watching that game, and thinking no one evens comes close to this guy's talent.

I don't see the point of comparing Emmitt vs Barry, because their running styles were so different. But anyone trying to say that they had equivalent talent around them is just flat out wrong.

[Atocep]

Barry may have had some inconsistency, but he also could hit the home run any time he touched the ball. That highlight against the Bears gets me every time. Barry runs right into what looks like half the Bear's defense and somehow squirts away for the TD. I remember watching that game, and thinking no one evens comes close to this guy's talent.


Consistency is far more valuable than the homerun threat that also loses yardage several times per game.

[Tigercat]

Consistency is far more valuable than the homerun threat that also loses yardage several times per game.

Not when you are needed to make big plays. A "consistent" RB needs a consistent QB when he only gets ~6 yards on 2 carries and it is 3rd and 4. (Which will happen plenty of times in a game with a "consistent" RB.)

Eddie George's production instead of Sanders, for example, would have made the Lions a far worse team than with Sanders.

[Atocep]

Not when you are needed to make big plays. A "consistent" RB needs a consistent QB when he only gets ~6 yards on 2 carries and it is 3rd and 4. (Which will happen plenty of times in a game with a "consistent" RB.)

Eddie George's production instead of Sanders, for example, would have made the Lions a far worse team than with Sanders.

Yes, there was a huge drop off in the Lions' play with James Stewart at RB.

The Lions offense was hurt by the fact that they had no clue whether or not it'd be 2nd and 6 or 2nd and 13. Good defenses also did a good job keeping those homeruns from happening, which made Barry a bad RB to be depending on in the playoffs.

[stevew]

Yeah, but in a game that matters. I'd take Emmit over Barry most every time. I'd still throw Barry on a team of my choice every once in a while, just because he was undeniably awesome. Except when he wasn't.

I'm no Barry hater. I loved watching him in college, rooted for him to be allowed entry into the draft. I then drafted him as a rookie for my non-keeper fantasy team. It was only a few years later when I realized I didn't really mind going up against Barry in a fantasy situation, because while he was capable of putting up monster numbers, he was also very prone to have negative or at least negligible yards at halftime.

I was just referring to post 2 where someone said the thread was about Jesus and playing on the obvious other huge ass thread about Allah.

[B & B]

If you are actually debating Barry vs. Emmitt, and you watched more than one season of each playing the position, and you dont believe that Barry>Emmitt, then you should stop watching sports. Alltogether.

Its not your thing.
Go watch the Kardashians show, or Twilight, err whatever.

[larrymcg421]

Yes, there was a huge drop off in the Lions' play with James Stewart at RB.

James Stewart didn't join until 2000 (while Sanders last year was 98) and during his timeframe the Lions ranked 22nd, 26th, and 26th in points scored, all of which were their lowest rankings since 1988 (I don't think it's hard to figure out what happened after that season). Even if their offense had improved, I find it hard to believe that James Stewart and his 24th ranked DVOA could take credit for it, nor could Greg Hill and his 33rd ranked DVOA in 1999.

[Dutch]

They also missed the Lynch/Sanders encounter at 1:28 here. :)

*Goosebumps*

It's almost not fair to mention how hard Lynch hit without remembering that he is a converted LB.

[CU Tiger]

Not when you are needed to make big plays. A "consistent" RB needs a consistent QB when he only gets ~6 yards on 2 carries and it is 3rd and 4. (Which will happen plenty of times in a game with a "consistent" RB.)

Eddie George's production instead of Sanders, for example, would have made the Lions a far worse team than with Sanders.

On the contrary, a QB looks a lot better when he consistently faces 3rd and 3 vs a bunch of 3rd and 14. I cant comment on the Eddie George vs Barry sentiment...because we never got to see what kind of QBs the Lions had if they had consistent positive plays.



If you are actually debating Barry vs. Emmitt, and you watched more than one season of each playing the position, and you dont believe that Barry>Emmitt, then you should stop watching sports. Alltogether.

Its not your thing.
Go watch the Kardashians show, or Twilight, err whatever.

Was Barry faster?
Yes
Was Barry more explosive?
Yes
Was Barry more elusive?
Yes
Was he clearly better?
No..it is a toss up to me.

