A Football Life: Great Wall of Dallas

[Simpleton]

You're waging a philosophical argument here against nothing, to which nobody is contesting from what I can tell.

Who here disagrees with building an OL is more important than having a RB?

Who here disagrees that the 1990's OL was one of the best of all time?

Emmitt was a HOF talent, the line was one of the best of all-time, what is the argument here?

 

[Rev]

You're waging a philosophical argument here against nothing, to which nobody is contesting from what I can tell.

Who here disagrees with building an OL is more important than having a RB?

Who here disagrees that the 1990's OL was one of the best of all time?

Emmitt was a HOF talent, the line was one of the best of all-time, what is the argument here?

"I'm smarter than you"

 

[Smitty]

You're waging a philosophical argument here against nothing, to which nobody is contesting from what I can tell.

Who here disagrees with building an OL is more important than having a RB?

Who here disagrees that the 1990's OL was one of the best of all time?

Emmitt was a HOF talent, the line was one of the best of all-time, what is the argument here?

I dunno. I agree with all those statements.

But I also said that what separated Emmitt from his other HOF contemporaries like Thurman Thomas and Barry Sanders (in terms of numbers) was, in any particular order, longevity and the OL, moreso than any tangible talent edge that Smith had.

 

[NoDak]

There is one talent that Emmitt had over the others, that I think played a big part in his success over them. His vision. It allowed him to see things before they developed. A lot of his runs he's just biding his time behind the line, waiting for something to develop. That vision also allowed him to see the big hit coming, which in turn helped his longevity.

And let's not pretend like Sanders and Thomas were running behind shitty Olines. They were pretty good in their own right. And they both had prolific passing offenses to keep defenses honest. They certainly put up bigger numbers through the air than ours did, anyway.

 

[L.T. Fan]

I watched Smith in Texas Stadium most of his career and his success is much simplier than all the rhetoric. He was built correctly to be a runner and have longevity. His leg strength was exceptional. His center of gravity allowed him to change directions without disrupting his balance and he was a determined individual. He may have had exceptional vision or simply reacted quickly but either way he could find a crease and get through it. He had these skills regardless of a good,average,or exceptional OL

 

[kidd]

There is one talent that Emmitt had over the oother was s, that I think played a big part in his success over them. His vision. It allowed him to see things before they developed. A lot of his runs he's just biding his time behind the line, waiting for something to develop. That vision also allowed him to see the big hit coming, which in turn helped his longevity.

And let's not pretend like Sanders and Thomas were running behind shitty Olines. They were pretty good in their own right. And they both had prolific passing offenses to keep defenses honest. They certainly put up bigger numbers through the air than ours did, anyway.

Exactly right. I really hate all these claims that Barry was all there was in Detroit. People act as if it was Barry behind scrubs with no QB or WRs whatsoever. If the QB threw a TD it was because Barry opened it up.

One thing Barry has over Emmitt and every other RB is the record for most negative yards. I watched games where holes opened up but Barry didn't hit them and was dropped in the backfield for a loss. He was more concerned with looking for the big play than taking what the OL gave him which is another skill Emmitt had over others.
Sorry for making this a Barry vs Emmitt thread.

 

[Smitty]

Didn't say they ran behind shitty lines, but they weren't as good as Smith's.

 

[Bob Roberts]

Set the DVR already.

Can't wait.

And BTW...that line made Emmitt...not the other way around.

Thanks so much for rolling in this grenade, dude

 

[Cotton]

Thanks so much for rolling in this grenade, dude

 

[Genghis Khan]

Didn't say they ran behind shitty lines, but they weren't as good as Smith's.

Which years are you referring to?

Again, it is inaccurate to refer to Emmitt's dominant lines as if they performed to one elite standard his entire career.

That all-timer line existed for about 5 or 6 years out of Emmitt's 14 or so year career. Not exactly a huge advantage over backs like Thomas and Sanders, who both also ran behind very good lines. Keep in mind that Emmitt never had an OMG single season yardage total like a Peterson or Lewis where you might say that an elite line enabled him to out gain his contemporaries by several hundred yards.

 

[ravidubey]

I dunno. I agree with all those statements.

But I also said that what separated Emmitt from his other HOF contemporaries like Thurman Thomas and Barry Sanders (in terms of numbers) was, in any particular order, longevity and the OL, moreso than any tangible talent edge that Smith had.

Emmitt had much more power than either Thomas or Sanders and just like Marcus Allen he also had a crazy nose for the endzone. People ignore that probably because they never watched how skillfully Emmitt made all those TD's, they only saw the stats and knew he ran behind Big E or LA.

3.7% of the time he carried the ball, Emmitt scored a TD.

