Reply With Quote
I agree
Might as well start it....besides, I'm getting tired of flipping back and forth between 2 threads. Bring it....here I'll start. Cowboys Suck....
I agree
Alright maybe "Cowboys suck" isn't much of an argument...haha....
How about Barry Sanders vs. Emmit Smith.....
Barry was the best pure runner I have ever seen. Emmitt was the better football player.
as far as the Cowboys sucking...last year they did....any team who finishes 6-10 sucks. As far as this year goes....everyone is 0-0 so it doesn't mean yet. That is a better argument for October.
How was he the better football player...cuz he had an all-pro offensive line, an all-pro tight end, a hall of fame QB, and a hall of fame WR.....is that why he was a better player. Cuz he had so much help.
no. IMO, he was a better all-around football player. He was a better blocker and receiver than Barry was. He was not faster than Barry, few at the position ever have been but he was fast enough. Barry would run around in circles waiting for his opening then he would just sprint by you. Emmitt would run by you, around you and over you. Barry was blessed by no major injuries..then again you can't injure what you can't touch. Barry could beat you with his legs but that is it. (not that its a bad thing) Emmitt was a tougher runner, didn't shy away from contact and would block and catch passes.
Amazingly, that's the first coherent point I've read in any of your posts. Congrats.
That's an easy one. I'll take Emmitt every day of the week and three times on Sunday. The difference is one of substance over style. Barry would go all day with carries for negative yards, then suddenly hit a home run. At the end of the day, you'd look at his numbers and they'd be good, but the truth was that his carries didn't help his team sustain drives. His carries for negative yards put his team in 2nd & 13, rather than 2nd and 6-7, which makes the task of just getting first downs difficult. Almost any coach at any level will take a guy who gets 4 yards on every down over a guy who occasionally goes 80, but rarely will get 4-5 yards on consecutive carries.
Emmitt, meanwhile, didn't really hit the home run, but he pounded away at defenses and got 4-5 yards on a consistent basis. At the end of the day, his numbers would look a whole lot like Barry's, but there couldn't really be much doubt as to who was the more effective ball carrier.
I'd argue that Emmitt's offense was "better," only because Emmitt kept his team on schedule and allowed them to sustain drives, which is essential to controlling the ball, scoring points, and winning football games. Troy Aikman is a Hall-of-Fame QB because he played on a team that won 3 les. Without Emmitt keeping that offense on schedule, though, there wouldn't have been any les and Aikman would likely be a guy remembered as a pretty good quarterback.
Emmitt owns Barry in so many facets it's not even funny -- Emmitt was a superior red zone runner; Barry got taken off the field in goalline situations for a big chunk of his career. Emmitt was a superior pass blocker; Barry was a safety valve who rarely stayed in to protect. But even when Emmitt got involved in the passing game, his ability to follow blocks gave the Cowboys good gains from outlet plays. Emmitt also elevated his game when it mattered most. Barry had -1 yards at Lambeau in January.
And don't give me any of this "Emmitt had a better line" crap. For the duration of Barry's career, he had at least one Pro Bowl lineman in front of him. Lomas Brown and Kevin Glover both made numerous Pro Bowl appearances while playing in front of Sanders. A line looks good, though, because of the effectiveness of a back, and I'd argue that had Barry gotten more +4's instead of -4's, he'd have had more fat guys accompanying him to Hawaii every year. And, having watched those Lions on many, many occasions (and having been an offensive lineman in college myself) I think the blame for many of those -4's go to Barry. His incessant dancing in the backfield and his only-occasional burst to the hole gave his line the impossible task of trying to create and open holes for longer than is reasonable. Asking a line to open a lane for a second or two is fine; asking a line to hold a lane open for 3-4 seconds is asking the next-to-impossible.
Barry was a great back and a worthy Hall of Famer, but he's no Emmitt Smith.
True...plus its not like either player sucked. GM's right now would give their first born for either of those guys in their prime.
You make some interesting and good points there WayDowntown...however on the flip side one can argue that Barry's "incessant dancing" in the backfield is due to the fact that no true holes were developed by the o-line.....well kiddies, I'm done for the day.....but don't distress as I will be back with more psycobabble, Cowboy rants, and football blasts...till next time. Nighty-night! Keep yer buttholes tight!
Oh...and to end the current argument...doesn't matter as Jim Brown was better than either. Alas, you poor souls....you failed to see the true answer to the debate as Barry Sanders and Emmit Smith were merely a disguise.
The debate was Barry vs. Emmitt.
You didn't ask the question "Who is the best all-time RB?" That would have been rare ground on which we agreed.
mikey -- he knows he lost, he just changed it to Jim Brown in an effort to save face. Let him have that one -- we all agree about that one.
barry sanders made emmit smith look like tim biackabatuku
i hate the cowboys i really dont even like the nfl i just root for longhorns to put up good numbers
thats why i like the Lions so much
Are we sure this clown is even a man? Seriously. This person sounds like a woman scorned & now has football PMS because the Wolverines are the best football team in the state of MI.mikey -- he knows he lost
Cowboys suck!
GO EAGLES!
Walter Peyton
barry sanders was a great runner, but you can't deny emmett for what he did, he's the best to me. everybuddy says barry would have had alot more yards than emmitt if he hadn't retired early, which is probibly true, i would agree with that, but the fact is, he doesn't have more yards, its not emmetts fault barry decided to reitre. plus, you can't argue with 3 superbowls vs. none.
ahhhh.....Go COLTS!
Last edited by Faccia di Angelo; 04-30-2005 at 12:54 AM.
Actually....I haven't lost....was just bored and decided to retire for the day. Now back to the argument at hand. You are kidding yourself if you don't think the supporting cast that surrounded Emmit was indeed key to his success. Let me ask you a question. Switch roles between the two backs for a minute. Put Emmit Smith with the LIons for ten years and Barry Sanders in a Cowboy's uniform. Emmit would've been about as productive as Troy Hambrick...well that's an exaggeration....but if you are even somewhat intelligent you would see that Emmit would not have nearly the success he enjoyed in Dallas. I also ask you another question...in Emmit's entire career with that all-star team, or later in his career....how many 2000 yard seasons did he have?
Ohhhh...attack my manhood. I'm hurtAnd I could give a crap about UM football being good...let them have football....MSU's got basketball...fair trade.
Nobody said it wasn't helpful to his success. No runner can do anything without an decent o-line. But that doesn't change a players ability level. Emmitt was still a better reciever and blocker than Barry. Having Aikman and Irvin didn't help him catch passes or block. I think Emmitt would still have had great individual success with Detroit but since they lacked the weapons Dallas had, there would not have been as much team success. Detroit couldn't have been that bad...they were able to beat Dallas during those days including in the 91 playoffs.
I ask you again MSU, why the need for insults?
MSU has more than just basketball over UM. The fact that you are a Spartans fan seems to be your one saving grace and the one thing we have in common.
Really guys...its not about insults or manhood....its about having good football talk.
alright...alright....I'll chill out...not that I'm scared of a board battle with Cowboy fans (think about it...why would I purposely go to a board to be outnumbered), but rather I'm getting bored with the same ol same arguments that will go back and forth with no side coming on top...I just really hate or should I say love to hate the Cowboys and their fans. Just wanted to see if I could get a rise outta people....isn't it fun to have a "bad guy" once in a while? Don't think for a second that I don't know that my own team sucks and has for a while...that was supposed to be the irony of the whole situation. So now, I'll bow and extend a hand...untill the Cowboys vs. Lions (which I will be going to again)...and look foward to some great football talk from now until the Super Bowl, as believe it or not, I DO know some about the pigskin...but also will not be afraid to speak my mind...be it right or wrong.
In fact, if you guys ever want to wander off these boards for a little while here is a link to a great football forum.
www.nfl-fans.com
It it is fun to have different opinions. Speaking your mind is great and you obviously know your stuff. I just don't get the "hate" of Cowboys fans. A lot of Cowboys fans can be pains in the ass...as can some fans of all teams. The thing that pisses me off to no end is when all fans of one team get branded with the sins of a few. Not all fans are alike.
Last edited by samikeyp; 04-30-2005 at 04:15 PM.
Not an attack but rather a valid question. You don't have to "butch up" & be an ass to make a valid point.manhood
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
