Barry Sanders....greatest back ever

[Antmeister]

Although I am a Chargers fan and get to enjoy a record-breaking back like LT and have seen Marshall Faulk light it up in his prime, I have yet to see any back like Barry Sanders. He did it without much of an offensive line and he made Hall of Fame defenders look like rookies as he dashed past them. He had a unique combination of power, agility and speed. Of course, he does have the record for most negative yardage for a running back, but he had the most exciting negative yards I had seen as he tried to make something out of nothing behind that porous line.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/69579/nfl_barry_sanders/

[timmynausea]

Yep. He was the best. As my stepfather once said to me with his mouth full of chips and salsa, "Barry... sweet Barry..." Then he excitedly described some spectacular touchdown run.

[Leonidas]

I'd say Jim Brown was the best ever when you consider he only played 12 and 14 games a season and did all he did in just 9 years. And he did it as the focal point for everything his teams did so he was the target on every single play.

But the best I have seen goes like this:
1. Barry Sanders
2. OJ Simpson
3. Eric Dickerson
4. Earl Campbell
5. Walter Payton

LT goes in my next 5 along with Emmitt, Faulk, Thurman Thomas, and John Riggins.

[Lorena]

I get chills seeing that

[Vegas Vic]

IMO, Gale Sayers is the most talented running back of all-time. His career was cut short by a knee injury, but in those seven years he was a human highlight reel. He was also a great kickoff and punt returner.

Gale Sayers Highlights

[Joe]

Gale

[Antmeister]

I just never seen anyone who can stop on a dime, juke someone out of their socks, and break out of people's grasp with either power, spin moves, stiff arms, etc. And no one ever really got a solid hit on Barry Sanders. He could have played for about 5 or 6 years more with the way he took care of himself and have had a number of records that stood the test of time.

I can't speak for the players I didn't see, such as Jim Brown or Gale Sayers. But I did get to see, Walter Peyton, Roger Craig, Thurman Thomas, Eric Dickerson, Bo Jackson, Earl Campbell, Emmitt Smith and other great backs over the years, but they still don't compare to Barry Sanders (in my opinion).

He did so much with a run that looked like it should have been stopped in the backfield and turned it into a 20+ yard scamper. Put Barry behind Dallas' offensive line in the 90's and he would have had at least 1/3rd more yardage.

[rowech]

It's hard for me simply because I never saw anyone before 1980 really play. The best back I've seen play is Barry Sanders. He was just so much fun to watch. It was the only time it was good Detroit played on Thanksgiving. However, I think I have three RB's I consider to be the best.

Sanders, Payton, and Jim Brown.

I don't think anybody else fits into the same category as those three. Everyone else is just a notch below.

WR is easy as nobody can say anybody but Jerry Rice

QB is the discussion where there are a dozen candidates.

[Antmeister]

And here are two more amazing clips:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/69526/barry_sanders_run/
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/69519/...s_amazing_run/

[timmae]

everyone knows the great juke plays that Barry gave every game... the play I always have and always will love is the simple flip of the ball to the ref after he scored a TD. He always knew he'd be there again soon enough. I'll thank Barry Sanders for that till the end.. one class act.

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by timmae

everyone knows the great juke plays that Barry gave every game... the play I always have and always will love is the simple flip of the ball to the ref after he scored a TD. He always knew he'd be there again soon enough. I'll thank Barry Sanders for that till the end.. one class act.

Good point. One time an interviewer asked him if he would ever celebrate a touchdown in the endzone. He replied with "Yes, if it was the game winning run in the Super Bowl". He didn't see the point of celebrating if you didn't reach your goal.

[BYU 14]

My top 5

Barry Sanders
Gale Sayers
Jim Brown
Walter Payton
Earl Campbell

[st.cronin]

Eric Dickerson is far and away the most underappreciated of the great backs. I might go with him.

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

Hmmm...

POSTSEASON STATISTICS
Year Opp Result | RSH YD TD | REC YD TD
---------------------+-----------------+-----------------
1991 dal W,38-6 | 12 69 1 | 5 30 0
1991 was L,10-41 | 11 44 0 | 4 15 0
1993 gnb L,24-28 | 27 169 0 | 2 0 0
1994 gnb L,12-16 | 13 -1 0 | 3 4 0
1995 phi L,37-58 | 10 40 0 | 2 19 0
1997 tam L,10-20 | 18 65 0 | 5 43 0
---------------------+-----------------+-----------------
TOTAL | 91 386 1 | 21 111 0

[Senator]

The best I ever saw play was Barry Sanders. The best I ever saw from old film footage was Sayers.

