Announcement PH Beta → Check it out! Click Me! (you might be see "unsafe", but it is safe)
porky88
12 years ago

The receiving stuff is great, but this list is about running backs. You gonna hold it against Jim Brown cuz he doesn't have the receiving yards and catches?

I'm not disputing Faulk's value, just saying his receiving talents don't merit any place in this discussion.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 


Being a receiver is apart of playing the position, so it definitely belongs in the conversation. So does blocking. You can't takeaway responsibilities from the position.

For the record, Jim Brown wasn't a bad receiver. In fact, I believe many regard him as a pretty good pass-catcher for his time. Walter Payton also had outstanding hands. It only adds to their value at the position. It’s not any different from pointing out pocket presence when evaluating quarterbacks or cover skills when evaluating linebackers.
Zero2Cool
12 years ago
Receiving the ball and rushing the ball are two different things altogether. Whereas a quarterback having pocket presence directly relates to him being a quarterback. Very poor example.

Faulk played with Peyton Manning and Kurt Warner and played indoors a lot and yet Curtis Martin didn't share that luxury and didn't have a prolific offense to take the load off of him ... yet Martin still ran for more yards. I'm not knocking Faulk, just saying it's pretty clear when you remove bias of the "flash" that ESPN gives us ... Martin was the better running back. However, with a team having an offense say like the Packers, Faulk would be the pick hands down. But a team that is more of a ground and pound, they'd want Martin.

I think Martin hit the 70 mark receiving without an MVP quarterback or pass happy offense. Then again, he may have had those receptions because he was the dump-off guy on a team with no receivers!! lol


UserPostedImage
porky88
12 years ago
Faulk only played with Peyton Manning for one year. Manning was still far away from becoming the quarterback we know today. In fact, Faulk was the primary focus of that offense. I'd also point out Faulk had a ton of success with Jim Harbaugh at quarterback. There's a common theme here. He was the featured player in every offense he played in, including the greatest show on turf.

The list provided is top 10 running backs. The writer even mentions LaDainian Tomlinson’s capabilities as a receiver and Walter Payton's ability as a blocker. He clearly is factoring in other metrics in ranking the running backs. Every position requires different responsibilities. Receiving and blocking are apart of playing running back. There is no way around that fact. Pocket presence or mobility is apart of playing quarterback. You can't takeaway Steve Young's mobility. You can't add mobility to Dan Marino. Cover skills matter for linebackers and safeties. Tackling factors into evaluating a corner.

How much you include certain aspects into evaluation is subjective. Bill Parcells probably would prefer a grinder of a running back. Earl Campbell is his type of player. Bill Walsh would prefer more versatility. Gale Sayers is his type of player. I have no problem with a philosophical debate. However, I take issue with the comment that receiving doesn't have any merits in a discussion about running backs. It does and it always will.
longtimefan
12 years ago

My beef with the NFL list would stem from the omission of Marshall Faulk. Faulk is the most underrated running back in NFL History. He was a 1,000-yard threat running and receiving from 98-01. Props to Hazer for recognizing Faulk’s achievements. Many people overlook him.

Originally Posted by: porky88 



The article was just one mans list.

Faulk was a MVP, an offensive player of the year and in the HOF...
Zero2Cool
12 years ago
😣 You completely missed my point and didn't even answer my question! lol

Curtis Martin ran the ball better than Marshall Faulk. The numbers support that, especially considering he did it outdoors where Faulk did it indoors with several weapons on the offense taking the focus off of him. Martin was often the only offensive threat on his team. But you can't punish a guy for being in a good situation.

So I ask once again ... why bring up Faulk but not Martin? I think both should be in the discussion of ten best running backs of all time. Curtis Martin didn't get to 4th all time rushing leader by sitting on the bench eating hot dogs.

Curtis Martin averages for 10 seasons (1 of which was 13 games)
1,336.5 rushing yards
8.5 rushing touchdowns
321.1 receiving yards
1 receiving touchdown
46 receptions

Martin lost less fumbles during his career, but produced only a 4.0 for yards per carry. Curtis Martin brought the Jets to an AFC title game his first season with them as well. I like how you didn't mention that at all.
UserPostedImage
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
12 years ago
Personally, I'd replace Emmitt Smith with Leroy Kelly.

Of course no one except a few of us geezers probably remember him.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
dhazer
12 years ago

Receiving the ball and rushing the ball are two different things altogether. Whereas a quarterback having pocket presence directly relates to him being a quarterback. Very poor example.

Faulk played with Peyton Manning and Kurt Warner and played indoors a lot and yet Curtis Martin didn't share that luxury and didn't have a prolific offense to take the load off of him ... yet Martin still ran for more yards. I'm not knocking Faulk, just saying it's pretty clear when you remove bias of the "flash" that ESPN gives us ... Martin was the better running back. However, with a team having an offense say like the Packers, Faulk would be the pick hands down. But a team that is more of a ground and pound, they'd want Martin.

I think Martin hit the 70 mark receiving without an MVP quarterback or pass happy offense. Then again, he may have had those receptions because he was the dump-off guy on a team with no receivers!! lol

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 




For someone that is so fact happy Zero you dropped the ball on this lol.

