Nonstopdrivel
13 years ago
I think we can all agree that O.J. Simpson qualified as an "elite running back." Out of curiosity, I looked up the season records for the teams on which he played. The results were eye opening.

BUFFALO BILLS
-------------

Season  Record  Yrds    YScm
 1969   4-10-0   697    1040
 1970   3-10-1   488     647
 1971   1-13-0   742     904
 1972   4-09-1  1251*   1449
 1973   9-05-0  2003*   2073*
 1974   9-05-0  1125    1314
 1975   8-06-0  1817*   2243*
 1976   2-12-0  1503*   1762*
 1977   3-11-0   557     695
 
SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS
-------------------
Season  Record  Yrds   YScm
 1978   2-14-0   593    765
 1979   2-14-1   460    506
 
* Denotes lead league.

UserPostedImage
zombieslayer
13 years ago



There was no correlation between having Barry Sanders, and winning, so no, he is also not an elite running back.

"Packers_Finland" wrote:



If we want to go best of best, I'd say Barry Sanders was #1 since 1976 when I started watching football. Wallie was #2. #3 a tough call between LT and Emmitt Smith. Wallie won a SB. E Smith won 3. The others didn't win anything. OJ Simpson was before my time. When I got to see him, he was already worn down.

As a Packers fan, the only elite RB we had was Ahman Green. He was only elite for a few years and in that time, we made the Playoffs and lost. The 2 SBs we won, we didn't have a 1000 yard rusher.

So like I said, waste of money. With money limited, spend it on elite defenders. You'll have a much better team. You need to run the ball, but put anyone back there. It doesn't matter. He just needs to run with the football and not fumble. Starks is fine. Grant is fine. Heck, we could have won the Super Bowl with Dmitri Nance or that one guy we cut before the season started. It doesn't matter.

If a RB wants more money, trade him for draft picks. Use the money you saved on a LB or a CB or a S or a DE or a NT. Those guys are more important anyways.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. πŸ‡ΉπŸ‡Ή πŸ‡²πŸ‡² πŸ‡¦πŸ‡·
Packers_Finland
13 years ago



There was no correlation between having Barry Sanders, and winning, so no, he is also not an elite running back.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



If we want to go best of best, I'd say Barry Sanders was #1 since 1976 when I started watching football. Wallie was #2. #3 a tough call between LT and Emmitt Smith. Wallie won a SB. E Smith won 3. The others didn't win anything. OJ Simpson was before my time. When I got to see him, he was already worn down.

As a Packers fan, the only elite RB we had was Ahman Green. He was only elite for a few years and in that time, we made the Playoffs and lost. The 2 SBs we won, we didn't have a 1000 yard rusher.

So like I said, waste of money. With money limited, spend it on elite defenders. You'll have a much better team. You need to run the ball, but put anyone back there. It doesn't matter. He just needs to run with the football and not fumble. Starks is fine. Grant is fine. Heck, we could have won the Super Bowl with Dmitri Nance or that one guy we cut before the season started. It doesn't matter.

If a RB wants more money, trade him for draft picks. Use the money you saved on a LB or a CB or a S or a DE or a NT. Those guys are more important anyways.

"Packers_Finland" wrote:



I don't actually think Sanders wasn't elite, it was only an attempt to bait Zero.
This is a placeholder
zombieslayer
13 years ago
I knew you were being sarcastic and saw that you're trying to bait Zero. I saw that he was on earlier so I'm assuming he's ignoring you.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. πŸ‡ΉπŸ‡Ή πŸ‡²πŸ‡² πŸ‡¦πŸ‡·
Dexter_Sinister
13 years ago
I am aghast. No Jim Brown? That is just wrong.

Emmitt was not elite, or even good. He was passable. He was a guy who ran into the line and fell down. It was just that his line gave him +3 and he fell for 2. Barry was handed -2 and fell forward for 7.

In '09 those top 5 backs had over 20 years of experience between them. Do you know how many super bowl rings? None.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Zero2Cool
13 years ago

What are you calling an Elite running back?

"Greg C." wrote:



He named a whole bunch of them. If you don't like the term "elite RBs," you can substitute another term of your choice, like "top ranking RBs" or whatever.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



I thought he named fantasy Running Backs, not what was making them an Elite RB.


The only one that I feel comes close to being elite would be Adrian Peterson. Because year in year out he's getting his yards and scores.
UserPostedImage
zombieslayer
13 years ago
Dexter - I'm too young. I've never seen Jim Brown other than videos of him. When I say "best" I always make a point that it's 1976 on.

