Who's the better career running back: Emmitt Smith or Barry Sanders?

Sanders

Who is the greatest running back of all time in the NFL? I am sure that this question has found its way into your life. Whether you were at a bus stop, in a sports bar, or simply watching a football game amongst friends, the conversation of the greatest players of all time is sure to arise. The next time your faith is tested with such a question, you will be prepared. Today I, The Preacher, intends on answering this question, and silencing the myth that has unfortunately become commonly accepted as truth in today's day and age.

Players such as Jim Brown, Earl Campbell, Walter "Sweetness" Payton, Eric Dickerson, O.J. Simpson, Gale Sayers are commonly brought into this conversation, but it usually ends with the flawed acceptance that Emmitt Smith is the greatest running back of all time. Lies, I tell you all lies!

As the misled fans have come to accept Emmitt Smith as the greatest running back, I would like to take the time to ask why? The answers I typically receive are short, simple, and while true, they lack the credence to convince me. I am sure you have heard the same answers, "Emmitt Smith has won Super Bowl rings, and even an MVP," or "Emmitt owns the rushing title," or maybe even, "because I said so."

Frankly, Emmitt Smith was a good running back, but I don't even think he is worthy to be mentioned in the same sentence as the greatest running back of all time. Nonetheless, I will curb my conviction for the moment, and in the spirit of this debate, I will allow Emmitt Smith to share the same sentence with the greatest running back to grace the field of the NFL. Give me a moment, because this is relatively difficult for me to do.

The man I speak of is none other than Barry Sanders. If you ever had the privilege to watch Barry Sanders run, you know exactly what I mean when I use the word "privilege." He was the most electrifying man on the field. For those that never were blessed to see him, think of one of the greatest players in any secondary, Rod Woodson, a man that was elected to the NFL 75 year team (of which 75 men were elected as the greatest players to have ever graced the field and yes, Barry Sanders was among those 75 as well). Rod Woodson tore his ACL while he attempted to tackle Sanders. I'd like you to remember the word, "attempted," as one of the greatest players in the history of the NFL could not even get a finger on the athletic display that would make an Olympic gymnast drop his or her jaw in envy. Furthermore, that one moment in time altered Rod Woodson's life. While most of us simply got whiplash as we tried to follow Sanders prance about an NFL field, dodging one tackle, spinning out of another, leaping over a third, and then seeing Barry explode 80 yards down the field to score a touchdown, the case was different for Rod Woodson. Woodson's injury forced him from being the elite cornerback of his time to the role of a free safety and then shortly left the Pittsburgh nation to conclude his career as a journeyman of sorts. No, my devotion to Barry Sanders as the best running back of all time is not due to one remarkable play, or the fact that his athletic feats were displayed regularly. And yes, you are right. This is a debate between the greatest running back of all time and the man that has conned the nation to believing such a horrific and intentional lie, and Rod Woodson shouldn't be put into the middle of it.

In continuing the education or opportunity to reminisce, I won't even use the fact that Barry Sanders should have a patent on the spin move, and he could stiff arm with the best of them. And all of that was done in the backfield because he didn't have an offensive line to block for him!

While I know you are waiting patiently for the statistical comparison of the two running backs, let's first address that previous statement; that Barry Sanders "didn't have an offensive line to block for him!" All great running games are predicated on the five to seven men that line up on the offensive line before him, ready to block, create holes or seems in the defense for the running back to exploit. This is a very important aspect of how great an opportunity the running back will have when he carries the ball, and is unfortunately widely overlooked. You come to me for the truth, and I insist that you have it.

Barry Sanders had Lomas Brown and Kevin Glover named to the Pro Bowl during his career, and in only 1996 did he have both at a Pro Bowl quality. In fact, Barry Sanders' offensive line was so horrific, that despite him being third all time in career rushing, he also holds the most yards lost in the backfield by a running back with 1,114 negative yards.

Emmitt Smith however, had one of the best offensive lines blocking for him through the majority of his career with greats like Nate Newton, Mark Stepnowski, Erik Williams, Larry Allen, Ray Donaldson, and Mark Tunei -all Pro Bowlers, and between 1992 and 1999 he never had fewer than two named to NFC team. From 1993 through, and including the 1996 season he had either three or four of his lineman make the NFC team each year.

With that said, I think it is safe to say that the quality of protection would favor Smith, and to mention the Pro Bowl Tight End, Jay Novacek would even further skew the statistics.

