Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spinoff90 He helped his team win more Superbowls than Brown, whether you like it said or not he has more yards than Brown, more TDs than Brown and a 4.2 average compared to a 5.2 isn't a big deal. Both are a large enough average to get a 1st down in 3 downs. If I was a manager I could care less if one player can average 1 yard more. I would want more points because yards don't win games and points do. 1008 is a lot better than 756. Also learning teams playbooks is a lot easier when there are less teams and you usually play the same team two weeks after the last time you played them. Also I could be wrong but I am pretty sure there were a lot less players on the field in the 50s which meant a lot more open field to break free for longer runs. And even if the size was the same defense has become a lot better over the years. Brown was good for his time but if he played in the 90s I doubt his stats would have been as good. Where if Smith played in the 50s his would be better which makes him the best IMO. |
Man, the difference between 4.2 and 5.2 is HUGE... compare the running backs in history (and there aren't many) with a 5+ average to the guys struggling around 4... 4.2 yards per carry is pretty much what you'd expect out of your back on an average day, there's nothing special about that. And, by the way, a guy with 3.4 YPC could move the chains with three carries too, but no one is going to proclaim Lamar Gordon or Troy Hambrick and elite back in the NFL.
Emmitt did score a lot of points, but granted he did it on an offense where there were guys like Aikman and Irvin and Novacek to take the focus off of him, as well as perhaps the most dominant offensive line the NFL has ever seen.
And for the record, I don't get what you mean by there being "a lot less players on the field in the 50's"... or you just know some history I don't.