Barry Sanders is, at least debatably, a better RB than Jim Brown
by Skin Patrol on Oct 27, 2008 10:41 PM EDT
in Analysis
17 comments
Nothing whatsoever to do with Redskins football, but I feel obliged to defend a statement I made, that Barry Sanders was the best RB in NFL history, summarily dismissed. DC Pain said it was Jim Brown, and Hogs Haven co-author TexSkins agreed extending the point to beyond "even a debate." If you want Redskins related news, please see below the two excellent Redskins @ Lions recaps written by the two newest members of the Hogs Haven writing family. Consider this a tip of the cap to a recently defeated foe, who put up more of a fight than I had personally anticipated given their record. Santana Moss was too much, but he's been too much for a lot of people.
Still here? Let's talk Barry Sanders vs. Jim Brown.
What this isn't is an attempt to impugn the good name of Jim Brown, who is and will remain one of the greatest RBs of all time, certainly deserving of mention in this conversation. What I hope to convince you of, though, is that Barry Sanders is at least as deserving of that conversation and, hopefully when all is said and done here, I will have convinced a few of you that he's the most deserving of that plaudit. Maybe not.
The cheap way to start this is to provide some anecdote or emotionally appealing visual images of Barry Sanders being awesome just to put you in the mood. Consider this the internet debate version of slipping roofies into your chardonnay:
Why yes, that is Barry White playing on my stereo. But enough about me, why don't you just get comfortable. Isn't Sanders like totally so super fast in that video? Doesn't it make you want to play Tecmo Bowl with the Lions even though he's like the only good player on that team? Even when they guess one of your exactly four play play-book plays you still gain yards, because Barry Sanders is maybe the fastest human being in history (also best College Football player in history, just throwing that out there).
That's not entirely fair, though. A reasoned debate should proceed from common-assumptions that flow logically from premise to conclusion in as objective a manner as possible hey one second I'll be right back
Where was I? Oh yea, intellectually serious, honest internet debate. Right. Did you see the move he had at around 1:14 where he basically is tackled but has such awesome balance he stays up and does work? Yea it was totally sweet, I agree. Here, let me refill your chardonnay. Yes, that is track-lighting. I feel it is a great mood setter. Relax.
Onward to a real "debate" as I am totally cereal about the proposition: Barry Sanders is a better running back than Jim Brown. In fact, he's the greatest running back of all time.
Stats, stat.
Jim Brown admittedly does have the edge in a few key statistics. I think YPA over a RBs career is an excellent starting place, and Brown admittedly wins that 5.2 to Barry's 5.0. Brown also edges out Sanders in total touchdowns and, considering he has both fewer carries -- 2359 to Barry's 3062 -- and receptions -- 262 to Barry's 352 -- we know he does better in that department on a per touch basis. Brown was also better per reception, going for 9.5 YPC against Barry's 8.3.
Barry obviously has the absolute numbers edge. He has more rushing yards, more receiving yards, and thus more yards from scrimmage than Jim Brown. Barry Sanders does have a substantial edge in an underrated and underreported statistic, which is fumbles per touch. On 2359 carries and 262 receptions, Brown fumbled the ball 57 times or about once every 46 touches. Barry Sanders fumbled the ball 41 times on 3062 carries and 352 receptions or about once every 83 touches.
I know "best running back ever" is more of a best at their prime question than best over the course of their careers, but I just want to point out that Sanders is one of those few magnificent beasts who was a great player throughout his career (like Brown). But he was as great as he was for longer, did some things Brown never did (like never rushed for fewer than 1,000 yards and rushed for over 2,000 yards) and that's just not that easy to do for as long as Barry did it. Longevity isn't the only thing, but it is one thing.
Stats are the starting point, here is where the e-bater (gross!) wins dinner. I want to distinguish some of the reasons why Jim Brown might have been better than Barry Sanders statistically, or had an easier time compiling his accomplishments. We'll start with YPA.
Jim Brown ran hard. He ran about as hard as anyone has ever run. But it's easier to run hard on your first carry of the season than it is on the second, than it is on the third, than it is on down the line to the 306th carry of the season, which Jim Brown never did. Barry Sanders did 7 out of his 10 seasons in the league. Which isn't to say that Brown didn't take his licks. Given the shorter season when Brown played, there were fewer games to compile yards, but on a per game basis the two ran, incredibly, an identical 20 attempts per game over the entire course of their careers (although Sanders did it despite not starting two games just sayin' gotta get my licks in!).
