Best runningback of all time

[The15thunter]

Re: Best runningback of all time

youre the one who set the era if you dont wanna count lofton id still say someone like andre johnson is equal or better than harrison.

rice, moss and irvin are obvious

tim brown had longevity of greatness and was more of an all around player being a pr/kr too.

TO gets a bad rep for destroying all of his teams off the field. but hes still 2nd only to jerry rice in yards and TDs

and johnson is just a physical specimen big, strong fast, can catch anything, plays hurt, is a great leader. Hes only 29 and his career numbers are already approaching HOF level. 3 years at his current rate and he'll be right at top 10 all time in yards and rec

i'll give you rice and moss as obvious, as they are most people's #1 and #2.

explain irvin, please.

tim brown being a great returner does not prove that he is a better wide receiver than marvin harrison.

terrell owens is debatable, and we can really get into that if you'd like. his questionable hands and effort, his demand for the ball at all costs, his cancerous attitude and the manner in which he has burned every bridge he has ever crossed is a concern.

and i will not entertain the andre johnson claim, as he isn't anywhere near this discussion.

[lonewolf371]

Re: Best runningback of all time

Michael Irvin
Tim brown
James lofton

Wow are you kidding me? Not one of those guys is close to Harrison. Harrison had better individual seasons and he crushes all three in career touchdowns. The only guy he loses to in any career statistic is Tim Brown with yardage, and Tim Brown took four more seasons to get 350 more yards.

Harrison has more 1st Team All-Pro awards than all three of those guys combined.

Major disrespect to Harrison.

[untrugby]

Re: Best runningback of all time

explain irvin, please.

Wow are you kidding me? Not one of those guys is close to Harrison.

this is a joke right? pretty much everyone has irvin in their top 5 Wr all time, ESPN ranked him 4th (rice, moss, and hudson were ahead of him)

and i will not entertain the andre johnson claim, as he isn't anywhere near this discussion.

where do you put andre in wrs of this era? r

[untrugby]

Re: Best runningback of all time

yes, the fans overrate sanders because he was fascinating to watch and because the people who voted likely hadn't seen brown. your statement proves my point.

chicken or the egg. older people overate old players, younger people overrate current players.

[lonewolf371]

Re: Best runningback of all time

this is a joke right? pretty much everyone has irvin in their top 5 Wr all time, ESPN ranked him 4th (rice, moss, and hudson were ahead of him)



where do you put andre in wrs of this era? r

I'm sorry, I don't care who puts Irvin up there. He's not close by any objective criterion to Harrison. He just talked more and Harrison kept quiet.

While I'm around:

http://www.the-top-tens.com/lists/be...-receivers.asp

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110507144829AApOpag

http://thepulplist.com/2010/02/the-top-10-best-nfl-wide-receivers-of-all-time/

http://sportsfixchicago.com/2011/02/03/sfcs-top-10-wide-receivers-of-all-time/

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/390780-the-top-25-wide-receivers-in-the-history-of-the-nfl/page/23

chicken or the egg. older people overate old players, younger people overrate current players.

Not really. People that saw both go with Jim Brown.

[SPTO]

Re: Best runningback of all time

I'm sorry, I don't care who puts Irvin up there. He's not close by any objective criterion to Harrison. He just talked more and Harrison kept quiet.

Eh, I'd say Irvin was probably slightly better in some areas. Irvin would often be given and inch and take a mile. He also was able to dominate some games. In all my time of watching Harrison I never really got the impression that he DOMINATED a game.

[untrugby]

Re: Best runningback of all time

He's not close by any objective criterion to Harrison.

Irvin has 3 rings and was the best player on each team, harrison has one and wasnt the best player. Irivins career was cut short by an injury if he had played longer he would have comparable numbers.

Not really. People that saw both go with Jim Brown.

did you read what i said? older people overrate older players. it doesnt matter about seeing them both. People always tend to favor what they saw first as better in comparison weather its rbs spread apart by 25 years or similar movies watched back to back

[The15thunter]

Re: Best runningback of all time

this is a joke right? pretty much everyone has irvin in their top 5 Wr all time, ESPN ranked him 4th (rice, moss, and hudson were ahead of him)



where do you put andre in wrs of this era? r

andre has to contend with rice, moss, owens, harrison, cris carter, tim brown, bruce, holt, ward, mason, wayne, fitzgerald, and ocho cinco. these are all players i consider standouts amongst this era, which i would say has to include players who played past the year 2000.

and again, without telling me what he is ranked, tell me why michael irvin is better than marvin harrison at receiving.

[Broncos86]

Re: Best runningback of all time

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...l-time-10.html This exists for a reason, fellas.

[The15thunter]

Re: Best runningback of all time

chicken or the egg. older people overate old players, younger people overrate current players.

that does not really refute the fact that knowledgeable football minds herald brown as the best.

[lonewolf371]

Re: Best runningback of all time

Eh, I'd say Irvin was probably slightly better in some areas. Irvin would often be given and inch and take a mile. He also was able to dominate some games. In all my time of watching Harrison I never really got the impression that he DOMINATED a game.

That's why I said objective criterion. That's subjective.

Irvin has 3 rings and was the best player on each team, harrison has one and wasnt the best player. Irivins career was cut short by an injury if he had played longer he would have comparable numbers.

did you read what i said? older people overrate older players. it doesnt matter about seeing them both. People always tend to favor what they saw first as better in comparison weather its rbs spread apart by 25 years or similar movies watched back to back

Debatable whether Irvin was the best player on that team. I happen to not think so. As for short career, that might actually hold water if Irvin's best seasons were close to Harrison's. Harrison's four best seasons were all superior to Irvin's best.

I just can't say Sanders was better. He doesn't have a championship. He doesn't look as good compared to the other guys that played at the time. The "everyone was trying to stop Barry Sanders" argument doesn't hold either, because everyone was trying to stop Jim Brown. Jim Brown was also more athletically gifted, and he had a bigger impact on the history of the game.

[The15thunter]

Re: Best runningback of all time

Irvin has 3 rings and was the best player on each team, harrison has one and wasnt the best player. Irivins career was cut short by an injury if he had played longer he would have comparable numbers.




did you read what i said? older people overrate older players. it doesnt matter about seeing them both. People always tend to favor what they saw first as better in comparison weather its rbs spread apart by 25 years or similar movies watched back to back

michael irvin was not the best player on the championship cowboys. emmitt smith was a better player. there is no argument.

irvin, had he played longer, would not have harrison numbers. for one, he was in a different offense. for two, his peak wasn't as dominant. for three, and this is subjective, he wasn't as good.

and you just said that older people overrate older players. yet, the majority of the people on the top 100 list are players that have played in the last 25 years. the #1 player is someone we've all seen player. the #2 player is someone anyone over 27 has seen play, likely in a live action game.

that being said, to say that having seen players from yesteryear and players today somehow invalidates someone's opinion because they saw one first doesn't make sense. we should hold a higher value for people who haven't seen one and only the other? people who have seen the evolution of the sport and have watched it from its infancy into its dominance today all agree that jim brown is right up there amongst the 2 or 3 best. the fans, most of whom are relatively young and not particularly well-school, wouldn't be privy to that type of information or knowledge, hence their vote being more about popularity and easily accessibly group-think.

[SPTO]

Re: Best runningback of all time

That's why I said objective criterion. That's subjective.

Right, sorry then. Carry on

[The15thunter]

Re: Best runningback of all time

Eh, I'd say Irvin was probably slightly better in some areas. Irvin would often be given and inch and take a mile. He also was able to dominate some games. In all my time of watching Harrison I never really got the impression that he DOMINATED a game.

route running - marvin harrison
hands - marvin harrison
blocking - michael irvin
speed - marvin harrison
agility - marvin harrison
toughness - michael irvin
yard after the catch - marvin harrison
body control/leaping ability - michael irvin

[SPTO]

Re: Best runningback of all time

route running - marvin harrison
hands - marvin harrison
blocking - michael irvin
speed - marvin harrison
agility - marvin harrison
toughness - michael irvin
yard after the catch - marvin harrison
body control/leaping ability - michael irvin

I'd say they're even on route running and agility.