I liked that they kept OJ in, not because I am a fan of Simpson, but because it shows that the NFL is being honest for a change and admitting that one of their best players might not be the best guy in the world. Collinsworth acknowledged it and moved on to talk about Simpson's greatness on the field, which I think is appropriate. There are a lot of leagues that would have whitewashed this by either not bringing up the elephant in the room or just ignoring Orenthal all together. I'm glad they tackled (no pun) this head-on.Thinking about it some more, I kind of wonder why they didn't make an editorial choice to skip OJ and insert one of the other guys who has been mentioned. There are going to be all kinds of omissions from the top 100, as BB said it really could have been Top 500. They could have just left OJ off without comment and who would have cared other than OJ?
The most surprising things about the process? I’d guess—no one was keeping a clock—that the most talkative voter among the 25 was Belichick. A task like this was right up his alley. He has a Ph.D in football history, and it showed in the meetings, when he talked more about the players from the first 30 years of pro football than the last 30. In some cases, he and another influential voter, John Madden, educated the room on why the old timers matter.
One thing that’s notable about the team: We voted for a set number of players at each position group, and we voted in no order. In other words, we didn’t rank running backs 1 to 12 on our ballots; we just voted for 12. There will be 10 quarterbacks, 12 backs, 10 wideouts, five tight ends, seven tackles, seven guards, four centers, seven defensive ends, seven defensive tackles, six middle/inside linebacker, six outside linebackers, seven corners, six safeties, two kickers, two punters and two returners. Do the math and you may howl. We elected 55 players on offense and 39 on defense, with six on special teams. Some may argue it should have been 50-50, or closer than 55-39 offense, and I’d appreciate the argument. But that’s how it was laid out to us.
Belichick drops some interesting news in the show airing this Friday about Mick Jagger and a Rolling Stones tour from the early 1970s that impacted football history. (Belichick the reporter, discussing a Stones concert, with Mick Jagger being carried offstage in the midst of some mayhem … I’ll say no more, other than there’s a story I never thought I’d hear.)
And King contradicts himself immediately after by saying "A task like this was right up his alley. He has a Ph.D in football history...."Got I hate Peter King. Most surprising? Bill was the most talkative. Anyone that knows anything about Bill (and people in National media for decades should know this) knows that this was always going to be a passion project type thing for Bill. This is trying to perpetuate the myth of Belichick is a curmudgeon that doesn't talk.
The guy is always willing to talk about this type of stuff.
Most fans hate BB because their primary interaction with him is seeing him glower on the sidelines while his team beats their team.I hate reading comments on facebook, as I am sure most of you did. But I think it was NFL that posted on Friday night about the show. I didn't dig deep into the comments, but a lot of the first several were along the lines of how much they hated BB until they watched him on that show. He really does get a bad rap outside of NE based on the "we're onto Cinci" narrative
I hated it! It's really funny how different fans of the same guy who probably appreciate 99 percent the same stuff can see these little things so differently I guess.The Sun Tzu answer at the end was phenomenal.
Just taking a stab at this (RBs not included) of who I think they will include, not my personal choices. I also just chose 12 LBs instead of parsing out who was an ILB and who was a OLB :1 to 12 on our ballots; we just voted for 12. There will be 10 quarterbacks, 12 backs, 10 wideouts, five tight ends, seven tackles, seven guards, four centers, seven defensive ends, seven defensive tackles, six middle/inside linebacker, six outside linebackers, seven corners, six safeties, two kickers, two punters and two returners.
Rodgers didn't even cross my mind when I was tossing that together. Given how the list has shown already that they are going to include names from across the 100 years of the league, I'm not sure who he gets on over.The sour grapes about Aaron Rodgers getting left off is going to be glorious.
No Eli on your list is a travesty.Rodgers didn't even cross my mind when I was tossing that together. Given how the list has shown already that they are going to include names from across the 100 years of the league, I'm not sure who he gets on over.
Great list. Any reason Emlen Tunnell isn’t on it?Just taking a stab at this (RBs not included) of who I think they will include, not my personal choices. I also just chose 12 LBs instead of parsing out who was an ILB and who was a OLB :
QB:
- Tom Brady
- Joe Montana
- Peyton Manning
- Dan Marino
- John Elway
- Sammy Baugh
- Otto Graham
- Johnny Unitas
- Brett Favre
- Bart Starr
(Brees gets hosed)
WR:
- Jerry Rice
- Randy Moss
- Don Hutson
- Lance Allworth
- Terrell Owens
- Raymond Berry
- Larry Fitzgerald
- Calvin Johnson
- Tim Brown
- Cris Carter
TE:
- Tony Gonzalez
- Rob Gronkowski
- Kellen Winslow
- John Mackey
- Mike Ditka
T:
- Anthony Munoz
- Forrest Gregg (assuming he's a tackle and not a guard)
- Jackie Slater
- Jonathan Ogden
- Joe Thomas
- Jim Parker
- Rosey Brown
G:
- John Hannah
- Gene Upshaw
- Bruce Matthews
- Larry Allen
- Larry Little
- Walt Kiesling
- Joe DeLamielleure
C:
- Jim Otto
- Jim Ringo
- Kevin Mawae
- Chuck Bednarik (assuming they put him here to open up another LB spot)
DE:
- Deacon Jones
- Reggie White
- Gino Marchetti
- Bruce Smith
- JJ Watt
- Richard Dent
- Michael Strahan
DT:
- Joe Greene
- Bob Lilly
- Merlin Olsen
- Warren Sapp
- Alan Page
- Art Donovan
- Henry Jordan
LB:
- Lawrence Taylor
- Jack Ham
- Dick Butkus
- Ted Hendricks
- Ray Lewis
- Sam Huff
- Willie Lanier
- Ray Nitschke
- Jack Lambert
- Mike Singletary
- Derrick Brooks
- Junior Seau
CB:
- Night Train Lane
- Champ Bailey
- Mel Blount
- Deion Sanders
- Darrell Green
- Charles Woodson
- Darrell Revis
S:
- Ronnie Lott
- Rod Woodson
- Ed Reed
- Ken Houston
- Paul Krause
- Earl Thomas (?)
K:
- Adam Vinatieri
- George Blanda
P:
- Ray Guy
- Shane Lechler
PR/KR:
- Devin Hester
- Brian Mitchell
Coaches:
- Paul Brown
- Bill Belichick
- Vince Lombardi
- Tom Landry
- George Halas
- Bill Walsh
- Chuck Knoll
- Curly Lambeau
- Joe Gibbs
- Don Shula
To be fair, Aaron Rodgers is the #1 QB of his era, just ask ESPN. Eli is a close 3rd.No Eli on your list is a travesty.
I didn't do any real research?Great list. Any reason Emlen Tunnell isn’t on it?
Re not having Emlen Tunnell, but, but, you did have Night Train Lane. Emlen the Gremlin and Night Train Lane, definitely had cooler nicknames then.I didn't do any real research?
Most of the people are obvious inclusions, the hard part is evaluating players who are playing today, because outside of slam dunk cases like Brady and Vinatieri it is hard to factor in how people will evaluate players who are still building their legacy and whether or not they have accomplished enough already to warrant inclusion. I did peek at the Pro Football Hall of Fame to see who was a first ballot HoF to make sure I didn't miss anyone super obvious.
With the old guys I mostly have no idea outside of the really famous ones like Baugh, or Bronko Nagurski (weird he wasn't included as he was arguably the most famous professional football player for the first 40 years of the league). If this was basketball I'd feel more comfortable discussing the value of the old guys, but Emlen Tunnell retired 33 years before I was even born.
One thing I noticed was that it might have made more sense to include Deion and Sayers as your returners and then gain an extra spot at RB and CB. Then you have the two-way players who you just know BB is salivating over. He could talk for days about Chuck Bednarnik.
Counter point: Night Train Lane is notable to people of my generation for having the greatest YouTube highlights in the history of football: View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BaPMMYekkARe not having Emlen Tunnell, but, but, you did have Night Train Lane. Emlen the Gremlin and Night Train Lane, definitely had cooler nicknames then.
edit: maybe beginning to sound like a relative of Tunnell’s, but he is second all time in interceptions to Paul Krause. Also, a New York Giants guy, which is Belichick’s second (?) most loved team.
On the NFL's 75th anniversary all-time team, which is the last time they did something like this, they put Gale Sayers at both HB and KR. I imagine they'll do the same thing this time around, as that also lines up with how they've treated the returner positions on their NFL all-decade teams (e.g, Deion Sanders was named at both CB and PR on the 1990's team).With the old guys I mostly have no idea outside of the really famous ones like Baugh, or Bronko Nagurski (weird he wasn't included as he was arguably the most famous professional football player for the first 40 years of the league). If this was basketball I'd feel more comfortable discussing the value of the old guys, but Emlen Tunnell retired 33 years before I was even born.
One thing I noticed was that it might have made more sense to include Deion and Sayers as your returners and then gain an extra spot at RB and CB. Then you have the two-way players who you just know BB is salivating over. He could talk for days about Chuck Bednarnik.
I know you guys have discussed this, but I just have to jump in a bit. Faulk had 1,800 yards from scrimmage as a rookie, with 12td's and won the Offensive rookie of the year. He was playing on a team with Jim Harbaugh and Don Majkowski as the starting QB's. He led the team in receptions (was tied with the immortal Floyd Turner). In year 2, again with Jim Harbaugh at the helm, he went for 1,553 yards from scrimmage and 14 td's, and led the team in receiving over the also immortal Sean Dawkins. In year 3, still with Harbaugh, he battled injuries, played only 13 games, and still got over 1,000 yards and 7td's.I think some here are overrating Faulk due to his awesome peak, which was his first 3 seasons in St. Louis. He fell off of a cliff pretty hard after that, struggling with injuries and never breaking 1,000 yards rushing from 2002-2005. His play declined with each passing year, eventually getting supplanted as the starting RB by Steven Jackson in 2005. Faulk retired after that season.
He was very good with the Colts, but not to the level that he was with the Rams. He was considered one of the top RBs, and teams definitely had to gameplan for him. But nobody considered him to be this dominant, unstoppable player or anything. That didn't happen until he went to St. Louis. I mean, Faulk blowing up with the Rams wasn't completely out of nowhere, but I remember it being surprising when it happened. Like, damn, we all knew Faulk was good. But we didn't know he was this good.
But, again, he only did that for 3 seasons. Which isn't nothing, but Faulk strikes me as a weird hill to die on. Sure, Faulk was the scariest player in the league from 1999-2001. Outside of that fantastic stretch, he was just another very good running back. I don't really see what separates him from guys like Tomlinson or Curtis Martin.
Worth noting that Bill, while a voter and presenter, is one of a large group of voters. I don’t think we know who he specifically picked.I know you guys have discussed this, but I just have to jump in a bit. Faulk had 1,800 yards from scrimmage as a rookie, with 12td's and won the Offensive rookie of the year. He was playing on a team with Jim Harbaugh and Don Majkowski as the starting QB's. He led the team in receptions (was tied with the immortal Floyd Turner). In year 2, again with Jim Harbaugh at the helm, he went for 1,553 yards from scrimmage and 14 td's, and led the team in receiving over the also immortal Sean Dawkins. In year 3, still with Harbaugh, he battled injuries, played only 13 games, and still got over 1,000 yards and 7td's.
In year 4, on a 3-13 team, he went back to 1,500+ yards and 8td's, and then in Manning's rookie year, in which Manning was terrible, he went for 2,227 yards and 10td's. That team also went 3-13. Faulk had 1,300+ yards rushing on a 3-13 team, which is ludicrous. He also had 27 more catches and 130 more receiving yards than another rookie on that team, Marvin Harrison.
THEN, he goes to the Rams and puts up 2,429 yards/12td's in year 1, 2,189 yards/26td's in year 2, 2,147yards/21 td's in year 3 and 1,490 yards/10td's in year 4 (in only 14 games/10 starts due to injuries).
The idea that his peak was only 3 years is insanity. Literal insanity. He played on putrid football team in the beginning of his career, and somehow he dragged that team to an 8-8 and 9-7 record in his first two seasons and carried that Colts team into the playoffs in his 2nd and 3rd season.
No, him blowing up with the Rams was nothing close to out of nowhere. The guy was the #2 overall pick in the draft, finished 9th, 2nd and 4th in the Heisman voting, and is still has the 16th highest td total from scrimmage in NBA history with 62, in only 3 seasons.
If you eliminate Faulk's last season (where he only started 1 game, but appeared in 16 and barely was used), he averaged 116.1 yards from scrimmage during his career. Emmitt averaged 95.5.
I don't know who I'd eliminate from the list, as I have to take BB's word on guys like Motley and Clark, but Faulk is a snub, a big one.
Ymmv, but advanced metrics disagree with you on Faulk's Colts career. He was primarily an inefficient volume rusher while he was there, a force fed high draft pick on a bad team. Sure, his poor supporting cast during those years certainly didn't help his cause. But it's not like he was single handedly dragging those teams to glory either. They barely finished above .500. Woo.... hoo? I mean, of course they gave him the ball a lot. Who else were they going to give it to?I know you guys have discussed this, but I just have to jump in a bit. Faulk had 1,800 yards from scrimmage as a rookie, with 12td's and won the Offensive rookie of the year. He was playing on a team with Jim Harbaugh and Don Majkowski as the starting QB's. He led the team in receptions (was tied with the immortal Floyd Turner). In year 2, again with Jim Harbaugh at the helm, he went for 1,553 yards from scrimmage and 14 td's, and led the team in receiving over the also immortal Sean Dawkins. In year 3, still with Harbaugh, he battled injuries, played only 13 games, and still got over 1,000 yards and 7td's.
In year 4, on a 3-13 team, he went back to 1,500+ yards and 8td's, and then in Manning's rookie year, in which Manning was terrible, he went for 2,227 yards and 10td's. That team also went 3-13. Faulk had 1,300+ yards rushing on a 3-13 team, which is ludicrous. He also had 27 more catches and 130 more receiving yards than another rookie on that team, Marvin Harrison.
THEN, he goes to the Rams and puts up 2,429 yards/12td's in year 1, 2,189 yards/26td's in year 2, 2,147yards/21 td's in year 3 and 1,490 yards/10td's in year 4 (in only 14 games/10 starts due to injuries).
The idea that his peak was only 3 years is insanity. Literal insanity. He played on putrid football team in the beginning of his career, and somehow he dragged that team to an 8-8 and 9-7 record in his first two seasons and carried that Colts team into the playoffs in his 2nd and 3rd season.
No, him blowing up with the Rams was nothing close to out of nowhere. The guy was the #2 overall pick in the draft, finished 9th, 2nd and 4th in the Heisman voting, and is still has the 16th highest td total from scrimmage in NCAA history with 62, in only 3 seasons. If it weren't for a guy named Barry Sanders who finished at OSU a couple years earlier, Marshall Faulk may have been the most explosive running back the college world had ever seen at that point in time.
If you eliminate Faulk's last season (where he only started 1 game, but appeared in 16 and barely was used), he averaged 116.1 yards from scrimmage during his career. Emmitt averaged 95.5 for his career.
I don't know who I'd eliminate from the list, as I have to take BB's word on guys like Motley and Clark, but Faulk is a snub, a big one.
Yeah, because advanced metrics in football are infallible. My God, they are pretty much useless without context. With the exception of his injury plagued season, he averaged 3.7, 4.0, 4.0 and 4.1 yards rushing with the Colts. He also averaged 10.0, 8.5, 7.6, 10.0 and 10.6 yards per catch during those seasons on 52, 56, 56, 47 and 86 receptions. He is literally the greatest receiving back in the history of the NFL and you call him an "inefficient volume rusher." What?Ymmv, but advanced metrics disagree with you on Faulk's Colts career. He was primarily an inefficient volume rusher while he was there, a force fed high draft pick on a bad team. Sure, his poor supporting cast during those years certainly didn't help his cause. But it's not like he was single handedly dragging those teams to glory either. They barely finished above .500. Woo.... hoo? I mean, of course they gave him the ball a lot. Who else were they going to give it to?
