NFL 100 All-Time Team Co-Hosted by Bill Belichick
- Thread starter Pxer
- Start date
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?
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.
Lots of info on this show from Peter King:
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/11/25/49ers-packers-nfl-week-12-fmia-peter-king/#nfl-top-100-rbs
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/11/25/49ers-packers-nfl-week-12-fmia-peter-king/#nfl-top-100-rbs
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.
The guy is always willing to talk about this type of stuff.
“(Eisen and Collinsworth engage Belichick on his love of football cards in show two—that’s a keeper.)”
Bill loves football cards. Holy shit, this series just got even better!
Bill loves football cards. Holy shit, this series just got even better!
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...."
If you ask 100 football fans about the one-word that describes Bill Belichick, do you think that word would be "talkative"?
Peter King is what he is, but he also knows who his readership is and a majority of them aren't Pats super fans.
The thing that I take most offense to is King talking about a potential interesting story and then stopping short. That is my biggest pet peeve amongst the media. "Hoo boy! Do I have an awesome story for you! Can't talk about it though, so you'll just have to think about how awesome it is for me to know something and you not to." Fuck you. If you can't talk about it, don't tease it.
Peter King is what he is, but he also knows who his readership is and a majority of them aren't Pats super fans.
The thing that I take most offense to is King talking about a potential interesting story and then stopping short. That is my biggest pet peeve amongst the media. "Hoo boy! Do I have an awesome story for you! Can't talk about it though, so you'll just have to think about how awesome it is for me to know something and you not to." Fuck you. If you can't talk about it, don't tease it.
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
Most fans hate BB because their primary interaction with him is seeing him glower on the sidelines while his team beats their team.
When he was first announced for the show, I remember seeing a lot of comments on social media of people saying "I hate the Patriots, but nobody knows football like Belichick" and stuff like that. I think if you were to ask most fans what their honest opinions of BB are, they would say that they hate him and maybe even bring up that he is a cheater, but also recognize that he has a tremendous football mind and his knowledge of the game is second to none.
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.
Belichick's strength is his amazing detail oriented and nuanced views and I thought this was all on full display during the hour of the show. But when he resorts to bite-size platitudes that overgeneralize I find myself kind of tuning out. Yeah, they are pithy and maybe even appropriate -- and maybe they are an effective way to communicate to players -- but by and large Bill Belichick is not governed by eight words in Sun Tzu as an overarching guiding principle of how to coach football games. Yes, like many things, I'm sure he has picked little pieces from it and from a zillion other things, whether Dwight Eisenhower or My Cousin Vinny.
I think it's his way to self-deflect a little, and I'm fine with that. But for a guy of so much substance it comes off (to me, obviously) and kind of phony and banal. Like in the way that everyone in high school has the same posting-as-meaningful-but-ultimately-drivel yearbook quotes. (Are yearbook quotes still a thing? Are yearbooks?)
See, I actually didn't think it was a platitude at all ... not after how he's approached these teams the last two years, looking to find whatever the strengths are. I know "identify and exploit your strengths and shore up your weaknesses" seems dead obvious but last year the Pats went through a pretty big identity switch turning into a running team in the playoffs -- I think a lot of coaches (say, Bill Walsh) have a "thing" they do (say, the West Coast offense) that would make that sort of transformation tough to pull off, partly due to personnel, partly due to ego and partly due to the fact that it's just the strategy they know best.
Belichick doesn't do that. As his personnel and the game itself has changed over these last 20 years, he's evolved this team through multiple identities and schemes and gone from being "one of the greatest defensive coaches" in the game to "the greatest coach," period.
Plus, we know he's a military buff.
Belichick doesn't do that. As his personnel and the game itself has changed over these last 20 years, he's evolved this team through multiple identities and schemes and gone from being "one of the greatest defensive coaches" in the game to "the greatest coach," period.
Plus, we know he's a military buff.
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
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?
Edit: I also feel the Dutch Clark inclusion might signal another old time quarterback (either Sid Luckman or Norm van Brocklin) to be included on the quarterbacks list. Would be rough dropping any of your quarterbacks though. Maybe Bart Starr because he was too much of a (hated term) “system quarterback”.
Last edited:
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?
