at which position is it easiest to become an all-time great?

[legendkiller5]

Emmitt Smith.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cebby

Running back by far Given a great OL any starting caliber running back can be a HOFer. Quarterback would be number 2 with an asterisks. If you are a quarterback for a great franchise you're damn near a lock. Quarterbacks get a disproportional amount of credit for wins and especially playoff success. That said, they receive similar amounts of blame for failure which is why I give it an *. The biggest thing that RBs, QBs, and WRs have over other positions are recordable, consistent stats. I'd rank them: RB QB WR LB DB DL *scroll down several pages* OL *LOL* Special teams

I think you and Bk may have sold me on RB. That's a good point.

I still can't agree on QB. A talented RB can do his thing behind an average oline, so I'll give you the oline perspective for the RB position overall. But even a talented QB isn't going to do much behind an average oline, especially straight out of college. With the spotlight on that position, you've got 2 years to prove your worth... 1 year behind an average oline (bc you'll be screwing up more). If no matter how good you are, other players can effect your career fate that much, I wouldn't call that the "easiest" way.

WRs are even worse. They generally take 2 to 3 years to really show anything but have the same spotlight as QBs and RBs. If I'm thinking easiest, I'm also thinking which position has the most control of their fate.

[ZB9]

Quote: Originally Posted by legendkiller5

Emmitt Smith.

meaning what

[Cebby]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

I think you and Bk may have sold me on RB. That's a good point. I still can't agree on QB. A talented RB can do his thing behind an average oline, so I'll give you the oline perspective for the RB position overall. But even a talented QB isn't going to do much behind an average oline, especially straight out of college. With the spotlight on that position, you've got 2 years to prove your worth... 1 year behind an average oline (bc you'll be screwing up more). If no matter how good you are, other players can effect your career fate that much, I wouldn't call that the "easiest" way. WRs are even worse. They generally take 2 to 3 years to really show anything but have the same spotlight as QBs and RBs. If I'm thinking easiest, I'm also thinking which position has the most control of their fate.

As I said with QB, it comes with an asterisks.

If you happen upon a 90s Cowboys or mid-late 2000s Steelers as long as you don't screw it up you should land in the Hall.

The opposite holds true as well though and if you took most HOFers at QB and put them on the Lions or Raiders they'll be laughed at.

[oneamongthefence]

I would say Left Tackle. If they can be great in their entire careers thay have it made. Especially with a good quarterback. HAving several good rushers and its a lock. Walter Jones had Matt Hasselback and shaun alexander throughout alot of his career. Orlando Pace had Kurt Warner steven jackson marshal faulk. Many times hall of fame inductees are a product of great teamwork. I think they should have an honorary induction for a team a year in a given year. Not a super bowl winner just a team that overcame adversity or made a major comeback. Like the 2006 Saints or 2007 Miami dolphins.

[EmmittSmithx22x]

I am going to say now that most of the league is going with a two back system..****nning back really should be downgraded a bit. Some backs get the chance to shine in there own systems (S. Jackson, Cedric Benson, A. Peterson, to name a few). But these backs are starting to become few and far between.

Left and Right Tackles as some have mentioned though if they are worth their weight they will have a lot of success in the league and can find themselves in the Hall.

[The15thunter]

i don't know that running back is easiest. i'd say it's actually very hard to stand out as a running back, because so much has been accomplished at the position, you've got to be extraordinary to really venture into the realm of all-timers at this juncture. i mean, look at tomlinson, he was doing some **** things for a good time there, but at this point, wouldyou say he's an all-timer? a hall of famer, sure, but with all those records, all of those accomplishments, is ladainian tomlinson considered an all-time great?

running back is dependent on luck, a freakish durability given the nature of the position, competency or better at quarterback and offensive line, solid to good playcalling, and a litany of other things before we even get to the individual's actual talent.

[SPTO]

Well if I can be snarky for a second: place kicker

Hey it's almost automatic when you kick field goals these days!

Honestly i'd probably say RB but a part of me thinks that it's probably easier though far less recognition gained for being a great player on the lines. an O-Linemen barely gets mentioned at all unless he's at LT but there are tons of truly great ones that don't get the kind of recognition from the press or fans but if you really look at film or how the team operates on the offensive side of the ball you can see just how important it can be.

The same can be said for the D-Line but at least if you're explosive enough and can disrupt the opponent visibly you'll be recognized more.