OT - FOF4 related observation and general football question.

[Axxon]

I decided this morning to try the historical seasons that our forum members so generously created and have been enjoying FOF4 more than I ever had.

I like the fact that when I picked the Bucs I got a true open cupboard right from the beginning and every other roster was full so I was getting the worst of the worst.

Good job guys, I really appreciate the effort.

I'm finishing up my first season. So far I'm 3-11 and not in contention for a great draft pick ( 5 teams worse record and 2 tied. Absolutely no chance for #1 )and all my guys are on one year deals and most want winners. Gonna be an interesting off season.

I've beaten Atl, NO, and Carolina. That's the downside to the history game, I really am in a very weak division. Oh well.

My question is regarding Barry Sanders type guys. I have a guy on my team who isn't in his league obviously but is his type of player. Let me give you an example. This week against Detroit ( lost 41-14 ) his line reads 8-56 which is 7.0 ypc which sounds great but his longest is 40 yds. Kill that and he's 7-16 which is just over 2 ypc. This is normal for him.

How much value do you put on guys like these? They can break open games but they just as often break your drives. In this example I don't really have anybody better but I'm thinking about who comes back next season.

In real football people debate the true value of Sanders because he's like this but nobody wouldn't have him on their team either. I'm talking about lesser talents though. At what point do you say, damn, exciting but he really is hurting the club and cut ties??

[Axxon]

dola,

totally FOF4 related. One of my true step up players is my kicker, Nicky Brenner. He is currently 23-27 in fg's and a perfect, don't laugh 14-14 eps.

He's not kicking chip shots either he has 4 of 50+ and 4 more of 46+. Not bad for a kicker with a 17 accuracy. Now, I'd normally never give a guy like this one season much less resign him but now, I'm not so sure.

There was no better choice this season but assuredly a guy with better ability will be around next year. How much do you value stats vs ability? What would you do.

Also, just came off an exciting but heartbreaking loss 38-35 against Pittsburgh. Rudy Bukich threw for 4 tds against us but we shut down the run. Strange, all season it's been the exact opposite. Ah well, best offense by us to date.

Chamberlain, the rb I was talking about before was 10-55 1 td. His longest run? 37 yds. 2.0 ypc otherwise.

[MikeVic]

I think stats is more important than ratings... and I'd keep that RB for sure.. but still look for another RB. This guy would be good as a backup... but I also think he could do alright as a starter. When I play Madden, I always look at the run to provide one game-breaking run... and that's what this guy does

[Axxon]

Oh, it got ugly boys.

Final game of the season...at chicago. Gale Sayers in as running back and eventual game mvp. Monstrous defense. I seriously considered a forfeit.

51-7 and our only score was an int return for a td.

Sayers ran for 105 yds and 2 tds and caught for 76 and another td.

I perused Chamberlains line and it was 4-11 so I said ha, he did NOTHING. His longest?? 12 yds hehe.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by MikeVic
I think stats is more important than ratings... and I'd keep that RB for sure.. but still look for another RB. This guy would be good as a backup... but I also think he could do alright as a starter. When I play Madden, I always look at the run to provide one game-breaking run... and that's what this guy does

Yeah, I'm keeping him but I want him to be my change of pace backup. I tried that in preseason but no one else stepped up. My concern is that since he's a one hitter kind of guy he really needs touches to get his one big run of the night and as a backup his touches are limited.

Anyway, he ended up 175-663 3.7 3 tds which isn't bad for an empty cupboard team. He's earned the right to suffer with us another year.

Also, I like the fact that he's got more loyalty than desire to play for a winner. That's pretty rare from what I've seen in this database.

BTW, he's zero threat in the passing game and that sucks.

[3ric]

Good to see you're having fun with the historical files Axxon. I really like to have one of those guys you describe as the #2 RB, and let him get 6-10 carries a game. If the starter got injured, I can lean on him to start for a game or two, but not for a long-term solution.

[Axxon]

Yeah, I'm having a blast. You guys did great work. Thanks.

I've been at work and so I'm still in the free agency phase of year two and I'm working on resigning the guys I want to keep. This is going to be the big free agency that defines the team.

