Of all the current running backs in the NFL...

[spanky]

Originally posted by: CTrain

Originally posted by: spanky

Originally posted by: CTrain

Originally posted by: spanky

Originally posted by: CTrain
Thats the problem...
"If he's still getting catches, if he's still being productive" He's NOT. Time to retire.

he is still getting catches. not nearly as much as he used to, but he still does.

You must not watch football alot, do you ??
He has play 8 games this season and he has 7 catches for 83 yds.

well if you want to be a sarcastic ass nugget... then you must not be very good at reading comprehension.
first of all, since when did 7 catches equate to not getting catches?
secondly, it's week 9, the season is far from over.

You're a freakin dumbsh!t. Do you watch football at all ??
You think getting less than 1 catch per game is "still getting catches" ??
Lay down the pipe man.
There are WRs who are fifth stringers on a team that get more than a catch a game.

you said "he's not. time to retire"... meaning you said jerry rice is not getting catches and he should retire.

i said he is not getting as many catches as he used to.

you "You think getting less than 1 catch per game is 'still getting catches'"

first of all, your two statement contradict each other.

secondly, you ask me do i watch football, and i will answer yes i do. if you want to be a numbers monkey and only look at his avg receptions per game this year, then fine. however, as a person who watches football, tho i may be disappointed in the fact that he's not getting many catches thus far this year, i still appreciate contributions to his team. how about his blocking? you know... wr's do block for their fellow running backs and recievers. what about his route running? that is something he brings to teams that have young recievers whom can learn a ton from rice. you know even thought he does not have receptions numbers, he does get the ball thrown to him. if he does not make the reception, it's not always the receivers fault. what about a crappy pass? what about pass interference? what about offensive penalties?

lastly, so what if a 5th string wr from some team has more avg receptions per game then rice? like i said before, it's week ten. rice just came from a crappy situation in oakland, and is settling into seattle. if you think the only way a wr can contribute to a team is by catching balls (this is based on your infatuation with receptions numbers), then good for you. have a

 

[spanky]

Originally posted by: KLin
what's with the verbal insult? :roll:. 7 catches in 8 games is not being productive.

is catching balls the only way a wr can be productive?

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: spanky
lastly, so what if a 5th string wr from some team has more avg receptions per game then rice? like i said before, it's week ten. rice just came from a crappy situation in oakland, and is settling into seattle. if you think the only way a wr can contribute to a team is by catching balls (this is based on your infatuation with receptions numbers), then good for you. have a

I agree, Rice wasn't getting any passes in Oakland which is why he was pissed. Obviously he felt he wasn't given a good opportunity to shine in Oakland , so he left. Obviously it will take him a good month to get settled into a new offense, so cut the man some slack (not you spanky but all the other Rice bashers). OMG his numbers aren't uber for a half season, and everyone yells RETIRE RETIRE. Fvcking hilarious.

 

[CrazyApe]

To make the statement: "but when you think about it, he's [Barry Sanders is] not really that great overall." shows you don't follow football, nor the Lions aside from the occasional SC highlight. Barry, next to Gayle Sayers, had the greatest cuts of any RB of all time, and still achieved legendary status behind one of the worst teams in the league at the time. He was one of the strongest NFL players lb for lb (he squatted over 900 lbs at 5-7) which made him virtually impossible to tackle in open field. Had he not retired a season too soon, he would have easily broken Walter Payton's record.
[/quote]


Fixed this for you.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: spanky
lastly, so what if a 5th string wr from some team has more avg receptions per game then rice? like i said before, it's week ten. rice just came from a crappy situation in oakland, and is settling into seattle. if you think the only way a wr can contribute to a team is by catching balls (this is based on your infatuation with receptions numbers), then good for you. have a

I agree, Rice wasn't getting any passes in Oakland which is why he was pissed. Obviously he felt he wasn't given a good opportunity to shine in Oakland , so he left. Obviously it will take him a good month to get settled into a new offense, so cut the man some slack (not you spanky but all the other Rice bashers). OMG his numbers aren't uber for a half season, and everyone yells RETIRE RETIRE. Fvcking hilarious.

