Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.
2 Pages12>

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Zero2Cool  
#1 Posted : Sunday, June 24, 2012 5:40:33 AM(UTC)
http://m.nfl.com/news/09000d5d829ef5e8/

  1. Jim Brown
  2. Barry Sanders
  3. Walter Payton
  4. Gale Sayers
  5. O.J. Simpson
  6. Earl Campbell
  7. Eric Dickerson
  8. Tony Dorsett
  9. LaDainian Tomlinson
  10. Emmitt Smith


I can't really argue with this list.
dhazer  
#2 Posted : Sunday, June 24, 2012 8:03:39 AM(UTC)
Here would be my top 10 Running Backs

10) Emmitt Smith (would have loved to see Sanders behind that line)
9) Gale Sayers (Is it just me but alot of his highlights are returns)
8) OJ Simpson
7) Eric Dickerson (a big back with awesome speed)
6) Earl Campbell ( I loved watching him run he made the defenders fear hitting him)
5) LaDainian Tomlinson ( all he does is scores Touchdowns)
4) Marshall Faulk ( He changed the way the running back was looked at)
3) Jim Brown (he was the best at his time)
2) Walter Payton ( He was just pure Sweetness)
1) Barry Sanders ( This is one guy I would find time to watch, and also how can't he be #1 when he spent his career as the main focus of the defense. Also I loved how he conducted himself on and off the field)


Well I am sure I will get a lot of arguments but that's what I feel and yes a little bias to the ones I actually seen with my eyes.


Edited to make Zero Happy =d>
Zero2Cool  
#3 Posted : Sunday, June 24, 2012 8:34:45 AM(UTC)
LT got sacks, not touchdowns.
porky88  
#4 Posted : Sunday, June 24, 2012 12:37:57 PM(UTC)
My beef with the NFL list would stem from the omission of Marshall Faulk. Faulk is the most underrated running back in NFL History. He was a 1,000-yard threat running and receiving from 98-01. Props to Hazer for recognizing Faulk’s achievements. Many people overlook him.
Zero2Cool  
#5 Posted : Sunday, June 24, 2012 3:17:36 PM(UTC)
porky88 said: Go to Quoted Post
My beef with the NFL list would stem from the omission of Marshall Faulk. Faulk is the most underrated running back in NFL History. He was a 1,000-yard threat running and receiving from 98-01. Props to Hazer for recognizing Faulk’s achievements. Many people overlook him.


He wasn't the receiving threat, but it's a list of running backs and with the mention of Marshall Faulk, why not mention Curtis Martin as well? Martin had more 1,000 yard seasons than Faulk.
gbguy20  
#6 Posted : Sunday, June 24, 2012 3:44:30 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post
He wasn't the receiving threat, but it's a list of running backs and with the mention of Marshall Faulk, why not mention Curtis Martin as well? Martin had more 1,000 yard seasons than Faulk.


aw shit.

It all comes down to marketability. More people knew about Marshall Faulk over Curtis Martin due to the teams success. Just like Ray Lewis gets all the credit when London Fletcher has equal or better stats.
dhazer  
#7 Posted : Sunday, June 24, 2012 5:23:31 PM(UTC)
Marshall averages for 10 years in the league

Rushing
1198.7 yds per year
10tds

Receiving
661.4 yards per year
3.5 Tds
72.3 receptions


Also was said many times by Kurt Warner that Faulk would call out the defenses to help him out. You give me a wr to average 72 receptions a year for 10 years, I would be happy. You give me a running back giving me 1200 yards and 10tds a year for 10 years I would be happy, and you got both in one person. Remember the Colts were crap until he got drafted and His 2nd season he helped get them to the AFC Championship game which the refs gave to the Steelers.

His 1st year in St. Louis he won the Super Bowl.

So yes I believe he is one of the best all time.



But yet Gale Sayers is in their list with less than 6000 yards and as I stated he is more noted for returns, look at his wiki page they don't even give his rushing stats on the side, they have returns.
porky88  
#8 Posted : Sunday, June 24, 2012 5:40:57 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post
He wasn't the receiving threat, but it's a list of running backs and with the mention of Marshall Faulk, why not mention Curtis Martin as well? Martin had more 1,000 yard seasons than Faulk.

Faulk had five straight seasons of 80-plus receptions. He had a four-year run where he averaged almost 900 yards receiving. In a couple of those years, he very likely would've eclipsed the 1,000-yard mark if he didn't sit out or miss games. Versatility matters, especially among running backs, which is why many hold Gale Sayers in such high regard.

Faulk is one of the most versatile players in the history of the game and that gives him an edge over a player the caliber of Martin. I like Martin. Great career, but he didn’t make more impact than Faulk did. Faulk had nearly twice as many receiving yards as Martin. He also has 20,000 yards from scrimmage, which is more than Martin's 17,000. He scored 136 touchdowns, which I believe ranks fourth all-time among running backs. He was also a very good blocker if I recall.
Zero2Cool  
#9 Posted : Sunday, June 24, 2012 5:44:59 PM(UTC)
gbguy20 said: Go to Quoted Post
aw shit.

It all comes down to marketability. More people knew about Marshall Faulk over Curtis Martin due to the teams success. Just like Ray Lewis gets all the credit when London Fletcher has equal or better stats.



I think Marshall Faulk played most of his career home games indoors (Colts/Rams) and Curtis Martin (Patriots/Jets) played his outdoors and still had more 1,000 yard seasons ... without the NFL MVP throwing the ball or being a part of "Greatest Show on Turf".

I never understood why London Fletcher didn't get much respect. Maybe cuz he's 5'10"? I'm not saying that's a valid reason.
Zero2Cool  
#10 Posted : Sunday, June 24, 2012 6:06:55 PM(UTC)
porky88 said: Go to Quoted Post
Faulk had five straight seasons of 80-plus receptions. He had a four-year run where he averaged almost 900 yards receiving. In a couple of those years, he very likely would've eclipsed the 1,000-yard mark if he didn't sit out or miss games. Versatility matters, especially among running backs, which is why many hold Gale Sayers in such high regard.

Faulk is one of the most versatile players in the history of the game and that gives him an edge over a player the caliber of Martin. I like Martin. Great career, but he didn’t make more impact than Faulk did. Faulk had nearly twice as many receiving yards as Martin. He also has 20,000 yards from scrimmage, which is more than Martin's 17,000. He scored 136 touchdowns, which I believe ranks fourth all-time among running backs. He was also a very good blocker if I recall.


The receiving stuff is great, but this list is about running backs. You gonna hold it against Jim Brown cuz he doesn't have the receiving yards and catches?

I'm not disputing Faulk's value, just saying his receiving talents don't merit any place in this discussion.
porky88  
#11 Posted : Sunday, June 24, 2012 6:45:15 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post
The receiving stuff is great, but this list is about running backs. You gonna hold it against Jim Brown cuz he doesn't have the receiving yards and catches?

I'm not disputing Faulk's value, just saying his receiving talents don't merit any place in this discussion.

Being a receiver is apart of playing the position, so it definitely belongs in the conversation. So does blocking. You can't takeaway responsibilities from the position.

For the record, Jim Brown wasn't a bad receiver. In fact, I believe many regard him as a pretty good pass-catcher for his time. Walter Payton also had outstanding hands. It only adds to their value at the position. It’s not any different from pointing out pocket presence when evaluating quarterbacks or cover skills when evaluating linebackers.
Zero2Cool  
#12 Posted : Sunday, June 24, 2012 7:30:49 PM(UTC)
Receiving the ball and rushing the ball are two different things altogether. Whereas a quarterback having pocket presence directly relates to him being a quarterback. Very poor example.

Faulk played with Peyton Manning and Kurt Warner and played indoors a lot and yet Curtis Martin didn't share that luxury and didn't have a prolific offense to take the load off of him ... yet Martin still ran for more yards. I'm not knocking Faulk, just saying it's pretty clear when you remove bias of the "flash" that ESPN gives us ... Martin was the better running back. However, with a team having an offense say like the Packers, Faulk would be the pick hands down. But a team that is more of a ground and pound, they'd want Martin.