The difference between the two is that 20 attempts per game was good enough to land Jim Brown no lower than 2nd in the entire league in attempts per year whereas Barry Sanders never led the league in rushing attempts. What that is supposed to demonstrate is that the two played at two very different times. In the league Barry Sanders played in, individuals ran the ball more often than did Jim Brown in his heyday. Rather than measuring Brown against Sanders straight up, particularly relating to, say, YPA, maybe we should measure their greatness against the rest of the league and see how it stacks up.
Brown ranked relative to his peers in YPA something like:
4th, 4th, 8th 2nd, 10th, 9th, 1st, 1st, 2nd
Sanders ranked relative to his peers in YPA in his 9 best seasons which is an admittedly soft way of doing this but it's not fair to count 1992 since that was like, totally not fair and doesn't extend my argument I use 9 for each player purely out of fairness interests something like:
4th, 3rd, 8th, 7th, 1st, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, 7th
Put differently, Jim Brown, on average, finished the season with the 4.5th most rushing yards per attempt. Barry Sanders finished, on average, in his 9 best seasons which is not meant to confuse or distract you from anything at all please disregard the caveat, 4.1st. I really don't have any idea how far down the rung he landed himself in 1992, but it was below 10th. In 1992 Barry Sanders rushes for 4.3 YPA and it lands him outside the top 10, Jim Brown does it in 1962 and he's 9th in the league. The point is, different eras so we measure the two against their peers, and at their best (9 seasons) Barry Sanders averaged better relative to his peers than did Jim Brown. (Also keeping in mind that Barry Sanders had somewhere around twice as many "peers" against whom he was asked to compete -- there were 14 teams in Jim Brown's last year in the league, there were 28 in Barry's first year.)
That's not my slam dunk argument. I'm just trying to confuse you enough that you finally admit I'm right. What isn't in much dispute, though, is that the teams on which these respective players did their work weren't, uh, equal. Jim Brown's Cleveland Browns never suffered a losing season. Barry Sanders' Detroit Lions had as many winning seasons (5) as losing seasons. And before you suggest a causal relationship betwixt their presence on the team and the aforementioned facts regarding those team's winning percentages, the Detroit Lions didn't lose because of Sanders, they lost because of guys named Bob Gagliano and Wayne Fontes and Bobby Ross and Scott Mitchell (was good one year, though) and others.
The Browns of Jim Brown's career? Included Hall of Famers: Coach Paul Brown, Lou Groza "one of pro football's finest offensive tackles", Brown's lead offensive guard Gene Hickerson, our own Bobby Mitchell who, with Brown, formed "one of history's truly great running back combinations from 1958 through 1961", and receiver Paul Warfield, among others.
The Lions? Uhhh. Barry Sanders, 1989-1998. Maybe Rodney Peete will get in. So... no hall of fame Coach, no hall of fame offensive linemen compared to two for Jim Brown, no credible breather backup RB... I mean am I telling any tales out of school here when I suggest that the '89-'98 Lions team that Sanders had the foul luck of playing for were a good bit worse, top to bottom, than the '57-'65 Browns?
The reason I take Barry Sanders over Jim Brown is because they both had truly miraculously good careers with sick numbers that put most anyone to shame and excelled past their peers. But only one of them did it on the crappy Lions of the late 80s and 90s. Only one of them did it without really any HoF caliber teammates. He rushed for 6.1 yards per attempt in 1997 behind a busted offensive line on a barely over .500 9-7 team where everyone on the other team knows where the ball is going... his hands. Jim Brown runs for 6.4 yards per attempt in 1963 behind two offensive linemen who would end up in the Hall of Fame on a 10-4 team. Both are phenomenal accomplishments that represent two of the greatest running seasons in NFL history. But Barry did it with less help, and I feel like history shouldn't punish him just because he happened to be the greatest running back ever on a bad team.
There's also this kind of thing:
The things he did better than anyone in league history: incredible balance with his tiny center of gravity, his spin-move is really a thing of beauty to watch, unrivaled cutback ability, and he starts and stops faster than any player I've ever seen.
At 5'8 barely over 200 pounds, this was the tiniest in stature biggest in talent player in league history, in my opinion.
There is a debate. Let's have it.
0 recs |
17 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Nothing else to add.
Barry Sanders is it. Nobody will ever convince me otherwise.
