Texas Ace
Teh Acester
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 23,516
I knew I wanted him to be our HC even back then.
I knew I wanted him to be our HC even back then.
Set the DVR already.
Can't wait.
And BTW...that line made Emmitt...not the other way around.
I knew I wanted him to be our HC even back then.
You should watch the 92 and 93 NFCC games again. Emmitt was breaking tackles like a beast against pro bowlers in those games. For all of the shit people say about the line making Emmitt, he did a shitload of his job after contact.Set the DVR already.
Can't wait.
And BTW...that line made Emmitt...not the other way around.
Because the line wouldn't have opened smaller holes with a lesser back running through them, it's just that the back wouldn't have gotten through those holes as often.Why didn't the line "make" Sherman Williams, or Derrick Lassic, or Chris Warren, or anyone else other than Emmitt?
It was a great line. Emmitt was a great back. No need for a chicken/egg debate.
You can say that about just about every back ever, except maybe Jim Brown.Because the line wouldn't have opened smaller holes with a lesser back running through them, it's just that the back wouldn't have gotten through those holes as often.
But Emmitt would have gotten less yards running behind a lesser line.
This is true. His escapability was very high. On top of that he had great vision. He was certainly one of the best ever.Emitt' s forte was trusting there would be a hole and getting there quick. He wasn't' blessed with blazing speed but he was very quick to accelerate. His center of gravity and leg strength allowed him to escape a lot of tackles.
I have never, ever said that most backs would have done just as well as Emmitt behind our line.You can say that about just about every back ever, except maybe Jim Brown.
On the other hand, most backs would've gotten less yards behind that line than Emmitt did. It works both ways. I know you don't think it does, but it does.
Sure...but a lot of people are quick to push Smith and downplay that line's dominance.Why didn't the line "make" Sherman Williams, or Derrick Lassic, or Chris Warren, or anyone else other than Emmitt?
It was a great line. Emmitt was a great back. No need for a chicken/egg debate.
Those numbers you are throwing out are from your ass and completely meaningless.I have never, ever said that most backs would have done just as well as Emmitt behind our line.
But the fact is that Emmitt had a benefit that most other elite backs did not have. It's why he's the all time leading rusher instead of being just a guy with 10,000-12,000 yards. Still a very special distinction.
Who downplays the offensive line's dominance? Nobody with a brain.Sure...but a lot of people are quick to push Smith and downplay that line's dominance.
I know exactly why. Emmitt played behind the best offensive line of the modern era and his contemporaries had lines that were no where in the same area code, whereas his contemporaries were similarly talented when compared to Emmitt himself. Emmitt was great, but so was Barry Sanders, Thurman Thomas, etc.I have no idea why Emmitt is the one back that so many people try to denigrate behind the great offensive line argument but it is ridiculous. Most great backs were aided by good offensive lines.
Correct. It's not Emmitt-specific, it's how football works. No back who ran behind the greatest OL ever would be able to make the claim that their numbers were not inflated.Not sure there's a back ever that wouldn't have some amount less if the had a measurably worse offensive line.
He was more affected. He had the best OL in front of him, it provided the most space for yards.So it's silly to point out one guy as if he was more affected.
I know exactly why. Emmitt played behind the best offensive line of the modern era and his contemporaries had lines that were no where in the same area code, whereas his contemporaries were similarly talented when compared to Emmitt himself. Emmitt was great, but so was Barry Sanders, Thurman Thomas, etc.
What separated Emmitt from them was not talent, it was situation and longevity. That's why it gets talked about. It's not denigration to compare Emmitt to other hall of Famers.
But he out produced them by such a wide margin for one very obvious reason.
Correct. It's not Emmitt-specific, it's how football works. No back who ran behind the greatest OL ever would be able to make the claim that their numbers were not inflated.
He was more affected. He had the best OL in front of him, it provided the most space for yards.