Barry or Emmitt

Punishing Emmitt for having a good team isn't any more fair than dismissing Barry because he didn't win titles. We never got to see what Emmitt would have done with a crappy OL, because he was already in the twilight of his career by the time that happened. So, saying he would have done X or Y in this situation that never happened is pure speculation.

We did see him dominate a game that won his team a division title with a separated shoulder that was cracking and popping every time he got hit.

He won Super Bowl MVP by basically singlehandedly taking his team down the field for the go-ahead TD, which was scored when he got hit 5 yards deep in the backfield and then nearly tripped by a teammate.

But to hear some people talk, Barry never had a single play in his life where he made it to the LOS untouched, while Emmitt always ran 5 yards through a huge hole and then got hit and went down.
 
Barry had better running skills, Emmitt was far and away a better running back, because he blocked and caught the ball, in addition to running well.
 
It's kind of funny, the Barry arguments sound really similar to what my VT friends say about Vick vs Young. "Well if Vick had Texas' OL, and was in a backfield with Jamaal Charles...."

FWIW I do think Barry has a much better argument over Emmitt than Vick has over Vince, but the thing is that the "well imagine if Player X had an amazing team around him" argument is a bit too easy, even though it is sometimes true.

It's also interesting that supposedly Mark Stepnoski, Erik Williams, Larry Allen,and Nate Newton made Emmitt Smith, even though Emmitt's best season came when Mark Stepnoski was playing for Houston and Erik Williams was still recovering from his car accident and was a shadow of his former self that year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top