I can’t imagine anyone coming along and knocking him off of the top of that list either.
by Romans12 on Oct 27, 2008 10:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
VERY briefly
mentioned that he was the greatest CFB running back of all time but… let’s not forget:
1988: Barry Sanders, Oklahoma State
In 11 regular-season games, Sanders rushed for a record 2,628 yards, averaging 7.6 yards per carry. He rushed for 37 touchdowns and scored 39 overall — both records. Four times, he rushed for more than 300 yards in a game, including a season-high of 332 vs. Texas Tech. The Cowboys scored more than 40 points in 11 of their 12 games and beat Wyoming 62-14 in the Holiday Bowl as Sanders rushed for 222 yards and scored five more touchdowns.
Jim Brown cannot touch the 1988 season; no one can.
1. Barry Sanders, Oklahoma State (1988)
The only serious question when composing this list was “Who’s No. 2?” Sanders season was the only college football player’s campaign to rank in ESPN.com’s “End of the Century” list covering all sports. Rattle this off next time your bar buddies say someone’s having a great season:
# Sanders rushed for 2,628 yards, an NCAA record.
# He had 3,249 total yards, an NCAA record.
# Sanders scored 39 TDs (37 rushing, 1 kick return, 1 punt return), an NCAA record.
# He averaged 7.6 yards per carry.
# He rushed for 300+ yards in four games.
That was during the 11-game regular season. In the Holiday Bowl against Wyoming, he ran for 222 yards and 5 TDs. In three quarters. He sat out the fourth, as OSU won 62-14.
Sanders had replaced Thurman Thomas at Oklahoma State, and nobody expected that kind of season from the junior, who had rushed for 603 yards the year before. But who’d expect that kind of season from anyone?
I just scored a touchdown that set a record that no one will conceivably beat. What do I do? Flip the ball to the ref, just like I did the other 38 times.
I miss barry sanders
by Skin Patrol on Oct 28, 2008 12:19 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm not going into the stats...
you did that remarkably well. As usual.
All I’m gonna say is that Jim Brown played in the league when everyone ran nearly every play. They were looking for the run, got it, and still couldn’t stop him. Check it for yourself, folks. (Interesting aside, Jim Brown video with James Brown music. Brilliant.)
As you saw in the video, Jim Brown was able to run around, past and through opponents. Barry Sanders’s size, although not his fault, is held against him in this debate. He could not get the tough yards the way Jim Brown could. I think it hurts both Jim Brown’s legacy and this debate that only one of the 2 has hours and hours of highlight film and the other has mostly stories from old timers and still photographs.
If you want to judge a player against his peers (which you seem to want to do, you know, by doing it and all), then you need to look at some other things. 9 times a Pro Bowler (out of 9 years.) 8 time 1st team All Pro (missed it in 1962, when he was only the 2nd teamer.) 3 time Pro Bowl MVP. 3 time MVP.* (I have the asterisk because he was voted NFL MVP 3 times by 2 different organizations… and only once, in 1965, did they vote him the MVP in the same year. In other words, he was NFL MVP in someone’s book 5 out of his 9 seasons.)
I’m not saying anything against Barry Sanders. I loved watching him every Thanksgiving even though his team got crushed. He’s my #2. Jim Brown is my number 1, no questions.
Oh, and he was one of the best lacrosse players ever. That Jim Brown guy could play ball, yo.
Yes, I am a nerd.
by TexSkins on Oct 28, 2008 1:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The main issue
for me is the O-lines. Barry had nothing, and made it all happen with his ninja moves. You can see him wriggle four or five times before he makes his cut, all at top speed. Two hall of famers on the O line will make even bad backs look good. That is not to say that Jim Brown wasn’t great, but instead highlights the importance of O linemen in the running game. Shaun Alexander is a great example, as Steve Hutchinson’s exodus from Seattle went hand in hand with Alexander’s fall from grace (and unsurprisingly assisted rookie Adrian Peterson into last year’s pro bowl).
Sadly Brown was before my time and I really haven’t seen too much of him. Temporalcentricity (it’s a new word. Means biased towards one’s timeframe. Sweet huh?) and the fact I didn’t really see him play much may explain my bias towards Sanders. Your statement about Jim Brown’s time being one of running to near exclusion got me until I remembered that the Lions existed in a passing league, but ran the ball to near exclusion anyway.