Speaking of Pro Bowlers, I could also bring into the debate the fullback position, although that would potentially be unfair. While Barry Sanders, save his 1997 season, spent the majority of his career without a lead fullback to block for him, Emmitt had Daryl "Moose" Johnston, a Pro Bowler in his own right, leading the way throughout his career with the Cowboys. Needless to say, that with that lead blocker in 1997, Barry Sanders amassed 2,053 yards on the ground that year and one could only wonder what he could have done with a fullback aiding his path throughout his career. Emmitt Smith however had Daryl Johnston through the first nine years of his career.

For those that say that a fullback doesn't make that great of a difference, please explain to me how, when "Moose" retired at the conclusion of the 1999 season, Smith's rushing declined from 1,397 to 1,203 in 2000, and then again Emmitt fell to 1,021 yards in 2001.

Was it age? Was Emmitt Smith just getting too old to play the game, and yet he stuck it out because he wanted the rushing title so bad he was willing to go through the aches and pains on a daily basis simply to grab onto the all time rushing title, which his supporters use without reservation to deem him the NFL's greatest running back? That's likely, as he never again eclipsed the 1,000 yard mark after his 2001 campaign. The following year he totaled a very average season of 975 yards, and had the longest run of the rest of his career a 30 yard gallop.

Age was never a severe issue with Barry Sanders. Sanders had shocked the NFL community by retiring what many have considered "in his prime." Only ten years into his already historic career. The simple fact that he had joined the single season 2,000 yard rushers two years before, a feat only accomplished by O.J. Simpson, Terrell Davis, Jamal Lewis, Eric Dickerson, and Barry Sanders even now. As previously mentioned, that was with a fullback leading Sanders' way, which Emmitt benefitted for his entire career. Emmitt Smith's single season high in 1995 was over 200 yards short of making this list with a still impressive 1,773 yards.

So, if age was the issue to Emmitt Smith's decline, a sensible man would then say that the rushing title which so many argue makes him the best was achieved, not through pure greatness, but rather longevity.

Longevity spoils careers, and records alike. Bruce Smith was a great sack artist, but he was no Deacon Jones or Reggie White. Bruce Smith obtained the all-time sack leader through longevity, in which he spent the final two seasons of his career being a third down pass rush specialist. He was balding, and the hair he had was gray. While his physical attributes should not be of any concern, he looked as old as he played, and while he achieved the record he pursued, he tainted it. That's another article however. The point I'd like to make is simply that career numbers do not equal greatness, simply because a good player played for 15 or 19 years.

So how can we judge the Barry Sanders and Emmitt Smith against each other fairly? Should we do an overall average, breaking the career down into a single season average and see how they measure up to each other? This isn't entirely fair, because as I have stated before, Emmitt Smith extended his career for a minimum of three years to obtain, and then pad his prized record, but if you insist.

Here are your statistics. Both were respectably durable, but Sanders gets the edge, averaging 15.3 games to Smith's 15.1. Sanders dominated Smith's yards per season, 1,526.9 to 1,222.3. Barry was more effective per carry with a 5.0 average, and Emmitt grabbing a still respective 4.2 yards per carry. In the touchdown ranks, Emmitt Smith won out 10.9 per season compared to Sanders' 9.9. For that missing TD, Smith would also cough up the football an extra time with his 2.1 per season, and Sanders' 1.1 fumbles.

I can hear it already. "Emmitt was the man' when it came to be the all around running back. Surely Emmitt Smith would outperform Barry Sanders in the passing game!"

My response? "That's why you sit in the pew, and I am the one preaching!"

Sanders would take in 292.1 yards a season through the air, and Smith would grab an average 214.9. Sanders caught more passes and that's why he out caught Emmitt Smith? No, actually Barry Sanders averaged 35.2 catches a season and Emmitt Sanders collected 34.3 which is not even an entire completion difference. That would easily explain Sanders accruing 8.3 yards a catch to Smith's 6.3. Smith would have more TD's in the air, like he did on the ground, right? Wrong! Barry Sanders caught a TD pass a year, and Emmitt actually averaged only 0.7 TD's a season. As for fumbling, Emmitt gets no relief, coughing up the ball another 0.4 times, and Barry halved that with 0.2.

I guess that proves me right.