I've been reading a bit about your exploits with my Bucs too. Good stuff.

Again, thanks for all the hard work.

[3ric]

Thanks!
I've discovered that a lot of my enjoyment with a football sim comes from caring about other teams in the league. To look at the "Players of the week" page and see that Bart Starr passed for three TDs, or that Jim Brown ran for 120. In my game yesterday, I knew that John Elway was available in free agency after checking out how he, Marino and Kelly was doing. Next week I lost my starting QB as he broke his leg and immediately signed Elway for $820K. That's really cool, even though Elway isn't as good there as in real life.

[Axxon]

Yeah, you hit the nail on the head for me, it's immersion. It's not like I don't know the modern guys or anything but I know that I can look at the greats I grew up watching ( and a lot of guys I don't remember too ) and also know that all the greats up until now are going to be coming down the pipe.

Just looking at the draft preview has me drooling and I don't know who I'm going to get at #6.

I 'm knee deep into FA offers now as I'm back home and while the cream of the crop isn't represented I'm going to have a very different look next season.

I only took 4 guys last season that weren't 1st year urfa's and I got them in week 4 as I didn't even bother looking at the wire until injuries made me. BTW, I got better staff than I've ever had starting out as any team. After this year they both are up for renewal but my coach has this trifecta exc/exc/exc young talent/ def play call and injury ( sweet ) He's also ex in qb and disc and he only has two talents that are fair and that's both lines. Those are his worst. In all 5 exc, 4 g, 3a and 2 fair with the biggie being the injury.

The only real veteran was RDE Roy Hilton. I took a shot at him only because he looks more loyal and I figured I had a shot at keeping him. He answered with 42 tackles 15 assists and 7.5 sacks in 12 games. Now he wants best in the league cash and I've offered. He's a fan favorite and that matters on a 3-13 team to me. I want to keep butts in the seats and he's the guy I'm banking on to do it this year.

My one sweet, sweet surprise was seeing that someone had dropped rookie SLB ( better because that was the injury I needed filled )Sam Hunt, an 8th rounder. He racked up 30 tackles and 18 assists in his first 4 games and I knew I was on to something special. He ended up after 12 games with 86t/28a/1 sack and had 2 int's returned for 123 yds and 2 tds. !!!!! Rookie of the year in 12 games. I'm going to google him a little later as I don't remember him too well IRL.

Anyway, I'm back to the phones and am looking to build a team around this fine young man who just reupped for 3 more years.

Oh, I did break down and resign K Nicky Brenner. It may backfire but he was too darned good to slight and is one of my favorite guys on the team. I'm holding off on Chamberlain right now until after a few more rounds of FA. He seems to want modest but definite starter cash. He'll get it but I want to make him sweat. We both know that John Riggins is waiting to be drafted.

[TroyF]

To your original comment about Barry Sanders type of runners. . . I wouldn't want them on my team. I would try not eo even draft one. If one somehow ended up on my roster, I'd play him for a year and then ship him off for a couple of high draft picks.

I don't think you can win tough football games when you are starting out 2nd and 10+ one quarter of the time you give the guy the ball. Playoff teams feed off of that and will simply kill you. There is a reason Barry's numbers dropped like a rock in the playoffs. It doesn't just have to do with the line, it has to do with running style. If Emmitt Smith or Terrell Davis saw nothing at the start of the play, they put their heads down and slammed it into the line for 3 yards. It allowed their teams to get enough first downs to keep their defense fresh and flip the field on their opponents. It isn't an accident that teams like the Broncos and Cowboys used to torch people in the second half of games. Barry didn't have a running style that allowed his team to stay in the game.

TroyF

[Axxon]

I'm glad you checked in Troy because we've had this discussion before and you have stuck to your views. Believe it or not it's one of the reasons I asked the question.

I believed and still haven't been convinced otherwise that Barry was the best back I've seen since Sweetness and should hold his records not Emmitt. I've said Barry was the better back.

What I'm not so sure of anymore is if in real life, I'd want to build an offense around him as opposed to Emmitt. Hey, it concerns me in a game and I do believe that in this game these runners offer a greater advantage over the Emmitt types.

