A Football Life: Great Wall of Dallas

[Genghis Khan]

Pretty much. This is essentially what I was saying when I posted about people who overly credit that line for Emmitt's success. They make it out like Emmitt ran behind that 92/93/94/95 line his whole career. It's not accurate.

Emmitt spent a good portion of his prime behind guys like McIver, Adams, Shiver, etc.

The line from about 96/97 to 2002 was nothing special. That's pretty much half his career.

 

[NoDak]

Nodak is correct.

I will strangle somebody for you if you want me to. Just say when.

 

[data]

Haters gon hate

 

[Clay_Allison]

Pretty much. This is essentially what I was saying when I posted about people who overly credit that line for Emmitt's success. They make it out like Emmitt ran behind that 92/93/94/95 line his whole career. It's not accurate.

Emmitt spent a good portion of his prime behind guys like McIver, Adams, Shiver, etc.

The line from about 96/97 to 2002 was nothing special. That's pretty much half his career.

This.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I agree that both helped each other, but if you think that line made Emmitt better than he truly was, then maybe you need to be reminded of what he did once that team became average then dipped even lower and became complete shit.

By 1998, Cowboys were nowhere close to being a great team and that line wasn't anything special, but this is what he did that year: 1,332 yards rushing, 13 TD's, 2 TD's receiving. People were beginning to wonder after a tough 1997 if he had anything left. He proved in 98 that he had plenty left.

1999, at the age of 30 and on an 8-8 team with no Michael Irvin, and no Troy Aikman for a good part of the year, he put together one of the most impressive seasons of his career.

He led the NFL in 100 yard rushing efforts with 9, ran for 1,400 yards, rushed for 11 TD's and again, scored 2 TD's receiving. This was the season when teams began loading up the box because they had no reason to respect the Cowboys passing game, and yet, there he was having his best season in over 3 years. Remember that awesome night against the Vikings where he ran for 140 on the 1st half? He did that with Jason Garrett playing QB.....just sayin'.

2000 - this is the year where the Cowboys became total shit. No QB, no passing game, and Emmitt at the age of 31 ties an NFL record with his 10th straight 1,000 yard season. 1,200 yards rushing and 9 TD's.

2001 - this was probably the worst of those Campo teams. I mean, they had Quinthy at QB for crying out loud. There are no weapons on this team to speak of, but that doesn't stop Emmitt from setting an NFL record with his 11th straight 1,000 yard season......and keep in mind that he is 32 years old when he does this.

2002 - the first signs of decline, but like 2001, he is the only halfway decent offensive player we have and yet he still gets to week 17 with only 20 yards needed for another 1,000 yard season, but unfortunately, the O-line was awful against the Skins and he only gained 13 yards on 18 carries. While he didn't get his 1,000, it's clear that he wasn't just limping along. Most guys by this point at 33 are struggling to get to 800, but Emmitt was still a productive player for the Cowboys.

To me, what he did in his 30's, between 99 and 2002 on awful teams with bad O-lines, speaks volumes about how great he truly was. If you don't think he was equally responsible for his success in the early 90's, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

And this.

 

[Bob Roberts]

Booze: "that line made Emmitt."

Smitty:

You didn't "say" it, but you clearly endorsed it.

No kidding. This was the entire argument!

 

[EZ22]

I agree that both helped each other, but if you think that line made Emmitt better than he truly was, then maybe you need to be reminded of what he did once that team became average then dipped even lower and became complete shit.

By 1998, Cowboys were nowhere close to being a great team and that line wasn't anything special, but this is what he did that year: 1,332 yards rushing, 13 TD's, 2 TD's receiving. People were beginning to wonder after a tough 1997 if he had anything left. He proved in 98 that he had plenty left.

1999, at the age of 30 and on an 8-8 team with no Michael Irvin, and no Troy Aikman for a good part of the year, he put together one of the most impressive seasons of his career.

He led the NFL in 100 yard rushing efforts with 9, ran for 1,400 yards, rushed for 11 TD's and again, scored 2 TD's receiving. This was the season when teams began loading up the box because they had no reason to respect the Cowboys passing game, and yet, there he was having his best season in over 3 years. Remember that awesome night against the Vikings where he ran for 140 on the 1st half? He did that with Jason Garrett playing QB.....just sayin'.

2000 - this is the year where the Cowboys became total shit. No QB, no passing game, and Emmitt at the age of 31 ties an NFL record with his 10th straight 1,000 yard season. 1,200 yards rushing and 9 TD's.

2001 - this was probably the worst of those Campo teams. I mean, they had Quinthy at QB for crying out loud. There are no weapons on this team to speak of, but that doesn't stop Emmitt from setting an NFL record with his 11th straight 1,000 yard season......and keep in mind that he is 32 years old when he does this.

2002 - the first signs of decline, but like 2001, he is the only halfway decent offensive player we have and yet he still gets to week 17 with only 20 yards needed for another 1,000 yard season, but unfortunately, the O-line was awful against the Skins and he only gained 13 yards on 18 carries. While he didn't get his 1,000, it's clear that he wasn't just limping along. Most guys by this point at 33 are struggling to get to 800, but Emmitt was still a productive player for the Cowboys.

To me, what he did in his 30's, between 99 and 2002 on awful teams with bad O-lines, speaks volumes about how great he truly was. If you don't think he was equally responsible for his success in the early 90's, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Great post, you magnificent bastard.

Schmitty is an idiot sometimes.

 

[Texas Ace]

Great post, you magnificent bastard.

Schmitty is an idiot sometimes.

 

[ravidubey]

I'd say they both were lucky to have each other. That line didn't look so dominant when blocking for guys like Sherman Williams.

They outright sucked blocking for anyone else, but then Jerry would only bring in turds like Williams, Curvin Richards, Derrick Lassic, or Lincoln Coleman. Still, if they were so dominant then it wouldn't really matter.

But of course it did, because Emmitt Smith was one of the greatest all-time RBs. The key was Erik Williams. Tuinei, Newton, Gogan, and Gesek were nobodies who did jack shat and were poorly thought of until Big E arrived. Stepnoski was a technician but not a dominant player. But Big E would destroy you, and for whatever reason the Eagles decided to play Reggie White against him head-to-head instead of against Tuinei. Thank you, Bud Carson and Rich Kotite.

 

[Smitty]

Still, if they were so dominant then it wouldn't really matter.

Well that's not true.

 

[kidd]

Well that's not true.

Yes it is.

You along with these so called experts on TV use the same lame excuse to downplay Emmitt all the time. You act as if this running game was a "plug and play" system like Shannahan's Broncos when that simply isn't true.

 

[ravidubey]

It's always amazing to me how the Cowboys' own fans don't appreciate Emmitt Smith and instead choose to talk about an offensive line that was dominant in spurts but always seemed to need #22 to get anything going, running or passing.

I mean with Aikman, Irvin, Novacek, and Harper and you'd think they could just pass all game and Aikman would be untouched behind this invincible line.

Check out the first two games of 1993 and tell me again how unstoppable that OL was.

 

[Simpleton]

The OL didn't make Emmitt and Emmitt didn't make the OL, Emmitt probably would have been a HOF'er with a merely competent OL while our OL in the early 90's was certainly one of the best of all time as well. I don't see why it has to be one or the other, but if anything I'd lean towards Emmitt enhancing the perception of the OL moreso than the other way around.

Like someone else said, it's not like the Broncos where they could plug and play almost anybody, and it's not like we had the same 5 guys for 10 years who were just completely dominant, we moved guys in, out and around almost every year during those title runs.

 

[Smitty]

Yes it is.

No, it's not.

Its like trying to argue that CBs are important because Terence Newman cost us games. Yeah, if you trot out someone that can't play, they are going to be exposed.

Well, if you trot out shitty running backs who aren't capable of being legit NFL players, then it doesn't matter what line is blocking for them.

You along with these so called experts on TV use the same lame excuse to downplay Emmitt all the time. You act as if this running game was a "plug and play" system like Shannahan's Broncos when that simply isn't true.

I never said that, you are inventing that argument because it's easier for you to refute.

What I said is that Emmitt's distance from his contemporaries in the all time yardage race is based primarily on two factors, one is his durability, and the other is that he played behind the best line of the modern era for a good portion of his career.

A clear third is how much better he was than those players himself (if at all, depending on the player).

 

[Smitty]

I don't see why it has to be one or the other

Because that's how football works.

Skill position players are dependent on the lines. Same on the defensive side of the ball.

This isn't an Emmitt-specific debate, it's how the game works. Its why the OL is the most important thing to have on offense besides QB, who is special simply due to the number of times he touches the ball (every play). Its why the DL is the most important thing to have on defense.

OLs make it easier for the skill positions. The skill positions do not make it easier for the lines.

Like someone else said, it's not like the Broncos where they could plug and play almost anybody, and it's not like we had the same 5 guys for 10 years who were just completely dominant, we moved guys in, out and around almost every year during those title runs.

This is a false conclusion. Saying "the lines make it easier for the skill players but not vice versa" does not lead to the conclusion that you can plug in anyone and have the same production. It is a straw man argument. Obviously the quality of the back will have an effect on what production you get out of the holes generated.

No one here is saying we were like the Broncos.

 

[NoDak]

Its like trying to argue that CBs are important

Oh, for fucks sake. Only you could take a discussion about Emmitt Smith and the Oline to cornerbacks. You look for any reason to inject your retarded agendas. I'll admit, I'm shocked there wasn't some Parcells nut gobbling included, too.

 

[Texas Ace]

Well that's not true.

Good lord, Schmitty.....your are so predictable.

 

[Cotton]

Oh, for fucks sake. Only you could take a discussion about Emmitt Smith and the Oline to cornerbacks. You look for any reason to inject your retarded agendas. I'll admit, I'm shocked there wasn't some Parcells nut gobbling included, too.

Give it time. This argument isn't over yet.

 

[Simpleton]

Because that's how football works.

Skill position players are dependent on the lines. Same on the defensive side of the ball.

This isn't an Emmitt-specific debate, it's how the game works. Its why the OL is the most important thing to have on offense besides QB, who is special simply due to the number of times he touches the ball (every play). Its why the DL is the most important thing to have on defense.

OLs make it easier for the skill positions. The skill positions do not make it easier for the lines.



This is a false conclusion. Saying "the lines make it easier for the skill players but not vice versa" does not lead to the conclusion that you can plug in anyone and have the same production. It is a straw man argument. Obviously the quality of the back will have an effect on what production you get out of the holes generated.

No one here is saying we were like the Broncos.

That's great but I'm not talking about my philosophy towards building a football team, I'm talking about Emmitt Smith and the offensive line of the Dallas Cowboys circa 1990-2002.

And an elite RB can definitely make an OL look better by taking advantage of smaller holes, holes that close faster, etc., and to argue otherwise is truly ridiculous. They don't directly make them block their man better because of their mere absence, but they can make them look better than they are by doing more with less.

 

[Smitty]

That's great but I'm not talking about my philosophy towards building a football team, I'm talking about Emmitt Smith and the offensive line of the Dallas Cowboys circa 1990-2002.

The philosophy of building from the lines stems from the lines being more important.

The lines are more important because their performance makes it easier on the positions behind them and not vice versa.

And an elite RB can definitely make an OL look better by taking advantage of smaller holes, holes that close faster, etc., and to argue otherwise is truly ridiculous.

That's not "making the line look better" -- it's doing more with less, and I completely agree. Yes, an elite RB will get more yards out of a small hole than a shitty RB will, or for that matter, an elite RB will get more yards out of any sized hole than a shitty RB will.

However, any and all RBs, elite or otherwise, benefit from consistently great run blocking. The more often the back has that blocking, the more the back benefits.

Emmitt Smith received great blocking more than any other back of the 1990s. Therefore his yards were higher than it would have been if he received less great blocking.

They don't directly make them block their man better because of their mere absence, but they can make them look better than they are by doing more with less.

Right, so the back isn't making the OLs job easier, it's just that he's doing more with the job performance even if it's bad.

But good blocking actually makes the back's job easier. There's a difference.

In general, without the OL winning an independent matchup with the DL, the running back cannot function. That has to happen first.

Our line wasn't barely winning matchups with Emmitt constantly covering their ass. Our line was one of the best ever for a solid 4-6 year period and completely destroyed opposing DLs with consistency. You can take all that nonsense about Newton and Stepnoski not being great players and flush it. When they are the third or fourth best players on your line, you have an All-Timer Line on your hands.

Our line dominated more than anyone elses in the 90s. Therefore Emmitt received more benefit from positive blocking than any other back in the 90s.

If you don't think we can quantify how that translates into yardage, fine, but that's just the simple truth. If our OL was the best in the league (and it was by far), then our skill position players got the biggest benefit of any skill position players in the league. Emmitt and everyone else.