porky88
13 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
13 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
13 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
13 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
13 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
13 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
13 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
13 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
13 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
13 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.
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    Zero2Cool (8h) : Both LB Quay Walker and Rookie DB Micah Robinson have passed their physicals
    Zero2Cool (8h) : Happy to see site feels more snappy snappy
    Zero2Cool (8h) : No sir. I did not.
    dfosterf (9h) : You didn't get free childcare when you were at work?
    wpr (9h) : These guys make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Pay for their own childcare.
    dfosterf (11h) : 2nd issue. Number 1 issue was no gameday childcare. 1 of 3 teams not providing it
    Zero2Cool (11h) : Suppose if locker room is main issue, we sitting pretty
    wpr (11h) : I thought so Mucky. In those useless player polls GB always rates high overall. Locker is a part of it.
    Mucky Tundra (11h) : Wasn't the locker room just updated like 6 or 7 years ago?
    Zero2Cool (12h) : I have forum updated on different site. We'll see how this one goes before going to that
    Zero2Cool (13h) : Elgton Jenkins has a back injury, is expect to end contract dispute
    wpr (15h) : It's funny the PA complained about the locker room. It wasn't that long ago it was top shelf. Things change in a hurry.
    wpr (15h) : The site is much more better.
    Zero2Cool (15h) : NFLPA report said Packers lockerroom needed upgrade. Whining bout where you change?
    Zero2Cool (15h) : I saw that and thought it was kind of lame.
    dfosterf (15h) : Packers new locker room is pretty awesome. Great for morale, imo
    Zero2Cool (16h) : Shuffled things on the web server. Hope it makes it faster.
    Zero2Cool (16h) : Other times, it's turtle ass
    Zero2Cool (16h) : Sometimes it's snappy, like now.
    beast (17h) : I feel like it's loading at the top of the next minute, or something like that.
    beast (17h) : Also the thanks/heart takes FOREVER to load, and posting in the shout box takes three times FOREVER!
    beast (17h) : Thanks for saying something, I thought it was slow, but assumed it was on my end
    beast (17h) : Thanks for saying something, I thought it was slow, but assumed it was on my end
    Zero2Cool (17h) : Yeah, I noticed that too. Is it slow for PackerPeople.com too?
    wpr (17h) : I don't know what you IT guys call it but the page loading is very slow for me today.
    Zero2Cool (18h) : SSL might be settled now.
    Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Still working through SSL cert issues
    wpr (23-Jul) : Glad to be back
    Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : I think PH original finally working.
    dfosterf (22-Jul) : Can tell you are having a fun day Kev
    Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : Yep, I had to manually move them. It'll fix itself after more posts.
    Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : Same deal with the songs/videos thread, says you replied last but when I go there it's what I posted earlier is last
    Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : I had to manually move three posts.
    Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : But when I go it, Martha's is the last reply
    Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : Still a little screwy; it shows on the main forum that you were the last person to reply to the Jenkins trade thread
    Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : Host issues, been crazy day
    Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : Connect 4?
    Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : Connecting to new database
    Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : What the hell
    beast (22-Jul) : Packershome going to the Whiteout unis again
    Zero2Cool (21-Jul) : Oh wait, they got Cam Ward. 1st overall right? haha oops
    Zero2Cool (21-Jul) : They could send Packers a 1st for a QB they are familiar with
    Zero2Cool (21-Jul) : Titans QB Will Levis to have season-ending shoulder surgery
    Zero2Cool (19-Jul) : Their season did kind of start there, so 🤷
    dfosterf (19-Jul) : Eagles put an engraved Brazil flag on their super bowl rings
    Zero2Cool (18-Jul) : Benton unsigned no more
    Zero2Cool (17-Jul) : That's good analysis, yes you are getting old. It'd a blessing!
    dfosterf (14-Jul) : *analysis* gettin' old
    dfosterf (14-Jul) : One of the best analyisis I"ve ever watched at this time of an offseason
    dfosterf (14-Jul) : Andy Herman interviewed Warren Sharp on his Pack a day podcast
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2025 Packers Schedule
    Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
    COMMANDERS
    Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
    Browns
    Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
    Cowboys
    Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
    BENGALS
    Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
    Cardinals
    Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
    Steelers
    Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
    PANTHERS
    Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
    EAGLES
    Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
    Giants
    Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
    BEARS
    Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
    Broncos
    Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
    Bears
    Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
    RAVENS
    Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
    Vikings
    Recent Topics
    2m / Around The NFL / beast

    1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    3h / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

    6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    22-Jul / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    18-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    15-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

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