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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=9BaPMMYekkA
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).
This actually made me take a look back at that NFL all-time team from 1994. I remember getting an awesome, giant, coffee table type book on the NFL's 75th anniversary that year for Christmas. I'll have to see if I can find it. I loved flipping through it as a teenager.
Anyways, it's funny that you mention Bronko Nagurski's omission. He's the first player on the 75th team who didn't make the cut for the 100th.
Here's the NFL's 75th anniversary all-time team from 1994:
Offense
QB - Sammy Baugh; Otto Graham; Johnny Unitas; Joe Montana
FB - Jim Brown; Marion Motley; Bronko Nagurski
HB - Walter Payton; Gale Sayers; O.J. Simpsons; Steve Van Buren
WR - Lance Alworth; Raymond Berry; Don Hutson; Jerry Rice
TE - Mike Ditka; Kellen Winslow
OT - Roosevelt Brown; Forrest Gregg; Anthony Munoz
G - John Hannah; Jim Parker; Gene Upshaw
C - Mel Hein; Mike Webster
Defense
DE - Deacon Jones; Gino Marchetti; Reggie White
DT - Mean Joe Greene; Bob Lilly; Merlin Olsen
LB - Dick Butkus; Jack Ham; Ted Hendricks; Jack Lambert; Willie Lanier; Ray Nitschke; Lawrence Taylor
CB - Mel Blount; Mike Haynes; Dick Night Train Lane; Rod Woodson
S - Ronnie Lott; Larry Wilson; Ken Houston
Special Teams
P - Ray Guy
K - Jan Stenerud
PR - Billy White Shoes Johnson
KR - Gale Sayers
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.
.
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.
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.
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?
I only bring up his college career because of your statement that "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."
I mean, if you were surprised he was that good when he got to the Rams in 1999, you just weren't paying attention from 1991-1998, when he was one of the best running backs on the planet.
I'll just leave this here:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDX8TIbsA74
And this:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7P_fy7kEuI
And this:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkaEG1bSDPI
This guy was legit on another level, for a long, long time. If the inefficient Faulk got the same amount of touches that Eric Dickerson got, he would have re-written the record books.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 think it's well established that Colts fans are morons.
In 1993, the year before Marshall Faulk got to the Colts, they were dead LAST in rushing among the NFL teams with a total of 1,288 yards. They averaged 3.5ypc, and scored a total of 4 rushing td's. The leading rushing team, the Giants, finished with almost 1,000 more rushing yards than the Colts. That team, went 4-12 and Jeff George was playing QB with Jack Trudeau. The year before that, they were dead last in rushing, with 1,102 yards and a 2.9ypc (2.9!!!). The year before that, they were, dead last in rushing, at 1,169 yards and a 3.3ypc. The year before that, they were second to last, at 1,282 and 3.8ypc. So, their rushing rank in the four years before Faulk got there was 27th, 28th, 28th and 28th.
In 1994, Faulk's rookie season, they finished 4th in the NFL with 2,060 yards rushing, 15td's and a 4.2ypc average. They went 8-8 with Harbaugh and the Majik Man at QB.
In 1995, they were 11th in the league in rushing, finished 9-7 and made the playoffs. Faulk hurt his toe on the 1st play of the Wild Card game, on a 16 yard run, and didn't touch the ball again (Indy went on to win the Wild Card, game, the divisional round game and then lost to Pittsburgh in the AFCCG).
In 1996, the same toe injury that kept him out of the playoffs sprouted up again, and he had a rough year in the regular season, but still helped them drag that miserable team into the playoffs where they got smoked by the Steelers.
In 1997, he goes for over 1,500 yards from scrimmage and 8td's on a 3-13 team led by Lindy Infante.
Then in 1998, while still in Indy, he goes for over 2,220 yards and 10td's, again on a 3-13 team. He leads the NFL in yards from scrimmage, beating out the NFL MVP Tyrell Davis.
Then he goes to the Rams, and puts up 2,000+ scrimmage yards for 3 more consecutive seasons (still an NFL record).
