K-Gun10 Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 announces his retirement, not shocking imo watching him as a reporter for nfl network really seemed to be enjoying that, great career imo one of the best rbs. http://www.nfl.com/teams/story/STL/10080719 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stl Bills Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 announces his retirement, not shocking imo watching him as a reporter for nfl network really seemed to be enjoying that, great career imo one of the best rbs. http://www.nfl.com/teams/story/STL/10080719 Marshall was the man, awesome back (underrated IMO) and a class act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 On a related note, I think that he is doing a pretty good job on the NFL Network. He seems like a great guy. When Thurman was on, Marshall was effusive in his praise for TT and said that Ted Marchibroda gave him all of TT's game tapes to help him in the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 I remember hearing that he was a relentless studier of his opponents and of the the game - no detail too small, no tendency to minute to be examined and solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Marshall was the man, awesome back (underrated IMO) and a class act. I'm not sure how he can be underrated. He was considered the best back in the league for about 5 years and will go down as one of the all time great backs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stl Bills Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 I'm not sure how he can be underrated. He was considered the best back in the league for about 5 years and will go down as one of the all time great backs. IMHO he's in the top 5 all-time, not many will put him there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 IMHO he's in the top 5 all-time, not many will put him there. Im a big Faulk fan...but I dont think he is top5...OJ,Jim Brown,Sanders, Sayers,Campbell,Payton,Dickerson were all superior..altho not by too much--to Faulk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Im a big Faulk fan...but I dont think he is top5...OJ,Jim Brown,Sanders, Sayers,Campbell,Payton,Dickerson were all superior..altho not by too much--to Faulk. Definately HOF material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Hall of Fame running back that will be missed. But not really. He's on the NFL Network a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 I'm not sure how he can be underrated. He was considered the best back in the league for about 5 years and will go down as one of the all time great backs. The fact that many thought the Edge was an improvement is evidence of how underrated he was. One of the best all-around backs ever, IMO...and a real class act. I would have LOVED for him to be a Bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Im a big Faulk fan...but I dont think he is top5...OJ,Jim Brown,Sanders, Sayers,Campbell,Payton,Dickerson were all superior..altho not by too much--to Faulk. Gale Sayers is a guy who had a world of talent and a small handful of good seasons before injuries finished him. Campbell had six good years. Dickerson had seven, and wasn't much of a receiver or blocker. Faulk had seven and at least another half, and if you factor in the fact that he caught 787 balls on top of rushing for over 12,000 yards, well, ... you see where I'm going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Gale Sayers is a guy who had a world of talent and a couple of good seasons. Campbell had about four good years. Dickerson had about five, and wasn't much of a receiver or blocker. Faulk had about seven, and if you factor in the fact that he caught 787 balls on top of rushing for over 12,000 yards, well, ... you see where I'm going. IMO, Dickerson doesn't belong in the top backs conversation. His numbers make him a HOFer for sure...but, not a top 5 or 10 back. Sayers, despite his short career, does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Definately HOF material. no doubt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Gale Sayers is a guy who had a world of talent and a small handful of good seasons before injuries finished him. Campbell had six good years. Dickerson had seven, and wasn't much of a receiver or blocker. Faulk had seven and at least another half, and if you factor in the fact that he caught 787 balls on top of rushing for over 12,000 yards, well, ... you see where I'm going. Hey with that logic Emmit Smith is the best of all time. Faulk took a few years off early in his career--and i just dont think he was QUITE as superb as the group i mentioned--altho he was superb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Hey with that logic Emmit Smith is the best of all time. Faulk took a few years off early in his career--and i just dont think he was QUITE as superb as the group i mentioned--altho he was superb. Emmitt Smith was indeed one of the greatest running backs of all time: great vision, and in his prime he hit the best available hole better than any back I've ever seen. There was no wasted movement with that guy. Moreover, he was an able receiver, a good blocker, played hurt, and didn't fumble much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Emmitt Smith was indeed one of the greatest running backs of all time: great vision, and in his prime he hit the best available hole better than any back I've ever seen. There was no wasted movement with that guy. Moreover, he was an able receiver, a good blocker, played hurt, and didn't fumble much. I'd put Emmit in the same group with Dickerson (although above Eric). Terrific back, HOF material...but, doesn't belong in the "best of" conversation. Just IMO, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 I'd put Emmit in the same group with Dickerson (although above Eric). Terrific back, HOF material...but, doesn't belong in the "best of" conversation. Just IMO, of course. I disagree -- he wasn't flashy like Sanders or Sayers. Rather, he was relentlessly effective and dependable, and he showed up when it mattered most. Look at his playoff stats, for instance -- they came against the best competition, and he just produced and produced (4.54 ypc) even in the games that the Cowboys lost: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/SmitEm00.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 I disagree -- he wasn't flashy like Sanders or Sayers. Rather, he was relentlessly effective and dependable, and he showed up when it mattered most. Look at his playoff stats, for instance -- they came against the best competition, and he just produced and produced (4.54 ypc) even in the games that the Cowboys lost: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/SmitEm00.htm His post season stats are ALMOST as good as Thurman's: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/ThomTh00.htm Make sure you look add in the receiving yards. We may be agreeing more than we are disagreeing. I just look at comparison's differently, I think. My methodology is to ask myself: If you were to switch back A with back B would the respective teams be better or worse with the other back. Sanders on the Cowboys gains more yards than anyone could imagine, IMO. Smith on those crummy Lion's teams, MAYBE gets 1,000-1,200 yards. BUT...and this is important in my mind. Smith would have probably been a more consistent back for the Lions. Barry seemingly lost yards almost as often as he gained them with the Lions. Emmet would have gained a few on each carry, IMO. Sanders makes EVERY team better, IMO. Smith is terrific with any team and GREAT with the right team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts