1. Barry Sanders2. Jim Brown3. Walter Payton4. Tony Dorsett5. Earl Campbell6. Emmitt Smith7. Eric Dickerson8. Gale Sayers9. Marshall Faulk10. Curtis Martin
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rambo @ Jan 17 2007, 05:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>1. Barry Sanders2. Jim Brown3. Walter Payton4. Tony Dorsett5. Earl Campbell6. Emmitt Smith7. Eric Dickerson8. Gale Sayers9. Marshall Faulk10. Curtis Martin</div>That's a pretty good list. If only Barry Sanders didn't retire early. Where would you put Jerome Bettis on that list?
Meh. I think he only finished his career with a 3.9 ypc or something like that so probably in the 10-25 range or so.
In no order what so everBarry SandersJim BrownMarshall FaulkWalter PaytonTerrell DavisEmmitt SmithEric DickersonTony DorsettCurtis Martin
Agent0 u have to be kidding with marshall faulk on the greatest running backs of all time list!! He was a stud but no way near in the greatest RB's of all-time. The Greatest RB ever would of been Bo Jackson if he wouldnt of hurt his knees.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (boykinsforpresident @ Jan 17 2007, 06:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Agent0 u have to be kidding with marshall faulk on the greatest running backs of all time list!! He was a stud but no way near in the greatest RB's of all-time.</div>I'd like to hear an argument against that.
Barry SandersEmmit SmithWalter PaytonEric DickersonJim BrownCurtis MartinTony DorsettGale SayersEhh... the rest don't matter. Barry Sanders was a beast by the way. AND he was humble about it.
Jim Brown never got tackled for a loss in his life, and he averaged 5 yards a carry in his career. Thats very impressive he is 2nd best if not the best to maybe Barry Sanders.Barry played a few more years and had a few less td's which is rly the only comparison, I mean Barry was amazing.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rambo @ Jan 17 2007, 07:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'd like to hear an argument against that.</div>Sure thing.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (boykinsforpresident @ Jan 17 2007, 06:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Agent0 u have to be kidding with marshall faulk on the greatest running backs of all time list!! He was a stud but no way near in the greatest RB's of all-time. The Greatest RB ever would of been Bo Jackson if he wouldnt of hurt his knees.</div>Did you watch the Rams from 1999 through 2001 (or early 2002, rather)? You would have noticed a few things about the man behind Marshall Faulk, who IMO, is the greatest all-purpose back ever. All-Purpose being that he could block, run the ball, get the ugly yards, catch the ball, make plays, motivate the team, be a leader, etc. He really set the standards for the all-purpose back today, and if it wasn't for him, who knows if we would be seeing LaDainian Tomlinson catch balls out in the flats today? Marshall set a new standard for running backs from in the league at that time, or the backs in the league today; especially LaDainian Tomlinson.Marshall Faulk was more of the regular back who gained a few yards. I'll break a few things down besides MOST of the running aspects of the game:Blocking Probably the most underrated aspect of the game of football. From the years from 1999 through 2001, and early 2002, back in Faulk's haydays with the Rams (not going to count the other years since he was basically beaten down and riddenly injured), there was a reason why Kurt Warner won two league MVP's. It wasn't only because of his amazing arm strength, and ability to throw touchdown strikes to guys persay Isaac Bruce, Torry Hollt, Azhir Hakim, Ricky Prohel, etc. etc., it was in equation to the front 5, and Marshall Faulk in the backfield helping cover blitz from more part from the C Gap. For a guy at his size (5'10" or 5'11") it was a tough deal to block, but Marshall shown amazing strength in making plays to help give Kurt some more time in the backfield to make passes to our receivers. Marshall contained players, and made them get around him, and when they got around him, it was either too late, or Kurt already got the ball off because Faulk was so good at making defenders hesitate, it's crazy to think back, and he made them pay if they got by him in the works of making them slow down on the way to #13.Receiving I've argued for years about Faulk being the best all-purpose back of all-time, and I'm going to argue that point here. Most people who did not watch football much, or didn't pay attention to the Rams back in those days didn't realise how hard of a job it was to catch so many passes from Kurt Warner, with Isaac Bruce and Torry Holt running the show; those guys were great. But who else was? Marshall Faulk. He made the cuts, and some moves to shake the defenders off to get open mid-field to run some plays to get the first down; or do you remember how he caught passes out in the flats, and made some of his ever-so-famous cut moves to get the ugly yards for that extra-ugly first down? Marshall could be a receiver out there if he was a few inches taller. He was a hell of a receiver, and he proved it through those years. That's another reason of how lethal Kurt Warner was being made by this man, and another stimulating reason for it.The Tough Yards It's a debate whether Marshall should have went in the game on those 3rd and 1's, 3rd and 2's, and got the job done by running it up the gut when we brought players in. Alot of times playaction would be called, but when Faulk got the ball, he made defenses pay getting the yards that defenses were scared to even tackle Marshall. They were scared to even try to wrap him up, because they knew if they even tried, he would make them pay, and then some! A small back like Marshall, being given the ball on these tough yards, who would have knew more backs these days would be similar to how Faulk done it. The cut moves, busting through the line, and making the plays just enough to get the first down. Faulk was not just a speedy back that could catch the ball, as well as make plays on the run, he could make those plays to get the first downs regardless of how small he was.
Jim Brown: Nobody beats himBarry Sanders: Amazing, would of became the G.O.A.T. if he stayed longerPaytonDickersonFaulkEmmitDorsettCurtis MartinL.T.Gale Sayers...he could of been the G.O.A.T. if not for injuries
LTBarry SandersWalter PaytonHerschel WalkerBo JacksonEric DickersonJim Brown Earl CampbellTony DorsettGale SayersEmmith Smith
I;d say jim brown was probably the best because they only played 12 games back then so his stats aren't going to be amazing, but from the stories I heard the guy was an animal.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Agent0 @ Jan 17 2007, 09:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Sure thing.Did you watch the Rams from 1999 through 2001 (or early 2002, rather)? You would have noticed a few things about the man behind Marshall Faulk, who IMO, is the greatest all-purpose back ever. All-Purpose being that he could block, run the ball, get the ugly yards, catch the ball, make plays, motivate the team, be a leader, etc. He really set the standards for the all-purpose back today, and if it wasn't for him, who knows if we would be seeing LaDainian Tomlinson catch balls out in the flats today? Marshall set a new standard for running backs from in the league at that time, or the backs in the league today; especially LaDainian Tomlinson.Marshall Faulk was more of the regular back who gained a few yards. I'll break a few things down besides MOST of the running aspects of the game:Blocking: Probably the most underrated aspect of the game of football. From the years from 1999 through 2001, and early 2002, back in Faulk's haydays with the Rams (not going to count the other years since he was basically beaten down and riddenly injured), there was a reason why Kurt Warner won two league MVP's. It wasn't only because of his amazing arm strength, and ability to throw touchdown strikes to guys persay Isaac Bruce, Torry Hollt, Azhir Hakim, Ricky Prohel, etc. etc., it was in equation to the front 5, and Marshall Faulk in the backfield helping cover blitz from more part from the C Gap. For a guy at his size (5'10" or 5'11") it was a tough deal to block, but Marshall shown amazing strength in making plays to help give Kurt some more time in the backfield to make passes to our receivers. Marshall contained players, and made them get around him, and when they got around him, it was either too late, or Kurt already got the ball off because Faulk was so good at making defenders hesitate, it's crazy to think back, and he made them pay if they got by him in the works of making them slow down on the way to #13.Receiving: I've argued for years about Faulk being the best all-purpose back of all-time, and I'm going to argue that point here. Most people who did not watch football much, or didn't pay attention to the Rams back in those days didn't realise how hard of a job it was to catch so many passes from Kurt Warner, with Isaac Bruce and Torry Holt running the show; those guys were great. But who else was? Marshall Faulk. He made the cuts, and some moves to shake the defenders off to get open mid-field to run some plays to get the first down; or do you remember how he caught passes out in the flats, and made some of his ever-so-famous cut moves to get the ugly yards for that extra-ugly first down? Marshall could be a receiver out there if he was a few inches taller. He was a hell of a receiver, and he proved it through those years. That's another reason of how lethal Kurt Warner was being made by this man, and another stimulating reason for it.The Tough Yards: It's a debate whether Marshall should have went in the game on those 3rd and 1's, 3rd and 2's, and got the job done by running it up the gut when we brought players in. Alot of times playaction would be called, but when Faulk got the ball, he made defenses pay getting the yards that defenses were scared to even tackle Marshall. They were scared to even try to wrap him up, because they knew if they even tried, he would make them pay, and then some! A small back like Marshall, being given the ball on these tough yards, who would have knew more backs these days would be similar to how Faulk done it. The cut moves, busting through the line, and making the plays just enough to get the first down. Faulk was not just a speedy back that could catch the ball, as well as make plays on the run, he could make those plays to get the first downs regardless of how small he was.</div>All thats awesome but his ability to block doesn't make him one of the greatest RB's of all time...And you seriously need to realize what you said...(I bolded it)! I am seriously thinking about killing myself because you said that! Im going to mention a guys name that is 20 times better at an all purpose back ever....LT! I think if Faulk wasnt in the league than LT would still be the best RB in the game today! And not to mention heres some other reasons why Faulk shouldnt be on that list of great RB's(I italasized them) Dude he had a 3 yr. span when he was dominant! After that he did nothing, how can you be on the greatest RB's of all time when you had 3 good years in your NFL career?? That blows my mind that you would say that! And Kurt Warner won those 2 MVP awards not because of marshall faulks blocking but because of his amazing TD passes and his armstrength and pinpoint accuracy! No way should faulk be on this list Agent0!
And another thing...This may blow peoples minds but I guarantee if you put Jim Brown in todays NFL he wouldnt be half the player he was then. But I think he should be on the list of greatest RB's.....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (boykinsforpresident @ Jan 17 2007, 10:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>All thats awesome but his ability to block doesn't make him one of the greatest RB's of all time...And you seriously need to realize what you said...(I bolded it)! I am seriously thinking about killing myself because you said that! Im going to mention a guys name that is 20 times better at an all purpose back ever....LT! I think if Faulk wasnt in the league than LT would still be the best RB in the game today! And not to mention heres some other reasons why Faulk shouldnt be on that list of great RB's(I italasized them) Dude he had a 3 yr. span when he was dominant! After that he did nothing, how can you be on the greatest RB's of all time when you had 3 good years in your NFL career?? That blows my mind that you would say that! And Kurt Warner won those 2 MVP awards not because of marshall faulks blocking but because of his amazing TD passes and his armstrength and pinpoint accuracy! No way should faulk be on this list Agent0!</div>He had great years with the Colts as well before he signed the Rams in 1999. I figured you would have known that, but I guess I'll have to point that out as well. I was just pointing out the 3-year span mostly because those were the glory years of THE Greatest Show on Turf. Kurt Warner won those two MVP's via not only because of Marshall Faulk, but because of Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce, good plays by Ricky Prohel and Azhir Hakim, great offensive line blocking (Orlando Pace, Adam Timmerman.) It takes a team to do that. Same with LaDainian Tomlinson; credit alot of his running because of the 5 guys that is stopping them nasty d-lineman from taking him down. It just blows my mind that you say Tomlinson is already better than Faulk after just MVP and a few great years. I'm not denying Tomlinson is great, but it's just insane of you to say he's already better than Faulk considering that Faulk set the standards for the all-purpose back, back in the day. It's pretty noteable to see Tomlinson doing that today, but he wouldn't get as much media attention for it since Faulk really pumped into that part by making the all-purpose plays by taking part in the Greatest Show on Turf, and being the key reason in my opinion. I mean, seriously, if you think the only reason Kurt won those MVP's by his arm, you're right. There's no way he'd go from being a bag boy at the local grocery store to a two time League MVP and a Super Bowl MVP. Keep that in mind. When Tomlinson becomes an even better leader, and actually wins A playoff game, you PM me on here..No wait, when he wins more than one playoff game with his teammates, PM me on here, and the argument will be more valid. It's just insane of you to say LT is ALREADY better than Faulk. If Tomlinson puts up these numbers consistently for the next 3 years, then I'll agree. During the GSOT years, if Holt and Bruce wasn't on the team at the time, or were just average players as well as Warner, I could guarantee it now, you place Holt and Bruce at those times, as well as Kurt Warner with Philip Rivers, Eric Parker, and Keenan McCardell, and I'm damn sure Faulk could put up just as good of numbers as Tomlinson did; however, of course, Faulk still dominated, and is more valuable due to the fact that he still dominated when there were 3 other elite players on that team. That, to me, shows a little bit of relentless play by Faulk, and shows how great one can be when there are other greats on a team.