My lack of evidence won’t keep me from opining though, because Barry’s teams really sucked each and every one. And not just sucked, but didn’t have a flicker of talent outside of the glorious spotlight that Sanders flashed around (that could be an over statement, but I’ll stand by it). This leads to a more intangible point: Sanders was a classy guy his entire career. Despite the fact that his numbers would, in all likelihood, have skyrocketed on just about any other team in the NFL, he is never remembered for whining or complaining about it.
Another point of note in awe of Sanders: when he did all that, his home field was oldschool astroturf. How he stayed as healthy as he did is absolutely beyond me. Especially with all that cutting and slashing, you’d think his knees would have been shredded to pieces.
Sanders gets my vote.
Your video proves your point though, Jim Brown could play ball, no doubt about it.
TTB!
by Ach on Oct 28, 2008 5:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can say...
the NFL was a running league moreso when Brown was there, but how does that apply to Sanders? They both ran the ball 20 times a game over the entire course of their careers. With 20 attempts per game, Jim Brown never finished lower than 2nd in the league in attempts. With 20 attempts per game, Sanders never finished 1st in the league.
Consider: Jim Brown beats Barry Sanders in YPA. But Sanders, at least in his 9 best seasons, ranked higher in YPA than Jim Brown did. That suggests that runners were generally getting more YPA in Brown’s era (since there were more people in front of him, despite his higher YPA) than there were in Sanders’ era (since there were more people behind him, despite his lower YPA).
Those are league-wide differences that don’t even consider the impact of two hall of fame offensive linemen, a hall of fame head coach, etc.
by Skin Patrol on Oct 28, 2008 8:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Barry and Jim
This is an excellent debate…all the comments I’ve seen are valid.
It’s so tough to compare because of the eras. The only thing I’ll say is that Sanders COULD get the tough yards, since he got yards he had absolutely no business getting. He couldn’t use his 230lb frame to get those yards because it didn’t exist…instead, he used his speed, quickness, and elusiveness. Sanders might have gained more yards after contact than anyone I’ve ever seen. As was stated, it’s tough to compare because we don’t have access to Brown’s footage the same way we do Barry’s.
It’s a toss up. I’m a huge Sanders fan, but I have no problem with someone saying Brown or Payton were better. I may not agree, but a case certainly can be made.
by tabs2020 on Oct 28, 2008 2:50 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Not Too Fast
I agree that there really are too many variables to compare Sanders and Brown. Both were great. However, let’s not forget that Sanders was both the Lions best asset and its worst liability. He always led the league in yards lost. They never show the plays in which he didn’t get away because when he did manage to escape it was jaw dropping spectacular. Let’s also not forget that Sanders was a bit of a head case and often not a real good team player.
I’m not old enough to remember Jim Brown and understand the context of his achievements so I just can’t comment on that. I do remember almost all of Walter Payton’s career and you just can’t have this conversation without his name in the hat. He had it all, finesse, speed, power, will, drive, and he was thought of as the penultimate teammate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TbyDe4pwWw). Like Sanders, the majority of his career was spent on crappy teams and he played in the shittiest of conditions in Chicago (okay – maybe Thurman Thomas or OJ gets the nod for consistent performance in shit conditions). I’m not going to vote here because I just don’t think you can compare eras but you just gots to at least talk about the Sweetness.
by Wilbert Montgomery on Oct 28, 2008 8:17 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Walter Payton is awesome, but...
I don’t agree that Sanders can be the best player on a team and its biggest liability. The 1000+ yards he lost over his career has to be acknowledged, but it was a take the good with the bad situations. When your line is horrid, when first contact or penetration always happened behind the line of scrimmage, a lot of Jim Brown’s 5 yards rushes would’ve been 1-3 yard rushes behind the Lions line. Barry Sanders had a lot of – rushes but he turned a lot of backward runs into big gains, too. I’ve always felt the negative yardage was more the result of a bad offensive line than of Barry. He wasn’t a dancer like Antwaan Randle El, who never moves forward. Sanders was patient, ran to where the hole was, and sometimes that hole never appeared because his teammates simply couldn’t block the opposing defense. The negative yardage is simply a part of his poor circumstance… in Detroit. He made the most of it, more, I’d argue, than either Payton or Brown possibly could have given the type of unique runner Sanders was.
The majority of Payton’s career was spent on crappy teams… all of Sanders career was spent on crappy teams.