And literally nobody cares about his college career. This is an NFL list.
Go ahead and post whichever advanced stats you want, and I will poke a million fucking holes in it.So, advanced metrics are useless, but random Youtube highlights are supporting evidence? Alrighty then.
For the record, outside of his rookie season, Faulk's efficiency numbers as a receiver weren't all that much better with the Colts than his rushing numbers (though they were mostly better). And even then, they were, at their best, fringe top ten numbers. Certainly not "literally the greatest receiving back in the history of the NFL" type numbers. They basically track the same as his rushing numbers: peaking from 1998-2001, where they were exceptional. And massive slopes on both sides, where they were less than exceptional.
I think it's well established that Colts fans are morons.I think Faulk just gets squeezed due to a numbers game. Is Faulk a Hall of Famer? No doubt. The overrated talk is silly.
But he wasn't Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, or Emmitt Smith. He arguably wasn't Eric Dickerson or Earl Campbell either. And the committee was clearly determined to include some players from other eras. So I can see why he ended up at #11 on the list.
I do recall when Faulk entered the league, and Colts fans were hoping for another Eric Dickerson, who led the league in rushing yards his first season with the Colts before he fell off the RB cliff at 30. Instead, Faulk was 5th, 12th, 30th, 13th, and 6th in the league in rushing yards during his years with the Colts. In yards/attempt, he was 7th, 32nd, 43rd, 21st, and 17th. His all around numbers his first season were good enough for him to earn offensive rookie of the year. But his next 3 seasons would have likely earned him entry to the Hall of Very Good, and Colts fans were a bit disappointed. His last season with the Colts was a preview of what he was to become with the Rams; probably another season like 1998 in Indy earns him a spot on the Top 10 list.
I'm not sure what his career average yards per touch has to do with my statement that he was an inefficient volume rusher while he was with the Colts, but okay. Yards per carry is a flawed stat, but since you want to go down this road, he couldn't even average 4 yards per carry during his time with the Colts. Five seasons, 1389 carries, and he averaged 3.8 ypc. When he missed three games with an injury in 1996, the Colts rushing numbers got better, including their best rushing game of the season.Go ahead and post whichever advanced stats you want, and I will poke a million fucking holes in it.
While you're doing so, explain to me how those numbers account for offensive line, QB play, penalties, coaching, weather, game plan, game score, and a million other variables that basically none of the advanced stats tell you from the early 1990's. This isn't baseball. Football, and a player's worth can't be extrapolated down into a few numbers. If it could, coaches like BB would have a shitty defense with his Kyle Van Noys and JC Jacksons, and the Rams with Aaron Donald, and Jalen Ramsey wouldn't have just gotten plastered on Monday night football.
And again, I'm posting the videos because you admitted you basically didn't know who Marshall Faulk was before he got to the Rams. Figured I'd help you out, but you're right, using numbers that someone pulled out of their ass and decided they were relevant is a much better indicator of someone's play than, you know, watching them play.
You actually called Marshall Faulk "ineffecient." Let's talk about that.
Every time Marshall Faulk touched the ball in his career, he averaged 5.3 yards per touch.
Eric Dickerson averaged 4.7
Emmitt Smith averaged 4.4
OJ Simpson averaged 5.1
Walter Payton averaged 5.1
The only other guy on the list who played after 1971 that averaged 5.3 like Marshall Faulk was Barry Sanders, and he averaged, 5.3.
FTR, Ladanian was 4.9, Marcus Allen was 4.9, Curtis Martin was 4.4, Thurman was 4.9, Dorsett was 4.9, AP is at 5.0, Edgerrin was 4.4, and Gore is at 4.8.
So yeah, Faulk was overrated and inefficient, and his career was only a peak of 3 seasons, or something.
Yeah, this all tracks with what I recall from watching Faulk play with the Colts. He entered the league with a lot of hype, but never really seemed to live up to it until Peyton Manning showed up. Then he went to the Rams.I think Faulk just gets squeezed due to a numbers game. Is Faulk a Hall of Famer? No doubt. The overrated talk is silly.
But he wasn't Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, or Emmitt Smith. He arguably wasn't Eric Dickerson or Earl Campbell either. And the committee was clearly determined to include some players from other eras. So I can see why he ended up at #11 on the list.
I do recall when Faulk entered the league, and Colts fans were hoping for another Eric Dickerson, who led the league in rushing yards his first season with the Colts before he fell off the RB cliff at 30. Instead, Faulk was 5th, 12th, 30th, 13th, and 6th in the league in rushing yards during his years with the Colts. In yards/attempt, he was 7th, 32nd, 43rd, 21st, and 17th. His all around numbers his first season were good enough for him to earn offensive rookie of the year. But his next 3 seasons would have likely earned him entry to the Hall of Very Good, and Colts fans were a bit disappointed. His last season with the Colts was a preview of what he was to become with the Rams; probably another season like 1998 in Indy earns him a spot on the Top 10 list.
Go ahead and post whichever advanced stats you want, and I will poke a million fucking holes in it.
While you're doing so, explain to me how those numbers account for offensive line, QB play, penalties, coaching, weather, game plan, game score, and a million other variables that basically none of the advanced stats tell you from the early 1990's. This isn't baseball. Football, and a player's worth can't be extrapolated down into a few numbers. If it could, coaches like BB would have a shitty defense with his Kyle Van Noys and JC Jacksons, and the Rams with Aaron Donald, and Jalen Ramsey wouldn't have just gotten plastered on Monday night football.
And again, I'm posting the videos because you admitted you basically didn't know who Marshall Faulk was before he got to the Rams. Figured I'd help you out, but you're right, using numbers that someone pulled out of their ass and decided they were relevant is a much better indicator of someone's play than, you know, watching them play.
You actually called Marshall Faulk "ineffecient." Let's talk about that.
Every time Marshall Faulk touched the ball in his career, he averaged 5.3 yards per touch.
Eric Dickerson averaged 4.7
Emmitt Smith averaged 4.4
OJ Simpson averaged 5.1
Walter Payton averaged 5.1
The only other guy on the list who played after 1971 that averaged 5.3 like Marshall Faulk was Barry Sanders, and he averaged, 5.3.
FTR, Ladanian was 4.9, Marcus Allen was 4.9, Curtis Martin was 4.4, Thurman was 4.9, Dorsett was 4.9, AP is at 5.0, Edgerrin was 4.4, and Gore is at 4.8.
So yeah, Faulk was overrated and inefficient, and his career was only a peak of 3 seasons, or something.
That's my general view as well, that Faulk was better than Emmitt. But Emmitt had a quality about him, always seemed to gain yards, had incredible vision and longevity and consistency. He was truly a great, great back. It wasn't all the awesome Dallas O-line (though they were indeed awesome).I would take Marshall Faulk over Emmitt Smith in a cocaine heartbeat. If Faulk played on that Dallas team they'd have renamed Texas after him.
Again, 27th, 28th, 28th, 28th. The rushing ranks for the Colts in the four years prior to Faulk getting there (there were 28 teams in the league).I'm not sure what his career average yards per touch has to do with my statement that he was an inefficient volume rusher while he was with the Colts, but okay. Yards per carry is a flawed stat, but since you want to go down this road, he couldn't even average 4 yards per carry during his time with the Colts. Five seasons, 1389 carries, and he averaged 3.8 ypc. When he missed three games with an injury in 1996, the Colts rushing numbers got better, including their best rushing game of the season.
When the advanced stats tell pretty much the same story that the conventional stats do, yes, I tend to believe them. Even more than faulty memories and YouTube clips. But hey, that's just me.
Yeah, this all tracks with what I recall from watching Faulk play with the Colts. He entered the league with a lot of hype, but never really seemed to live up to it until Peyton Manning showed up. Then he went to the Rams.