Shaun Alexander 4.57%
LT 4.5%
Jim Brown 4.4%
Marcus Allen 4.0%
Emmitt Smith 3.7%
John Riggins 3.5%
Marshall Faulk 3.5%
Barry Sanders 3.3%
Eric Dickerson 3.0%
Franco Harris 3.0%
Walter Payton 2.8%
Curtis Martin 2.5%

Compared among the top 12 greatest rushing TD leaders, that's a bit better than middle of the pack, but having watched every one of these guys but Jim Brown play I would say only Allen, Tomlinson, and maybe Riggins had a better feel for the endzone than Smith. Of that small group, everyone knew they were getting the ball and they still usually scored.

Alexander was great at it too, but I felt he benefited more from running behind maybe the GOAT left tackle in Walter Jones and another all-decade type in Steve Hutchinson. Even Emmitt never had that kind of pairing.

With Faulk in St Louis or Barry Sanders, deception played a strong part in the offense so you never knew the back was getting the ball. They each had very good OL's, but they didn't run in power offenses relied more on trickery. I'd have loved to have seen what Jim Brown, LT, Emmitt, or Marcus Allen might have done with better faking designed into the offense.

BTW, Thurman Thomas, whom you mentioned as a contemporary, was way down at 2.2%.

 

[Carp]

Emmitt never lost his helmet on the sideline during thr Super Bowl. Advantage, Emmitt.

 

[ravidubey]

Which years are you referring to?

Again, it is inaccurate to refer to Emmitt's dominant lines as if they performed to one elite standard his entire career.

That all-timer line existed for about 5 or 6 years out of Emmitt's 14 or so year career.

Just like the way people overrated the talent of the Cowboys of the late 2000's they overrated the talent of the 90's OLs.

Big E was dominant from 1991 to about half way through 1994. Larry Allen was dominant from late 1994 to the early 2000's. There were no other dominant players, just decent ones who keyed off of the play of one or the other of these two.

Mark Tuinei (1983-1997) went to two pro bowls, Nate Newton (1986-1998) went to six, and Mark Stepnoski (1989-1994) went to 5.

All of that was on the coattails of either Big E, Larry, or because of the popularity gained from playing in Dallas.

Those guys sucked ass before Big E arrived in 1991. I don't have any magic stats to demonstrate it and can only tell you how bad they were. Nate Newton in particular mostly made all-pro teams and probowls because he was grotesquely fat, popular, a Cowboy, had a nickname, was a great interview, and John Madden loved him.

The line gelled in 1991 when Big E found his stride and didn't look back until 1994 when he got hurt. Then Larry picked up the ball in late 1994, but the team lost Gesek and Gogan who were solid pros. They even let Ron Stone go and kept fat Nate, which really pissed me off.

When Ray Donaldson arrived in 1995 the starters were downright scary playing together as you had two dominant players keying all action from the inside out in Donaldson and Allen. After Ray got hurt against the Chiefs the OL was never the same. It all got old together and there was no depth.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I dunno. I agree with all those statements.

But I also said that what separated Emmitt from his other HOF contemporaries like Thurman Thomas and Barry Sanders (in terms of numbers) was, in any particular order, longevity and the OL, moreso than any tangible talent edge that Smith had.

Or mostly just longevity. Smith's numbers with a Lions quality line (and a worse line than the 90s Bills) in 96, 98 and 99 were not THAT much worse.

Our OL was never elite again after Erik Williams had his damned car wreck. It was Larry Allen, 3 guys that were washed up and a guy with no talent.

 

[data]

Smitty is insinuating that Romo is an All-Timer at QB because our OL is horrific.

Imagine if Romo had an above average OL.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Smitty is insinuating that Romo is an All-Timer at QB because our OL is horrific.

Imagine if Romo had an above average OL.

That's a combo I would love to see.

 

[kidd]

Smitty is insinuating that Romo is an All-Timer at QB because our OL is horrific.

Imagine if Romo had an above average OL.

I know you're being facicious, but I have no doubt that if you put Romo behind that line,, he would outperform Troy.

 

[boozeman]

I know you're being facicious, but I have no doubt that if you put Romo behind that line,, he would outperform Troy.

Nope.

 

[NoDak]

I know you're being facicious, but I have no doubt that if you put Romo behind that line,, he would outperform Troy.

I wouldn't say that. Two completely different sets of circumstances. Consider if the two guys switched spots.

I think if Troy was asked to wing it, he could have lit up the stat sheet. I'm not so sure Romo could have played as well as Troy did in the precision, controlled way he was asked to. And been nearly as surgical as Aikman was.

 

[boozeman]

I wouldn't say that. Two completely different sets of circumstances. Consider if the two guys switched spots.

I think if Troy was asked to wing it, he could have lit up the stat sheet. I'm not so sure Romo could have played as well as Troy did in the precision, controlled way he was asked to. And been nearly as surgical as Aikman was.

That and I think the two are wired completely different.