Carry over from Baseball Fever

[CCN]

Today in Baseball Fever, philkid3 said he would like to talk about Barry Sanders (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Barry_Sanders.shtml) and the type of player he was after I mentioned him earlier in the HOF Excuse thread by saying he received criticism for not scoring enough. Now, he did say he recognized Sanders (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Barry_Sanders.shtml) as a great player, but he was not a fan.

Watching Sanders (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Barry_Sanders.shtml) his entire career, I would say he was easily one of the most exciting players I have ever seen. And one of my favorites. I do admit, though, there are issues with him. Beyond his abrupt retirement so close to the all-time rushing record when it seemed like he was still a top flight back, there is the above-mentioned criticism (he wasn't a scoring machine like Emmitt (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Emmitt_Smith.shtml) or Jerry Rice (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Jerry_Rice.shtml)) as well as his propensity to get caught behind the line of scrimmage a few times a game. Thaat doesn't change my overall mindset.

So, any more opinions? Phil, please say what's on your mind. I think your opinion is well-founded and certainly not to be dismissed even if it's opposite of mine.

[Brooklyn]

Sanders (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Barry_Sanders.shtml) was always thought of as a small back, which he was at 5-8, 200 pounds. My recollection was that they always gave the ball to someone else in close yardage because of his size.

Looking at the stats, I'm not sure how true that was. During his career, Sanders (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Barry_Sanders.shtml) scored 65% of his teams rushing TDs. During Emmitt's (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Emmitt_Smith.shtml) Cowboys days, Emmitt (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Emmitt_Smith.shtml) scored 73% of his teams rushing TDs, so there may be a little truth in that, but not as much as I would have thought.

Sanders (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Barry_Sanders.shtml) is 9th all time in rushing TDs, so I'm not sure it is fair to criticize him for not scoring. He did have 0.71 TDs per game over his career, compared to Smith's (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Emmitt_Smith.shtml) 0.77 per game, so they are not really that far apart, but appear to be since Smith (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Emmitt_Smith.shtml) played so much longer (and his average is obviously down a little do to his decline). TDs scored is also a correlation to the team you are on, and Sanders (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Barry_Sanders.shtml) was on worse teams that Smith (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Emmitt_Smith.shtml), hence less opportunties for TDs.

I just can't hold it against him for not scoring more, with 99 rushing and 109 total TDs.

As for being tackled behind the line of scrimmage, I always blamed his line for that more then Sanders (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Barry_Sanders.shtml). If they weren't getting penetration, he'd be getting more yards. In fact, I gave him more credit for that since it greatly brought down his totals and average. It seemed as if he could get to the line he was going to do something special. Averaging 5.0 yards per carry with all his negative yards is even more impressive.

He too was one of my favoirte players to watch, and I do hold it against him that he retired early. At the time, I thought it was a contract ploy, and couldn't believe he didn't come back. He had 5 straight 1490+ yard seasons before retiring. There is no doubt in my mind he had a lot left, and might have had a shot at 20,000 yards. I would have liked to see him go for it. He, Jim Brown and Sandy Koufax are the three players I regret the most that they left too early, although Sandy was by injury.

[CCN]

I do remember a conversation on ESPN Radio a few years back when he was still active, it wasn't any of the regular guys but I think Phil the Showkiller and someone else who I've now long forgotten, but they were actually laughing at a comparison between Emmitt (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Emmitt_Smith.shtml) and Sanders (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Barry_Sanders.shtml), using the apparent lack of touchdowns as something to be held against him. As if it were his fault directly he wasn't scoring 20+ a year.

Sanders (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Barry_Sanders.shtml) could have had bigger numbers but he was in a system for a while, the run and shoot, that was not set up for the type of back he was. The Lions OC, Mouse "There's only MY WAY to rock" Davis actually disparaged Sanders (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Barry_Sanders.shtml) as a player because his style didn't fit his system. He actually commented on this during Sanders's (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Barry_Sanders.shtml) 2000 yard season as well as a few times while Davis was in Detroit.