[dime]

sanders could do amazing things and may have been the most entertaining player ever; but I'm not sure that means he was the best at his position. good teams seemed to bottle him up, and his postseason results weren't impressive.

john lynch walloped him pretty good once, but admitted that with sanders "you just have to guess" and that more often than not he'd guess wrong and whiff completely.

[Atocep]

I know I'm in the minority here, but I wouldn't consider Barry among the top 3 back in NFL history. Yes, he did run behind some bad lines in Detroit, but his running style made it hard to really gameplan offensively. He led the league in rushes for a loss every year of his career, so an offensive coordinator didn't know if he'd be looking at 2nd and 2 or 2nd and 15. Its hard to get any consistency out of an offense with a running back like Barry.

With that said, the only running back that probably rivaled him in entertainment value was Sayers, but IMO Jim Brown, O.J., Dickerson, and Payton were better.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Antmeister

And here are two more amazing clips:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/69526/barry_sanders_run/
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/69519/...s_amazing_run/

I like how in the first clip his mouthguard is hanging out.

He is the only person that I made my wife watch run. Nowadays...nobody.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I know I'm in the minority here, but I wouldn't consider Barry among the top 3 back in NFL history. Yes, he did run behind some bad lines in Detroit, but his running style made it hard to really gameplan offensively. He led the league in rushes for a loss every year of his career, so an offensive coordinator didn't know if he'd be looking at 2nd and 2 or 2nd and 15. Its hard to get any consistency out of an offense with a running back like Barry.

With that said, the only running back that probably rivaled him in entertainment value was Sayers, but IMO Jim Brown, O.J., Dickerson, and Payton were better.

That's my take, along with dime's. I he a guy I loved watching? Hell yes. But does that make him the greatest?

Is David Thompson or Dr. J the greatest NBA players of all time because they were two of the most exciting?

Barry is a hall of famer. For most of his career (until the end anyway) he was a class act. I'd love for my kid to be like him. I loved the chance to watch him. I'm thankful I lived in an era to see him play.

But for my money, I want guys who don't lose yardage that often. I want guys who will make it 2nd and 8 as opposed to 2nd and 12 come playoff time. I think you need to guy who is willing to duck his head and take the two or three yards in a tough game as opposed to the guy who runs around looking for the big gain and loses yardage.

I'm talking about guys like Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Emmitt Smith, Eric Dickerson, Marcus Allen, etc.

Barry is the most exciting running back I've ever watched and maybe the most exciting back I ever will watch. But I don't rank him in the top three all time and despite my pure, unadulterated hate for the Cowboys, I think Emmitt was the back you could win with and Barry was the back you could sell tickets with.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I know I'm in the minority here, but I wouldn't consider Barry among the top 3 back in NFL history. Yes, he did run behind some bad lines in Detroit, but his running style made it hard to really gameplan offensively. He led the league in rushes for a loss every year of his career, so an offensive coordinator didn't know if he'd be looking at 2nd and 2 or 2nd and 15. Its hard to get any consistency out of an offense with a running back like Barry.

With that said, the only running back that probably rivaled him in entertainment value was Sayers, but IMO Jim Brown, O.J., Dickerson, and Payton were better.

I'm right here with you. I go even farther. I get chills when I hear "Barry Sanders" in the same sentence as the words "best ever". Just not the good kind of chills that a truly incredible Sanders highlight run inpires.

For me the problem is exactly his inconsistency. I don't think that Barry Sanders is a guy that really makes his team better. He is a great back, and most every down he was a threat to score a touchdown. It was just that he was also a serious threat to be tackled for a loss.

He was a great player, but he wasn't as helpful as a Walter Payton, Jim Brown, Eric Dickerson(I think my favorite), OJ Simpson, or even Emmit Smith. When those guys lined up to run the ball at you they were machines. You couldn't stop them, they were going to pile up yards and or touchdowns over the course of a game. With Barry, you had to put up with the threat of him scoring every time he touched the ball, but you also knew that if you prevent that from happening during his first fifteen carries, that you had a pretty good chance of winning the game. The deal was, if he didn't score on those first fifteen carries, the odds are that Detroit's offense had amounted to next to nothing. Sixteen carries for 80 yards and a touchdown is a great line, but fifteen carries for 22 yards doesn't get it done.

I'm not sure where I place LT right now, but I'm extremely likely to consider him better than Barry Sanders.