Oh, what's that I hear from the aggravated individual in the back of my congregation? Unfair? How would you propose we measure their production? Shall we average the nine years in which they played in the league together? This would obviously be putting Barry Sanders at a disadvantage, as his rookie year was quite successful. I will do what I must to convert any Smith follower however. First I would like to highlight Barry Sanders rookie campaign in which he was rookie of the year, while amassing the second most rushing yards (1,470) and touchdowns (14) that year. In fact, Barry Sanders rookie year was greater in comparison to Emmitt Smith's rookie season of 937 yards and 11 TD's. Sanders rookie year outperformed Smith's final two years, in which he played with Arizona while collecting 1,193 yards and 11 TD's. So again, to make the comparison as fair as possible, we will examine the averages over each player's statistical career in the timeframe in which they both played in the league from 1990-1998. In doing so, we find that the two become more comparable in numbers, with Barry still beating Emmitt in average yardage per season with 1533.22 to 1396.22, as well as yards per carry with 4.96 to 4.31. Smith did obtain more touchdowns, obtaining on average 13.88 during this timeframe, while Sanders only received 9.44. Sanders however proved to edge out Smith in the three receiving categories tallying up 293.22 yards a season, 8.05 per catch and adding an extra 1.11 TD per season while Smith accrued 289.88, with 6.18 per catch and a solid one TD a season.

Through this comparison, while it is much closer, one can still in every point of comparison save one, Barry Sanders trumps the numbers that Emmitt amassed, and without the prolific offensive line, tight end, or fullback. So, once again, I'm right.

How about Pro Bowl appearances? Would that be a meaningful way of comparing who is better than the other? It measures the season to season comparison of who the fans and media thought were better year by year, and the added bonus is that both were players in the NFC, so they were compared to each other. Barry Sanders went to the Pro Bowl in all ten of his seasons. Emmitt Smith, despite playing 15 years in the NFL could only amass eight appearances, of which only six of them could be counted during the time Barry Sanders was fighting for a spot on the honorable roster.

How about All-Pro selections? Barry received one for each year he was in the league. Emmitt fell a little short, as he could only acquire six.

What other honors would you like to compare? They were both rookies of the year, both NFL MVP's, both on the All -1990's team, and both were awarded the Bert Bell Award, which is for the best professional player of the year (although Barry Sanders received it twice and Emmitt only once).

Tie breaker goes to collegiate athletics? Sanders got the Heisman, Emmitt didn't. Okay, that was just a low blow, and I admit it. We're comparing the two in the NFL, and as I have been writing this article, I have actually been trying to prove myself wrong.

Honestly, I looked for legitimate reasons on how I could say that Smith was better. This is what I came up with. Emmitt Smith was able to be on an all around great team for the majority of his career with the Dallas Cowboys and was able to get three Super Bowl rings, and even a Super Bowl MVP for rushing. That's impressive, albeit another accolade he had the opportunity to receive because of the supporting cast that was around him.

So what accomplishments can I find in which Emmitt Smith wasn't aided by his talented teammates? It took me a moment, but I was able to find a few things that he was able to accomplish and Barry Sanders wasn't. So once again, I have become a success. I'm surprised that I hadn't thought of it before. Emmitt Smith served as a studio analyst on the NFL Network, specifically NFL Total Access, and judged the 2006 Miss Universe pageant.

Oh? You wanted something that involved competition in which Emmitt could beat out Barry Sanders. I got an answer for that too! Emmitt won Dancing with the Stars and not even Jerry Rice could do that!

If you want me to show you something, anything, that Emmitt did better than Barry on the football field, all I can do is say this. Emmitt played longer. The rushing title was based on longevity. The Super Bowls were team efforts. Even his Super Bowl MVP performance was nothing mind blowing, as he accumulated 132 yards and two TD's. Impressive? No. Respectable? No doubt. What bothered me was that after this MVP performance, the man went to the hospital because he thought he was having a heart attack. When he was asked if the performance was worth the pain, his response was, "It would be kind of hard to say I would do it again"

So now I have to question the man's heart and dedication. Emmitt is making this harder and harder for me to give him any credit or comparison.

I can honestly say that there is nothing that Emmitt did on the field, that Barry Sanders didn't or couldn't have done better. I only wonder what would have happened if Barry Sanders was the man running behind "Moose" and that enormously sized and talented offensive line, and Emmitt was the man who having to fight for every yard in Detroit ? History might never have even demanded that I had to make such a defense of the greatest running back of all time, Barry Sanders.

Now, my congregation, go unto the the world and share with them the truth.

Learn more about this author, Steve Wilson.
Click here to send Author comments or questions.