[Galloping Ghost]

First, I'd like to make a distinction. Barry (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Barry_Sanders.shtml) was a short running back, not a small running back. He's listed at 5'8" 203 lbs. Barry (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Barry_Sanders.shtml) had an incredibly powerful body, broad shoulders, big chest, thick muscular legs. I wouldn't describe a man 5'8", 203 pounds, and all muscle as small.

Also, I'm not sure why anyone would hold it against Barry (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Barry_Sanders.shtml) that he retired so close to Payton's career rushing record? My opinion is that he simply got tired of all the losing. Over at Baseball fever longtime member ElHalo made an interesting comment on Barry (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Barry_Sanders.shtml) when discussing Mickey Mantle.


This, to me, doesn't make sense. People remember a lot about Mickey, but one thing they don't remember is that he wasn't forced to retire because of injuries.

Mick didn't retire until spring training in '69. He was still eminently capable of playing baseball (don't forget; he finished in the top 10 in the AL in OPS his final season, and Roy White has consistently maintained that he was still BY FAR the best player on the Yankees at that point, although in fairness that might not have been saying much).

The point is this: Mantle had spent his entire career a winner. Going into 1969, he was playing in tremendous pain (had been for years) for a team that had finished outside the top four in the AL for four straight years. They had no prospect of turning things around any time soon.

He could have kept playing through pain, as an extremely productive hitter... but for what? Winning, the only thing he'd ever known, was beyond him. He had accomplished everything he'd ever could have dreamed of accomplishing and more. It hurt him to play, and when he did play, all his team did was lose. His legacy was cemented, and wasn't going to be improved any more by trudging on.

I think of an analogy to my single favorite athlete as a teenager (well, in the pre-Derek Jeter years), Barry Sanders. Barry Sanders was, without question, the single most entertaining athlete I have ever bared witness to (and this is taking into account the fact that I can't stand football). The things he could do on a playing field could make you cry. He was easily the best runner in the game when he retired, and could have gone on playing another four or five years or more, putting everybody in his taillights on the career rushing list. But he didn't. Why?

The Lions were losers. They were always going to be losers. Nothing he could ever do was going to change that. His legacy was complete: one of the, if not the single, greatest running backs in the history of football. He could go on and rack up the individual numbers while he team stayed mired in mediocrity, but why? What was he to gain from that? The team wasn't going to progress as long as they stayed with the mentality of building around Barry. He wasn't going to win any championships there. There was just no point in him continuing to play the game of football.

Likewise for Mantle. Yes, you can say that the booze and hard life hit him hard (and they did). But they didn't hit him so hard that he wasn't a productive player. They didn't hit him so hard that he couldn't have gone on playing as a productive player. But what was to be gained? The Yankees wouldn't start rebuilding while Mickey was there. The Yankees wouldn't win championships, the only thing Mick had ever known, while he was there. The only Mickey could do was show up on the field and maybe help them finish in fifth place instead of seventh, and add to his own personal numbers. Mickey had too much pride, too much integrity, for that.

How can you fault him? What was to be gained by him doing anything else?

[philkid3]

I usually avoid this conversation because it gets heated and frustrating, but to sumarize because I don't have a lot of time but FINALLY remembered this topic (sorry, CCN), I will say I think Sanders (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Barry_Sanders.shtml) is great. Inner-circle, one of the top handful of runningbacks ever or so.

I also think he's overrated because of his lack of consistency. He was amazing, and exciting, but I think the runningbacks who help their teams the most are those who gain yardage consistently, not just gain large amounts of yards. As well as those who you can use in short yardage, who can use up the clock, convert 3rd and 2 and can score touchdowns inside the 10. Sanders (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Barry_Sanders.shtml) was GREAT, but he caused problems for his teams that other top runningbacks did not (he also caused problems for defenses that other running backs did not, which is why he's still great).