I try to role play though when I play these games and in that context I'm not really sold on this type runner.

Fret not, fellow debater, if I drop Sanders as the best then I move straight to Payton. Emmitt has grudgingly earned my respect but give me sweetness behind that Cowboy line over Emmitt EVERY day of the week.

[TroyF]

I couldn't slam "Sweetness." He's a great, great player. I probably would rank him ahead of Emmitt (though not by as much as some people would). I'd rate Walter behind Jim Brown.

Either way, it wouldn't be Barry. I wouldn't put Barry in my top 10 all-time running backs. I know that is a controversial opinion. You should try attending a class at Oklahoma State and spouting off that belief.

TroyF

[Axxon]

I used to consider Jim the best. I honestly did. The very best play I've ever seen a running back make was a Jim Brown play.

Still, Walter played longer and with a worse team and was never a me first guy, ever. Jim may have had more talent but I honestly can't think of one guy I'd rather build a team around than Sweetness and remember, he was tearing my team up twice a year, as was Barry.

Sweetness goes down as my favorite. Class guy, class player, brilliant running back.

[WebEwbank]

I want a guy who will get me the 3rd-and-two, which means Emmitt, not barry. For all time (peak value - not career), I would rate Earl Campbell #1 and Marshall Faulk in the top 5.

[Leonidas]

I think the guy you described is a gamebreaker and a very valuable player, if you run that kind of offense. If you want study, three yards and a cloud of dust then he isn't your guy. But if you want that long ball threat out there then he's great.

I look at it like baseball. The guy you describe might be a .240 hitter, but he'll hit 30-40 homers. Is it worth his low average to get that occasional long ball? Then compare it with the study guy who might hit .300 but with only 10 HRs. What fits into your system better? I like the game breakers.

[Aylmar]

Originally posted by TroyF
It doesn't just have to do with the line, it has to do with running style. If Emmitt Smith or Terrell Davis saw nothing at the start of the play, they put their heads down and slammed it into the line for 3 yards.

I'd challenge that opinion. Smith and Davis had world class offensive lines. More than likely, when they're lowering their heads for three yards, it's because there is a tiny crease somewhere they're going to stick their head into. Tough runners, yes, great cutback instincts, but let's not confuse them with Earl Campbell or Jerome Bettis (all in their primes, of course).

Now, contrast that with your memories of why Barry Sanders (and runners like him) lose yards on first down. Defenders in the backfield, wrapping him up. When you have to try and make the first guy miss right after you take the handoff, that has everything to do with your line...and very little to do with your "running style". Based on his numbers this year (I realize he's old), Emmitt might agree.

I still maintain, that from a talent perspective (moves, speed, sheer ability), it's Sanders and then Brown.

[TroyF]

Originally posted by Aylmar
I'd challenge that opinion. Smith and Davis had world class offensive lines. More than likely, when they're lowering their heads for three yards, it's because there is a tiny crease somewhere they're going to stick their head into. Tough runners, yes, great cutback instincts, but let's not confuse them with Earl Campbell or Jerome Bettis (all in their primes, of course).

Now, contrast that with your memories of why Barry Sanders (and runners like him) lose yards on first down. Defenders in the backfield, wrapping him up. When you have to try and make the first guy miss right after you take the handoff, that has everything to do with your line...and very little to do with your "running style". Based on his numbers this year (I realize he's old), Emmitt might agree.

I still maintain, that from a talent perspective (moves, speed, sheer ability), it's Sanders and then Brown.

Myth. It was Barry's style to forego the 3 yard carry in favor of the chance at a 30 yard one.

I have some old Lions game tape I show to people who have your opinion to prove my point. Barry runs up to the line and looks for the most likely chance at getting BIG yardage. If it isn't in the middle, he bounces it out. If it isn't out, he tries to cut back in. He continues to do this until he's surrounded and nailed.

Davis and Smith were the opposite of that. They carried the ball with the distinct goal of hitting the first hole they saw, no matter how small that hole was. You see very few clips of TD or Emmitt running around and reversing the field before crossing the line of scrimmage.

Davis used the single cut back technique that the Broncos coaches insist to this day be used. That involves running until you see the first hole and slamming into it. Sometimes, you come out of that hole clean and romp for a TD. You almost always get a couple of yards. Emmitt didn't use the cutback as much as the quick first step into the hole. Same thing, he didn't spend time dancing around. He found the hole, hit the hole and got whatever yardage he could.

I love watching Barry run. He had some of the prettiest no gain runs you'll ever see in your life. What you miss until you watch the play again is the fact he could have had 2 or 3 right at the start of the play and chose not to take it.

In fact, there has been more than one former Detroit and Oklahoma State offensive lineman who have said they hated blocking for Barry because of that very fact. They'd block to the design of the play and open up a little crease and Barry would dance around it, hoping for a larger one.

It's one of those debates that'll rage on until the end of time. I fully expect people will look back at Barry as a better back than Emmitt. It's because he's black. j/k

It's because Barry was the more "exciting" runner. He's the Michael Jordan of football, the guy who could make any move at any time. When kids who have never seen the two start watching clips of Barry breaking NE Patriots players ankles and then see Emmitt have a "boring" straight line 15 yard run, there isn't any doubt who they'll turn to.

I firmly believe that Emmitt and TD were better and more condusive to winning championships. I wish we could have seen Barry with a dream OL at some point, I would have loved to have see the theory put to the test.

TroyF

[Aylmar]

Originally posted by TroyF
Barry runs up to the line and looks for the most likely chance at getting BIG yardage. If it isn't in the middle, he bounces it out. If it isn't out, he tries to cut back in. He continues to do this until he's surrounded and nailed.

Conjecture. You don't know what it is that he thinks he sees at the line. You're dispelling my "myth" with what you think Barry might have been thinking when he reached the line of scrimmage? I do wish we could watch the game tape that you have...it would make the debate a lot more interesting.

I love watching Barry run. He had some of the prettiest no gain runs you'll ever see in your life. What you miss until you watch the play again is the fact he could have had 2 or 3 right at the start of the play and chose not to take it.

In fact, there has been more than one former Detroit and Oklahoma State offensive lineman who have said they hated blocking for Barry because of that very fact. They'd block to the design of the play and open up a little crease and Barry would dance around it, hoping for a larger one.

It probably has nothing to do with that fact that backside blockers have to work a lot harder when dealing with a runner who reverses field. I mean, when you're the right tackle with a straight ahead guy on a play designed to go to the left..all you really have to do is make sure your guy doesn't get penetration and blow it up in the backfield, right? On the other hand, if he reverses field and your guy comes off and gets him, then there is the illusion (at least to the fans) that you "did something wrong" or were beaten on the play.

You are doing a good job of putting forth your theory that Sanders was a selfish runner who looked at stats first, though.

When kids who have never seen the two start watching clips of Barry breaking NE Patriots players ankles and then see Emmitt have a "boring" straight line 15 yard run, there isn't any doubt who they'll turn to.

And my theory is that if there is enough space for Emmitt to make a "boring" straight line run, then Sanders most likely gets 20 or 25. When you talk about long gains, the substance of your argument breaks down. You have essentially admitted that Sanders had more ability to "create" yards by making people miss. The point we're debating is his unwillingness to settle for what the line gave him in situations where there wasn't a large crease up front.

I firmly believe that Emmitt and TD were better and more condusive to winning championships. I wish we could have seen Barry with a dream OL at some point, I would have loved to have see the theory put to the test..

It would have been nice to see, that's for sure. Let's also see him with a Hall of Fame quarterback too, yes? I mean, Smith and Davis both had superstars at QB, so if we're putting Sanders in a similar situation in order to see if he can win a championship, then we have to give him the great signal caller as well.