I think Martin hit the 70 mark receiving without an MVP quarterback or pass happy offense. Then again, he may have had those receptions because he was the dump-off guy on a team with no receivers!! lol

porky88  
#13 Posted : Sunday, June 24, 2012 9:35:10 PM(UTC)
Faulk only played with Peyton Manning for one year. Manning was still far away from becoming the quarterback we know today. In fact, Faulk was the primary focus of that offense. I'd also point out Faulk had a ton of success with Jim Harbaugh at quarterback. There's a common theme here. He was the featured player in every offense he played in, including the greatest show on turf.

The list provided is top 10 running backs. The writer even mentions LaDainian Tomlinson’s capabilities as a receiver and Walter Payton's ability as a blocker. He clearly is factoring in other metrics in ranking the running backs. Every position requires different responsibilities. Receiving and blocking are apart of playing running back. There is no way around that fact. Pocket presence or mobility is apart of playing quarterback. You can't takeaway Steve Young's mobility. You can't add mobility to Dan Marino. Cover skills matter for linebackers and safeties. Tackling factors into evaluating a corner.

How much you include certain aspects into evaluation is subjective. Bill Parcells probably would prefer a grinder of a running back. Earl Campbell is his type of player. Bill Walsh would prefer more versatility. Gale Sayers is his type of player. I have no problem with a philosophical debate. However, I take issue with the comment that receiving doesn't have any merits in a discussion about running backs. It does and it always will.
longtimefan  
#14 Posted : Sunday, June 24, 2012 9:56:55 PM(UTC)
porky88 said: Go to Quoted Post
My beef with the NFL list would stem from the omission of Marshall Faulk. Faulk is the most underrated running back in NFL History. He was a 1,000-yard threat running and receiving from 98-01. Props to Hazer for recognizing Faulk’s achievements. Many people overlook him.


The article was just one mans list.

Faulk was a MVP, an offensive player of the year and in the HOF...
Zero2Cool  
#15 Posted : Monday, June 25, 2012 5:25:11 AM(UTC)
](*,) You completely missed my point and didn't even answer my question! lol

Curtis Martin ran the ball better than Marshall Faulk. The numbers support that, especially considering he did it outdoors where Faulk did it indoors with several weapons on the offense taking the focus off of him. Martin was often the only offensive threat on his team. But you can't punish a guy for being in a good situation.

So I ask once again ... why bring up Faulk but not Martin? I think both should be in the discussion of ten best running backs of all time. Curtis Martin didn't get to 4th all time rushing leader by sitting on the bench eating hot dogs.

Curtis Martin averages for 10 seasons (1 of which was 13 games)
1,336.5 rushing yards
8.5 rushing touchdowns
321.1 receiving yards
1 receiving touchdown
46 receptions

Martin lost less fumbles during his career, but produced only a 4.0 for yards per carry. Curtis Martin brought the Jets to an AFC title game his first season with them as well. I like how you didn't mention that at all.
Wade  
#16 Posted : Monday, June 25, 2012 7:29:56 AM(UTC)
Personally, I'd replace Emmitt Smith with Leroy Kelly.

Of course no one except a few of us geezers probably remember him.
dhazer  
#17 Posted : Monday, June 25, 2012 10:17:10 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post
Receiving the ball and rushing the ball are two different things altogether. Whereas a quarterback having pocket presence directly relates to him being a quarterback. Very poor example.

Faulk played with Peyton Manning and Kurt Warner and played indoors a lot and yet Curtis Martin didn't share that luxury and didn't have a prolific offense to take the load off of him ... yet Martin still ran for more yards. I'm not knocking Faulk, just saying it's pretty clear when you remove bias of the "flash" that ESPN gives us ... Martin was the better running back. However, with a team having an offense say like the Packers, Faulk would be the pick hands down. But a team that is more of a ground and pound, they'd want Martin.

I think Martin hit the 70 mark receiving without an MVP quarterback or pass happy offense. Then again, he may have had those receptions because he was the dump-off guy on a team with no receivers!! lol




For someone that is so fact happy Zero you dropped the ball on this lol.

Faulk played with Manning 1 year and that was Mannings rookie year (watch out for that lol) and his first year in St Louis he played for a 3rd string QB in Kurt Warner. You forget Trent Green was suppose to be that teams QB. How can you say take receiving out of this, that is part of being a running back. If you want to talk like that I guess Sayers wasn't much he got his fame from being a returner not a RB.


All I can say is C'Mon man your starting to sound like ahhh Me Lets Box!

Zero2Cool  
#18 Posted : Monday, June 25, 2012 12:21:49 PM(UTC)
dhazer said: Go to Quoted Post
For someone that is so fact happy Zero you dropped the ball on this lol.

Faulk played with Manning 1 year and that was Mannings rookie year (watch out for that lol) and his first year in St Louis he played for a 3rd string QB in Kurt Warner. You forget Trent Green was suppose to be that teams QB. How can you say take receiving out of this, that is part of being a running back. If you want to talk like that I guess Sayers wasn't much he got his fame from being a returner not a RB.


All I can say is C'Mon man your starting to sound like ahhh Me Lets Box!

Hmm, I surely didn't drop the ball, and certainty didn't forget about Trent Green.

I have not taken anything away from Faulk, as I said already.

I am saying if we're gonna mention Marshall Faulk for all time top ten running backs, why not mention the 4th overall leader in rushing yards? If we overlook Curtis Martin for lack of being a receiving threat, why not do the same to Barry Sanders then? Good ahead, pick that fight with me, lol.

I am honored to be considered on your level good sir!
porky88  
#19 Posted : Monday, June 25, 2012 2:32:24 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post
](*,) You completely missed my point and didn't even answer my question! lol

Curtis Martin ran the ball better than Marshall Faulk. The numbers support that, especially considering he did it outdoors where Faulk did it indoors with several weapons on the offense taking the focus off of him. Martin was often the only offensive threat on his team. But you can't punish a guy for being in a good situation.

So I ask once again ... why bring up Faulk but not Martin? I think both should be in the discussion of ten best running backs of all time. Curtis Martin didn't get to 4th all time rushing leader by sitting on the bench eating hot dogs.

Curtis Martin averages for 10 seasons (1 of which was 13 games)
1,336.5 rushing yards
8.5 rushing touchdowns
321.1 receiving yards
1 receiving touchdown
46 receptions

Martin lost less fumbles during his career, but produced only a 4.0 for yards per carry. Curtis Martin brought the Jets to an AFC title game his first season with them as well. I like how you didn't mention that at all.

My issue isn't why Faulk and not Martin. That's not what I've been talking about. I actually believe Martin is a top 10 running back of all-time. I never said otherwise. I think Faulk is a top five running back of all-time, though, which makes his omission from the list more bizarre, in my opinion. That’s the only reason why I mentioned Faulk first and not Martin or said anything at all.

So I like Martin. I actually agree with you. Hell of a player and should be in the Hall of Fame one day. He's probably eight, nine, or 10 if I were to make my own list.

My issue was this....

Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post
I'm not disputing Faulk's value, just saying his receiving talents don't merit any place in this discussion.

You can devalue Faulk's receiving capabilities or attribute it to a fast turf. I don't think turf helps running backs as much as you think, but having a philosophical difference doesn't bother me. I happen to elevate a player's versatility in my rankings. I think it's important. Maybe you don't. Fair enough. However, you can't throw it out of the discussion altogether. It belongs in the discussion. The original article even includes receiving in its rankings.
Dexter_Sinister  
#20 Posted : Monday, June 25, 2012 3:50:28 PM(UTC)
I have a huge issue with putting Smith anywhere near the list. He should be outside the top 100 all time.

He averaged a 4.2 per for his career. Which is fairly mundane.

He also should have retired about 4 years before he did. When his YPC dropped below 4, he was done being productive and was taking up carries to get a record.

He had a couple of good years, but not all time good. The only thing that really sets him apart, is he played about 4-5 years longer than anybody else who was decent. If he had not, he wouldn't be close to the record.

If Jim Brown, Gayle Sayers or Barry had played for 15 years, Emmit would never have caught them.

That is why I hate career total records. If you are the only guy to play that long, even mediocrity will give you a couple records.

Like Favre for example. His only competition is Vinny Testeverde and Steve DeBerg. If he didn't hold a crap load of career total records, he would have had to be worse than both of those two. Who were both basically backups for half of their careers. It is a testament to how bad Vinny was that he leads only Favre in total games lost in the NFL.

You also have to consider the Cowboys the O-line. One of the best ever. Emmit literally had to run 3 yards untouched and fall down for a 4.2 ypc average. Also one of the reasons he lasted as long as he did. Sanders was making moves 2 yards in the backfield and still getting 5 per. He out worked and out produced Emmit 7 to 1.2.

Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Fan Shout
Smokey (22-Aug) : LOL !
Tezzy (21-Aug) : it's a trap
Zero2Cool (21-Aug) : check your PM's please
Zero2Cool (21-Aug) : steveishere
Zero2Cool (21-Aug) : Great, Goodell was extended????
Smokey (21-Aug) : NOT A FORUM MEMBER ? JOIN US AND SHARE YOUR VIEWS !
Zero2Cool (20-Aug) : two slots open...time is ticking for those two.
Tezzy (20-Aug) : Did you fill?
Cheesey (20-Aug) : Dang Wayne, I'm trying not to cry. But it's a losing battle. My heart aches for you.
Zero2Cool (20-Aug) : You want in, you're in. :-)
Zero2Cool (20-Aug) : Need just one person to join PH fantasy league so we have ten. Not chasing everyone around anymore.
wpr (20-Aug) : Liver, pizza, brushed, short walk, ear scratches sat on my lap.
Smokey (19-Aug) : love, love, love .
gbguy20 (19-Aug) : lots of tasty people food, car rides, go to a lake, just something out of the usual and lots of attention
gbguy20 (19-Aug) : just make sure you give him an awesome weekend before Monday comes.
Cheesey (19-Aug) : We had to do that 2 years ago to our 15 year old beloved Seth. It's never easy. I'm here for you if you want to talk.
Cheesey (19-Aug) : Wayne, I know how hard that is. Loving them enough to let them go. I''m so sorry!
buckeyepackfan (19-Aug) : Sorry to hear wpr. I had to do the same several years ago. He also was 15. Just know you are easing his pain.
Smokey (19-Aug) : HELLO DAVE !
wpr (19-Aug) : He's a mix. Shepard, Aussy Blue, Border Collie
Porforis (18-Aug) : Good grief... You're the third person I know this week that's had to do that. I'm sorry :(
Zero2Cool (18-Aug) : damn that sucks Wayne... sorry buddy
beast (18-Aug) : Sorry wpr :(
Smokey (18-Aug) : I love dogs, what is the dogs breed ?
wpr (18-Aug) : I spoke with my vet. I am going to put my 16 yo dog down on Mon.
rabidgopher04 (18-Aug) : Coincidentally when I saw the Red Sox in Boston it was against the Brewers.
wpr (17-Aug) : Good idea Z.
wpr (17-Aug) : I tapped my savings to spend time with my son.
Zero2Cool (17-Aug) : I'll have to find a time when Brewers play Red Sox at Fenway. Both teams, one location!
wpr (17-Aug) : Why do you need to be a jerk? I live in a modest home. My kids are out of the house. My wife and I both work. My son paid for most of it. I
Smokey (17-Aug) : Yes, Insurance Agents do well . You must feel so superior .
rabidgopher04 (17-Aug) : Fenway is electric. Great place to watch baseball. I've been a couple times.
wpr (17-Aug) : A few have it already. Most have to save it to do things.
wpr (17-Aug) : Yes Smokey, life takes money to do anything.
Smokey (16-Aug) : IF THEY HAVE THE MONEY !
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2017 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
SEAHAWKS
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 7:30 PM
at Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Oct 8 @ 3:25 PM
at Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 15 @ 12:00 PM
at Vikings
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 AM
- BYE -
Monday, Nov 6 @ 7:30 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
at Bears
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
RAVENS
Sunday, Nov 26 @ 7:30 PM
at Steelers
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 10 @ 12:00 PM
at Browns
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
at Panthers
Saturday, Dec 23 @ 7:30 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 12:00 PM
at Lions
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
12m / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

12m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

13m / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

17m / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

22-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

21-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

21-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

21-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / yooperfan

Headlines