Boom and bust runningbacks are just not very good for NFL teams. Now, Sanders (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Barry_Sanders.shtml) was by FAR the best boom and bust runner ever, who busted less often and boomed even bigger, but that still keeps me from considering him as great in terms of helping his team win as other fans seem to.

I also get frustrated by the myth that has grown that his line was terrible. It was not great, it was not as good as Emmit's, but it was good. Lomas Brown (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Lomas_Brown.shtml) is still considered one of the best linemen of the 90s. Kevin Glover (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Kevin_Glover.shtml) wsa a good lineman. So was Jeff Hartings (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Jeff_Hartings.shtml). And late in his career, though he would never use a lead block, he had a great lead blocker in Cory Schlesinger (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Cory_Schlesinger.shtml).

Everyone considers these guys good at the same time that they say Barry Sanders (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Barry_Sanders.shtml) line was not good. I don't know how this perception changed over time, I guess as a way to downgrade his peers and promote Sanders (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Barry_Sanders.shtml) even further. Make his legend bigger.

That said, due to his style, I don't think his line made much of a difference, compared to other runners. Barry (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Barry_Sanders.shtml) wouldn't follow blocks, he just did his own thing. As much as it would help him compensate for a bad line, it would also keep him from taking advantage of a great line.

Point being, I think Sanders (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Barry_Sanders.shtml) was great, but I don't think he helped a team quite as much as a handful of runningbacks he is put ahead of just because people look at his total rushing yards or his highlights and come away impressed.

I don't tend to like this conversation, though, because it gets so heated, comes off as seeming like I'm personally attacking Sanders (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Barry_Sanders.shtml), and also ends up often in people turning around and using it to insult Emmitt Smith (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Emmitt_Smith.shtml), who was one of my personal favorites.

For the record, I rank Emmitt (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Emmitt_Smith.shtml) ahead of Sanders (http://www.football-almanac.com/players/Barry_Sanders.shtml), but I don't have much of a problem with people switching that. It's close. What I do have a problem with is statements like "Emmitt couldn't carry Sanders' jock strap."

[CCN]

I usually avoid this conversation because it gets heated and frustrating, but to sumarize because I don't have a lot of time but FINALLY remembered this topic (sorry, CCN), I will say I think Sanders is great. Inner-circle, one of the top handful of runningbacks ever or so.

I also think he's overrated because of his lack of consistency. He was amazing, and exciting, but I think the runningbacks who help their teams the most are those who gain yardage consistently, not just gain large amounts of yards. As well as those who you can use in short yardage, who can use up the clock, convert 3rd and 2 and can score touchdowns inside the 10. Sanders was GREAT, but he caused problems for his teams that other top runningbacks did not (he also caused problems for defenses that other runningbacks did not, which is why he's still great).

Boom and bust runningbacks are just not very good for NFL teams. Now, Sanders was by FAR the best boom and bust runner ever, who busted less often and boomed even bigger, but that still keeps me from considering him as great in terms of helping his team win as other fans seem to.


I also get frustrated by the myth that has grown that his line was terrible. It was not great, it was not as good as Emmit's, but it was good. Lomas Brown is still considered one of the best linemen of the 90s. Kevin Glover wsa a good lineman. So was Jeff Hartings. And late in his career, though he would never use a lead block, he had a great lead blocker in Corey Schlesinger.

Everyone considers these guys good at the same time that they say Barry Sanders line was not good. I don't know how this perception changed over time, I guess as a way to downgrade his peers and promote Sanders even further. Make his legend bigger.

That said, due to his style, I don't think his line made much of a difference, compared to other runners. Barry wouldn't follow blocks, he just did his own thing. As much as it would help him compensate for a bad line, it would also keep him from taking advantage of a great line.

Point being, I think Sanders was great, but I don't think he helped a team quite as much as a handful of runningbacks he is put ahead of just because people look at his total rushing yards or his highlights and come away impressed.