[Schmidty]

Fuck all this debate. Barry is the greatest back ever.

No one (even Sayers) could ever do the things he did, and he did it basically on his own. The only year he had a good offensive line ('91), the Lions actually won in the playoffs. That says it all. Then Mike Utley gets paralyzed (same season), and Eric Andolsek gets killed, and the line was never the same. I always wonder what would have happened if that line had stayed together.

As a lifelong Lions fan, Barry is just about the only joy I've had watching the team. He's the reason I even started to care about football again.

[Travis]

Give Barry a better line, and many of those rushes for losses would be rushes for a short gain because he'd start looking to create something that much farther along. Because he had the bad lines, a lot of his improvising just took place that much sooner. A line with a consistent push would just allow him that much more room to work with before going off the page, and make it easier to gameplan the first 1/3 of each of his runs.

[IMetTrentGreen]

what troy said. barry's negative yardage killed detroit drives way to often. consistent 3-4 yards from your back is probably the most important thing you can get.

barry would break off one or two 30-40 yarders and average less than 3 yards the rest of the game. that doesn't win, and it's why emmitt will always be the superior back, along with his blocking and value in the passing game, two things barry never had much of.

barry also had some good offensive lines. he had some bad ones to be sure, but he was surrounded by some good players a lot of years.

i'd go with jim brown in a heart beat, followed by earl campell in his prime.

[IMetTrentGreen]

Give Barry a better line, and many of those rushes for losses would be rushes for a short gain because he'd start looking to create something that much farther along. Because he had the bad lines, a lot of his improvising just took place that much sooner. A line with a consistent push would just allow him that much more room to work with before going off the page, and make it easier to gameplan the first 1/3 of each of his runs.

the first part of this is just false. barry got negative yardage because he wouldn't put his head down and take a 2 yard gain, he'd stop and dance around. a disciplined defense would have no problem plugging gaps until someone could punch through and take him down. it wouldn't matter if he had a line or not. he needs bigger holes than most OL create consistently.

he's an awesome individual talent, don't get me wrong. but i'd take tiki barber before i took barry in an nfl football game. flag football, im taking barry.

[Bad-example]

I loved watching Barry Sanders. He was a class act. But for my team, I would take Sweetness over him or any other back. Payton was the complete package. I don't think anyone could offer the same skills as runner, receiver and blocker. The guy was durable, had a great attitude and always dished out that extra bit of punishment to defenders at the end of the play.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Barry is a hall of famer. For most of his career (until the end anyway) he was a class act.

Very true. I think most people tend to forgive (and forget) the way he left Detroit hanging.

Anyhow, I also agree with your other sentiments. Michael Vick is the Barry Sanders of QBs.

[Havok]

he's the most amazing back i've ever seen.

[SFL Cat]

Jim Brown was the greatest running back ever.

Walter Payton is second

Emmitt Smith and Barry Sanders are tied for third

Eric Dickerson is next followed Earl Campbell, and then O.J. Simpson (in his pre-murderer days)

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by IMetTrentGreen

the first part of this is just false. barry got negative yardage because he wouldn't put his head down and take a 2 yard gain, he'd stop and dance around. a disciplined defense would have no problem plugging gaps until someone could punch through and take him down. it wouldn't matter if he had a line or not. he needs bigger holes than most OL create consistently.

he's an awesome individual talent, don't get me wrong. but i'd take tiki barber before i took barry in an nfl football game. flag football, im taking barry.

Tiki Barber? lol

I can think of 5 backs right off the top of my head I'll take over Tiki right now. I bet you could ask 100 people - Barry or Tiki and all 100 would say Barry.. unless of course they asked you, then it would be 99.

[CU Tiger]

A couple Barry Sanders myths that always bother me.
For all but 2 years of his NFL career he played behind the highest paid o-line in football. Highets paid does not always = best, but the Lions consistently brought in players that were great elsewhere but made to look bad in Detroit, mainly (IMHO) becuase Barry refused to hit the hole.

Also I saw a stat once ( I just looked and couldnt find it again) against top 5 rated rush defenses (by end of year rank)over the entirity of his career, Barry averaged less than 80ypg. During the same D's in the same seasons Emmitt Smith (his only real peer) 103...

Was he a spectacular athlete, ABSOLUTELY, the best RB ever, not top 5 in my opinion.

The 5 best

1A) Bo Jackson (no one could have been better, he never played a full season...)
1) Walter Payton
2) Emmitt Smith
3) Jim Brown
4) Eric Dickerson
5) (tie) OJ and Tony Dorsett....I give Dorsette the edge only because he never committed double homicide...