Faulk played with Manning 1 year and that was Mannings rookie year (watch out for that lol) and his first year in St Louis he played for a 3rd string QB in Kurt Warner. You forget Trent Green was suppose to be that teams QB. How can you say take receiving out of this, that is part of being a running back. If you want to talk like that I guess Sayers wasn't much he got his fame from being a returner not a RB.


All I can say is C'Mon man your starting to sound like ahhh Me [boxing]


Just Imagine this for the next 6-9 years. What a ride it will be 🙂 (PS, Zero should charge for this)
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
12 years ago

For someone that is so fact happy Zero you dropped the ball on this lol.

Faulk played with Manning 1 year and that was Mannings rookie year (watch out for that lol) and his first year in St Louis he played for a 3rd string QB in Kurt Warner. You forget Trent Green was suppose to be that teams QB. How can you say take receiving out of this, that is part of being a running back. If you want to talk like that I guess Sayers wasn't much he got his fame from being a returner not a RB.


All I can say is C'Mon man your starting to sound like ahhh Me [boxing]

Originally Posted by: dhazer 


Hmm, I surely didn't drop the ball, and certainty didn't forget about Trent Green.

I have not taken anything away from Faulk, as I said already.

I am saying if we're gonna mention Marshall Faulk for all time top ten running backs, why not mention the 4th overall leader in rushing yards? If we overlook Curtis Martin for lack of being a receiving threat, why not do the same to Barry Sanders then? Good ahead, pick that fight with me, lol.

I am honored to be considered on your level good sir!
UserPostedImage
porky88
12 years ago

](*,) You completely missed my point and didn't even answer my question! lol

Curtis Martin ran the ball better than Marshall Faulk. The numbers support that, especially considering he did it outdoors where Faulk did it indoors with several weapons on the offense taking the focus off of him. Martin was often the only offensive threat on his team. But you can't punish a guy for being in a good situation.

So I ask once again ... why bring up Faulk but not Martin? I think both should be in the discussion of ten best running backs of all time. Curtis Martin didn't get to 4th all time rushing leader by sitting on the bench eating hot dogs.

Curtis Martin averages for 10 seasons (1 of which was 13 games)
1,336.5 rushing yards
8.5 rushing touchdowns
321.1 receiving yards
1 receiving touchdown
46 receptions

Martin lost less fumbles during his career, but produced only a 4.0 for yards per carry. Curtis Martin brought the Jets to an AFC title game his first season with them as well. I like how you didn't mention that at all.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 


My issue isn't why Faulk and not Martin. That's not what I've been talking about. I actually believe Martin is a top 10 running back of all-time. I never said otherwise. I think Faulk is a top five running back of all-time, though, which makes his omission from the list more bizarre, in my opinion. That’s the only reason why I mentioned Faulk first and not Martin or said anything at all.

So I like Martin. I actually agree with you. Hell of a player and should be in the Hall of Fame one day. He's probably eight, nine, or 10 if I were to make my own list.

My issue was this....

I'm not disputing Faulk's value, just saying his receiving talents don't merit any place in this discussion.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 


You can devalue Faulk's receiving capabilities or attribute it to a fast turf. I don't think turf helps running backs as much as you think, but having a philosophical difference doesn't bother me. I happen to elevate a player's versatility in my rankings. I think it's important. Maybe you don't. Fair enough. However, you can't throw it out of the discussion altogether. It belongs in the discussion. The original article even includes receiving in its rankings.
Dexter_Sinister
12 years ago
I have a huge issue with putting Smith anywhere near the list. He should be outside the top 100 all time.

He averaged a 4.2 per for his career. Which is fairly mundane.

He also should have retired about 4 years before he did. When his YPC dropped below 4, he was done being productive and was taking up carries to get a record.

He had a couple of good years, but not all time good. The only thing that really sets him apart, is he played about 4-5 years longer than anybody else who was decent. If he had not, he wouldn't be close to the record.

If Jim Brown, Gayle Sayers or Barry had played for 15 years, Emmit would never have caught them.

That is why I hate career total records. If you are the only guy to play that long, even mediocrity will give you a couple records.

Like Favre for example. His only competition is Vinny Testeverde and Steve DeBerg. If he didn't hold a crap load of career total records, he would have had to be worse than both of those two. Who were both basically backups for half of their careers. It is a testament to how bad Vinny was that he leads only Favre in total games lost in the NFL.

You also have to consider the Cowboys the O-line. One of the best ever. Emmit literally had to run 3 yards untouched and fall down for a 4.2 ypc average. Also one of the reasons he lasted as long as he did. Sanders was making moves 2 yards in the backfield and still getting 5 per. He out worked and out produced Emmit 7 to 1.2.


I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Fan Shout
beast (21h) : Thanks dfosterf, I'm still kicking myself for last week, as I forgot to change to pick Vikings and Lions... after putting in a holding spot.
Zero2Cool (22h) : First alternate: Elgton Jenkins Other alternates: Jordan Love, Kenny Clark, Keisean Nixon, Tucker Kraft, Josh Myers, Jaire Alexander
Zero2Cool (22h) : Pro Bowl still a thing? Guess Packers have three. Jacobs, Gary, McKinney.
dfosterf (22h) : It's a mine field with all the players sitting, etc
dfosterf (22h) : There was quite a bit of "chalk" matchups this year it seemed, but not this week coming up
Zero2Cool (23h) : Or we got better and by we I mean everyone except me
Zero2Cool (23h) : We have about six that by percent would have won nearly any season. I guess 2024 was predictable 🤷
Zero2Cool (23h) : You can check previous seasons. I quick did it and don't think anyone hit 70% before
dfosterf (23h) : Hats off to the Beast
dfosterf (23h) : I'm at 71.76% in pick 'em. 2nd place. Beast is at a flat 75% 9 games ahead. That 75% has got to be unprecedented this late in the season
beast (23h) : I don't care deeply, just want some good entertaining games
Zero2Cool (2-Jan) : BTW, not serious.
Zero2Cool (2-Jan) : You don't care about it either!!!!
Zero2Cool (2-Jan) : NIL and Portal killed college, no one cares about it.
Mucky Tundra (2-Jan) : outside of Texas-Arizona St, it's been a snoozefest
beast (2-Jan) : I expect Georgia will change that tomorrow, but we'll have to wait and see. If they do, then only Big 10 and SEC are left.
beast (2-Jan) : So much for Conference Championship meaning something as 100% (so far) of the conference Champions lost their first playoff game.
Zero2Cool (1-Jan) : Jaire had surgery, season over.
Mucky Tundra (1-Jan) : I guess I need a new sig Pic. Boo
Mucky Tundra (1-Jan) : Eric Dickerson approves of this decision
beast (1-Jan) : Eagles are resting RB Saquon Barkley, so there is no chance he breaks the record despite being just 101 yards from it
Zero2Cool (1-Jan) : Patriots are waiving veteran pass rusher Yannick Ngakoue
beast (1-Jan) : Happy New Year's 🥳🎉
beast (31-Dec) : I want to them chant some songs for Daniel Whelan
beast (31-Dec) : Let's win one! Also, hopefully the Irish will stand with Daniel Whelan
Mucky Tundra (31-Dec) : After London and Brazil, I could go without an overseas game for a while
Zero2Cool (31-Dec) : Packers. Steelers. Ireland. 2025. Reports say.
Zero2Cool (30-Dec) : Matt Lafleur on if Jaire will play again this season. "Yeah I don't know... he's been dealing with swelling."
Mucky Tundra (30-Dec) : After the way they played for most of the game yesterday, I don't see how you can sit anyone for the whole game
Zero2Cool (30-Dec) : I'd say play everyone. Going into playoffs at 7th seed on two game lose streak - yucky
Zero2Cool (30-Dec) : Do the Packers have any best players?
beast (30-Dec) : Play or Rest*
beast (30-Dec) : Should the Packers play or free their best players vs the Bears?
Zero2Cool (30-Dec) : Packers should be 3 - 2 in the Division. Bonkers being swept by both Lions and Vikings. yikes
go.pack.go. (30-Dec) : All crazy stuff…and good point beast
beast (30-Dec) : Packers should be 0-5 in the division, can't say I saw that coming, even 1-4
Zero2Cool (30-Dec) : Sam Darnold 35 TD's ... another one
Zero2Cool (30-Dec) : Baker Mayfield, 39 TD's ... can't say I saw that one
Zero2Cool (30-Dec) : No matter who is playing as 7th, I think we want them to win. Get rid of 2nd seed haha
go.pack.go. (30-Dec) : That would be dhazer who was rooting for Minnesota
beast (30-Dec) : Well, Commanders are currently the 6th seed and Packers the 7th
beast (30-Dec) : Who was it in Chat, that wanted the Vikings to win (because Lions fans upset them) because Packers could not lose the 6th seed?
beast (30-Dec) : If Falcons win, Packers stay as the 6th seed and Falcons lead the NFCS, if they lose, Commanders 6th and Bucs take NFCS lead
beast (30-Dec) : Win or Loss, the NFCS is going down to week 18
Mucky Tundra (30-Dec) : if the Falcons win, how does that affect the overall NFC playoff picture? Does it mean that the NFC South comes down to week 18?
beast (30-Dec) : If Commanders win, the Packers drop to the 7th seed
beast (29-Dec) : Taylor still at it!
beast (29-Dec) : Colts get the ball and fumble turn over
packerfanoutwest (29-Dec) : Jets pull Aaron Rodgers for Tyrod Taylor
Mucky Tundra (29-Dec) : Colts-Giants now a tight one
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
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
19m / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

54m / Around The NFL / Zero2Cool

15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20h / GameDay Threads / Zero2Cool

22h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

23h / Fantasy Sports Talk / dfosterf

1-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

1-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

31-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

31-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

30-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

30-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

29-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / go.pack.go.

27-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

27-Dec / Random Babble / Martha Careful

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.