To put it in FOF terms Emmitt clearly had better hole recognition and we know that is the single most important stat in football, right? :D

Seriously I think Barry's unwillingness to hit lower his head and hit the hole when it mattered probably makes him the most selfish player in our lifetime.

Thing is when you needed a homerun Barry would give you his best effot, but when you needed a hard run after a spectacular 9 yard gain on 1st down, he was just as likely to lose 12 as he was to take it to the house.

[k0ruptr]

thx OP for posting this, I miss this guy. Greatest player I've ever seen.

[Glengoyne]

He will never be better than Michael Jordan.


Never have Noop and I agreed so much on anything.

[CU Tiger]

And I will take the heat, but Bo was a better back than Emmitt or Barry....

[EagleFan]

He will never be better than Michael Jordan.

Jordan would never be Jordan without the refs looking the other way for everything he did. He should have been called for traveling on most of his baskets and if anyone even looked at him they got called for a foul. If someone doesn't have to play by the rules of the game it's much easier to be "the best".

[bronconick]

Comparing Jordan and Sanders is like comparing apples and lawnmowers.

[CU Tiger]

Jordan would never be Jordan without the refs looking the other way for everything he did. He should have been called for traveling on most of his baskets and if anyone even looked at him they got called for a foul. If someone doesn't have to play by the rules of the game it's much easier to be "the best".


Jordan is LOVE; Eagles are not

[Noop]

Jordan would never be Jordan without the refs looking the other way for everything he did. He should have been called for traveling on most of his baskets and if anyone even looked at him they got called for a foul. If someone doesn't have to play by the rules of the game it's much easier to be "the best".

The hate is strong with this young padawan.

http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk254/jordy2k8/JordanSymbol.jpg

Jordan's symbol.

What is Barry's symbol besides being a quitter?

[Greyroofoo]

Jordan is LOVE; Eagles are not

Jordan would take that action for $5000

[molson]

Hard to imagine Jordan quitting basketball because his team wasn't good enough.

[jeff061]

Jordan would never be Jordan without the refs looking the other way for everything he did. He should have been called for traveling on most of his baskets and if anyone even looked at him they got called for a foul. If someone doesn't have to play by the rules of the game it's much easier to be "the best".

Yeah, k. This is about every NBA star ever. Guess the refs created them all.

[RendeR]

Yeah, k. This is about every NBA star ever. Guess the refs created them all.


DING.


Now as for Barry, amazing back, major goose-bump action in most games. You put barry on those Dallas teams of the 90's and he runs for 2k every season because that Dallas line made holes *I* could have run through and scored.

Barry being the best ever? Thats a joke right? he's truly not even top 5. I'll give him top 10 because of the "wow" factor though.

Noop rattled off some great ones. Bo Jackson was another one. Gale Sayers made Barry look like a rank amateur.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Barry is definitely a Top 5 back. Anyone who says otherwise is foolish. Plain, old foolish.

Sayers made Barry look like a rank amateur? Riiiiiight.

[Noop]

Barry is definitely a Top 5 back. Anyone who says otherwise is foolish. Plain, old foolish.

Sayers made Barry look like a rank amateur? Riiiiiight.

You might be bias because you're a Detroit fan...

Walter Payton - Not better then him period.
Jim Brown - Not even close.
Earl Campbell - Nope.
OJ Simpson - He might be a POS human being but on the field he was better.
Tony Dorsett - It's close but I will take Tony.
Eric Dickerson - Same as above.

Barry Sanders is between 6-10 in my opinion and that's not meant to be a slight on him. In a league with a rich history of great running backs being in the top 10 is a damn good accomplishment....he just not the best.

[Kodos]

Tony Dorsett was a fumbling machine!

[Honolulu_Blue]

You might be bias because you're a Detroit fan...

Walter Payton - Not better then him period.
Jim Brown - Not even close.
Earl Campbell - Nope.
OJ Simpson - He might be a POS human being but on the field he was better.
Tony Dorsett - It's close but I will take Tony.
Eric Dickerson - Same as above.

Barry Sanders is between 6-10 in my opinion and that's not meant to be a slight on him. In a league with a rich history of great running backs being in the top 10 is a damn good accomplishment....he just not the best.

Sticking with that list, I'd take Barry over Tony Dorsett everytime.

[Noop]

Sticking with that list, I'd take Barry over Tony Dorsett everytime.

So that makes him #6 so are you plain ole foolish as per your comments?