Yes, I think Smith is overrated but you do have to admit, the guy has a nose for the end zone. That's why I like him. He gets TDs by any means necessary. Thus I put him with LT. How would he be behind an average OL? Well, debatable.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. πŸ‡ΉπŸ‡Ή πŸ‡²πŸ‡² πŸ‡¦πŸ‡·
macbob
13 years ago
Zombie-

Irrelevant. To borrow a line: You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.

The stats you are presenting support an argument that an elite QB is more important than an elite RB to winning. I dont think anyone here disagrees with that statement/argument.

The problem comes when you leap from that argument to an elite RB (or the running game in general) is irrelevant.

elite QB > elite RB

and

elite RB = 0

are not the same thing.

Paul Hornung & Jim Taylor were not irrelevant.

More recently, Terrell Davis wasnt irrelevantJohn Elway and the Broncos lost 3 SBs before they gained a running game. 2 of those 3 years they had an elite defense (ranked first and seventh in scoring) and their passing game/D wasnt enough, by themselves, to win the SB.

Do I think we need to go out and trade/spend to acquire AP? No. I think our RBs (Grant/Starks) will provide us enough of a running game to keep the defenses honest.

Do I think Packers should become primarily a running team? No. A running game will get you about 1500-2000 yards AT MOST a year, where a passing game will get you in the realm of 4000 yds.

What I would like to see is us drop the ZBS and to draft a couple of OL (OT & LG being the biggest needs). Get some help for both our running and passing games (I don't think it's either or--I think an improved OL can improve both). Can we clone Sitton & Bulaga???
macbob
13 years ago

I think we can all agree that O.J. Simpson qualified as an "elite running back." Out of curiosity, I looked up the season records for the teams on which he played. The results were eye opening.

BUFFALO BILLS
-------------

Season  Record  Yrds    YScm
 1969   4-10-0   697    1040
 1970   3-10-1   488     647
 1971   1-13-0   742     904
 1972   4-09-1  1251*   1449
 1973   9-05-0  2003*   2073*
 1974   9-05-0  1125    1314
 1975   8-06-0  1817*   2243*
 1976   2-12-0  1503*   1762*
 1977   3-11-0   557     695
 
SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS
-------------------
Season  Record  Yrds   YScm
 1978   2-14-0   593    765
 1979   2-14-1   460    506
 
* Denotes lead league.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



Yeah, but you can't just take that straight up. For example, in 1973 when the Bills were 9-5 OJ rushed for over 2000 yards but their passing game was putrescent--997 yards for the entire year, last in the league. 71 passing yards/game. By himself, OJ was more than 2/3rds of the Bills total offense.
zombieslayer
13 years ago
The game changed since the 60s. Passing was harder back then as you can smack the receivers all the way down the field up until they were about to catch a ball. Also, you can bury a QB into the turf and not worry about a 15-yard penalty.

The 2 year SB span with the Broncos, see what RP said in another thread. They cheated, plain and simple. I was referring to the salary cap and they broke the rules.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. πŸ‡ΉπŸ‡Ή πŸ‡²πŸ‡² πŸ‡¦πŸ‡·
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (14m) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (22m) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
packerfanoutwest (34m) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (1h) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (1h) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (1h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (1h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (1h) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (1h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (3h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (3h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (3h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (3h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (4h) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (4h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (4h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (4h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (4h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (4h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (4h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (4h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (4h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs
Zero2Cool (4h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Zero2Cool (4h) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (4h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
Zero2Cool (4h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
Zero2Cool (4h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.
packerfanoutwest (4h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what
Zero2Cool (4h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.
packerfanoutwest (4h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in
packerfanoutwest (4h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker
packerfanoutwest (4h) : if bucs win out they win their division
beast (4h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us
packerfanoutwest (5h) : falcons are already ahead of us
beast (5h) : Packers will get in
beast (5h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen
packerfanoutwest (5h) : they still are in the playoffs
packerfanoutwest (5h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7
Zero2Cool (6h) : We can say it. We don't play.
Mucky Tundra (8h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints
Mucky Tundra (8h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games
Mucky Tundra (8h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.
buckeyepackfan (8h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.
Mucky Tundra (17h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan
beast (18h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings
bboystyle (18h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in
Mucky Tundra (21h) : Or ties, but let's be real here
Mucky Tundra (21h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses
Mucky Tundra (21h) : Needed a Falcons loss for a Seahawk loss to clinch
buckeyepackfan (21h) : Am I wring in saying if Tge Vikings beat The Seahawks, The Packers clinch?
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
10m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

3h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Mucky Tundra

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright Β© 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.comβ„’. All Rights Reserved.