Best runningback of all time

[bkrich83]

Re: Best runningback of all time

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.

It's hard to argue that because you would take 20 players over him?

[DukeC]

Re: Best runningback of all time

I find it funny how everyone holds his durability against him but don't hold it against Emmitt.

SMH.

[bkrich83]

I find it funny how everyone holds his durability against him but don't hold it against Emmitt.

SMH.

I was thinking the same thing.

[The15thunter]

Re: Best runningback of all time

It's hard to argue that because you would take 20 players over him?

can you be in the discussion for being the greatest at something if there are 20 people who did it better, or comparably?

[The15thunter]

Re: Best runningback of all time

I find it funny how everyone holds his durability against him but don't hold it against Emmitt.

SMH.

who is holding his durability against him? people are saying that he was never truly elite, that he bordered on good/very good/great for an extended time, so his statistics are an accumulation of that fact, and not being a dominating force, but a constant, whittling one.

[DukeC]

Re: Best runningback of all time

From 1997 to 2004 Emmitt was on the same level as Curtin Martin. Not to mention he kept playing WAAAAAAAAAY past his prime chasing after Walter Payton and putting up truly absymal stats.

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...S/SmitEm00.htm

Curtis Martin's production NEVER dipped. Not even towards the end of his career.

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...M/MartCu00.htm

Don't act like you don't remember Emmitt Smith playing for the Cardinals. Ugh.

Edit: And I'm unsure how you're not an elite back when you've put up over 1000 yards for 10 straight seasons.

So yes, you are holding it against while giving Emmitt a pass.

[The15thunter]

Re: Best runningback of all time

From 1997 to 2004 Emmitt was on the same level as Curtin Martin. Not to mention he kept playing WAAAAAAAAAY past his prime chasing after Walter Payton and putting up truly absymal stats.

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...S/SmitEm00.htm

Curtis Martin's production NEVER dipped. Not even towards the end of his career.

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...M/MartCu00.htm

Don't act like you don't remember Emmitt Smith playing for the Cardinals. Ugh.

Edit: And I'm unsure how you're not an elite back when you've put up over 1000 yards for 10 straight seasons.

So yes, you are holding it against while giving Emmitt a pass.

so, just to make sure i understand, you're saying emmitt smith and curtis martin are equals?

[payton425]

Re: Best runningback of all time

You guys do understand that being a complete running back involves blocking as well? Walter was easily the best blocking rb of all time. This often gets overlooked...Walter not only was a "runner" he could catch it out the back field and block like no other. He is hands down the most complete rb of all time. Case closed!

[DukeC]

Re: Best runningback of all time

so, just to make sure i understand, you're saying emmitt smith and curtis martin are equals?

Are you trying to make a strawman argument?

From 1990-1996 Emmitt would have gotten to the Hall just on those numbers alone. He was a phenominal back during that time period. Arguably the best runningback during that time (This is where the Barry Sanders argument occurs).

He declined after 1996. He was still great, BUT, if you had read properly, He and Martin were playing on practically the same level. Which I pointed out.

[mKoz26]

Re: Best runningback of all time

Are you trying to make a strawman argument?

From 1990-1996 Emmitt would have gotten to the Hall just on those numbers alone. He was a phenominal back during that time period. Arguably the best runningback during that time (This is where the Barry Sanders argument occurs).

He declined after 1996. He was still great, BUT, if you had read properly, He and Martin were playing on practically the same level. Which I pointed out.

True. And that fact is even more telling of Martin. His prime years were similar to Emmitt's declining years. That's not a good thing for Martin.

[kehlis]

Re: Best runningback of all time

You guys do understand that being a complete running back involves blocking as well? Walter was easily the best blocking rb of all time. This often gets overlooked...Walter not only was a "runner" he could catch it out the back field and block like no other. He is hands down the most complete rb of all time. Case closed!

Thanks, I'll go ahead and get the "Most Complete Runningback of all time" thread closed then.

[DukeC]

Re: Best runningback of all time

Curtis Martin quietly had one of the greatest careers a running back could have.

he had a great career, but he can't pass the eye test.

This.

To me, Martin was the epitome of a stat stuffer.

I mean, there are only 26 guys that ever gained 10k yards on the ground and a solid handful of them are absolutely NOT HoF caliber in my eyes. Martin tops the list.

Others that I don't consider to be all-time greats that have a ton of stats:

Fred Taylor
Corey Dillon
Warrick Dunn
Jamal Lewis
Thomas Jones
Tiki Barber
Eddie George
Ricky Williams

All of those guys have over 10k yards, but none are HoF worthy to me.

True. And that fact is even more telling of Martin. His prime years were similar to Emmitt's declining years. That's not a good thing for Martin.

If you read the above I'm not sure what that has to do with my point of Curtis Martin being a great runningback and having a Hall of Fame worthy career. I really don't.

It all started from that rediculous "eye test" argument stating he wasn't a hall of famer.

[Rocky]

Re: Best runningback of all time

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?

Where do I start?

First off, in college...I think if he would've played in a more run-happy offense, he would have had a Heisman and been selected as one of the top 3 picks in the NFL draft. He was really that good, probably one of the most underrated college football players ever. He was just overshadowed.

When he got to the NFL, he was just an amazing combination of speed and quickness. He made cuts that only the quickest, most athletic players made....but at 215 pounds! Some of the moves and cuts he made were just unreal and he combined that with breakaway speed. If you followed him during his first three years, you would often hear comparisons to OJ. I think he was OJ 2.0...a bigger, stronger, quicker, faster version of OJ. He was supposed to centerpiece that Jags dynasty that was supposed to last from the late 90's to the mid 2000's. I thought he would be a top 10, if not top 5 RB of all-time because he would have great stats with at least 2 or 3 Super Bowl rings.

Then the injuries came. What's amazing is that even after all the injuries, he was still one of the top backs in the NFL for a number of years. But he was really never the same as he was before the injuries. Like I said, in his prime, there are only a small handful of backs before I would take before a healty Fred Taylor.

[mKoz26]

Re: Best runningback of all time

If you read the above I'm not sure what that has to do with my point of Curtis Martin being a great runningback and having a Hall of Fame worthy career. I really don't.

It all started from that rediculous "eye test" argument stating he wasn't a hall of famer.

So you do or don't believe Martin should be in the HoF?

[The15thunter]

Re: Best runningback of all time

If you read the above I'm not sure what that has to do with my point of Curtis Martin being a great runningback and having a Hall of Fame worthy career. I really don't.

It all started from that rediculous "eye test" argument stating he wasn't a hall of famer.

the eye test isn't ridiculous, it's pretty much 70% of the reason gale sayers is in the hall of fame. my point wasn't that curtis martin doesn't deserve to be in the hall, that was 55. all i said was he doesn't pass my eye test, which is to say that he never appear to be great enough to warrant mentioning him in this thread. that's all.

when pushed further, i named 20 other backs that i would rather have at their peak than him at his, but the eye test comment was about me saying he never elicited an aura of greatness. i never watched him and said "this man is one of the best to ever do it". whether or not you personally feel he is, that's another story, and if you want to point at his rushing totals, that's fine. but curtis martin does not belong in this thread in my opinion, and i don't know anyone, other than you and bkrich, who would put him in it.