I think people forget just how bad the Colts were in the early 1990's. This was not Peyton Manning and Marvin Harrison and a good offensive line. This was the worst defense in football, the worst running team in football, and a bottom 5 passing offense. They were dreadful, they were always playing from behind, and Marshall Faulk literally changed that franchise overnight from a perennial doormat to an actual playoff contender. Were his stats the best in the NFL in that stretch? Nope, but what running backs have had a stretch longer than 4-5 years where they were the best in each season, or even top 5 for that matter? What's Todd Gurley doing this year on a mediocre Rams team? It's so hard to put up big numbers as a running back on a bad team, because you're throwing so much just to stay in games, but Faulk wasn't just a threat running the ball, he was the best receiving running back the game had ever seen (and still is, IMO).
I'm not even a Marshall Faulk fanboy, hate the Colts and the Rams, and like I said, I don't care that he made the list or not (although I'd take him over Dickerson or Emmitt on any team every day of the week and twice on Sundays), but I think it's easy for people to forget just how good he was, and how much he changed the game back then. He was literally the Colts entire offense, and put up good, and even great numbers on some really, really bad teams (aside from when he was injured for a season). Then he gets to the Rams and helps turn a CFL QB into the NFL MVP and a Super Bowl champion.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
In Faulk's rookie year, they were 4th.
Tell me how the advanced stats take into account the worst offensive line in the NFL, arguably the worst QB in the game, and a team that was so bad defensively that they were playing from behind all the time. I'll hang up and listen.
And you keep talking about Faulk's career with the Colts and using cumulative numbers, while ignoring the fact that for the entire season that he averaged 3.0ypc, he was injured. The other 4 years he was there, he averaged 4.1, 3.7, 4.0, 4.1 playing behind a bunch of turnstiles and with QB's that literally could not throw the ball, which didn't matter because they didn't have receivers who could catch it anyway. Emmitt Smith's career average was 4.2 with Dallas (3.3 with Arizona in his last 2 years) playing behind the best offensive line the game has arguably ever seen.
Then you add in the fact that Faulk could actually catch and run with the ball and he blows away guys like Emmitt. Emmitt averaged 6.3ypr on 515 career catches. Faulk averaged 9.0ypr on 767 receptions (it was 9.4ypr in his "mediocre" days with Indy).
So, is Faulks' ability to catch the ball, way more often than Emmitt, and get 2.7ypr more than Emmitt when he did catch it, more valuable than the .1ypc that Emmitt averaged rushing the ball. Oh wait, over their careers, Emmitt averaged 4.2ypc and Faulk averaged 4.3ypc. Who is the inefficient volume runner again?
Or are we just going to keep ignoring Faulk's ability to catch the ball? Because it's only about rushing?
I used to always say "Emmitt Smith would hit the hole, make a linebacker miss and get 10 yards. Barry Sanders and Marshall Faulk would make 3 guys miss, then get to the LOS, then make 2 more guys miss, and get 10 yards)." Emmitt was a great back, but he wasn't Sanders or Faulk. The only reason Faulk isn't on this list is because they chose to pick guys from basically each decade. I would wager that every GM in the NFL would take Marshall Faulk in the top 5-6 if they were doing a RB draft today.
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.
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.
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.
Payton, Sanders, etc. were on a different level, imho.
If Bill Belichick thinks so incredibly highly of Emmitt Smith, shouldn't we all?
Put Barry behind that Dallas OL, make him happier/more successful enough to not cut his career short, and it's crazy what kind of record-book numbers he'd put up.
Bo Jackson was the best overall athlete I've ever seen, but Barry Sanders was the best running back I've ever seen, maybe the best one sport player.
(Sorry, not old enough to have seen JB)
Bo Jackson was the best overall athlete I've ever seen, but Barry Sanders was the best running back I've ever seen, maybe the best one sport player.
(Sorry, not old enough to have seen JB)
I'm mostly reacting to whoever above put Smith in a category with Payton and Sanders.
I'll argue against that all day long.
I'll argue against that all day long.
I think it is fair game to believe that Payton and Sanders were better than Emmitt, but I find it hard to just dismiss his candidacy for the list based on how good his offensive line was. You still need to be able to hold up to rack up that many yards. Priest Holmes ran behind a similarly great line (probably the greatest run-blocking line of all-time) and he didn't end up with nearly as good of a career as Smith.
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.
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.