Best NFL Running Back ever

Freak

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.

Spinoff90

Your point about Smith being on a team with players like Aikman and Irvin makes him look better so where exactly where you trying to go with that? A player on a team with more offensive power won't always make him the go to guy. Brown always was the go to guy. The Browns QBs and WRs were average at best and they were saved by Brown and their defense.

1 yard average is not a big deal when you are comparing players like Smith and Brown. Smith has more yards and TDs. Bringing up other players that don't have Smith's TDs and yards just looks stupid. Also Smith is smaller than Brown making it harder to gain that one extra yard. But one thing I am finding funny is you said to make points why Smith is better than Brown without just saying his total yards. And yet I see you just keep going on about Browns average yards.

This is just like the NHL. Most people call Gretzky the best player however Mario has a better goals per game average. But the reality is at the end of the day Gretzky has the better stats so one better average doesn't make Mario better. Just like one average doesn't make Brown better than Smith.


I know in the past the number of players on the field was less. It has changed multiple times and I don't know for sure if there is a difference in size from then and now. Which is why I said I could be wrong. But considering the 1958 Browns only had a 35 player roster compared to this years Browns that have a roster of 70 players I am guessing that I am right. The roster size would not have doubled if their was the same number of players on the field.

Freak

No, we're talking about the Dallas Cowboys here. As dangerous as Aikman was, I'm pretty sure he only went over 20 TDs in a season once because the Cowboys always gave the rock to Emmitt in the red zone. Obviously he was clutch near the goalline, but let any player carry the ball that many times near the endzone and he's gonna make some noise. By the way, do you even know anything about the offense Jim Brown played in, or are you just talking out your ass like it looks like?

Your point about size is irrelevent -- look at Barry Sanders' career, or guys like LaDainian Tomlinson and Priest Holmes as of late... smaller running backs are generally more successful. Obviously Emmitt has more yards and scores, but consider he's also touched the ball nearly TWICE as many times as Brown.

Yeah, you are wrong.

Dr. Giganto

The rosters may have been smaller back in the day, but if thats the case, its only because they had less reserves. In fact, there were some people who used to play offense, defense, and special teams. Football was always 11 on 11.