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

Fuck all this debate. Barry is the greatest back ever.

No one (even Sayers) could ever do the things he did, and he did it basically on his own. The only year he had a good offensive line ('91), the Lions actually won in the playoffs. That says it all. Then Mike Utley gets paralyzed (same season), and Eric Andolsek gets killed, and the line was never the same. I always wonder what would have happened if that line had stayed together.

As a lifelong Lions fan, Barry is just about the only joy I've had watching the team. He's the reason I even started to care about football again.

And that's fine. I'm glad you liked Barry and I'm glad you honestly believe he did it all on his own.

But that doesn't change what Barry did. Understand here, I'm not faulting Barry personally because he didn't duck his head into the line and power for two yards instead of negative two. It was his style. Without it, there never would have been those breathtaking 40 yard runs.

but also understand, it WAS his style that caused those two yard losses. No offensive line would make that up. You talk about '91, the only time he had a good line and they won in the playoffs. Lets talk about that for a second.

In the playoffs, he had a 47 yard TD run against Dallas in the fourth quarter of a blowout. (the score when barry made the run was 31-6) His total numbers from that game? 12 carries, 69 yards. So take out the big bopper and he had 11 carries for 22 yards. He followed that up with an 11 carry 44 yard performence against the Redskins.

So what you have is the standard for Barry's career. 22 carries for 66 yards with one carry for 47 to bump it up to 23 for 113 yards. The last number looks sweet. But the first is horrible for a good back.

Sorry, he's not the best in history. He's the most exciting. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong wtih that at all. But saying he's the best is a disservice to the guys who really were.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by TroyF

And that's fine. I'm glad you liked Barry and I'm glad you honestly believe he did it all on his own.

But that doesn't change what Barry did. Understand here, I'm not faulting Barry personally because he didn't duck his head into the line and power for two yards instead of negative two. It was his style. Without it, there never would have been those breathtaking 40 yard runs.

but also understand, it WAS his style that caused those two yard losses. No offensive line would make that up. You talk about '91, the only time he had a good line and they won in the playoffs. Lets talk about that for a second.

In the playoffs, he had a 47 yard TD run against Dallas in the fourth quarter of a blowout. (the score when barry made the run was 31-6) His total numbers from that game? 12 carries, 69 yards. So take out the big bopper and he had 11 carries for 22 yards. He followed that up with an 11 carry 44 yard performence against the Redskins.

So what you have is the standard for Barry's career. 22 carries for 66 yards with one carry for 47 to bump it up to 23 for 113 yards. The last number looks sweet. But the first is horrible for a good back.

Sorry, he's not the best in history. He's the most exciting. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong wtih that at all. But saying he's the best is a disservice to the guys who really were.

I think you made the xact point I was trying to make...just much more clearly...

[MizzouRah]

All I know is I drafted Barry Sanders #1 in FPS Football '97 and he took me to more Super Bowls than I can count.

[DeToxRox]

Love Barry but LT literally does it all.

Run, pass, throw, he's a threat.

In five years if he is healthy this isn't a conversation (in my opinion).

[JeffNights]

Sorry, but Barry was the BEST in history. period.

[Havok]

The whole Emmitt - Barry thing drives me crazy. I honeslty don't know who is better. They are 2 different running backs.

But Emmit was surronded by super stars/Hall of Famers. Aikman, Moose, Irvin, Stepnoski, Allen, Novachek(sp?), etc etc etc.......

Dallas was freaking LOADED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I should know, im a Redskins fan.

Who the hell was on Barry's team??? Scott Mitchell??? Herman Moore??? Rodney Peete????

I do agree that if Bo Jackson didn't have his hip destroyed he would have been the best ever. That guy was just a freak athlete.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by DeToxRoxDVHStyle

In five years if he is healthy this isn't a conversation (in my opinion).

This is VERY possible...

LT is on a roll and never seems to get dinged up, if he stay healthy he will be top 3 if not consensus 1 before he hangs em up...

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by TroyF

And that's fine. I'm glad you liked Barry and I'm glad you honestly believe he did it all on his own.

But that doesn't change what Barry did. Understand here, I'm not faulting Barry personally because he didn't duck his head into the line and power for two yards instead of negative two. It was his style. Without it, there never would have been those breathtaking 40 yard runs.

but also understand, it WAS his style that caused those two yard losses. No offensive line would make that up. You talk about '91, the only time he had a good line and they won in the playoffs. Lets talk about that for a second.

In the playoffs, he had a 47 yard TD run against Dallas in the fourth quarter of a blowout. (the score when barry made the run was 31-6) His total numbers from that game? 12 carries, 69 yards. So take out the big bopper and he had 11 carries for 22 yards. He followed that up with an 11 carry 44 yard performence against the Redskins.

So what you have is the standard for Barry's career. 22 carries for 66 yards with one carry for 47 to bump it up to 23 for 113 yards. The last number looks sweet. But the first is horrible for a good back.

Sorry, he's not the best in history. He's the most exciting. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong wtih that at all. But saying he's the best is a disservice to the guys who really were.

Good post. Definitely a top notch class act, clearly very exciting to watch, but not the best back in history.

[Antmeister]

Keep it up guys. Although I disagree with a number of you here, the conversation about who you think are great backs are very good arguements.

And for those that believe that Barry would have had negative yards regardless of the offensive line is silly. Just check out how many sacks were given up by that line regardless if they were highly paid or not. And he would hit the hole if there was blocking. In fact most of the highlights are when he got some decent blocking and he had passed the line of scrimmage.

If the line was more consistent (which isn't 100% their fault because most defenses only focused on the running game since there was no true passing threat), he wouldn't have to try to make something out of negative yardage.

Most years he was the only threat and when it came time for the playoffs, good defenses had to only focus on the running game.

And look at the talent around him. Can you name any pro bowl or Hall of Fame players that surrounded Barry? Now think of the other great backs and name some of the Hall of Fame or even borderline HOF players they had around them. Most of the other greats had some talent around him. Then check out the passing stats for any given year and you will see that Barry was always behind an inept offensive.

That is the only reason I could argue for Barry. We never really could know because he never did get that balanced offense. But to me he is still the greatest pure running back I have seen.

LT is most likely to surpass him and become the greatest all around back. But then again he has a much more balanced offensive then Barry ever did. And what is great about LT is that he is much like Barry after he scores a TD. He just hands the ball to the ref.

[Antmeister]

By the way, here is my arguement about the offensive line and their lack of balance. Check out the stats for the Detroit Lions every year Barry Sanders was there and look at the sack totals for the year. The sack totals are in category labeled SKD. Click on the other years by clicking 1990 and so on next to the 1989 Detroit Lions titlle:
http://www.databasefootball.com/team...lg=nfl&yr=1989


Ridiculous. I mean there are some years where there are close to 60 sacks allowed. Now check out the TD/interception ratio for those years as well and you can see what kind of offense Barry had around him. For him to get over 1000 yards every year is the most amazing accomplishment. If you can honestly say that any other running back could succeed in that offensive, then I beg to differ.

[JeffW]

Didn't Detroit run a Run-and-Shoot Offense? Of course the QBs are going to take a lot of sacks in that offense. Most years, with only a couple exceptions, they were average to very good in yards/pass attempt.

Barry Sanders is simply not as good as his yards, td, yards/carry numbers. He stalled a lot of drives by putting the Lions into unfavorable down and distances with negative runs.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Antmeister

Keep it up guys. Although I disagree with a number of you here, the conversation about who you think are great backs are very good arguements.

And for those that believe that Barry would have had negative yards regardless of the offensive line is silly. Just check out how many sacks were given up by that line regardless if they were highly paid or not. And he would hit the hole if there was blocking. In fact most of the highlights are when he got some decent blocking and he had passed the line of scrimmage.

If the line was more consistent (which isn't 100% their fault because most defenses only focused on the running game since there was no true passing threat), he wouldn't have to try to make something out of negative yardage.

Most years he was the only threat and when it came time for the playoffs, good defenses had to only focus on the running game.

And look at the talent around him. Can you name any pro bowl or Hall of Fame players that surrounded Barry? Now think of the other great backs and name some of the Hall of Fame or even borderline HOF players they had around them. Most of the other greats had some talent around him. Then check out the passing stats for any given year and you will see that Barry was always behind an inept offensive.

That is the only reason I could argue for Barry. We never really could know because he never did get that balanced offense. But to me he is still the greatest pure running back I have seen.

LT is most likely to surpass him and become the greatest all around back. But then again he has a much more balanced offensive then Barry ever did. And what is great about LT is that he is much like Barry after he scores a TD. He just hands the ball to the ref.

1) O-Lines generally either block for the pass or for the run. The Lions OL when Barry was there had the issue of doing both. It was hard, no question about it, but others have pointed out flaws people make when talking about his line. . . it was a decent line. They spent a lot of money on OL when Barry was there. The funny thing is we all heard about how much better Barry would be with a fullback for a lot of years. He got his FB, ran for a ton of yards (like he always did) and still led the league in carries for no gain or loss.

2) It's funny how people forget the Lions other weapons on offense. I hear Herman Moore talked about in jest, almost as if he were some horrific WR who Barry made. Moore had 7 solid seasons, with 4 unbelievable seasons mixed in. I'm not talking so/so, average seasons. I'm talking some of the best seasons in history for a WR at the time. (we think of guys like Harrison and Holt going over 100 catches now and forget how rare the feat was back in the early 90's) Moore and Johnny Morton were a hell of a WR pair in their day. And for all the flack Scott Mitchell took at the end, he gave Detroit a few high quality years. Barry was not without help for MOST of the time he was in Detroit.

3) You don't think a lot of those sacks had to do with the fact that when they threw the ball they were in long yardage, do you? I don't even have the exact numbers in front of me, so I have no idea how many sacks the line gave up. But I can promise you that you'll give up more sacks on 3rd and 12 than you will on 3rd and 4.

4) I'm going back to the weapons thing for a second. You talk about how Detroit had no real passing threat. This is absurd. The Lions had a solid passing game for a majority of the time Barry was there. (there were a few excetptions, like the Scott Mitchell flameout year) The reason the Lions didn't rack up a ton of yards through the air is because they were giving the ball to Barry. Example: In Barry's rookie year the Lions attemped the 16th most passes in the league for the 14th most total yards. They were 10th in the league in yards per pass attempt. During Barry's career, the Lions fluctuated from a middle of the road passing team, to a full blown running team to a team that finished 3rd in the league in total yards through the air. The one thing that stayed consistent was Barry. He always led the league in carries for losses, no matter how the Lions passing game did.

5) If people want to say "Wayne Fonts is an idiot, he screwed Barry" I may have a little sympathy. The Fonts years were horrible and there is no doubt with a better coach the Lions could have had a better team. But the data doesn't lie, Barry had a high number of carries for lost yards no matter what offensive system he was in. Period.

6) Last, but NOT least. . . I keep hearing about the lack of weapons poor Barry had around him. Well, how many hall of famers did Payton play with on offense? Was it the Bob Avellini years everyone looks so fondly on? Or was it that hall of famer Vince Evans, who once completed 44% of his passes for a full season that make people think Barry had it worse than Sweetness? If you are going to use the excuse that Barry had no talent around him, then give other backs who were great their due. Barry had much better talent around him than some other high profile backs, Sweetness, Juice and Gale Sayers just to run off a few.

[CU Tiger]

Looking at a teams sack totals and saying they were bad run blockers is akin to saying the defense had no ints there Dline sucked...

While they are related they are far from direct. #1 PB and RB really are 2 different skill sets.. #2 you are taking out how long the qb held the ball due to poor rec's and also taking our bad throws bad reads etc.

Now int totals do speak towards offensive balance but little towards line quality.

Also the no hole to hit argument is false. Any coach will tell a RB if there is no hole run in to the back of the lineman. With a had of steam you should push him (and the defender) for at least a short gain. Late in his career Barry broke down behind the line and danced....


I think at some point a great RB makes average players around him better. Kind of a chicken or egg argument. Was Emmitt good because of Stepnoski/Newton/Allan or do we know Stepnoski/Newton/Allan because of Emmitt? Same goes for QBs, obviously AIkman was better than Peete/Mitchell, but do any of us think he was Marino? I have heard it argued that take away Emmitt and Aikman never sniffs Canton much less 1st ballott.

Either way i think those 2 are completely different backs.

I go back to Bo...
Best I ever saw...

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Looking at a teams sack totals and saying they were bad run blockers is akin to saying the defense had no ints there Dline sucked...

While they are related they are far from direct. #1 PB and RB really are 2 different skill sets.. #2 you are taking out how long the qb held the ball due to poor rec's and also taking our bad throws bad reads etc.

Now int totals do speak towards offensive balance but little towards line quality.

Also the no hole to hit argument is false. Any coach will tell a RB if there is no hole run in to the back of the lineman. With a had of steam you should push him (and the defender) for at least a short gain. Late in his career Barry broke down behind the line and danced....


I think at some point a great RB makes average players around him better. Kind of a chicken or egg argument. Was Emmitt good because of Stepnoski/Newton/Allan or do we know Stepnoski/Newton/Allan because of Emmitt? Same goes for QBs, obviously AIkman was better than Peete/Mitchell, but do any of us think he was Marino? I have heard it argued that take away Emmitt and Aikman never sniffs Canton much less 1st ballott.

Either way i think those 2 are completely different backs.

I go back to Bo...
Best I ever saw...

Bo was great, no question. There are huge problems with bringing his name up in a greatest ever debate though. For starters, he never rushed for over 1000 yards in a season, never rushed for over 5 TD's in a season, never once finished in the top ten in any category for a single year and is not among the top fifty RB's of all time at anything.

Now, I understand why this was the case, but when you are talking about the greatest ever, durability has to be in the equation somewhere, doesn't it? I'm not even talking long term durability. Just durability in those three or four years of peak performence. I can even live with a guy like Sayers being brough up. He missed six games in his five year prime. (though I think Sayers should probably be in another discussion when it comes to running backs, he was a lot more than just a runner)

We all remember the Monday Night Seattle game with Bo. We remember his incredible talent. But we never got to see it on display for a full year due to his choices. I've seen other backs, including Barry, have incredible performences. Was Bo better than say, Earl Campbell in his prime? I mean, you look at the stats and can see Campbell faded quickly because of his style, it'd have been interesting to see how long Bo could have held up. If you ask me, I'll take Earl over Bo as far as a purely dominant, physical freak of nature. But that my be just me.

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by JeffW

Didn't Detroit run a Run-and-Shoot Offense? Of course the QBs are going to take a lot of sacks in that offense. Most years, with only a couple exceptions, they were average to very good in yards/pass attempt.

Barry Sanders is simply not as good as his yards, td, yards/carry numbers. He stalled a lot of drives by putting the Lions into unfavorable down and distances with negative runs.

Yeah they did, which stresses my point. How many games did the defense gameplan around Barry Sanders and had 8 men in the box. With a run and shoot offense, no tight ends, less than average quarterbac, how is it that Barry was still able to get 1000 plus yards a game, even when the guy was losing yardage some of the time?

Of course the guy is going to lose some yardage if the offensive line is trying to block 8 guys because no one worried about the passing game as much as the running game. Plus I said look at the TD/interception ration. Even if the TD/interception are even, that is not a productive offense.

[Havok]

Originally Posted by TroyF

6) Last, but NOT least. . . I keep hearing about the lack of weapons poor Barry had around him. Well, how many hall of famers did Payton play with on offense? Was it the Bob Avellini years everyone looks so fondly on? Or was it that hall of famer Vince Evans, who once completed 44% of his passes for a full season that make people think Barry had it worse than Sweetness? If you are going to use the excuse that Barry had no talent around him, then give other backs who were great their due. Barry had much better talent around him than some other high profile backs, Sweetness, Juice and Gale Sayers just to run off a few.

so neither one had much in the way of offensive talent around them. So lets look at the numbers..........


Payton career rushing total - 3,838 att 16,726 yards 4.4 avg 110 TDs

Sanders career rushing total - 3,062 att 15,269 yards 5.0 avg 99 TDs

If you give Barry the same amount of attempts that equals 19,149 yards and more TD's (to lazy to add that up).


Payton receiving total - 492 rec 4538 yards 9.2 avg 15 TDs

Sanaders receiving total - 352 rec 2,921 yards 8.3 avg 10TDs

Payton is the better receiver, but not by much. If Barry matched his total games played it would have been VERY close.

Stats wise you gotta take Barry all day every day. But of course, stats don't mean everything.

[Greyroofoo]

My drunk analysis says


Sanders fuckin rules

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by TroyF

1) O-Lines generally either block for the pass or for the run. The Lions OL when Barry was there had the issue of doing both. It was hard, no question about it, but others have pointed out flaws people make when talking about his line. . . it was a decent line. They spent a lot of money on OL when Barry was there. The funny thing is we all heard about how much better Barry would be with a fullback for a lot of years. He got his FB, ran for a ton of yards (like he always did) and still led the league in carries for no gain or loss.

2) It's funny how people forget the Lions other weapons on offense. I hear Herman Moore talked about in jest, almost as if he were some horrific WR who Barry made. Moore had 7 solid seasons, with 4 unbelievable seasons mixed in. I'm not talking so/so, average seasons. I'm talking some of the best seasons in history for a WR at the time. (we think of guys like Harrison and Holt going over 100 catches now and forget how rare the feat was back in the early 90's) Moore and Johnny Morton were a hell of a WR pair in their day. And for all the flack Scott Mitchell took at the end, he gave Detroit a few high quality years. Barry was not without help for MOST of the time he was in Detroit.

3) You don't think a lot of those sacks had to do with the fact that when they threw the ball they were in long yardage, do you? I don't even have the exact numbers in front of me, so I have no idea how many sacks the line gave up. But I can promise you that you'll give up more sacks on 3rd and 12 than you will on 3rd and 4.

4) I'm going back to the weapons thing for a second. You talk about how Detroit had no real passing threat. This is absurd. The Lions had a solid passing game for a majority of the time Barry was there. (there were a few excetptions, like the Scott Mitchell flameout year) The reason the Lions didn't rack up a ton of yards through the air is because they were giving the ball to Barry. Example: In Barry's rookie year the Lions attemped the 16th most passes in the league for the 14th most total yards. They were 10th in the league in yards per pass attempt. During Barry's career, the Lions fluctuated from a middle of the road passing team, to a full blown running team to a team that finished 3rd in the league in total yards through the air. The one thing that stayed consistent was Barry. He always led the league in carries for losses, no matter how the Lions passing game did.

5) If people want to say "Wayne Fonts is an idiot, he screwed Barry" I may have a little sympathy. The Fonts years were horrible and there is no doubt with a better coach the Lions could have had a better team. But the data doesn't lie, Barry had a high number of carries for lost yards no matter what offensive system he was in. Period.

6) Last, but NOT least. . . I keep hearing about the lack of weapons poor Barry had around him. Well, how many hall of famers did Payton play with on offense? Was it the Bob Avellini years everyone looks so fondly on? Or was it that hall of famer Vince Evans, who once completed 44% of his passes for a full season that make people think Barry had it worse than Sweetness? If you are going to use the excuse that Barry had no talent around him, then give other backs who were great their due. Barry had much better talent around him than some other high profile backs, Sweetness, Juice and Gale Sayers just to run off a few.

1). The reason why I brought up the O-line is because someone mentioned that they were the highest paid offensive line. What I was saying is that the offensive line isn't as great as many think it would be. A good offensive line can do both. They are usually average in one type of blocking while great in another type. I am just saying that is not the case in Detroit.

2). Yes Herman Moore was above average, but show me how many time Herman Moore got over 1000 yards receiving. Not entirely all his fault, but more defenses gameplanned against Barry than they ever did for Herman Moore.

3). And no I don't believe a majority of sacks happened because of long yardage situations. Most of that was the quarterback. If you look at 1991, you could see how the sacks had dropped tremendously. Barry still had some negative yardage that year, but they seemed to do okay with sacks allowed.

4). I still don't get the arguement. He still rushed for over 1400 yards. You seem to think he never made up the negative yardage on the very next few plays. That was always the case for him. He kept more drives alive than killed them.

5). Well if the data doesn't lie, then why wasn't there a 1000 yard rusher the year that Barry left. With your analogy, the line was very good and his replacement should have just had a field day the very day he didn't come back. If Barry had continued to play today, I still believe he would have gotten 1000 yards even with these bad Detroit teams. Even as an old man.

6). I give Sweetness his due, but c'mon. Are you saying that Barry had an offensive line similar to the Chicago Bears. Are you saying that the Lions had a deep threat like Willie Gault. Are you saying that Jim McMahon is the same quality quarterback as Scott Mitchell or Andre Ware?

[JeffW]

Originally Posted by Havok

Stats wise you gotta take Barry all day every day. But of course, stats don't mean everything.

Especially the very limited stats that are being analyzed in this thread.

Which is a more valuable run?

3 yard run on 3rd and 3 or a 5 yard run on 3rd and 7?

Which is more valuable?

4.5 yards/carry with a SD of 1.5 yards/carry or 5 yards/carry with a standard of 4 yards/carry?

In both instances the former is more valuable, but we value the latter more highly with traditional statistics.

Without situation adjustments, statistics are a mere shadow of what's really going on.

[JeffW]

One other thing. TD/Interception is not a very valuable metric. TDs are incredible overrated. When you separate the yardage from the TD, a TD itself is worth about 10 yards or 1 point more than having the ball on the 1 yard line.

Yds/attempt or yards/carry are the best traditional(as opposed to situational metrics and the Lions did well there. In Sanders case he's really overrated when you just look at yards/carry because he was a poor situational runner: he put his team into tons of unfavorable down and distances with negative runs and had a high standard deviation for his yards/carry.