And we’re talking about a sizeable statistical discrepency between the two. Sanders had .6 YPA more than Payton over his career. Maybe that’s not a fair comparison given they played in different eras, but in fewer seasons Sanders was in the top 10 in YPA 4 more times than Payton was. In 13 seasons Payton only broke into the top 10 five times.
Walter Payton led the league in rushing yards exactly once, in 1977 when he led the league in attempts as well. Sanders was the league’s leading rusher 4 times and he never led the league in rushing attempts. That’s unbelievable. Jim Brown led the league in rushing yards only twice in years where he didnt also lead the league in rushing attempts.
All three are incredible RBs, but I have to go with Sanders.
by Skin Patrol on Oct 28, 2008 8:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
By the way...
it’s been pointed out to me that Jim Brown had 60 yards a season of lost yardage vs. Sanders’ 100 yards a season of lost yardage. Rather than suggesting that these two guys were liabilities, I’d just like to point out how awesome it is that the two can accomplish what they did with so much backwards yardage.
by Skin Patrol on Oct 28, 2008 8:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
those moves are just ridonculous
Loved wtaching Barry play. Too bad Scott Mitchell was such a bum.
by Blitzburgh on Oct 28, 2008 9:49 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Barry, Walter, and Jim
Nice debate and it keeps going…
To say Sanders was Detroit’s biggest threat and biggest liability will only work for me if you say the same thing about Walter. After all, if I’m not mistaken, Sanders is #1 in yards lost, and Payton is #2. I once saw a special that showed, when worked out, that Sanders lost an average of 2.5 yards more than Payton per game. The special was “Barry’s Backward Runs”. If this is true, can someone please tell me what the big deal is…2.5 yards per game??? We have this image of Barry running around like a maniac, never going where anything was designed, and guys like Brown, Payton, Smith, always hitting the right hole, going North-South, etc…Which is not the way it went down at all. Just throwing stats out there is a dangerous thing to do…Sanders was great because he gained yards he shouldn’t have gained. Until the stat boys tabulate the number of times these great backs were hit in the backfield and were able to turn out positive yards, I’ll have to take the negative yardage stat with a grain of salt. If you just closed your eyes, and looked at a stat sheet, and saw two backs compile 100 yards but one had 5 carries for negative yardage and the other had none, you might conclude that the second back was better. But if you saw the footage, and one back had huge holes in front of him, and the other was continuously being hit in the backfield, you might change your tune. The Sanders run against the Bills in 91, the one where they edit it to make it seem Sanders broke that one for plus yards,…I wish they would show the actual run, unedited from start to finish. The one described by the original poster where Barry shows incredible balance to keep the play alive…that play went for a loss of five. A LOSS OF FIVE! Was that Sanders’ fault? Was he a liability on that play? The INSTANT he got the ball, two Bills tattooed him…and somehow he got away, kept churning, kept trying to make SOMETHING out of NOTHING. And that is what Sanders did, at least as well as anyone ever has…he made something out of nothing. He lost five yards on the play againt the Bills when someone else might have lost two…simply because everyone else would not have been able to escape the intial two defenders.
In short, I think the lost yards are an unfair criticism of Barry Sanders. He gained more yards I think than ANYONE (Brown, Payton, or anyone else) when there was nothing there, when the play was busted, or when there was defensive penetration.
by tabs2020 on Oct 28, 2008 12:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Sanders vs. Brown
A while back I did an article on BTSC about the top running backs in NFL history, and I concluded that Jim Brown was the greatest RB of all time based on his overall domination of the statistics. But, I will say that this is the best argument that I’ve seen made in favor of Barry Sanders. Admittedly, in my analysis, I looked at each players total career stats, not each in their prime. And, I didn’t consider the talent around those players. I really like how you considered the difference in talent around them. I’ve always believed that if Sanders had played with the Cowboys’ OL in the 90s, he would finished with well over 20,000 yards rushing in his career. Emmitt had holes to run through that I could have gained 5 yards on.
I will also add, though, that Barry did have a couple of very solid receivers at least some of his years. Herman Moore was a top 3 WR in the league for about 3 years, and then another guy (whose name I can’t remember) was pretty good in the late 90s. But, yeah, other than Moore, I can’t remember another player on their offense that was really good for even one year while Barry was there.
SkinPatrol, I definitely agree with you that I miss Barry Sanders too. Nobody was as much fun to watch in a game as him. I wish he had kept playing another five years. I heard he asked to be traded to the 49ers after he retired. I believe that Young and Rice were still there at that point. That would have been a fun combo to see for a couple of years, kind of like Montana and Marcus Allen in KC at the end of their careers.
by WolfpackSteelersFan on Oct 28, 2008 3:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Johnnie Morton?
Gremane Crowell? Brett Perriman?
Maybe these guys were serviceable receivers, but I’d suggest Barry Sanders had more to do with their success (and Herman Moore’s) than the other way around.
I remember reading your article and I think the conclusion that, statistically, Jim Brown was the most dominant RB in history has been fleshed out and defended enough to be relatively beyond rebuke. For stat nerds like me, I’m perfectly comfortable conceding that Brown > All Others statistically. All I’m saying, though, is that it’s close.
In the Joe Montana vs. Peyton Manning vs. Tom Brady vs. whomever best QB ever debates, there’s always a discussion about team. And in all those instances there’s some talented teammates around all the guys. There are very few, if any, QBs I can think of who get in this discussion with crappy teams around them, probably because QBs are such an integral part of a team, and the QBs who can’t carry their bad teammates end up looking bad by comparison.
That typically works with RBs, as well, since a bad team with a bad quarterback (as the Lions had much of the time) don’t present very promising offensive prospects for RBs. They will suffer from an increased defensive focus on the running game as well as an inability of the offense ot put the RB in good conversion situations or near the redzone to score statistically meaningful touchdowns.
And indeed it works with your RBs listed above. Jim Brown was on an historic Browns teams under a HoF coach with HoF linemen and they won, a lot. LT, who is probably the most amazing RB of the post-Sanders era, played on a team that has had good defenses and occasionally great quarterbacks and has generally won games. Terrell Davis, dynasty. Marshall Faulk, greatest show on turf. Spec Sanders’ team played in 3 of 4 championships the New York Yankees had, two of which were under later Redskins HoF coach Ray Flaherty. The Broncos Portis played for didn’t have a losing season, although I’d submit the badness of the Redskins some years even while he’s looked great is a HUGE credit to him, one he doesn’t get enough credit for. When the Bears were good, Walter Payton was good, when the Bears were bad, Walter Payton was demonstrably much, much worse. Edge’s production dropped dramatically when he got to Arizona, because that team was markedly worse than his former Colts (at the time). Marcus Allen beat us in the Super Bowl on a really good Raiders team. Marion Motley’s Browns, incredibly, played in 10 championships in a row, winning 7 of them with help from Otto Graham and Paul Brown, who also coached Jim Brown. Emmit Smith, no explanation needed. In Curtis Martin’s 8 seasons with the Jets, they had losing years twice. Etc.
NO ONE on that list or barely no one, certainly no one at or near Barry’s stature, played on a team as bad as the Lions. That is why what he did was so absolutely ridiculous. It is hard to imagine another running back with any different skill set who could do what he did in Detroit. He was the perfect back for having to play on a bad team. Jim Brown would not be where he is statistically if he played on that team. Walter Payton would not be there. Emmit Smith would not be there. Maybe they’d look a whole lot more like Greg Hill or James Stewart or God forbid, Garry James. It crosses my mind that in 1966 Leroy Kelly, a HoFer in his own right admittedly, rushed for more yards per attempt than did Jim Brown in 1965, and indeed Kelly managed over 5 yards per attempt in that offense for three consecutive years. Isn’t it odd that Neal Anderson actually had more yards per attempt in the 1987 offense ceded him by Payton than did Payton in 1986 or, for that matter, Payton over the course of his career?
Again, I think Barry Sanders has a HoF career that we’re all talking about playing for any of the teams that the other guys you list played on. I do not think the same is true for many, perhaps most of those guys in a role reversal situation. That Barry was thrust into the worst of all possible situations and still managed to have one of the most memorable rushing careers in the history of the game is something that is and will remain one of the most remarkable NFL accomplishments. We will talk about Barry Sanders more years from now when all those great runners of today watch their teammates enshrined in the HoF. Barry’s teammates aren’t going to make it, because most of them weren’t very good. He wasn’t either, because merely “very good” is not the stuff Barry Sanders was made of.
by Skin Patrol on Oct 28, 2008 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Skin Patrol...well done.
Just saying that your last post is one of the best I’ve ever read concerning Barry Sanders.
by tabs2020 on Oct 29, 2008 11:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
