Don't Ask Me Who Was Better, Emmitt or Barry?

EMMITT SMITH

BARRY SANDERS

I was recently involved in two football debates. Both of them are debates that football fans just can't seem to get enough of.

I'll describe the first debate here and then get into the second debate in my next article.

The first is the never ending Barry Sanders vs. Emmitt Smith debate. Who was better and why?

My first response to this debate is, why even ask the question? I mean really, can you go wrong with either of these guys in your backfield? I've been watching football since 1969, and these are two of the very best running backs I've ever seen. Why would anyone have anything critical to say about either one of them.? Here's how I see it.

First off, they had very different running styles. The Lions built their offense around the talents of Barry Sanders, while the Cowboys built their offense around the talents of Emmitt Smith. Barry was the better open field runner. He could break a long gainer at any moment, but he also had occasions where he would lose yardage. Emmitt was more of a between the tackles runner. Not that he wasn't capable of breaking a big run too, but his style was more of the consistent 4 or 5 yards a carry, and wearing down the defense.

So many times I hear people say, Emmitt was fortunate to have a great offensive line, or if Barry had that line in front of him, he could have gained 2,000 yards every year. Maybe. Maybe not. First off, it wasn't as important for Barry to have a great offensive line, because of his running style. Secondly, was that Cowboys offensive line as great as everyone says? Let's take a look.

In his rookie season Emmitt gained 937 yards and was named offensive rookie of the year. Not one of the offensive lineman were selected as all-pro. In 1991 he led the league in rushing with 1,563 yards, and again not one of the offensive lineman were selected as all-pro. In 1992 he led the league in rushing again gaining 1,713 yards, he had 18 touchdowns, and averaged 4.6 yards per carry. Again, not one offensive lineman was selected to the all-pro team. That's three years in a row without an all-pro offensive lineman, yet Emmitt Smith still managed to gain 4,213 yards in those three years combined.

Of course you can make the argument that for the next 5 or 6 years, 1993-1998 he had a great offensive line, quite possibly the best in the game, but I seem to recall many other great running backs having great offensive lines too.

Franco Harris ran behind a great offensive line, led by hall of fame center Mike Webster.

John Riggins is another who ran behind a great offensive line, led by hall of fame guard Russ Grimm, and possible future hall of fame tackle Joe Jacoby.

Larry Csonka may have had the best offensive line ever, led by possibly the best pulling guard ever, hall of famer Larry Little. He also had a hall of fame center in Jim Langer, and a possible future hall of fame guard in Bob Kuechenberg.

Jim Taylor and Paul Hornung had possibly the best tackle ever in hall of famer Forrest Gregg. They also had hall of fame center Jim Ringo and a possible future hall of famer in guard Jerry Kramer.

Does anyone ever mention that Jim Brown, who many consider the best running back ever, had three hall of famers blocking for him? Tackle Lou Groza, guard Mike McCormack and tackle Gene Hickerson.

The same thinking applies to defense. Let's take middle linebacker Jack Lambert? Does anyone try to discredit his achievements because he played behind arguably the best defensive line ever? No! Nor should they, and they shouldn't try to discredit Emmitt Smith or any of the other running backs I mentioned.

Does anyone realize that while a great offensive line can make a running back look great, the opposite is also true. A great running back can also make an offensive line look awfully good.

I think it's safe to say that 80% of the players who are in the hall of fame might not be there if they were not surrounded by great teammates. Football is after all, a team sport.

So why are so many people critical of Emmitt Smith? The man ran for over 1,000 yards 11 years in a row. He is the all-time leading rusher, and he has three Superbowl rings. Yet there are still those who will say he wasn't that good. I can only shake my head.

Now in case you think I'm only out to defend Emmitt Smith, there are those who are critical of Barry Sanders too. They will say things like, he never took his team to the Superbowl. There are many great running backs who never took their team to a Superbowl. Let's face it, the Lions were not exactly a great team at any point during Sanders career. No one man can do it all by himself.

They will also say things like, he had too many plays when he lost yardage. So did a lot of other great running backs, including hall of famer Gale Sayers. Again, Sanders had a very different running style than Emmitt did.

Barry played for 10 seasons. He gained over 1,000 yards in every one of those seasons. In 1997 he became only the third running back in NFL history to gain over 2,000 yards in a season. Still, some would rather criticize him for walking away too soon.

Many say he would have beat Emmitt Smith out for the all-time rushing yardage title. That may be true, but maybe that just wasn't important to Barry. Maybe he felt blessed to have played for ten seasons relatively injury free, and felt it was best to call it a career rather than risk possible serious injury. Whatever his reasons, they should be respected.

I suppose some will continue to debate who was better between these two hall of fame running backs forever. I'm just grateful I had the chance to watch these two great backs in action. We may never see their likes again.