[Kodos]

I think Sanders belongs in the grouping with Payton and Brown.

[Apathetic Lurker]

The fumbles might not be too bad. I was glancing at them. I wouldn't compare his fumbles to Payton or Brown, though. Different eras.

The most important thing in my statement is the carries for loss anyway. There's a reason the Lions couldn't get any consistency on offense and it started with Barry.

The Lions during the Barry years werent known for the prowess of the offensive line.I think that might have something to do with all those carries for loss. Oh, and the defense knowing its going to be keying on Barry didnt help either..

[Honolulu_Blue]

So that makes him #6 so are you plain ole foolish as per your comments?

And Dickerson. Probably OJ.

Like Kodos said: Brown, Payton, Sanders and then I'll let you fill in the rest. I'll even propose that you use .gifs to do so!

[albionmoonlight]

My world:

Walter Payton #1

Sanders, Smith, Sayers, Brown round out the top five. The order of these four does not really matter and I could be talked into any of them in any order.

[CleBrownsfan]

I don't know how anyone can make an argument about Jim Brown not being the best RB for the short time he played.

[albionmoonlight]

I don't know how anyone can make an argument about Jim Brown not being the best RB for the short time he played.

I can't make a great one, but here goes:

(1) Payton is my personal #1 b/c I saw him play and he was the man during my formative football years.

(2) Payton played for a longer time at an elite level. Would Brown have been able to do that? We just don't know because he left for other opportunities. Longevity is always something we take for granted until we see someone try to push those limits (see, e.g., Tiger Woods or Terrel Davis).

(3) Payton was able to do everything--pass block, run, catch. He wasn't just a great runner--he was a great running back. Brown played at a time when he wasn't asked to do all of those things. Could he have? Probably. But, again, we just don't know.

Most NFL folks who were able to watch them both in their prime agree that Brown was better. I, acknowledging my limits and biases (see #1 above), disagree.

[Matthean]

I can't make a great one, but here goes:

(1) Payton is my personal #1 b/c I saw him play and he was the man during my formative football years.

(2) Payton played for a longer time at an elite level. Would Brown have been able to do that? We just don't know because he left for other opportunities. Longevity is always something we take for granted until we see someone try to push those limits (see, e.g., Tiger Woods or Terrel Davis).

(3) Payton was able to do everything--pass block, run, catch. He wasn't just a great runner--he was a great running back. Brown played at a time when he wasn't asked to do all of those things. Could he have? Probably. But, again, we just don't know.

Most NFL folks who were able to watch them both in their prime agree that Brown was better. I, acknowledging my limits and biases (see #1 above), disagree.

Brown, I believe, was rather large for RB and it helped that he was that big. Since he did have much more of a north/south running style, I'm not sure how long he would have lasted.

[EagleFan]

You might be bias because you're a Detroit fan...

Walter Payton - Not better then him period.
Jim Brown - Not even close.
Earl Campbell - Nope.
OJ Simpson - He might be a POS human being but on the field he was better.
Tony Dorsett - It's close but I will take Tony.
Eric Dickerson - Same as above.

Barry Sanders is between 6-10 in my opinion and that's not meant to be a slight on him. In a league with a rich history of great running backs being in the top 10 is a damn good accomplishment....he just not the best.

Payton - close arguement there but given the choice to watch a game with Sanders to Payton I would choose Sanders 10 times out of 10.
Brown - I have no idea, never sawhims so nothing to base an opinion on but Sanders did it for a longer period of time
Campbell - Not a chance that I take him over Sanders
Simpson - No idea, see the Brown comment
Dorsett - No chance that I take him over Sanders, he isn't even the best Cowboys back so he sure doesn't belong in a top 5 anything
Dickerson - I take Sanders as Dickerson didn't have the longevity

[RendeR]

Umm...Sanders played 10 seasons

Brown == 9

Dickerson == 11

Simpson == 11


Methinks you need to actually do a little reading before you post. The longevity angle is a big fat FAIL on your part here.

Barry is a great back, but he's not top 5 all time IMO. After talking it over with Macro for a bit I have to admit I'll probably put him at 6 or 7 though.

[larrymcg421]

Umm...Sanders played 10 seasons

Brown == 9

Dickerson == 11

Simpson == 11


Methinks you need to actually do a little reading before you post. The longevity angle is a big fat FAIL on your part here.

