[Five-ofan]

I disagree and there is no proof one way or the other. My point is that in any other argument the media gives the nod to the guy with rings. They say brady is as good as/better than manning and really they arent close but because brady wins he gets put in the argument. Emmitt is damn sure close to barry as far as who is better and even if he didnt have rings you could make a damn good argument about him being better. I hate the argument that because emmitt was able to play for a long time that should be used against him. Longevity is part of the game. Ask each of them with truth serum whos career they would rather have had and they would both say emmitts. Payton would too. Emmitt won like 4 straight rushing titles so dont use a palmeiro argument that he was just good for a long time and not great. Emmitt was the definition of greatness in the early 90s. Now later in his career he was above average but not great, but for a while he was great but instead of being like some people that are great and then disappear he was great and then good. This is an opinion question. Stats and rings both say Emmitt. BTW would those of you that are taking barry take marino over montana? Its the exact same argument except marino actually has better stats than montana whereas barry doesnt have better stats than emmitt. Barry had the best individual season either of them ever had (the 2000 yarder) but overall id take emmitt. I think they were both great but I think emmitt was better.