Best runningback of all time

[Champion8877]

Re: Best runningback of all time

the eye test isn't bs, it's just subjective. when i watched him run, i never got the feeling that i was watching one of the best of all-time.

The eye test is BS.

Take Tom Brady for example, When I watch him I usually don't see anything that stands out. His game is rather boring, little passes over the middle to Welker and Gronk, nothing flashy that stands out and makes me think "Wow, this guy is a top 10 QB." He doesn't have the same feel that an Elway, Favre, or Marino have, he isn't flashy and doesn't really do anything to wow you(atleast for me he doesn't) Brady wouldn't pass my eye test. That being said he is a sure fire hall of famer and will go down as a top 10 all time QB(as much as I hate to admit it since I cannot stand the guy).

Now take Michael Vick, when I watch him it's like wow, is this really happening? This guy is flashy, he runs like a halfback and throws like a quarterback. These kind of guys amaze you while you watch them. If the hall of fame was based on the eye test, it would be filled with these kind of guys. But it is not, so Vick will not make the hall of fame(unless he plays completely out of his mind for the next couple years) or ever be considered one of the greats.

So basically just because a player is good on the eyes and fun to watch, doesn't mean he is one of the greats. Maybe Curtis Martin doesn't pass your eye test, that doesn't take away the fact that he is one of the all time best to play the position. Stats do not lie, your eyes do though.

[TajDeni]

Re: Best runningback of all time

i dont know if id class him as the greatest running back of all time, but i picked marshal faulk as the running back id most want on my team, because in his prime from an offensive strategy standpoint, sky's the limit. he literally could do everything great.

[wheelman990]

Re: Best runningback of all time

I have always thought Curtis Martin was awesome, and Terrell Davis is the ONLY RB I ever watched that I thought, wow this guy could actually have a better career than Sanders. Wish he could have played a full 10 years healthy.

Then again, that is part of what makes some of these backs so great. many were dependable for so long.

That is the case with Barry. He had some of his best years near the end.

I think one of the most incredible thing's about Sanders stats, is he did it all with a passing game from Andre Ware, Dave Krieg, Rodney Pete, Scott Mitchell, and Charlie Batch. Realize the defense could just key on Barry, and the guy still put up those kind of numbers. Crazy

[mb625]

Re: Best runningback of all time

I went with Sanders because I could only justify going with a guy I physically saw play, and of those 4 Sanders was easily the best. IMO

[mpeterso]

Re: Best runningback of all time

Barry Sanders. No running back did more against a better level of competition with the least amount talent around him.

You could say the same for OJ Simpson - he WAS the Bills offense.

[The15thunter]

Re: Best runningback of all time

Talk about a nebulous reason to argue against a guy being in the HOF.

You never got the feeling you were watching one of the best of all time? It turns out at the end of the day, you were indeed watching one of the best of all time.

it's not a nebulous reason, i could go into a variety of statistical reasons why i don't think martin is the best. i could tell you that at his peak, i wouldn't take him over jim brown, walter payton, emmitt smith, barry sanders, gale sayers, o.j. simpson, earl campbell, eric dickerson, tony dorsett, ladainian tomlinson, marshall faulk, thurman thomas, or marcus allen. and if i was feeling up to it, i would argue that i'd prefer a healthy bo jackson, terrell davis, jerome bettis, herschel walker, priest holmes, shaun alexander, john riggins, and edgerrin james, too.

for me, curtis martin is like a fred taylor or tiki barber. great backs, and you don't realize how well they played collectively until you really look at what they accomplished. but to mention him in this conversation is not fitting. he's great, but he ain't that great.

[The15thunter]

Re: Best runningback of all time

The eye test is BS.

Take Tom Brady for example, When I watch him I usually don't see anything that stands out. His game is rather boring, little passes over the middle to Welker and Gronk, nothing flashy that stands out and makes me think "Wow, this guy is a top 10 QB." He doesn't have the same feel that an Elway, Favre, or Marino have, he isn't flashy and doesn't really do anything to wow you(atleast for me he doesn't) Brady wouldn't pass my eye test. That being said he is a sure fire hall of famer and will go down as a top 10 all time QB(as much as I hate to admit it since I cannot stand the guy).

Now take Michael Vick, when I watch him it's like wow, is this really happening? This guy is flashy, he runs like a halfback and throws like a quarterback. These kind of guys amaze you while you watch them. If the hall of fame was based on the eye test, it would be filled with these kind of guys. But it is not, so Vick will not make the hall of fame(unless he plays completely out of his mind for the next couple years) or ever be considered one of the greats.

So basically just because a player is good on the eyes and fun to watch, doesn't mean he is one of the greats. Maybe Curtis Martin doesn't pass your eye test, that doesn't take away the fact that he is one of the all time best to play the position. Stats do not lie, your eyes do though.

1. brady passes my eye test. in fact, i would argue that if brady doesn't pass your eye test, you shouldn't be allowed to have one.

2. vick doesn't pass my eye test. for as dynamic as he is, he lacks consistency on a game-to-game, season-to-season basis. he is one of the most dynamic players to ever step on a football field, but he doesn't pass the eye test for hall of fame greatness.

3. my eye test isn't about style or flash. some of my favorite players in basketball and football are, to be blunt, boring. but that doesn't negate the fact that i feel i have an eye for unadulterated greatness. i'm not saying curtis martin isn't a great running back. i'm saying he does not belong in this conversation, and to put him in it is to do a disservice to everyone that is deserving and to him. statistically, he is the 4th best running back of all-time. even curtis martin wouldn't say that.

[Rocky]

Re: Best runningback of all time

it's not a nebulous reason, i could go into a variety of statistical reasons why i don't think martin is the best. i could tell you that at his peak, i wouldn't take him over jim brown, walter payton, emmitt smith, barry sanders, gale sayers, o.j. simpson, earl campbell, eric dickerson, tony dorsett, ladainian tomlinson, marshall faulk, thurman thomas, or marcus allen. and if i was feeling up to it, i would argue that i'd prefer a healthy bo jackson, terrell davis, jerome bettis, herschel walker, priest holmes, shaun alexander, john riggins, and edgerrin james, too.

for me, curtis martin is like a fred taylor or tiki barber. great backs, and you don't realize how well they played collectively until you really look at what they accomplished. but to mention him in this conversation is not fitting. he's great, but he ain't that great.

I would take a healthy Fred Taylor in hi prime over anyone not named Barry, Brown, Payton, OJ, and possibly Dickerson, Emmitt, and LT.

[bkrich83]

Re: Best runningback of all time

I have always thought Curtis Martin was awesome, and Terrell Davis is the ONLY RB I ever watched that I thought, wow this guy could actually have a better career than Sanders. Wish he could have played a full 10 years healthy.

Then again, that is part of what makes some of these backs so great. many were dependable for so long.

That is the case with Barry. He had some of his best years near the end.

I think one of the most incredible thing's about Sanders stats, is he did it all with a passing game from Andre Ware, Dave Krieg, Rodney Pete, Scott Mitchell, and Charlie Batch. Realize the defense could just key on Barry, and the guy still put up those kind of numbers. Crazy

You realize those Lions teams were very effective throwing the ball. Having Herman Moore, Brett Perriman and Germain Crowell at WR tend to loosen up the defense.

If people want to talk about accomplishment despite the lack of talent around them, then no one on the list beats Walter Payton. No one's even close.

[bkrich83]

Re: Best runningback of all time

it's not a nebulous reason, i could go into a variety of statistical reasons why i don't think martin is the best. i could tell you that at his peak, i wouldn't take him over jim brown, walter payton, emmitt smith, barry sanders, gale sayers, o.j. simpson, earl campbell, eric dickerson, tony dorsett, ladainian tomlinson, marshall faulk, thurman thomas, or marcus allen. and if i was feeling up to it, i would argue that i'd prefer a healthy bo jackson, terrell davis, jerome bettis, herschel walker, priest holmes, shaun alexander, john riggins, and edgerrin james, too.

for me, curtis martin is like a fred taylor or tiki barber. great backs, and you don't realize how well they played collectively until you really look at what they accomplished. but to mention him in this conversation is not fitting. he's great, but he ain't that great.

Actually that's the definition of nebulous. Although the whole "eye test" argument is ridiculous to begin with.

[mKoz26]

Re: Best runningback of all time

Actually that's the definition of nebulous. Although the whole "eye test" argument is ridiculous to begin with.

So the only measure of anything is statistics? Shoot, even Martin's statistics aren't that great overall. He averaged 4 ypc in a highly offense-inflated era. He had one great, a few good, and many average seasons. He's a good player whose stats were accumulated based on time and carries rather than incredible efficiency.

P.S. What exactly was your argument for Eric Dickerson? Something about "best pure runner"? Isn't that entirely subjective, nebulous, and impossible without an "eye test". Not that your opinion is invalid but isn't it certainly, by your definition, "nebulous".

[bkrich83]

Re: Best runningback of all time

So the only measure of anything is statistics? Shoot, even Martin's statistics aren't that great overall. He averaged 4 ypc in a highly offense-inflated era. He had one great, a few good, and many average seasons. He's a good player whose stats were accumulated based on time and carries rather than incredible efficiency.

P.S. What exactly was your argument for Eric Dickerson? Something about "best pure runner"? Isn't that entirely subjective, nebulous, and impossible without an "eye test". Not that your opinion is invalid but isn't it certainly, by your definition, "nebulous".

Was the running game inflated at that time? Not really. The offensive explosion was due to the passing game being opened up due to changes in rules and how pre-existing rules were interpreted .

It was nebulous, and I stated as much. I wasn't making an argument he was or wasn't HOF worthy. I merely said Dickerson was the best pure runner I saw. I didn't say he belonged in the hall because of that.

The whole Eye Test for whether a guy should be in the Hall or considered an all timer is ridiculous. Again you don't end up the #4 rusher in NFL history if you weren't great, and if your numbers were merely based on carries. Hell even if they were and you were able to produce after that many touches, then that right there is something. If what he did was that easy, how come none of the other backs mentioned with lesser accomplishments were able to do it?

If you finish your career the #4 all time rusher, you're HOF worthy, subjective eye test or not.

[jaylenwm96os]

Re: Best runningback of all time

I'm young so the only player listed in the poll I've seen play in his prime is LT but from what I've seen of all the players, I'd go with Barry. He seems like the ideal scatback prototype. Hard to think anyone is ever going to be as innovative and slippery on the field as he was.

[The15thunter]

Re: Best runningback of all time

I would take a healthy Fred Taylor in hi prime over anyone not named Barry, Brown, Payton, OJ, and possibly Dickerson, Emmitt, and LT.

hmmm, that's interesting. i wouldn't take taylor over anyone i said i wouldn't take martin over. care to share why you feel that way?

[The15thunter]

Re: Best runningback of all time

Was the running game inflated at that time? Not really. The offensive explosion was due to the passing game being opened up due to changes in rules and how pre-existing rules were interpreted .

It was nebulous, and I stated as much. I wasn't making an argument he was or wasn't HOF worthy. I merely said Dickerson was the best pure runner I saw. I didn't say he belonged in the hall because of that.

The whole Eye Test for whether a guy should be in the Hall or considered an all timer is ridiculous. Again you don't end up the #4 rusher in NFL history if you weren't great, and if your numbers were merely based on carries. Hell even if they were and you were able to produce after that many touches, then that right there is something. If what he did was that easy, how come none of the other backs mentioned with lesser accomplishments were able to do it?

If you finish your career the #4 all time rusher, you're HOF worthy, subjective eye test or not.

i haven't argued against curtis martin being in the hall of fame. he's in, and that's fine. finishing #4 all-time in rushing yards will get you there. all i'm saying is that he does not belong in the conversation for best all-time. he clearly isn't on the same level of smith, sanders, brown, payton, and others. and, as i stated before, i would rather have up to 20 other players at their prime than him. that, in and of itself, makes it hard to argue that you're up for talks in any "best of all-time" discussion.