Barry is a great back, but he's not top 5 all time IMO. After talking it over with Macro for a bit I have to admit I'll probably put him at 6 or 7 though.

Why are you talking about just seasons they played? Did you look at Dickerson or (especially) Simpson's numbers? Barry was clearly dominant over a longer stretch than both of them.

Now Brown is a better example as he was pretty damned consistent over those 9 years. He also fumbled 16 more times in 35 fewer games. Simpson had 21 more fumbles in 18 fewer games. However, those fumble totals aren't nearly as bad as Dickerson (who had more fumbles in his first 4 seasons than in Barry's entire career) and ended up with almost twice as many fumbles in 7 fewer games.

[Abe Sargent]

It's a shame we didn;t get to see Terrell Davis's whole career, or else we could easily have another back in this discussion. Two super bowl rings? 2000+ yard season? League MVP? 3 Pro Bowls? Super Bowl MVP? In just 4 years? That's very impressive for the 4 year span 95-99, and then the injuries. Ah well.

[EagleFan]

Umm...Sanders played 10 seasons

Brown == 9

Dickerson == 11

Simpson == 11


Methinks you need to actually do a little reading before you post. The longevity angle is a big fat FAIL on your part here.

Barry is a great back, but he's not top 5 all time IMO. After talking it over with Macro for a bit I have to admit I'll probably put him at 6 or 7 though.

Sanders
280/1470/5.3
255/1304/5.1
342/1548/4.5
312/1352/4.3
243/1115/4.6
331/1883/5.7
314/1500/4.8
307/1553/5.1
335/2053/6.1
343/1491/4.3

Brown
I'll concede this is comparable, just basing this off others mentioning the length of play. Never saw him play though so I rank Sanders above him for my taste.

Simpson
Not even close here. He had only 5 seasons where he was good. The other 6 seasons were nothing more than a quality backup.

Dickerson
Fell off a cliff after his 7th season. Averaged pver 5 yards per carry just 1 time. Averaged under 4 yards per carry each of his last three seasons. Was good while he lasted but Sanders stopped at 10 and showed no signs of hitting that wall yet.

[CleBrownsfan]

And Brown's season totals were of 12 and 14 game season as well...

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/b6cCXNBeVfc&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/b6cCXNBeVfc&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[molson]

I think it's tough for non-coaches and non-scouts to evaluate football players - especially RBs, just by watching them. Fans are going to have a bias towards players with an exciting style, which has little or nothing to do with how much the guy actually contributed to his team.

I also think you have to compare guys to their peers. I think Jim Brown does very well in that comparison, though I haven't done the research to confirm that. But in Brown's era, there wasn't any doubt about who the best RB was.

[Kodos]

It's a shame we didn;t get to see Terrell Davis's whole career, or else we could easily have another back in this discussion. Two super bowl rings? 2000+ yard season? League MVP? 3 Pro Bowls? Super Bowl MVP? In just 4 years? That's very impressive for the 4 year span 95-99, and then the injuries. Ah well.

Yeah, that was a real shame. I think they ran TD so much that it broke down his body. He might have bought some more time if he hadn't torn up his knee trying to make a tackle after an interception (maybe it was after a fumble, memory is failing a bit here), but I think it was just a matter of time before Davis's body failed him. Davis and Sanders are my two favorite RBs of all time, with Payton coming in third.

[Passacaglia]

It's pretty obvious Barry is the best. I mean, as far as I can tell, he's the only one of this group that deserves his own thread here. Case closed.

[revrew]

Once again, questions of who is "the best" always comes down to what your criteria and what biases you have (such as hating Barry for retiring early, and don't tell me there isn't just some irrational hating going on here).

That said, I think separate lists are more informative.

1. Who is the most talented running back of all time, the man with the most tools?

Here's how I would list those:

1. Gale Sayers - elusiveness and speed from another planet
2. Barry Sanders - agility and elusiveness beyond comprehension
3. Jim Brown - Power and speed to be completely dominant
You can go on from there and maybe put Bo Jackson, the bonecrushing of Earl Campbell, etc. etc.

But then there's the questions of longevity, "clutchness," "carry his team," did he fumble, did he take losses he shouldn't have, etc. etc. Alas, Sayers' career was cut short, so he drops completely off the list. But there are so many variables ...

