Barry Sanders....greatest back ever

[Havok]

The guy ran for 2010 yards in 14 games!!!!!!!

only other player close was O.J. who ran for 2003 in 14 games 1 season.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by TroyF

6) Last, but NOT least. . . I keep hearing about the lack of weapons poor Barry had around him. Well, how many hall of famers did Payton play with on offense? Was it the Bob Avellini years everyone looks so fondly on? Or was it that hall of famer Vince Evans, who once completed 44% of his passes for a full season that make people think Barry had it worse than Sweetness? If you are going to use the excuse that Barry had no talent around him, then give other backs who were great their due. Barry had much better talent around him than some other high profile backs, Sweetness, Juice and Gale Sayers just to run off a few.

The Lions actually had two good linemen during the bulk of Barry's time. Two annual all-pros in center Kevin Glover and tackle Lomas Brown. The other three were interchangeable parts for the most part.

Other than Herman Moore, the offense had NO talent. The QB was mediocre to poor throughout. Rodney Peete, Erik Kramer, Dave Krieg, Scott Mitchell, Andre Ware, etc, etc, etc. Sure, Scott Mitchell put up some decent numbers but that was because of Barry Sanders. Sanders' presence opened up the passing game big time.

Just look what happened to the Lions' so-called talent post-Barry. Brett Perriman? Nothing. Johnny Morton? Nothing. Any of the above QBs? Nothing.

[vtbub]

Earl Campbell was the best pure running back I ever saw. He did things tha I haven't seen since. He had speed and would just flat out run over people.

My top 5 that I've seen:

1. Payton- No weakness anywhere in his game.
2. Campbell- A linebacker at RB
3. Emmitt- Durable, could catch, could kind of block, oh, and could run.
4. LT- Maybe the best player in the NFL today.
5. Barry- Someone used the Dr. J argument above, it fits.

All time, based on stories, I'd put Brown at 2 and OJ at 4.

[TroyF]

Are you guys really trying to make the arguement that the run and shoot didn't help Barry, especially as compared to Walter?

8 men in the box, are you F'n kidding me? The defense had a 4 WR, spread formation to deal with most of the time. And why didn't his loss numbers change with a fullback?

As for the stats, why is it Barry gets credit for everything he does, but Hermon Moore's four consecutive 1,000+ seasons or Scott Mitchells 3500+ 32 TD/12 INT year mean nothing?

As for after Barry, a lot of people forget about that too. After Barry left the team high and dry without a replacement, they ended up going 9-7 with guys like Greg Hill, Cedric Irvin and Ron Rivers. They finished 15th in the league in points scored. (compared to the last year of Barry when they were 20) They also went to the playoffs.

The following year they brought in James Stewart, who did in fact go over 1000 yards. They went 9-7 that year as well, with only a gut wrenching fourth quarter loss to the Bears keeping them out of the playoffs.

It was three years down the road after Barry left that the team started to fall apart beyond repair, not the first year.

And making the numbers up with lots of yardage on one big play doesn't make up for all of the drives killed because of 2nd and 12 or 3rd and 10+. I tell you what, go look at all of the great offenses and you tell me how they did on third and long. No matter how good the offense, your success rate plummets in that situation. And when your RB continually leads the league in carries for losses, you are in a lot of third and longs.

Again, a Detroit fan spelled it out for me above. He admitted Barry had a good OLine and that's why the Lions won in '91. While I think the Lions had some decent to above average lines elsewhere, I'll throw that away. I'll just take the comment for face value. He had a good line in 91 and the Lions won.

Playoffs - 22 carries for 66 yards. 1 carry for 47 yards and a TD. Does that one single carry make up for all the times the offense was in third and long because of Barry's continued losses? I can't find the box scores of those games, but I'm fairly certing there was probably another ten or twelve yards run in there somewhere making the stats look even more ugly.

I'm done. There is no way to ever convince the Sanders fanatics that he was the best, and quite frankly, I loved watching the guy. I'll write a blog on it and be done.

Keep drinking the kool-aid

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Why is this not a poll?

My vote: Sanders == Best

[JeffNights]

And there is no way to convince the closet-Barry Haters that he isnt the best.

Barry pwns all, thats it.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm with Troy. No way that Sanders was the best. Most entaining, without a doubt, but too many negative yard runs and too many excuses for them. Jim Brown was the greatest RB in NFL history (so far).

[molson]

When a "who's the greatest ever" discussion starts including talk about how much better someone could have been if X, Y, and Z, then I think the discussion is over and that guy isn't the winner.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Eric Dickerson is far and away the most underappreciated of the great backs. I might go with him.