I don't tend to like this conversation, though, because it gets so heated, comes off as seeming like I'm personally attacking Sanders, and also ends up often in people turning around and using it to insult Emmitt Smith, who was one of my personal favorites.

For the record, I rank Emmitt ahead of Sanders, but I don't have much of a problem with people switching that. It's close. What I do have a problem with is statements like "Emmitt couldn't carry Sanders' jock strap."

So you forgot. No big deal. Just glad you could chime in when you could.

That's one good thing about the Fever sites. Generally, we're an informed lot for the most part. Homerism that would lead to such heated arguments doesn't go very far on the general boards. The jock strap argument, especially for players like Sanders and Smith, would and should get laughed at. I'm a big Sanders fan, and I certainly would not brush aside Smith as a very comparable player. We're talking 1 and 1A here for their era.

I was hoping you'd provide a valid argument, and you have. Sanders had a potentially excellent line, and if the tragedies that befell Erik Andolsek and Mike "Thumbs Up" Utley didn't happen, it becomes entirely moot. Even with that, he had a solid line for the most part.

Boom and bust is a very good way to describe him. I still haven't seen anyone come close to his explosiveness. And, the fact he was able to do it for as long as he did is especially impressive. He was a true game changer.

I simply will not knock Emmitt. Heck, in his prime, no one could on the defensive end for the most part. He was explosive in his own way, and the perfect component in the Cowboys offense. That's what made him so valuable, what made the Cowboys winners. His falling so far in the draft ranks right with Dan Marino's big fall in the 83 draft. Teams really had to kick themselves for that. A total class guy who I had absolutely no problem with breaking the record.

I think Sanders might have been a better runner than Smith, and might have been better on a game to game basis. But in terms of what he added to the team, Smith might have been a better player than Sanders.

[sirmudgeon]

I watched Barry Sanders from his time at Oklahoma State. Now, I've only highlight films to compare, but there was only one runner in NFL history, in my opinion, who comes close to him for sheer jaw-dropping excitement: Gale Sayers. And Sayers made much of his noise on returns. The best return guys, the Mel Grays and the Dante Halls and the Devin Hesters, don't seem to be able to handle the pounding of every-down backs. Barry seemed like he had furniture casters for ankles, he turned the ridiculous into the sublime.

Emmitt Smith was one of the toughest I ever saw, and I hate the Cowboys, with fervour. The most fluid had to be OJ Simpson, he was the Jerry Rice of RBs. The best, without any question, was Jim Brown. And now, we've two pretty exciting backs, Frank Gore and Adrian Peterson. Yet none will ever touch Sanders for broken-field running (although a few tapes of Hugh McIlhenny and Red Grange, and Marcus Allen in the Super Bowl, would not go amiss).

So, I'm thinking of my all-time teams, in re my earlier post. I realise that I am very weak on offensive linemen, so much of it is hidden, so much of it is reputation (Jackie Slater made a couple of Pro Bowls when broken down, so did any number of other guys). How does one pick these guys? For me, Sam Huff is the center, but what do I really know about him? Or Mel Hein? Or Chuck Bednarik? How do you quantify their performances, or cross-era compare? We can do this with RBs (see above), with WRs (see Rice/Hutson thread), with QBs (Sammy Baugh makes the team as a punter, fake punt threat, and backup QB, we can still marvel at Otto Graham or even compare Bob Waterfield to John Hadl), we realise that Lou Groza was a great kicker but couldn't make a modern roster, but what about the linemen? Was John Hannah an all-timer? Jim Otto? Help would be appreciated.

QB: Joe Montana, Joe Cool, Elway was good at the finish, Unitas was a great leader, Marino the best passer, sorry, you want Joe at the end of the day.
RB: Jim Brown, fast and big and strong and determined and 5.22 ypc career, and only he could look good in that silly hat.
FB: Bronko Nagurski, for the jump pass and the brute strength, the domination.
WR: Jerry Rice, any all-time team not including him has some serious issues.
WR: Don Hutson, ditto, the separation from his peers is still awe-inspiring.
TE: Kellen Winslow, by a touch over John Mackey, if only for that playoff game, and for watching Fouts throw to him, and Joiner, and John Jefferson, and Wes Chandler. That was a fun team to watch.
C: Sam Huff, both sides, baby, Bedarik second by a nostril hair.
G: Fuzzy Thurston, if only for the name.
G: Stuck here- input?
T: John Hannah, got your back.
T: Stuck again...

DE: David Deacon Jones, a song and universal NFL fear sort of add up.
DT: Reggie White, for reasons too numerous to list.
DT: Mean Joe Green, think he played both end and tackle, and dominated both (apologies to Chuck Bednarik, please, please, I'm really sorry, don't kill me, Chuck).
DE: Randy White, solid all the way, all the time.
OLB: Lawrence Taylor, like there's another first choice.
MLB: Dick Butkus, with apologies to a slew of others including Jack Lambert, Ray Nitschke, Mike Singletary, Ray Lewis, Tommy Nobis, and Hacksaw Reynolds (who wasn't in the same class but had a GREAT nickname).
OLB: Ted the Mad Stork Hendricks, for those of you that never saw him play, you missed out, big time, he was a freak of nature.
CB: Deion Sanders, who I hated, and who couldn't wouldn't tackle, could cover anybody, and score from anywhere.
CB: Darryl Green, and yeah, he could return punts, too, just in front of Mike Haynes.
S: Mel Blount, by a nose over Jack Tatum (who I almost hit, twice in two holes, with golf shots some years back, and believe me he's still menacing, I thought I was gonna die).
S: Ronnie Lott, over Dick Night Train Lane, Emlen Tunnel, and Paul Krause, Ronnie could cover, hit, intimidate, he owned that secondary, and he played with his finger off, for pete's sake.
P: Sammy Baugh, still the highest career average when it was all played outdoors in nasty weather with a pig bladder, by a tad over Ray Guy, only 'cause Slingin' Sammy could toss the rock, too.
K: This team will not be kicking on fourth down. If absolutely necessary, I want Adam Vinatieri to win it.

Coach: Bill Walsh, then Vince Lombardi, then George Halas, then Paul Brown, then Curly Lambeau. Bill Belichick is a right wanker.

So, that's an all-time team start, sure to create some debate if anyone is actually reading.

[CCN]

Thanks for the team, sirmudgeon. I'm going to start a thread where we can post our own teams here.

As for tackles, the one man of recent vintage they call the prototype is Anthony Munoz, the lone Bengal HOF'er and one of the nicest athletes out there in any sport. As far as other linement go, you can't go wrong with the Raiders triumvirate of Guard Upshaw, Tackle Shell and my pick for Center, Jim Otto. Other greats include Slater, Forrest Gregg, Mike Webster, Rony Yary, Joe DeLamielileure and everyone's favorite boxing commentator, Dan Dierdorf.

[Galloping Ghost]

I know some knock Sanders for all those lost yards. But what has always bothered me is that there is no context given to these lost yards. Has the "lost yards" carries been documented for the other great running backs in football history? I'd be curious to know who many lost yards Emmit Smith, or Walter Payton, or Jim Brown, an others had?

[CCN]

I know some knock Sanders for all those lost yards. But what has always bothered me is that there is no context given to these lost yards. Has the "lost yards" carries been documented for the other great running backs in football history? I'd be curious to know who many lost yards Emmit Smith, or Walter Payton, or Jim Brown, an others had?

I know this is just "anecdotal" but I can't thiink of anyone else getting trapped behind the line as much as Sanders in all the years I've watched football. I've never seen anything documented, though.

We always blamed the coach for calling those plays. :eek: