Quote:
Originally posted by: Five-ofan
well were gonna have to agree to disagree about walter and emmit which i dont really have much of a problem with. However i will vehemently disagree about barry. I just dont think that barry was better. He could and should have the yardage record but that style of runner just isnt as good as emmit's style of runner as far as being valuable. Emmit had several thousand yard seasons behind offensive lines that were horrible. 97 and after the cowboys oline was horrible yeah larry was good and erik went to the pro bowl though he shouldnt have but as a whole those olines were horrible and emmit still consistently got 1000 yards so dont act like it was all the line. Emmit won i believe 4 straight rushing titles and was the dominant back of the early 90s while barry was never the best back in the nfl for more than 1 year at a time. The mvp split year which he shoulda won by himself was the only year that he was the best runner in the nfl. Early 90s emmit was better late 90s terrel was better. I will never believe that barry was better than emmit. Walter and Emmit i see as a pick em and personally i pick emmit. However walter was 4th on this list and emmit was 10th on one ballot there is damn sure not that much difference between the two.
|
Barry had a horrible line and still carried his whole freaking team by himself. Even than most thought Barry was better than Emmit. Not trying to degrade #22 in anyway but there’s way too much cowboy’s bias in your post. Barry was the better back, Emmit more durable.
Quote:
|
Emmit had several thousand yard seasons behind offensive lines that were horrible.
|
Please. The cowboys line looked like all world compared to (the other) D-towns line. Emmit also had so many other weapons to take the pressure off of him while Barry was always the main focus of the opposing defenses.
Such bias...[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif[/img]