And, to be clear, I don't mean that he's overrated in general, just in the context of this discussion. I mean, some are acting like he was a slam dunk, no brainer, layup choice for this list. And he's not. Clearly. If he were, he'd be on the list. And I'm just saying, "Hey, here's why he's probably not on the list." If some people would rather stick their fingers in their ears, so be it.
James White and Kevin Faulk aren't averaging 300 touches a year though. Give them each another 200 carries per year, and y/t would drop significantly. Wide receivers have much higher y/t stats than running backs obviously do. They're basically receivers who run the ball on occasion. Faulk was a running back who caught the ball. The two times Kevin Faulk got 200 touches in a season, he averaged 4.8ypt. Marshall Faulk averaged 236 carries per year.Yards per touch isn't a very useful stat in this conversation, it's just a reflection that he was more prominent in the passing game. To his credit for sure, but also a function of the time he played in and the role he played in that offense.
Case in point: James White has averaged 6.6 yards per touch, blowing all those HOF away. Not to mention that Marshall is second in the "best Faulking RB of that era" contest to Kevin when it comes to that particular stat.
Faulk was a fantasy god, which I think leads to a lot of people overrating him. Outstanding player and easy HOF selection - absolutely. But I have no problem with him not being on this list.
Right, I'm using the extreme examples that shows higher involvement in the passing game correlates to a higher yards per touch. Obviously Faulk was more prolific in the passing game, ergo yards per touch isn't a great metric in comparing him with guys who weren't as involved in the passing game. That's all.James White and Kevin Faulk aren't averaging 300 touches a year though. Give them each another 200 carries per year, and y/t would drop significantly. Wide receivers have much higher y/t stats than running backs obviously do. They're basically receivers who run the ball on occasion. Faulk was a running back who caught the ball. The two times Kevin Faulk got 200 touches in a season, he averaged 4.8ypt. Marshall Faulk averaged 236 carries per year.
If Bill Belichick thinks so incredibly highly of Emmitt Smith, shouldn't we all?Emmitt Smith was the Derek Jeter of football. Really good player who, by virtue of being put in an immaculate situation, gets considered as an all-time tippy-top elite guy.
Payton, Sanders, etc. were on a different level, imho.
We could call this the Brandon Bolden Rule instead of In Bill We Trust.If Bill Belichick thinks so incredibly highly of Emmitt Smith, shouldn't we all?
Thought highly of Jordan Richards tooIf Bill Belichick thinks so incredibly highly of Emmitt Smith, shouldn't we all?
I agree with you there. Payton, Sanders, OJ even (yes he was beyond incredible), Brown...all were better than Emmitt. I'm just pointing out that Emmitt wasn't merely a product of his offensive line, as if anyone could have done what he did for his career. I'd like to mention too that at age 35, playing for a 6-10 Arizona Cardinals team, he rushed for 937 yards and 9 touchdowns. Payton retired after his age 33 season. Brown retired after his age 29 season. Curtis Martin retired after his age 32 season. Faulk retired after his age 32 season. But for a horrible team, at age 35, Emmitt ran for 937 yards and 9 touchdowns.I'm mostly reacting to whoever above put Smith in a category with Payton and Sanders.
I'll argue against that all day long.
Should be pointed out that pro football players didn’t make much money in Jim Brown’s day and when he got an offer he couldn’t refuse from Hollywood, he sprang. He supposedly also didn’t get along with Art Modell at that point.I agree with you there. Payton, Sanders, OJ even (yes he was beyond incredible), Brown...all were better than Emmitt. I'm just pointing out that Emmitt wasn't merely a product of his offensive line, as if anyone could have done what he did for his career. I'd like to mention too that at age 35, playing for a 6-10 Arizona Cardinals team, he rushed for 937 yards and 9 touchdowns. Payton retired after his age 33 season. Brown retired after his age 29 season. Curtis Martin retired after his age 32 season. Faulk retired after his age 32 season. But for a horrible team, at age 35, Emmitt ran for 937 yards and 9 touchdowns.
The guy was legitimately great.