Don't get me wrong, I think that Smith and Davis were great backs. I love guys who'll stick their nose into the pile and get the tough yards (I'm a Steelers fan, for goodness sake). I'm not sure I can effectively challenge your belief that Emmitt and TD were more condusive to winning championships (after all, they each have a couple). I will, however, challenge the opinion that Sanders wasn't one of the best runners of all-time.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Aylmar


It would have been nice to see, that's for sure. Let's also see him with a Hall of Fame quarterback too, yes? I mean, Smith and Davis both had superstars at QB, so if we're putting Sanders in a similar situation in order to see if he can win a championship, then we have to give him the great signal caller as well.

What, Eric Hipple wasn't Hall of Fame material???

Sorry, I know they only played one game together but Eric is still the WORST QB I've ever seen in my life so any time I can work him into a discussion I simply must.

I do like the way you present your argument though, lets wait for Troy's rebuttal.

[Aylmar]

Thanks for posting this thread, Axxon. I'm having a great time going back and forth with Troy on this one.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Aylmar
Thanks for posting this thread, Axxon. I'm having a great time going back and forth with Troy on this one.

Thanks for posting in it. This discussion never gets old and you're doing a better job than most I've seen in defending Barry. Keep up the good work.

[Leonidas]

Wow, this turned into a Barry v Emmitt thread, which is cool. I am on the Barry side. Simple reason. It was that amazing Monday night game they played many years ago. Detroit-Dallas, Barry-Emmitt, both in their prime having among their best nights ever against each other. My impression from that game with both men at their very best was Barry was the better pure runner, Emmitt had the better team. Not that Emmitt is bad or overrated, but on that night with both guys letting it all hang loose I thought Barry was better.

[TroyF]

WHOA. . . I'm NOT suggesting Barry was selfish. Lets get that out of the way right now. It is a style of running. Barry hits HR's. Smith gets on base. The HR hitter may not be selfish, he's doing what he does best. Ditto for the other guy.

Read this article:

http://www.dallasnews.com/specialrep...32001smith.htm

A couple of interesting things jump out at you:

1) 18 of the 27 players polled took Barry.
2)Most of the coaches and GM's took Emmitt.
3) Most of the OFFENSIVE coaches took Emmitt.

I don't like runners to this day that have Barry's style in the pro game. I'd take Stephen Davis over Shaun Alexander for example. Davis only has a handful of 50+ yard runs in his career. Alexander gets a handful a year. Alexander doesn't hit the hole hard, he's looking for the big play.

You talk about how Barry might have gained 25 when Emmitt gained just 15. . . the problem was Barry didn't go after the same holes with the same style. Smith was the prototypical "downhill" runner. Barry was like a scat back on crack. You are assuming those holes would be open field runs where Barry excelled. Most of Smith's weren't that way at all, they were runs through small holes where he ran over a couple of people on his way to the yardage.

You guys may be right, Barry runs real pretty. Then again, Jeff George looks the part of a great QB and throws the most beautiful ball you've ever seen in your life. Would you rather have him or Joe Montana? Give me functional anyday of the week. A couple of other notes:

1)People who do these comparisons often don't bother to look at the fact that early in his career, Emmitt broke open a lot of big runs himself.

2) Emmitt did run with some pathetic lines. The idea he never had a poor line to run with is a myth as well. He ran behind some horrible Dallas lines in 2000 and 2001. Larry Allen was his only notable offensive lineman during those years (and I think Horned Frog Purple would agree he was going to the pro bowl those years by reputation more than anything else). Emmitt still racked up 1000 yard seasons. Emmitt was already an aging back by this time. My guess is he'd have had no problems putting up 1400+ yards were he in his prime.

TroyF

[Aylmar]

Originally posted by TroyF

Read this article:

http://www.dallasnews.com/specialre...232001smith.htm

Good article. The most interesting point (to me) is from Billick, where he says "With Emmitt, you know you're always going to get something". Through the end of the 2000 season (when the article was written), Smith lost yardage on 9.4% of his 3,537 carries (Sanders, by comparison, lost yardage on 14.5% of his 3,062 carries). The myth surrounding Smith is that he never loses yardage. He does, it just comes in less dramatic fashion.

Hmm...Sanders lost an average of 2.5 yards a carry when he was tackled behind the line. Smith? 2.1. (I know you can do the math from the article, but I'm saving people the trouble). So, we're talking about a 5% increase in negative touches and an average of .4 additional negative yards per touch (I knew what I meant here...too bad I didn't type it). In trade for that, I get a guy who averages almost a yard (.8, actually) more every time he gets the ball. Not a bad trade-off, if you ask me.

You are assuming those holes would be open field runs where Barry excelled. Most of Smith's weren't that way at all, they were runs through small holes where he ran over a couple of people on his way to the yardage.

You may have a point regarding the type of hole they run through at first, but any run beyond five or ten yards in length essentially becomes an open field run. No matter how they get through the line, Sanders does more in the secondary.

You guys may be right, Barry runs real pretty. Then again, Jeff George looks the part of a great QB and throws the most beautiful ball you've ever seen in your life. Would you rather have him or Joe Montana? Give me functional anyday of the week.

Jeff George? Really? Barry Sanders is a Hall Of Fame caliber player. The only way Jeff George gets into the Hall is with a ticket and a cavity search. You're reaching. A more accurate comparison might be Montana vs. Marino (pretty numbers, no championships).

1)People who do these comparisons often don't bother to look at the fact that early in his career, Emmitt broke open a lot of big runs himself.

Agreed, Smith had his share of big runs. Not as many as Sanders, but he had them.

Emmitt did run with some pathetic lines. The idea he never had a poor line to run with is a myth as well. He ran behind some horrible Dallas lines in 2000 and 2001. Larry Allen was his only notable offensive lineman during those years (and I think Horned Frog Purple would agree he was going to the pro bowl those years by reputation more than anything else). Emmitt still racked up 1000 yard seasons. Emmitt was already an aging back by this time. My guess is he'd have had no problems putting up 1400+ yards were he in his prime.

That is notable until you consider that Sanders only had two Pro Bowlers on the offensive line his entire career. Lomas Brown (1991-1996) and Kevin Glover (1998). If you're feeling generous, we could say that since Jeff Hartings was an alternate at guard, he had three. Not bad work for a "non-functional" back.

I'm not trying to make you like Sanders more than Smith or admit that you're wrong. I am dumbfounded by your "not in my top 10" comment, but hey, that's life....everyone sees things a little differently.

Sorry....had to edit to fix an error in a statistical point I was making. Not sure it worked...but I did it anyway.

[TroyF]

The not top 10 comment comes from the fact that I truly believe you could not win a championship with Barry. I don't think the HR hitting style works for championship football teams. The biggest reason is that in the playoffs, teams just don't give up a lot of big running plays. If you are relying on those plays to get your yardage, you will not be successful. Also, many playoff games are played in bad weather on bad fields. Barry sucked under both sets of conditions. Is Barry going to give a me a tough, grind it out 25 carry, 100 yard game with no carries over 8 yards against a top 10 defense? I don't think he does no matter what line you put him behind.

If I'm rating the top 10 running backs of all time, my criteria isn't going to be based on how pretty the running style was. It's going to be based on what backs I feel I can win a championship with. That would be guys like Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Emmitt Smith, Earl Campbell, Jim Taylor, John Riggins, etc.

TroyF

[Samdari]

I always love these Sanders debates. There is no question he made some of the most amazing runs any of us have ever seen. I, however have also long been a proponent of the idea that he was part of the reason the Lions never won.

The reasoning behind that was that you need to run the ball to win football games. Its not that yards gained by running are inherently more valuable than those gained by passing, but the consistent gaining of yardage in short bursts makes it possible to have long offensive drives. I have long held the perception that Sanders did not give you that, he gained yards more like a passing team. I remember what Troy remembers - Barry constantly eschewing the proper hole, preferring to stop-start-dance in the backfield looking for the long gain. I also would not have put him in my top 10.

But the numbers Aylmar quotes seem to conflict with my long held beliefs. To put a Crash Davis spin on it, if both averaged about 320 carries a season (to use a convenient number) and the losing carries were 15% and 10% Sanders averaged about one more negative carry per game than Smith. If Sanders only gave you one more negative carry per game than a typical running back (and lets assume that Emmit's 10% is typical) then maybe his tendency to lose yards has been exaggerated.

[Aylmar]

Originally posted by TroyF
Is Barry going to give a me a tough, grind it out 25 carry, 100 yard game with no carries over 8 yards against a top 10 defense? I don't think he does no matter what line you put him behind.

Well, let's look at Barry's playoff games, then.

1991 Dallas - 12 car 69 yds 1 TD & 5 catches for 30

Ninety-nine total yards....and averaging well above your benchmark of four yards per carry. Lions win 38-6. Dallas has the 8th best rushing defense that year.

1991 Was - 11 car 44 yds & 4 catches for 15

Squeaking it out here...still...four yards a carry. I guess you don't get the ball that much late in the game when you lose 41-10. Washington's defense was 3rd against the run.

1993 Green Bay 27 car 169 yds & 2 catches 0 yds

Well, he's met the criteria here...too bad the Lions lost 28-24. Gotta be Barry, though, right? I mean, if a power back is in there, the Lions roll. Green Bay's run defense was ranked 8th.

1994 Green Bay 13 car -1 yds & 3 catch 4 yds

Yep, this is a terrible outing for Sanders. In Green Bay, no less. The Packers are the 3rd best team in the league at stopping the run. Too bad I can't throw this game out.

1995 Philly 10 car 40 yards & 2 catches for 19

Good solid four per pop average for Barry. Too bad the game's a shootout that Detroit lost 58-37. Philly, oddly enough, was 19th against the run in 1995 (5th overall).

1997 Tampa Bay 18 car 65 yds & 5 catches 43 yds

Only 3.67 yds per carry for Sanders, but he did pitch in 43 receiving yards. The Bucs are 6th against the run and 3rd in overall defense in 1997.

The home games are the 1991 Cowboys and the 1993 Packers. The rest of them are road games. Other than the terrible outing in 1994, I don't really see any numbers here that would indicate that Sanders cost his team the game. Of course, lots of running backs have a hard time running at Lambeau in January.

The game situations have to be right in order for a back to get to that magical 25 carry number that you're talking about in your post. The only time Sanders got 25 carries, he more than delivered on your 100 yard requirement against a top ten defense (of course, he had a gain or two over 8 yards, so he doesn't match up perfectly with what you're looking for in a "championship" running back).

I'm not sure the field argument is a selling point for Emmitt, either. He played on AstroTurf for well over half the games in his career. If you consider Dallas, Philly, and New York all had turf...there's 10 games a season right there...

[TroyF]

Aylmar,

Do you have play by plays of any of those games? I'm curious what the numbers would be if we took out his longest two runs. Take the 12 carry, 69 yard day for example. If he busted two 20 yard runs, he only had 10 carries for 29 yards the rest of the time, he wasn't running the ball well at all.

One thing missing in the report from that article is the fact that no gains are not counted, only negative yardage. I remember a statistic from his 2000 yard season that said over 25% of his carries went for no gains or losses of yardage. Now, that's when he's at his BEST. 1 in 4 times he'll get you nothing. I don't even want to think about what he was at his worst.

What Samdari said up above is what the reasoning behind my dislike of Sanders running style comes from. Look at most of the Super Bowl championship teams. They didn't have big play runners as much as they had consistent ground gainers that wore defenses down. There are a few exceptions, as there is to every rule. . . but for the most part you don't see Barry Sanders type runs in the playoffs.

I like how you point out his opponents run defense numbers in the playoff games. That's EXACTLY the point. He's going to be facing run defenses that will not allow him to bust open 50 yard runs. He rarely excelled against those defenses. When you speak about the blowouts against some of those teams, don't you think Barry could have helped prevent them with some tough first downs to move the ball and give the defense a rest? Take that 58-37 game, wouldn't the Lions have ran the ball a bit to gain a little bit of control if they could? I mean, when the Eagles stomped off to 31 points in the 2nd quarter, wouldn't it have been in the Lions best interests to have handed the ball to Barry a few times in a row to ease the onslaught? I only wish I had a play by play to see how and when Barry gained those 40 yards.

Fun debate. Great discussion. I see some of your points even. I still don't think Barry is the guy I'd want for my team.

TroyF