I'd say he is the Tony Fernandez of football.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by stevew

I'd say he is the Tony Fernandez of football.

[Izulde]

Jim Brown was not only the greatest running back in the history of the NFL, he may be the greatest athlete of all time.

People forget that he was as skilled a lacrosse player as he was a football player.

[JeffW]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Eric Dickerson is far and away the most underappreciated of the great backs. I might go with him.

Lenny Moore is prob. the most underappreciated great back.

[DougWyatt]

<< Lifelong Lion fan (I appreciate your "I'm sorry's" - lol); and Barry was incredible to watch every week. Just the anticipation that on any play, you'd get to see him sprinting to the end zone and see 2 or 3 jockstraps and a couple more pairs of shoes scattered about the defense. It was thrilling.

I'd sum up Barry vs. the all-time great Running Backs like this.

Barry was the most thrilling - bar none.
He was a great "Running" back; but wasn't close to the best ever at the position.
He wasn't a very good blocking back, or a reciever. And as some have said, he couldn't be counted on to put his head down and pick up important short yardage plays. Which is why, I believe, he was taken out in goal line situations.

What I can't forget though, is that for every game breaking run - we had to endure a bunch of 2nd and 10, 11, or 12s.

Bottom line, if I am building a team to win 10-12 games and a superbowl; and can take any RB ever - Barry probably wouldn't be in my top 10. He didn't do enough all around for me.

However, if I have to have 60 yards in 1 play and I have to run the ball, or if I'm looking to sell out a stadium, or create highlight reels - give me Barry first, any day of the week.

Also, I don't know why Gale Sayers is mentioned with every great RB conversation. IMO he wasn't all that. Compare his stats with Billy Sims' (both had short careers due to knee injuries) and they are about the same. And you don't here people yappin' about Sims along with the greatest of all time.

[JeeberD]

Barry's overrated. 'Nuff said...

[st.cronin]

I think it's certainly arguable that Barry Sanders is the greatest running back of all time. Those arguing against him are claiming that his rate of poor runs/great runs makes him less than somebody like Payton or Emmitt who had fewer of each. I'm not convinced by those arguments. I think the case against him hasn't really been made.

Note: I do not think he was the greatest running back ever. I don't really know who is. I just think he has a very good case.

[SelzShoes]

25 or so years ago I was watching a game with my aunt--who followed the Bears since the late '40s--and I made some comment about Walter Payton being the greatest ever.

She told me, in that polite calm voice of hers, that the only reason I thought that is I never saw Jim Brown. She compared it to watching a grown man playing against a Pop Warner team

She also was big on a old guy named Marion Motley, but I don't know enough about football to know who that was.

[JeeberD]

Marion Motley...fullback for the NYG, correct? The highlights I've seen of him he's just running over fools.

[Eaglesfan27]

I think Jim Brown is great, but I really wonder how well he would do against bigger, more athletic players of this generation? LT just amazes me. I think if he can continue this kind of production for another 4 or 5 years, he will be my top choice in this argument. When he broke the record today, EVERY Denver player had to know he was getting the ball, but he still made the record breaking TD look pretty easy.

[SelzShoes]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

I think Jim Brown is great, but I really wonder how well he would do against bigger, more athletic players of this generation?

If he came up with this generation though, he'd have the same conditioning and training and would be bigger, and he was pretty athletic to begin with. He was, as Izlude pointed out, a great lacrosse player.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JeeberD

Marion Motley...fullback for the NYG, correct? The highlights I've seen of him he's just running over fools.

The Browns, actually. He was on the team with Otto Graham. 5 years after he left the Browns, Jim Brown came up. People don't realize that the Browns have had two of the greatest RBs of all time, and within a fairly condensed time period.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SelzShoes

If he came up with this generation though, he'd have the same conditioning and training and would be bigger, and he was pretty athletic to begin with. He was, as Izlude pointed out, a great lacrosse player.

Not only was he a great lacrosse player, he's in the Lacross Hall of Fame.

And wondering how past players would do in the current generation is silly. You can only judge how they did against their contemporaries. There are too many things that are different today than back then... such a comparison would lead to players like Warrick Dunn being considered better than just about any RB before 1980 (not that I think that Dunn isn't a wonderful player, but such a statement would be absurd).

[cartman]

Not to mention Red Grange or Jim Thorpe, who simply dominated their peers, but would be at most cornerbacks in today's game.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Antmeister

Barry was still able to get 1000 plus yards a game, even when the guy was losing yardage some of the time

Damn I missed all these games...

