A Football Life: Great Wall of Dallas

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.
 
I will say this, Michael Wiley's HOF career would have been nothing without that great o-line
 
boozeman said:
Set the DVR already.

Can't wait.

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

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.
 
Genghis Khan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
mschmidt64 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
L.T. Fan said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is true. His escapability was very high. On top of that he had great vision. He was certainly one of the best ever.
 
Genghis Khan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Genghis Khan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sure...but a lot of people are quick to push Smith and downplay that line's dominance.
 
mschmidt64 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Those numbers you are throwing out are from your ass and completely meaningless.

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.

Not sure there's a back ever that wouldn't have some amount less if the had a measurably worse offensive line.

So it's silly to point out one guy as if he was more affected. It's like saying Jerry Rice would not have had as many yards and TDs if two HOFers weren't throwing to him most of his career. Really? Duh. It's true of everyone on the field.
 
Last edited:
boozeman said:
Sure...but a lot of people are quick to push Smith and downplay that line's dominance.
Click to expand...

Who downplays the offensive line's dominance? Nobody with a brain.

But Emmitt was also dominant. There were plenty of times Emmitt made something out of nothing or more out of what was there.

It was the confluence of everything that made both Emmitt and that line great.
 
Madden loved our line...I liked it when he would telestrate the sweat down the back of the leg.
 
Genghis Khan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Not sure there's a back ever that wouldn't have some amount less if the had a measurably worse offensive line.
Click to expand...

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.

So it's silly to point out one guy as if he was more affected.
Click to expand...

He was more affected. He had the best OL in front of him, it provided the most space for yards.
 
I will agree that they both helped each other, and leave it at that.
 
Moose should be part of the discussion. He made as many blocks for Emmitt as Newton.
 
mschmidt64 said:
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.
Click to expand...


We had a great offensive line, no doubt. But you are way overstating how great that line was compared to other great offensive lines.

And understating how great Emmitt was.

Eric Dickerson ran behind a great offensive line. So did Franco Harris. So did Tony Dorsett. Hell, Jim Brown did too. Chuck Foreman. Shaun Alexander. On and on.

What really set Emmitt apart was his durability. Never a major injury and productive into his early thirties. Plus an offense that was committed to leaning heavily on him.

If Emmitt ran behind Ron Yary, or Steve Hutchinson and Walter Jones, or 80s hogs, or Jackie Slater, just as examples, you wouldn't have seen much difference in his production. If the 90s Cowboys offensive line were blocking for Dickerson or Payton or Harris, you wouldn't have seen much difference in production.

That's the point. That line was great, but it didn't "make" Emmitt. Emmitt was great in his own right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom