http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=bayless/050211&num=1

got me thinking.

We had the Mount Rushmore of running backs on here a while back, and a lot of people did not put Smith on it. I, personally, do not really think of him when I think of the elite--"who would I want to start a team with" runners (I don't put him in the class of Brown, Payton, Sanders, or Sayers). Based on the Mount Rushmores, lots of you don't seem to, either.

But what else could the man do? He won Super Bowls, got yards, and scored touchdowns better than almost anyone else in history. And he did it for 15 years.

But I always felt that "something" was missing, though I don't know what that something really is. And what more he could have done on the football field to reach that plateau in my mind.

Anyone have any idea? Or am I the only one who feels that way about him?

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=bayless/050211&num=1

got me thinking.

We had the Mount Rushmore of running backs on here a while back, and a lot of people did not put Smith on it. I, personally, do not really think of him when I think of the elite--"who would I want to start a team with" runners (I don't put him in the class of Brown, Payton, Sanders, or Sayers). Based on the Mount Rushmores, lots of you don't seem to, either.

But what else could the man do? He won Super Bowls, got yards, and scored touchdowns better than almost anyone else in history. And he did it for 15 years.

But I always felt that "something" was missing, though I don't know what that something really is. And what more he could have done on the football field to reach that plateau in my mind.

Anyone have any idea? Or am I the only one who feels that way about him?

I would doubt you felt this way 5 or 6 years ago. There was time that he could do anything.

It's because he rarely appeared capable of making yards completely on his own. He was a great back combined with a great OL and a great offense.

His production was just as much a product of his teammates as himself. As is the case with most football players.

The ones that reach the plateau in people's minds are the ones that seem to be able to do more with less help. Sanders, Brown, etc.

I say this as a lifelong Cowboys fan.

I would doubt you felt this way 5 or 6 years ago. There was time that he could do anything.
Actually, I have always felt this way about him. I put him in the class of "A1" runners--the Eric Dickersons and Earl Campbells of the world. Not quite the Jim Brown and Walter Payton "A" class.

I think that my post above gets the idea that I don't know why I put Emmitt in that class. In terms of what he accomplished on the field, he was better than pretty much anyone ever.

I realize that I'm not really "right," and I think that I was just looking to see if someone who felt like I did could articulate what it is that has colored my perceptions.

Actually, I have always felt this way about him. I put him in the class of "A1" runners--the Eric Dickersons and Earl Campbells of the world. Not quite the Jim Brown and Walter Payton "A" class.
Well then your feelings make less sense. Earl Campbell could do it on his own. Moreso than Payton.

Maybe because Brown and Payton had more "flash". Their style lends itself more to stuff of legends.

I completely agree with you, albion. I never watched Emmitt Smith rip off a run and think to myself, "My god, what a talent!" He was relentless and methodical, but not an ultra-pure runner. Consistent, yes. He was like Priest Holmes was two seasons back, when he was just about an automatic TD inside the 10 yard line. An overall great back but not Rushmore-worthy to me, either.

Maybe. I think the problem was his first 6 years were phenominal and he had so many carries that the last 10 have been just alright. The last 5 downright average at best.

I guess when I look at it he would be 1A in the sense you are talking about.

I completely agree with you, albion. I never watched Emmitt Smith rip off a run and think to myself, "My god, what a talent!" He was relentless and methodical, but not an ultra-pure runner. Consistent, yes. He was like Priest Holmes was two seasons back, when he was just about an automatic TD inside the 10 yard line. An overall great back but not Rushmore-worthy to me, either.
I don't know. I always remember thinking, " My god, he must have eyes in the back of his head. " I always remember him juking when somebody was about to hit him from behind, and missing him. I am a Cowboys fan though, so I don't know how strong my opinion is.

I completely agree with you, albion. I never watched Emmitt Smith rip off a run and think to myself, "My god, what a talent!" He was relentless and methodical, but not an ultra-pure runner. Consistent, yes. He was like Priest Holmes was two seasons back, when he was just about an automatic TD inside the 10 yard line. An overall great back but not Rushmore-worthy to me, either.

Are we talking about Emmitt of the past 8-10 years or Emmitt in his prime? In his prime, he and Barry Sanders were my two favorite running backs to watch (granted I'm, as you know, a Cowboys fan). He wouldn't leave guys juked out of their shorts like Barry would, but he was the master of the subtle move to avoid tacklers, and even when the play was a mess (one or two guys in the backfield), he would usually find a way to turn it into positive yards.

I think it's a couple of things that hurt him: partially because he didn't have the great size or speed the top running backs usually have and partially because he had his greatest success when he played with a number of Pro Bowl linemen, QB, WR, FB, and TE. When their play started going south, so (unsurprisingly) did his. Then everyone starts wondering how good he would've been without all those great players around him. In my opinion, he wouldn't have the rushing title he does now, but he would still be up there.

dola - and gotta love Bayless. A no-question MVP in their second Super Bowl win of the 90's? I would've given it to S James Washington.

Speaking as a Cowboy fan I never thought Emmit was that great of a back. Anybody could have gained tons of yards behind Moose's brilliant blocking and the great wall of Dallas for an OL. Not to mention the Aiken to Irvin show taking the pressure off of the running game. Dallas in the 90's really could have been like Denver over the last 5-or-so years and make any good running back look great.

Part of the problem is that he was never really the best back in the NFL. In his early years, Barry Sanders overshadowed him (rightfully so). And then Terrell Davis became the man during Smith's final few productive years.

I hate the Cowboys--Aikman and Irvin, in particular. But Smith earned my respect in that game where he dislocated his shoulder and stayed on the field.

I dunno. I think the 92-95 Emmitt was by far the dominant back. He was more productive than Sanders.

Have you guys ever watched a highlight tape of Emmitt? He is spectacular with his little cuts and ability not to go down, in his prime he was, anyways.

I've always felt this way. I think he was a great back and obviously productive, but never a truly elite talent. I feel the same way about Curtis Martin (my favorite player) and he's putting together a pretty similar career.

Curtis is a funny case. In his 10th he had easily his best season. That's an oddity.

Emmitt was a much much much much better player. You can't put the two in the same league.

Curtis is a funny case. In his 10th he had easily his best season. That's an oddity.

Emmitt was a much much much much better player. You can't put the two in the same league.
In terms of talent, I feel you're probably right. Although I would hesitate to call Emmitt much better.

Statistically, Curtis is only ~ 600 yards behind Emmitt at the same point in his career. Tough to stake much of a claim on 60 yards per year.

How come you never hear "Well Jerry Rice only has his records because he played with 2 HOF QBs in the most passer friendly system ever."? I've never seen a player whose records are degraded as much as Emmitt's.

I guess he didn't have enough Sportscenter highlight runs, which is all that seems to matter nowadays.

In terms of talent, I feel you're probably right. Although I would hesitate to call Emmitt much better.

Statistically, Curtis is only ~ 600 yards behind Emmitt at the same point in his career. Tough to stake much of a claim on 60 yards per year.

For one I don't get the sense that Curtis has a lot left in the tank. Not sure why that is my impression.

Second Martin has no even come close to Emmitt's best seasons.

In a macro view yes it's similar stuff. 4.1 to 4.2 ypc for their career. Emmitt was certainly blessed with great timing though in terms of the situation he was in.

Emmitt was a much much much much better player. You can't put the two in the same league.

I disagree with that. Their stats over the first 10 years of their career are pretty similar (including receiving). And then you have to take into account Emmitt playing for way, way, way better teams - which helps explain the big difference in TDs. I'm not saying Martin's the better player, but I don't think there's that much of a difference.

Martin
Att Yards Avg TD
368 1487 4.0 14
316 1152 3.6 14
274 1160 4.2 4
369 1287 3.5 8
367 1464 4.0 5
316 1204 3.8 9
333 1513 4.5 10
261 1094 4.2 7
323 1308 4.0 2
371 1697 4.6 12
3298 13366 4.1 85

Smith
241 937 3.9 11
365 1563 4.3 12
373 1713 4.6 18
283 1486 5.3 9
368 1484 4.0 21
377 1773 4.7 25
327 1204 3.7 12
261 1074 4.1 4
319 1332 4.2 13
329 1397 4.2 11
3243 13963 4.3 136

For one I don't get the sense that Curtis has a lot left in the tank. Not sure why that is my impression.

Second Martin has no even come close to Emmitt's best seasons.

In a macro view yes it's similar stuff. 4.1 to 4.2 ypc for their career. Emmitt was certainly blessed with great timing though in terms of the situation he was in.
I don't know why you'd have that impression. The dude just but up his best season ever and works out like a madman in the offseason.

What it'll take to to break the all-time record:
1,247.5 X 4
998 X 5

He probably won't make it, but it's certainly not impossible.

Alright maybe not much, much, much, much.

But he was clearly better.

Ask anyone who they'd take in their prime.

Ask anyone who they'd take in their prime.

It's obvious ... Bam Morris!

I don't know why you'd have that impression. The dude just but up his best season ever and works out like a madman in the offseason.

What it'll take to to break the all-time record:
1,247.5 X 4
998 X 5

He probably won't make it, but it's certainly not impossible.

I just can't see the guy playing more than 3 or 4 years. Maybe the record will motivate him but he doesn't seem the type.

I have much respect for the guy though.

Toni Braxton. Word.

It's obvious ... Bam Morris!

I'm partial to John Stephens. I bought that assmuncher's t-shirt.

How come you never hear "Well Jerry Rice only has his records because he played with 2 HOF QBs in the most passer friendly system ever."?
Probably because it's that 1980s HOF QB that benefited from Rice and not vice versa. Rice is overrated, yes, but not to the extent that Montana is.

Probably because it's that 1980s HOF QB that benefited from Rice and not vice versa. Rice is overrated, yes, but not to the extent that Montana is.

That's funny.

What it'll take to to break the all-time record:
1,247.5 X 4
998 X 5

He probably won't make it, but it's certainly not impossible.

I'm going out on the limb and making the prediction that yes, he will break the record. I just get the feeling that he will be around for at least 5 more years and he'll gain at least 1,000 in each year. Maybe not as a member of the Jets, but there are plenty of teams that need a solid, productive back every year so he'll be in demand for at least 5 more years.

That's just my opinion though.

Also--rightly or wrongly, any discussion of the best ever has to take championships into account, and Emmitt has a substantial edge over Martin there.

Personally, I think that winning is overrated in football when one is trying to decide how good one of the twenty-four starters on any given team is, but it is certainly a factor used when comparing good, great, and super great players.

I have watched Brown (at the end of his career), Sayers, Payton, Sanders and Smith. Many others but these are among the best. Brown and Payton are in a class by themselves. Sanders and Sayers were the most exciting runners I ever watched. Smith was steady, sometimes almost spectacular (as he was the day he played with a separated shoulder against my Giants), but clearly not one of the best backs ever. I would say he probably ranks somewhere in the top 10, all time.

You cannot blame him for playing for great teams. You just have to go by what you saw when he played vs the other greats I mentioned.

Though I was never a fan of his or the Cowboys, I did appreciate that he was a very good running back with tremendous heart. However I never really looked forward to watching him run like I did Sanders, Payton and Sayers.

Jim Brown was an unstoppable force.

I'm partial to John Stephens. I bought that assmuncher's t-shirt.

Yeah, Bam tricked me into buying some of his ... well, you know, the stuff he sold out of the trunk of his car.

What exactly is funny?

As of now, I assume that you're one of the many that overreacts to the term overrated.

What exactly is funny?

As of now, I assume that you're one of the many that overreacts to the term overrated.


Not really. Who isn't overrated then? All the guys that were on crappy teams?

Not really. Who isn't overrated then? All the guys that were on crappy teams?
Plenty of great players aren't overrated.

Dan Marino. He played for many good teams. Sometimes primarily of his making. Steve Young. Hell, that's the same team. John Elway.

I could name more.

But I thought you weren't really overreacting to that word.

As for Emmit, here's a poorly-written yet informative article by a crappy writer:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=bayless/050211&num=2

Plenty of great players aren't overrated.

Dan Marino. He played for many good teams. Sometimes primarily of his making. Steve Young. Hell, that's the same team. John Elway.

I could name more.

But I thought you weren't really overreacting to that word.

As for Emmit, here's a poorly-written yet informative article by a crappy writer:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=bayless/050211&num=2

This is where we digress. I'm a Marino overrated guy.

This is where we digress. I'm a Marino overrated guy.
I'm honestly curious as to why. I'm not intending to attack, but I find the guy's career amazing. Furthermore, the 1984 Dolphins were the worst defense to ever get to the Super Bowl, as far as I can tell.

I'm honestly curious as to why. I'm not intending to attack, but I find the guy's career amazing. Furthermore, the 1984 Dolphins were the worst defense to ever get to the Super Bowl, as far as I can tell.

There's a thread around here somewhere where I debated Tekneek. 2005 Hall of Fame thread maybe.

I'm lazy. Overrated, too.

Anyway, I guess I have an easy time identifying other QBs as underrated simply because the media in general has pretty much declared that Montana is the best ever and there will be no debate on that.

Which makes him overrated in my opinion.

Maybe:

1. The Cowboys were so good we expected Emmitt to put up great numbers, and so when he did, we weren't surprised, or wowed.

or

2. Except for maybe a game or two here and there, we don't remember Emmitt taking the team on his shoulders and winning the game by himself, like many of the "greats" did. Maybe this is because in his prime, he didn't have to, and after his prime, he couldn't.

I don't know. The question is certainly a good one.

I guess he didn't have enough Sportscenter highlight runs, which is all that seems to matter nowadays.

Yup. Emmitt wasn't flashy, he just ground out the yards. Because of that he doesn't get the respect he deserves...

I was never an Emmitt fan, and honestly didn't even like the guy for a while. I passively root for the Giants (I'm a Jets fan), so I kind of passively hate the Cowboys, which probably contributed to it.

But I just remember that Week 16 or Week 17 game against the Giants when he seperated his shoulder and then still played an amazing game while basically unable to move one of his arms. That was the definition of carrying the team on your back, and he earned my respect that day. It's one of those performances people will always talk about when discussing Emmitt Smith. Everything was on the line (the winner won the division and earned a bye week) and the guy came up huge after suffering a serious injury.

I never get involved in this "who's better than who" crap, but I would bet you dollars to doughnuts that if Barry Sanders had hung around and limped out of the game like Emmitt did...he would be considered in the same class as Smith, but not in the upper echelon like he is now.

I never get involved in this "who's better than who" crap, but I would bet you dollars to doughnuts that if Barry Sanders had hung around and limped out of the game like Emmitt did...he would be considered in the same class as Smith, but not in the upper echelon like he is now.

I disagree. No one who has seen Sanders run in his prime could forget how amazing he was for a decade.

Getting back to Martin vs. Smith:

How much was Smith's line vs. Martin's? I think it's worth the .1 YPC. If Martin clears Smith's record, I'll have no problem rating him ahead of Smith. But Smith is an all-time back.

He just isn't Brown or Sanders.

Emmitt deserves to be ranked alongside the very best ever. In fact, i would put him above everyone except Jim Brown, Walter Payton, and Barry Sanders. And he is close to these guys.

I agree that he wasn't as fun to watch as Payton or Sanders, but he did an incredible job. If the cowboys had the lead in the second half, it was lights out. That guy always gained yardage. Those Cowboys teams were full of great players including the o-line and moose johnston, but Emmitt waa the miost important player on the team.

Curtis Martin is an interesting case. Definitely there is no shame in his game. He just has not had the success in wins and losses that Emmitt had, and those wins count for a lot. I hope Curtis can keep going, but usually these running backs talent level falls off a cliff at some point and Curtis is overdue.

I think I put Curtis in the same class as guys like Marcus Allen, Franco Harris, and Thurman Thomas. Maybe two steps below the pinnacle and also behind guys like O.J. Simpson, Eric Dickerson, Earl Campbell, Gayle Sayers.