So, I make a second list on the following criteria. Was the player dominant over the length of his career, was he a dependable playmaker your coach always wanted to give the ball to and opposing coaches never wanted you to give the ball to? Did he just take over games in an unstoppable fashion over and over and over ...

Now, where's the list? Here's mine:

1. Jim Brown - a man among boys his entire career. He owned the field every time he stepped on it.
2. Walter Payton - Just give him the ball, just tally up the 1st downs. He'll block, outrun, power, elude or, heck, even throw for TDs.
3. O.J. Simpson - perhaps a strike against him for longevity, but he was electric and dominant for long enough before his injuries to merit this spot
4. Barry Sanders - No weapon that dangerous, that good, for that long can be ignored. His stats speak for themselves. Of course, this weapon backfired, too, so he's down to #4.
5. Emmitt Smith - Not as dominant as any players above him, not as talented, but dependability, longevity and heart has got to earn the all-time leading rusher some props, no?
Somewhere in here come Eric Dickerson, Earl Campbell, and several others, but it's nitpicking to rank them, particularly as injuries cut many of their careers short, and many solid RBs, like Marcus Allen, had longevity enough to muddy the waters.

[DanGarion]

it sucks that he came when we were young and could not truly appreciate him. Like if the first girl you had sex with was Scarlett Johansen when you were 16. Probably will go the rest of our lives and never see another.

That would suck ass!

[Glengoyne]

Once again, questions of who is "the best" always comes down to what your criteria and what biases you have (such as hating Barry for retiring early, and don't tell me there isn't just some irrational hating going on here).

That said, I think separate lists are more informative.

1. Who is the most talented running back of all time, the man with the most tools?

Here's how I would list those:

1. Gale Sayers - elusiveness and speed from another planet
2. Barry Sanders - agility and elusiveness beyond comprehension
3. Jim Brown - Power and speed to be completely dominant
You can go on from there and maybe put Bo Jackson, the bonecrushing of Earl Campbell, etc. etc.

But then there's the questions of longevity, "clutchness," "carry his team," did he fumble, did he take losses he shouldn't have, etc. etc. Alas, Sayers' career was cut short, so he drops completely off the list. But there are so many variables ...

So, I make a second list on the following criteria. Was the player dominant over the length of his career, was he a dependable playmaker your coach always wanted to give the ball to and opposing coaches never wanted you to give the ball to? Did he just take over games in an unstoppable fashion over and over and over ...

Now, where's the list? Here's mine:

1. Jim Brown - a man among boys his entire career. He owned the field every time he stepped on it.
2. Walter Payton - Just give him the ball, just tally up the 1st downs. He'll block, outrun, power, elude or, heck, even throw for TDs.
3. O.J. Simpson - perhaps a strike against him for longevity, but he was electric and dominant for long enough before his injuries to merit this spot
4. Barry Sanders - No weapon that dangerous, that good, for that long can be ignored. His stats speak for themselves. Of course, this weapon backfired, too, so he's down to #4.
5. Emmitt Smith - Not as dominant as any players above him, not as talented, but dependability, longevity and heart has got to earn the all-time leading rusher some props, no?
Somewhere in here come Eric Dickerson, Earl Campbell, and several others, but it's nitpicking to rank them, particularly as injuries cut many of their careers short, and many solid RBs, like Marcus Allen, had longevity enough to muddy the waters.

I like the list, as well as the one above. Nice post.

I also like the inclusion of Marcus Allen and Eric Dickerson who, IMO, have to receive some consideration for a "top..." list. I'm still reluctant to place Barry as high as you have, but you've really framed the discussion and the factors for ranking these guys well.

[Schmidty]

Here's an article that lists some SI writers top 32 RBs. I would switch Smith and Barry, but I have no problem with the top 2.

Joe Posnanski » Posts Thirty-Two Great Running Backs « (http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/08/08/thirty-two-great-running-backs/?eref=sihp)

[Julio Riddols]

Barry Sanders Jr. lands spotlight with highlights, hairstyle, recruiting - Prep Rally - Highschool* - Yahoo! Sports (http://rivals.yahoo.com/highschool/blog/prep_rally/post/Barry-Sanders-Jr-lands-spotlight-with-highlight?urn=highschool-274408)

Watch the highlight reel on this page.. We may yet see Barry Sanders play again.