Wow, I agree with sp33demon :shocked:

 

[Deeko]

Guys who cite the Lions as being one of the worst teams in the league during the early 90's:

1991 Detroit 12 4 0 0.750 (1st) 1 1 0.500 Bye, Beat Dal, Lost to Was
1992 Detroit 5 11 0 0.313 (5th) Did Not Make Playoffs
1993 Detroit 10 6 0 0.625 (1st) 0 1 0.000 Lost to GB
1994 Detroit 9 7 0 0.563 (3rd) 0 1 0.000 Lost to GB
1995 Detroit 10 6 0 0.625 (2nd) 0 1 0.000 Lost to Philadelphia
1996 Detroit 5 11 0 0.313 (5th) Did Not Make Playoffs
1997 Detroit 9 7 0 0.563 (3rd) 0 1 0.000 Lost to TB

couple of losing seasons, but in general a playoff team.

 

[laurenlex]

Originally posted by: cmdavid
Clinton Portis.
He just turned 23 like two months ago and is in his third season..
he averaged 1550 yards through his first two seasons...

But those 2 years were behind the Denver offensive line. Time will tell. He is stong, fast, and can take a hit, though.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Deeko
Guys who cite the Lions as being one of the worst teams in the league during the early 90's:

1991 Detroit 12 4 0 0.750 (1st) 1 1 0.500 Bye, Beat Dal, Lost to Was
1992 Detroit 5 11 0 0.313 (5th) Did Not Make Playoffs
1993 Detroit 10 6 0 0.625 (1st) 0 1 0.000 Lost to GB
1994 Detroit 9 7 0 0.563 (3rd) 0 1 0.000 Lost to GB
1995 Detroit 10 6 0 0.625 (2nd) 0 1 0.000 Lost to Philadelphia
1996 Detroit 5 11 0 0.313 (5th) Did Not Make Playoffs
1997 Detroit 9 7 0 0.563 (3rd) 0 1 0.000 Lost to TB

couple of losing seasons, but in general a playoff team.

I meant one of the worst OL's, the team in general was average only because of Barry, Jerry Ball, Herman Moore, and (sometimes) Rodney Peete.

 

[hpkeeper]

Originally posted by: cmdavid
Clinton Portis.
He just turned 23 like two months ago and is in his third season..
he averaged 1550 yards through his first two seasons...

I would agree with that if he hadn't gotten traded to washington. However, he is getting good touches
in Washington as well. But he's just not having the type of year that he was having in Denver last
year. I think the next two backs you see that are going to be record breakers is

Ladanian Tomlinson
Willis McGahee (If his knee holds up)


Willis has some amazing explosiveness once he gets wrapped up, and he's got a crazy Corey Dillon
like Stiff Arm. Give him more than half a season to show his numbers, I think it will be impressive.
Not to mention, just think if the guy had a line in front of him.

isn't it amazing that guys like Barry Sanders and LT are putting up/put up numbers being on a team that
in general have sucked?

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: laurenlex

Originally posted by: cmdavid
Clinton Portis.
He just turned 23 like two months ago and is in his third season..
he averaged 1550 yards through his first two seasons...

But those 2 years were behind the Denver offensive line. Time will tell. He is stong, fast, and can take a hit, though.

We won't know for another 13 seasons if Clinton/[insert good current RB here] can stay healthy enough.

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: laurenlex

Originally posted by: cmdavid
Clinton Portis.
He just turned 23 like two months ago and is in his third season..
he averaged 1550 yards through his first two seasons...

But those 2 years were behind the Denver offensive line. Time will tell. He is stong, fast, and can take a hit, though.

The Denver O-Line makes 1000 yard rushers like I get blow jobs (once a year whether I need it or not...)

 

[KLin]

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: laurenlex

Originally posted by: cmdavid
Clinton Portis.
He just turned 23 like two months ago and is in his third season..
he averaged 1550 yards through his first two seasons...

But those 2 years were behind the Denver offensive line. Time will tell. He is stong, fast, and can take a hit, though.

The Denver O-Line makes 1000 yard rushers like I get blow jobs (once a year whether I need it or not...)

umm err, interesting analogy there.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: hpkeeper

Originally posted by: cmdavid
Clinton Portis.
He just turned 23 like two months ago and is in his third season..
he averaged 1550 yards through his first two seasons...

I would agree with that if he hadn't gotten traded to washington. However, he is getting good touches
in Washington as well. But he's just not having the type of year that he was having in Denver last
year. I think the next two backs you see that are going to be record breakers is

Ladanian Tomlinson
Willis McGahee (If his knee holds up)


Willis has some amazing explosiveness once he gets wrapped up, and he's got a crazy Corey Dillon
like Stiff Arm. Give him more than half a season to show his numbers, I think it will be impressive.
Not to mention, just think if the guy had a line in front of him.

isn't it amazing that guys like Barry Sanders and LT are putting up/put up numbers being on a team that
in general have sucked?

Walter Payton with the Bears?? other than the one super bowl year, they were pretty average.

OJ Simpson with the Buffalo Bills.

two of the top backs of all time and they played for mediocre teams.

 

[imported_Strang]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: spanky
lastly, so what if a 5th string wr from some team has more avg receptions per game then rice? like i said before, it's week ten. rice just came from a crappy situation in oakland, and is settling into seattle. if you think the only way a wr can contribute to a team is by catching balls (this is based on your infatuation with receptions numbers), then good for you. have a

I agree, Rice wasn't getting any passes in Oakland which is why he was pissed. Obviously he felt he wasn't given a good opportunity to shine in Oakland , so he left. Obviously it will take him a good month to get settled into a new offense, so cut the man some slack (not you spanky but all the other Rice bashers). OMG his numbers aren't uber for a half season, and everyone yells RETIRE RETIRE. Fvcking hilarious.

Yep. He's had one catch in all three games as a Seahawk. Coincidentally, since he's come, Koren Robinson has stopped dropping balls and has been more consistent (as well as the rest of the Seahawks receivers).

Obviously the man has an intense love for the game that he's played for, I dunno, 30+ years of his life. If anything, he's earned the right to retire when he wants to (assuming that there's still a team who wants him).

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Strang

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: spanky
lastly, so what if a 5th string wr from some team has more avg receptions per game then rice? like i said before, it's week ten. rice just came from a crappy situation in oakland, and is settling into seattle. if you think the only way a wr can contribute to a team is by catching balls (this is based on your infatuation with receptions numbers), then good for you. have a

I agree, Rice wasn't getting any passes in Oakland which is why he was pissed. Obviously he felt he wasn't given a good opportunity to shine in Oakland , so he left. Obviously it will take him a good month to get settled into a new offense, so cut the man some slack (not you spanky but all the other Rice bashers). OMG his numbers aren't uber for a half season, and everyone yells RETIRE RETIRE. Fvcking hilarious.

Yep. He's had one catch in all three games as a Seahawk. Coincidentally, since he's come, Koren Robinson has stopped dropping balls and has been more consistent (as well as the rest of the Seahawks receivers).

Obviously the man has an intense love for the game that he's played for, I dunno, 30+ years of his life. If anything, he's earned the right to retire when he wants to (assuming that there's still a team who wants him).

Also, you forget that Rice has a bum ankle. Hard to catch the ball when you can't run!

 

[imported_Strang]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Strang

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: spanky
lastly, so what if a 5th string wr from some team has more avg receptions per game then rice? like i said before, it's week ten. rice just came from a crappy situation in oakland, and is settling into seattle. if you think the only way a wr can contribute to a team is by catching balls (this is based on your infatuation with receptions numbers), then good for you. have a

I agree, Rice wasn't getting any passes in Oakland which is why he was pissed. Obviously he felt he wasn't given a good opportunity to shine in Oakland , so he left. Obviously it will take him a good month to get settled into a new offense, so cut the man some slack (not you spanky but all the other Rice bashers). OMG his numbers aren't uber for a half season, and everyone yells RETIRE RETIRE. Fvcking hilarious.

Yep. He's had one catch in all three games as a Seahawk. Coincidentally, since he's come, Koren Robinson has stopped dropping balls and has been more consistent (as well as the rest of the Seahawks receivers).

Obviously the man has an intense love for the game that he's played for, I dunno, 30+ years of his life. If anything, he's earned the right to retire when he wants to (assuming that there's still a team who wants him).

Also, you forget that Rice has a bum ankle. Hard to catch the ball when you can't run!

Yep, another good point. He hurt it shortly after he had his catch in the Carolina-Seattle game and yet still had a catch against SF (which, had it been any other team, he probably wouldn't have suited up for).

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: SP33DemonDurability is certainly a sign of greatness, just look at Cal Ripken... he didn't play on a great team yet he's one of the greatest shortstops ever because of his durability. Give Emmitt his due, he would have been great behind any decent OL... it's the reason why Emmitt is great and Bo Jackson is not.

Bo is great. Just because he had a freak, career-ending injury doesn't mean he wasn't great.

Cal Ripken certainly deserves lots of recognition because of his streak, and he was certainly a better than average player. But he wasn't one of the best short stops ever. He was fortunate, more fortunate than most anyone, that he was never injured badly enough to break his streak. Otherwise, he'd be just another former all-star that had a nice career.
Being able to hang on while playing at a decent level for a few years longer than average doesn't qualify as greatness in my book. It's simply luck.
What I look at is, when a player was in his prime, how long did THAT last, and how was he compared to others? If your prime lasts a long time, then THAT is an indicator of greatness.
Cal Ripken was very average after the early 90's. He hit .300 once since 1991. He was still a good, certainly a better than average player, but he was not great.

Look at it this way: If you had to pick an all star team of players from the same era, and you got 3 players at each position, and you could pick any player from the prime of his career, would Cal be one of them? Not if you know anything about baseball he wouldn't.

Same goes for Emmitt. If you picked an all star NFL team and had your pick of 3 RB's from the prime of their career, Emmitt wouldn't be on my team. And I am a Cowboys fan and I love Emmitt. But the truth is the truth. And anyone who wouldn't have Bo on their team of players from the last 20 years is insane.
Bo in his prime was the best there ever was. Nobody has ever been that fast at 230 lbs. Or that powerful. I believe that his average yards per carry is still number one. The man played part of the season and made the Pro Bowl. THAT is greatness.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: SP33DemonDurability is certainly a sign of greatness, just look at Cal Ripken... he didn't play on a great team yet he's one of the greatest shortstops ever because of his durability. Give Emmitt his due, he would have been great behind any decent OL... it's the reason why Emmitt is great and Bo Jackson is not.

Bo is great. Just because he had a freak, career-ending injury doesn't mean he wasn't great.

Cal Ripken certainly deserves lots of recognition because of his streak, and he was certainly a better than average player. But he wasn't one of the best short stops ever. He was fortunate, more fortunate than most anyone, that he was never injured badly enough to break his streak. Otherwise, he'd be just another former all-star that had a nice career.
Being able to hang on while playing at a decent level for a few years longer than average doesn't qualify as greatness in my book. It's simply luck.
What I look at is, when a player was in his prime, how long did THAT last, and how was he compared to others? If your prime lasts a long time, then THAT is an indicator of greatness.
Cal Ripken was very average after the early 90's. He hit .300 once since 1991. He was still a good, certainly a better than average player, but he was not great.

Look at it this way: If you had to pick an all star team of players from the same era, and you got 3 players at each position, and you could pick any player from the prime of his career, would Cal be one of them? Not if you know anything about baseball he wouldn't.

Same goes for Emmitt. If you picked an all star NFL team and had your pick of 3 RB's from the prime of their career, Emmitt wouldn't be on my team. And I am a Cowboys fan and I love Emmitt. But the truth is the truth. And anyone who wouldn't have Bo on their team of players from the last 20 years is insane.
Bo in his prime was the best there ever was. Nobody has ever been that fast at 230 lbs. Or that powerful. I believe that his average yards per carry is still number one. The man played part of the season and made the Pro Bowl. THAT is greatness.

Herschel Walker was almost as fast as Bo and mb even a bit bigger. not that Bo wasn't great btw.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGoldplenty of people COULD have broken hank aarons record GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. this is true for ANY RECORD, that's why it's such a stupid comment.

No, it's not a stupid statement. Your analogy is stupid, since thousands of baseball players HAVE been in Aaron's position, and nobody as of yet has broken his record. Every player that swings a bat other than pitchers have the opportunity to hit homers.
Only one running back got the opportunity to run behind the best line in football that the Cowboys maintained for many years, and that was Emmitt.

That's why I say sure, give him his props, he did go out there and run hard, run tough, and get it done.

Just keep it in perspective: ANY decent back of the same era could have done the same thing, and several could have done a lot better. I'm not a big Barry Sanders fan, and I am a Payton fan...and IMO, what those two guys did was much more impressive than anything Emmitt accomplished.

The TD record? Big deal. Not impressive to cruise into the endzone from 2 yards out time after time, after Aikman, Irvin, and everyone else got you there. Any back could have done that, it's nothing special.
I'd love to see how many of Emmitt's TD's were from 5 yards or less. I'd say most of them. Sure, someone had to do it, but then again behind that line, anyone could have.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: PlatinumGoldplenty of people COULD have broken hank aarons record GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. this is true for ANY RECORD, that's why it's such a stupid comment.

No, it's not a stupid statement. Your analogy is stupid, since thousands of baseball players HAVE been in Aaron's position, and nobody as of yet has broken his record. Every player that swings a bat other than pitchers have the opportunity to hit homers.
Only one running back got the opportunity to run behind the best line in football that the Cowboys maintained for many years, and that was Emmitt.

That's why I say sure, give him his props, he did go out there and run hard, run tough, and get it done.

Just keep it in perspective: ANY decent back of the same era could have done the same thing, and several could have done a lot better. I'm not a big Barry Sanders fan, and I am a Payton fan...and IMO, what those two guys did was much more impressive than anything Emmitt accomplished.

The TD record? Big deal. Not impressive to cruise into the endzone from 2 yards out time after time, after Aikman, Irvin, and everyone else got you there. Any back could have done that, it's nothing special.
I'd love to see how many of Emmitt's TD's were from 5 yards or less. I'd say most of them. Sure, someone had to do it, but then again behind that line, anyone could have.

emmitt also had a lot to do with them "getting there".

if it were me, i'd take emmitt over barry sanders any day. there are backs i'd take over emmitt but barry doesn't rank. Jim brown, OJ Simpson, Gayle Sanders.

let's use another analogy, Emmitt is to RB's what Montana is to QB's. shoot if Al Davis had drafted montana, he would have washed out in 2 yrs. it was the combination of walsh, his offense and his WR/TE that made Montana what he was. had he played on Bradshaws Steelers, Staubachs Cowboys, or even Tarkentons Vikings, montana would not have accomplished what he did.

BUT bottom line is, he did.

many could argue that Young was a much better QB than Montana, he just didn't have the complete system that montana did.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Herschel Walker was almost as fast as Bo and mb even a bit bigger. not that Bo wasn't great btw.

True, but I don't think you'll find anyone other than some rabid UGA fans that would take Herschel over Bo.
BTW, Bo ran a 4.18 second 40 at 235 lbs. That's Deion Sander's-type speed and Bo could run you over to boot.

 

[Deeko]

Wow you're difficult.

First off, he DID play a part in getting there. Its not like he was like Jerome Bettis this year. And, when you are racking up that amount of scores, they're gonna stack in the box against you. Not everyone can punch that in.

You're still missing my main point though. Who do you want to build a franchise around, not a single season, a guy who will have a few huge seasons, or a guy who will have 15 or 16 solid years? That's what Emmitt Smith did, and thats what makes him the #1 running back of all time. Terrell Davis had 2 good years. Priest Holmes has had 3 so far. Bo Jackson had 2.

 

[jaydee]

You can't start throwing names around that haven't played 4 seasons yet. Portis, Tomlinson, Alexander are just ridiculous at this point in their careers. I can say Boldin has a great chance at Rice's record based on last season using that logic and hopefully we can all see how bad that arguement is. The big issue isn't yards per season, it's number of years. Anyone can be "on pace" after 2, 3, even 4 years. When you get to a players 6-7th years and he has 10,000 yards, then you can start talking records.


Holmes didn't get the yards early in his career to be a real threat. He's gotta be 30 years old and not even half-way to Emmitt, so pretty much has no chance unless he's some freak that runs until he's 40 (don't see it happening).


The only guy that's proved durable, that has a shot is Curtis Martin, and I actually like his chances. Right now he's 7th all-time and by the end of the season, he should be 4th or 5th at around 13,000 yards. Marshall Faulk isn't too far behind (should have 12000+ by years end), but he's older and will be splitting carries with Stephen Jackson in his final years, where Martin's going to be the man for a while still. Plus he's only 31, which isn't exactly ancient for a well-conditioned RB. I'd say he's still got at least 2-3 years left as a starter after this year. All assuming he stays healthy...


As for Rice, I can see Marvin Harrison challenging his records in a few years. After 10 years, he's ahead of Rice's pace, we'll just have to see if he has the longevity. One of those "get back to me in 5 years" sort of deals.

 

[Pacfanweb]

I think we're talking about different viewpoints here, more than anything else.

My contention is, that perhaps players like Bo Jackson, etc, might have had longer careers running behind that Cowboy line.

And I disagree about the TD part. ANY good NFL back could have scored just as much in short yardage as Emmitt did in the same circumstances. He didn't do anything special to score. Just line up behind those 350 pounders and run it in.

Now if he got most of his scores from 20 yards out, that's a different story.

BTW, Bo had 4 good seasons, not 2. Most games he played in a season was 11.

I would never say that Emmitt isn't a great back, not at all. I just say that he was lucky to have defied the odds and not sustained a serious injury. That isn't a mark of greatness at all, it's just pure, blind luck.
That luck, combined with a bit better than average talent and the best line in football, allowed him to last a lot longer than many far more talented backs.

If I knew going in that I could either have an elite RB whose career would be ended after only a few seasons, or a slow-and-steady guy like Emmitt who would last a long time, then sure, I might pick Emmitt.

But I am looking from a standpoint of this: In their prime, who was the best? 4 seasons is proof enough of that. Nobody in football history would take Emmitt over Bo, or many others, given that criteria. Bo could probably outrun Emmitt right now, with an artificial hip, was a stronger runner, and averaged more yards per carry. With Bo in the backfield, Emmitt's Cowboys would probably have won 4 straight Super Bowls, and have been practically unbeatable. THAT'S how much better he was. He was a threat to take it to the endzone every time he touched the ball.
THAT is who I'd want on my team.

Again, that doesn't mean Emmitt wasn't a great back, but I think we all need to remember that he was more a product of the system he was in than a supreme talent.

BTW, if anyone doesn't think Emmitt was a product of a great line, just look at how his rushing stats dropped off when he switched teams. He had just under 1000 yds on his last Cowboy team, and dropped to 256 his first year in Arizona. His YPC dropped by a yard, which is a lot in this category.
Is he over the hill, or was he just having an easier time running behind that Cowboy line?

 

[Deeko]

I still completely disagree with you about touchdowns. Some backs are better inside the 10, and thats a fact.

Don't try to bring up Arizona...he was hurt last year(his first real injury in 4000 attempts mind you) and then was benched the rest of the year. In his 15th season. This year, his 16th seasaon, he already has 565 yards and 6TD's. He's on pace to have the most TD's since 1999, and most yards since 2000. Behind the Arizona Cardinals offensive line. How's that for being a product of a great line? Rookies were still in grade school when he came into this league, and he's still tearin up defenses.