I stand corrected... 1000/game he was the greatest

[cartman]

Maximum-Football versions of Barry are automatically exempt.

[JeffW]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think it's certainly arguable that Barry Sanders is the greatest running back of all time. Those arguing against him are claiming that his rate of poor runs/great runs makes him less than somebody like Payton or Emmitt who had fewer of each. I'm not convinced by those arguments. I think the case against him hasn't really been made.

Greatest player ever:

2.5 yards/carry, standard deviation of 0 yards/carry.

With such a player, you would never lose a football game. Hopefully it's clear from this thought experiment that having a low SD(i.e. gaining yardage consistently) is quite valuable.

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Damn I missed all these games...

I stand corrected... 1000/game he was the greatest

That's what I get for posting 2 o'clock in the morning. But yes, he was that wonderful.

[IMetTrentGreen]

People forget that he was as skilled a lacrosse player as he was a football player.

i'm sorry, but how many dancing competitions has he won?

Hopefully it's clear from this thought experiment that having a low SD(i.e. gaining yardage consistently) is quite valuable.

exactly. somebody who gets 4 yards a carry going 4, 4, 4, is a ton more valuable that someone who averages 5 going 15, 0, 0.

[stevew]

What the hell does being skilled at lacrosse have to do with anything? Lee Mays is an extremely talented pick up basketball player, does that add to his ability as an NFL Wide Receiver.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by stevew

What the hell does being skilled at lacrosse have to do with anything? Lee Mays is an extremely talented pick up basketball player, does that add to his ability as an NFL Wide Receiver.

It has to do with the athleticism and he was more than skilled or a talented pick-up player. As ISiddiqui pointed out, Brown was an all-world, Hall of Fame calibre-player in lacrosse as well.

Plus, lacrosse emphasizes some of the same types of speed, quickness, and strength that football does.

[CU Tiger]

You really cant compare sports here...(I might bring up Bo Jackson again...or GASP Deon Sanders ) I mena the fact THAT he was a good athlete means he would have probably been good at any sport, had he concentrated, practiced etc.

But World Class lacrosse?

I mean he was better than all 8 players in the world? Really? That is impressive.

Then again I hear Barry throws a mean frisbee

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by Izulde

It has to do with the athleticism and he was more than skilled or a talented pick-up player. As ISiddiqui pointed out, Brown was an all-world, Hall of Fame calibre-player in lacrosse as well.

By that logic, all the Jim Brown-ites need to change their vote to Jim Thorpe.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by VPI97

By that logic, all the Jim Brown-ites need to change their vote to Jim Thorpe.

Not really. It was just answering the charge that Brown wouldn't be athletic enough in today's NFL.

[SelzShoes]

Originally Posted by VPI97

By that logic, all the Jim Brown-ites need to change their vote to Jim Thorpe.

Jim Brown was not a great football player because of his lacrosse skills--His lacrosse skills is a testament to that admittedly amibigous quality of athleticism. It is another piece of the puzzle in trying to gauge what his overall skill set was.

I think you could build a great argument for Jim Thorpe as the all-time greatest because he has a body of work, in addition to being an elite football player at at time when the game was in a development phase, that showed a skill set that could adapt to any era of the sport. Jim Brown, I think, has a similar background set of skills that shows an adaptablity that the true greats, in any sport, have.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by JeffW

Greatest player ever:

2.5 yards/carry, standard deviation of 0 yards/carry.

With such a player, you would never lose a football player. Hopefully it's clear from this thought experiment that having a low SD(i.e. gaining yardage consistently) is quite valuable.

Well, if Emmitt Smith and Barry Sanders had the same yards per carry, you could certainly use this argument to convince me that Emmitt was the greater player. But their ypc were NOT the same. Plus, there is no debate that Emmitt played behind the better line. So, I remain unconvinced.

[ISiddiqui]

You are missing the point. The important part isn't the ypc of the "Greatest player ever", its the standard deviation of 0.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by IMetTrentGreen

somebody who gets 4 yards a carry going 4, 4, 4, is a ton more valuable that someone who averages 5 going 15, 0, 0.

Due to standard fumbling rates and offensive penalty rates, someone who goes 4, 4, 4 isn't going to get you to the end zone more often than not.

If YPC is equal, I think I'd take someone who has a higher chance of going all the way and guaranteeing a touchdown as opposed to someone who takes more plays to get there. With one big play, an offense has less of a chance of something going wrong as a unit than with a series of smaller, more consistant gains from a running back. I mean, in the 4, 4, 4 scenario all you need is one false start and the offense is stopped.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You are missing the point. The important part isn't the ypc of the "Greatest player ever", its the standard deviation of 0.

No, I'm not missing the point, unless the point is that standard deviation is the ONLY thing that matters. In which case, yeah, I don't see that.

I mean, who had a standard deviation of 0? Nobody. So the argument against Barry Sanders is that his standard deviation is more important than his ypc. Which may be true, but I am not persuaded.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

No, I'm not missing the point, unless the point is that standard deviation is the ONLY thing that matters. In which case, yeah, I don't see that.

I mean, who had a standard deviation of 0? Nobody. So the argument against Barry Sanders is that his standard deviation is more important than his ypc. Which may be true, but I am not persuaded.

Point being that standard deviation is far more important than most people seem to realize. And yes, the argument is that Sanders' poor standard deviation is a pretty large reason not to name him the best. Sometimes it is better to be consistantly above average than exciting game breaker one player but below average running for the next 5.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

I don't see where statistical analysis gets you in a thread like this. We all watched Barry play and all formed an opinion. I don't care what the numbers say, Barry Sanders was superhuman and I've never seen anyone like him.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

I don't see where statistical analysis gets you in a thread like this. We all watched Barry play and all formed an opinion. I don't care what the numbers say, Barry Sanders was superhuman and I've never seen anyone like him.

I agree with this. Numbers have their place in these discussions, for certain, but I have never seen any running back like Barry Sanders. No one I have seen has come close.

[Alan T]

Aren't all of these statements of "Who cares about the stats, just watching him, Barry was the best ever" actually just speak more volume to his probably being the most entertaining?

I honestly have no clue who I would consider the "best" ever, I don't really even know a great way to judge that objectively in a way that can measure their ability to Carry, catch, block, special teams, or other intangibles that might be involved.

I remember watching Walter Payton do things that no one else in the league would do. I remember Barry Sanders doing things that no one else in the league would do.. I can't honestly tell you if either are the "best" ever, but I am really glad I got to watch both of them play.

I guess I just get irritated at times when people's opinions of who the best are, just are only limited to what they personally experienced. Barry Sanders vs Jim Brown .. Michael Jordan vs Bill Russell .. . Barry Bonds vs Babe Ruth...

Every sport has its current star vs stars of old debate, and younger people almost always point to the stars of today while older people generall, but not always stick to those they remember growing up. Maybe its a tie.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Every sport has its current star vs stars of old debate, and younger people almost always point to the stars of today while older people generall, but not always stick to those they remember growing up. Maybe its a tie.

You're exactly right. That's why I'll always say that Walter Payton is the best football player ever. That's the guy I grew up watching and who I wanted to emulate in every way when I was a kid. No one could ever replace him atop the pantheon of football players in my eyes.

[Chubby]

Barry = underrated
Emmitt = overrated
Jim Brown = best RB ever

[IMetTrentGreen]

If YPC is equal, I think I'd take someone who has a higher chance of going all the way and guaranteeing a touchdown as opposed to someone who takes more plays to get there. With one big play, an offense has less of a chance of something going wrong as a unit than with a series of smaller, more consistant gains from a running back. I mean, in the 4, 4, 4 scenario all you need is one false start and the offense is stopped.

and 15,0,0 would get you 3rd and 15 with a penalty. and barry didn't get long runs every three plays.

the point is that 4,4,4 will keep you out of unmanageable 3rd downs. 15 yards isn't a whole lot on a 100 yard football field. barry broke 2 long runs a game. between 6-14 points. the rest of the time he was averaging less than 3 ypc and kept his team in 2nd and 3rd and long.

meanwhile emmitt will keep his teams in 3rd and 2 or 3, a down with a much higher success rate. the reason dallas won all those games is that they had a passing game that could create big plays when teams played the run, and a tight end and wr who were reliable under ten yards to convert first downs. detroit couldn't survive in 2nd as 12, but really, who could.

tangent time: if anyone in the dallas offense was overrated, it was troy aikman. what year was it that emmitt held out the first two games, and dallas went 0-2? then he came back and they won the superbowl. that offense worked because of emmitt, not anyone else. aikman isn't brett farve, he was never going to create. he took what was there, and what was there was always because of emmitt.

no denying emmitt played on better teams than barry talent-wise, but the production of the dallas offense ran through emmitt, no doubt about it.

[IMetTrentGreen]

oh, and troy made a very important point. walter payton played with less talent than barry did, but walter was the best ever. thats what a legendary football player looks like. if there was a guy in his way, he could just run him over. he kept his feet moving and kept the chains moving. barry wasn't a one man show. as someone else said, saying he needed 'x, y and z' kind of deflates his argument.

payton didn't need anything but the ball.

[JPhillips]

I don't see where statistical analysis gets you in a thread like this.

The problem is that we don't have enough statistics to analyze. The major point against Barry is that he got too many negative yardage runs. However, we don't have any numbers to back this up. We think its true, but how do we know its more than average?

We also don't have numbers on first downs or mean ypr. Without more numbers the most of the arguments against Barry have no more credibility than saying "I remember Barry was awesome."

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by IMetTrentGreen

barry wasn't a one man show.

You obviously never saw Barry play. He was the very epitome of the "one man show" at running back. Almost every time he touched the ball it was Barry vs. almost the other team's entire defense.

And you honestly think that Walter Peyton had less talent around him in, say, 1985 than Barry had in any year he was in the league? You really must have never watched the Lions play.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

You obviously never saw Barry play. He was the very epitome of the "one man show" at running back. Almost every time he touched the ball it was Barry vs. almost the other team's entire defense.

And you honestly think that Walter Peyton had less talent around him in, say, 1985 than Barry had in any year he was in the league? You really must have never watched the Lions play.

I was always bitter they insisted on taking barry out at the goalline. (when he was on my ffl team)

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

And you honestly think that Walter Peyton had less talent around him in, say, 1985 than Barry had in any year he was in the league? You really must have never watched the Lions play.

It's not hard to argue that the Bears from '75 to '83 were worse than the Lions in the '90s.

Bears Pro Bowlers during Payton's career (75-87)

1975	Wally Chambers	DT
	Walter Payton	RB
1976	Wally Chambers	DT
1977	Allan Ellis	CB
	Walter Payton	RB
1978	Walter Payton	RB
1979	Walter Payton	RB
1980	Gary Fencik	S
	Dan Hampton	DT
	Walter Payton	RB
1981	Gary Fencik	S
1982	Dan Hampton	DT
1983	Walter Payton	RB
	Mike Singletary	LB
1984	Todd Bell	S
	Richard Dent	DE
	Dan Hampton	DT
	Walter Payton	RB
	Mike Singletary	LB
1985	Jim Covert	T
	Richard Dent	DE
	Dave Duerson	S
	Dan Hampton	DT
	Jay Hilgenberg	C
	Jim McMahon	QB
	Walter Payton	RB
	Mike Singletary	LB
	Otis Wilson	LB
1986	Jim Covert	T
	Dave Duerson	S
	Wilbur Marshall	LB
	Steve McMichael	DT
	Jay Hilgenberg	C
	Walter Payton	RB
	Mike Singletary	LB
1987	Dave Duerson	S
	Wilbur Marshall	LB
	Steve McMichael	DT
	Jay Hilgenberg	C
	Mike Singletary	L

Lions Pro Bowlers during Sander's career (89-98)

1998	Kevin Glover, C Jason Hanson, K Herman Moore, WR Robert Porcher, DE Barry Sanders, RB
1997	Kevin Glover, C Herman Moore, WR Barry Sanders, RB
1996	Lomas Brown, T Kevin Glover, C Herman Moore, WR Barry Sanders, RB
1995	Lomas Brown, T Mel Gray, KR Herman Moore, WR Barry Sanders, RB Chris Spielman, LB
1994	Lomas Brown, T Barry Sanders, RB Pat Swilling, LB
1993	Lomas Brown, T Mel Gray, KR Barry Sanders, RB
1992	Jerry Ball, NT Bennie Blades, S Lomas Brown, T Mel Gray, KR Barry Sanders, RB Chris Spielman, LB
1991	Jerry Ball, NT Lomas Brown, T Mel Gray, KR Barry Sanders, RB Chris Spielman, LB
1990	Jerry Ball, NT Ed Murray, K Barry Sanders, RB Chris Speilman, LB
1989	Jim Arnold, P Michael Cofer, LB

The number of Pro Bowlers is probably not the best method to determine relative strength, but it'll give you an idea of how horrible the Bears were.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The problem is that we don't have enough statistics to analyze. The major point against Barry is that he got too many negative yardage runs. However, we don't have any numbers to back this up. We think its true, but how do we know its more than average?

We also don't have numbers on first downs or mean ypr. Without more numbers the most of the arguments against Barry have no more credibility than saying "I remember Barry was awesome."

The Elias Sports Bureau would like to have a word with you. They have accumulated all of these stats, plus tons of others based on down/distance/time of game, etc.