Green Bay Packers Forum

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.
3 Pages<123>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline porky88  
#11 Posted : Sunday, June 24, 2012 6:45:15 PM(UTC)
Rank: Veteran Member

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2016Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2013Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2014PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Silver: 2015

Joined: 4/26/2007(UTC)
Applause Given: 253
Applause Received: 511
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.
Offline Zero2Cool  
#12 Posted : Sunday, June 24, 2012 7:30:49 PM(UTC)
Rank: Premier Member

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2015Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2016ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI
Applause Given: 2,504
Applause Received: 4,058
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

Offline porky88  
#13 Posted : Sunday, June 24, 2012 9:35:10 PM(UTC)
Rank: Veteran Member

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2016Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2013Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2014PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Silver: 2015

Joined: 4/26/2007(UTC)
Applause Given: 253
Applause Received: 511
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)
Rank: Registered

Joined: 11/30/2006(UTC)
Applause Given: 1
Applause Received: 21
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...
thanks Post received 1 applause.
Zero2Cool on 6/25/2012(UTC)
Offline Zero2Cool  
#15 Posted : Monday, June 25, 2012 5:25:11 AM(UTC)
Rank: Premier Member

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2015Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2016ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI
Applause Given: 2,504
Applause Received: 4,058
](*,) 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.
Offline Wade  
#16 Posted : Monday, June 25, 2012 7:29:56 AM(UTC)
Rank: Veteran Member

Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance
Applause Given: 891
Applause Received: 923
Personally, I'd replace Emmitt Smith with Leroy Kelly.

Of course no one except a few of us geezers probably remember him.
Offline dhazer  
#17 Posted : Monday, June 25, 2012 10:17:10 AM(UTC)
Rank: Veteran Member

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2013Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2016Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2009PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2013

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 100
Applause Received: 338
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!

Offline Zero2Cool  
#18 Posted : Monday, June 25, 2012 12:21:49 PM(UTC)
Rank: Premier Member

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2015Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2016ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI
Applause Given: 2,504
Applause Received: 4,058
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!
Offline porky88  
#19 Posted : Monday, June 25, 2012 2:32:24 PM(UTC)
Rank: Veteran Member

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2016Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2013Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2014PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Silver: 2015

Joined: 4/26/2007(UTC)
Applause Given: 253
Applause Received: 511
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.
Offline Dexter_Sinister  
#20 Posted : Monday, June 25, 2012 3:50:28 PM(UTC)
Rank: Registered

Joined: 6/12/2010(UTC)
Applause Given: 292
Applause Received: 266
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
3 Pages<123>
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
uffda udfa (1h) : It's the same day every day at 1265. They crave sameness.
uffda udfa (1h) : Didn't care u were talking cooking just that u tried censoring GM talk.
mojaveson (1h) : Tough loss, but it's now Monday and time to move forward. I hope the front office feels the same way and gets right to work on filling the h
uffda udfa (1h) : I'm going to start a favorite Pixar movie right before opening day 2017.
uffda udfa (1h) : Don't discuss Packers brass during game week. Cooking appliances are more interesting.
uffda udfa (1h) : I grew up in Wisconsin. Don't u see you created your own irony?
uffda udfa (2h) : Or pecans or walnuts? That is nuts.
uffda udfa (2h) : That's hilarious. No GM talk says u but let's talk cooking appliances?
uffda udfa (2h) : Meanwhile, you're talking turkeys, crock pots and pressure cookers.
uffda udfa (2h) : Smokey...U complained about too much Eliot Wolf talk not game talk.
uffda udfa (2h) : Disagree. He choose to roll into endzone. Safety was right call.
Smokey (2h) : U2, take your Texas redneck thinking and serve it with your pot of beans .
uffda udfa (2h) : Said maybe 1 yard line but no control until on goal line.
uffda udfa (2h) : Claimed momentum carried into endzone.
uffda udfa (2h) : Claimed it could never been ruled a safety.
uffda udfa (2h) : Mike Pereira explained on Twitter what he should've on FOX.
Smokey (2h) : Keeping them thread separated is the key. Fan Shout is for any and all members to post as they please. No one voted you King U2 .
uffda udfa (2h) : This is for NFL stuff. Not crock pots or crack pots.
uffda udfa (2h) : Shout is not back alley. Not your forum either.
Smokey (2h) : Cooking, or travel, or our favorite movie have every right in this forum.
Smokey (2h) : It is not, YOUR FORUM . Even politics is tolerated in the Back Ally .
uffda udfa (2h) : I love cooking but this is a Packers forum not Iron Chef.
Smokey (2h) : Anyone, man or woman, that can cook does not need to always depend upon others to cook their food for them.
Smokey (2h) : The greater majority of successful restaurants are owned/and run by Men.
Smokey (2h) : Making fun of the art of cooking only demonstrates a lack of sophistication.
Smokey (2h) : Most of the finest chefs in the world are men.
hardrocker950 (4h) : lol
uffda udfa (4h) : Best pressure cooker talk on the net!
hardrocker950 (5h) : Time to get the CB situation sorted out
Smokey (5h) : DON'T DELAY, JOIN TODAY !
musccy (7h) : Sorry, but no to shields. 9 mil better spent elsewhere.
uffda udfa (8h) : Sam Shields still having headaches but wants to continue playing.
uffda udfa (8h) : Not harsh. Another failure and playoff embarrassment.
uffda udfa (8h) : Aaron cried a little when asked about Jordy playing today.
GoPack1984 (8h) : Dismal season? I think that's too harsh.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2016 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 11 @ 12:00 PM
at Jaguars
Sunday, Sep 18 @ 7:30 PM
at Vikings
Sunday, Sep 25 @ 12:00 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Oct 2 @ 12:00 AM
BYE
Sunday, Oct 9 @ 7:30 PM
GIANTS
Sunday, Oct 16 @ 3:25 PM
COWBOYS
Thursday, Oct 20 @ 7:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Oct 30 @ 3:25 PM
at Falcons
Sunday, Nov 6 @ 3:25 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Nov 13 @ 12:00 PM
at Titans
Sunday, Nov 20 @ 7:30 PM
at Redskins
Monday, Nov 28 @ 7:30 PM
at Eagles
Sunday, Dec 4 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Dec 11 @ 3:25 PM
SEAHAWKS
Sunday, Dec 18 @ 12:00 PM
at Bears
Saturday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Jan 1 @ 7:30 PM
at Lions

Think About It
Think About It

Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Dulak

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / mojaveson

2h / Around The NFL / mojaveson

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / mojaveson

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

7h / Fantasy Sports Talk / Smokey

8h / Around The NFL / mojaveson

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / luigis

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

10h / Announcements / wpr

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Nonstopdrivel

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / mojaveson


Packers Headlines