You are not logged in. Join Free! | Log In Thank you!    

Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages12>
Share
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Zero2Cool  
#1 Posted : Sunday, June 24, 2012 5:40:33 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,224
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,743
Applause Received: 1,792

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.

Edited by user Sunday, June 24, 2012 7:44:03 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified


UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Sponsor
Offline dhazer  
#2 Posted : Sunday, June 24, 2012 8:03:39 AM(UTC)
dhazer

Rank: Pro Bowl

Posts: 3,875
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 43
Applause Received: 175

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 Applause

Edited by user Sunday, June 24, 2012 9:51:19 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

UserPostedImage

Just Imagine this for the next 6-9 years. What a ride it will be :)
thanks Post received 2 applause.
porky88 on 6/24/2012(UTC), DakotaT on 6/24/2012(UTC)
Offline Zero2Cool  
#3 Posted : Sunday, June 24, 2012 8:34:45 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,224
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,743
Applause Received: 1,792

LT got sacks, not touchdowns.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Offline porky88  
#4 Posted : Sunday, June 24, 2012 12:37:57 PM(UTC)
porky88

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,994
Joined: 4/26/2007(UTC)

Applause Given: 156
Applause Received: 284

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.
Offline Zero2Cool  
#5 Posted : Sunday, June 24, 2012 3:17:36 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,224
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,743
Applause Received: 1,792

Originally Posted by: porky88 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.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Offline gbguy20  
#6 Posted : Sunday, June 24, 2012 3:44:30 PM(UTC)
gbguy20

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,162
Joined: 8/28/2009(UTC)

Applause Given: 185
Applause Received: 247

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 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.
call me Dan
Offline dhazer  
#7 Posted : Sunday, June 24, 2012 5:23:31 PM(UTC)
dhazer

Rank: Pro Bowl

Posts: 3,875
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 43
Applause Received: 175

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.
UserPostedImage

Just Imagine this for the next 6-9 years. What a ride it will be :)
Offline porky88  
#8 Posted : Sunday, June 24, 2012 5:40:57 PM(UTC)
porky88

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,994
Joined: 4/26/2007(UTC)

Applause Given: 156
Applause Received: 284

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 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.
Offline Zero2Cool  
#9 Posted : Sunday, June 24, 2012 5:44:59 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,224
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,743
Applause Received: 1,792

Originally Posted by: gbguy20 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.

Edited by user Sunday, June 24, 2012 6:05:01 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified


UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Offline Zero2Cool  
#10 Posted : Sunday, June 24, 2012 6:06:55 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,224
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,743
Applause Received: 1,792

Originally Posted by: porky88 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.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Offline porky88  
#11 Posted : Sunday, June 24, 2012 6:45:15 PM(UTC)
porky88

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,994
Joined: 4/26/2007(UTC)

Applause Given: 156
Applause Received: 284

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 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.
Offline Zero2Cool  
#12 Posted : Sunday, June 24, 2012 7:30:49 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,224
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,743
Applause Received: 1,792

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


UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Offline porky88  
#13 Posted : Sunday, June 24, 2012 9:35:10 PM(UTC)
porky88

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,994
Joined: 4/26/2007(UTC)

Applause Given: 156
Applause Received: 284

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.
Offline longtimefan  
#14 Posted : Sunday, June 24, 2012 9:56:55 PM(UTC)
longtimefan

Rank: Pro Bowl

Posts: 3,499
Joined: 11/30/2006(UTC)

Applause Given: 1
Applause Received: 21

Originally Posted by: porky88 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...
thanks Post received 1 applause.
Zero2Cool on 6/25/2012(UTC)
Offline Zero2Cool  
#15 Posted : Monday, June 25, 2012 5:25:11 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,224
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,743
Applause Received: 1,792

Brick wall 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.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
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.

Powered by YAF 2.1.0 | YAF © 2003-2014, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.261 seconds.