slcoach wrote:
lhslep134 wrote:
slcoach wrote:
Couldn't agree more with Emmitt Smith. There were, IMO, 5-10 backs in that era that would have put up better numbers with those Cowboy team than Smith.
I couldn't disagree more. 11 straight 1000 yard seasons is awesome, I don't care what team you played for. The Cowboys didn't have great teams all 11 of those years.
1000 yard seasons do nothing for me. 1000 yards in a season is 62.5 yards a game. Hardly what I would consider a huge milestone. Smith had only one season with a yard per carry better than 4.7. Barry did it 6 times in 10 seasons. Smith had 1 in 15 seasons.
Emmitt was at best the 3rd best back in his era. (Thomas and Sanders). Throw in Bettis (Who's from Detroit by the way) and Faulk and I just don't think Smith was near the player he is thought to have been.
First off, 11 straight 1000 yard seasons is an NFL record. When you consider the fact that the average lifespan of NFL players is less than five years and that most running backs don't even last 3 full seasons in the NFL, that's impressive. Also, he is the all-time leading rusher in NFL. I don't care if you had the greatest line of all time or a bunch of 4th graders blocking for you, if you're the all-time leading rusher, it's hard to be overrated.
I would agree that other backs had better individual years or maybe a few years that were better than any individual season of run for Smith, but when you look at his career, there are only a few who can compare. Also, if you look at career yard per carry, Emmitt average 4.2ypg, which is pretty much on par with most of the other greats. Really only Barry Sanders and Jim Brown had a substantially better average as far as the other top running backs all-time are concerned. His average is about middle-of-the-road for the top 20 leading rushers in NFL history (Bettis btw, only averaged 3.9ypc). Also, Emmitt Had 164 touchdowns in his career which is a TON more than anyone else on the list.
Also, outside of Dallas, I don't think that there are many who believe him to be the greatest of all time. Most would likely have him somewhere in the 4-6 range and that seems about right to me.
Brett Favre on the other hand, well that's a different story. One Super Bowl win, tops in the league in INT's almost every year, he's lost his teams almost as many games as he's won it seems, and it's like a cluster **** anytime analysts talk about him to see who can heap on the most praise. I'll never understand it.