Emmit = more yards but less yards per carry. He has 3 Super Bowl rings, but many say his team was much better along with his offensive line. Most say Emmit was a better blocker and overall more all -around better player.
Barry = less yards but higher yards per carry. He apparently had a worse team, but some of his teams weren't that bad. Most say he was a worse blocker out of the 2. However, most would say he was more explosive runner that could dodge 4 defenders and turn it into a 60 yard run. ? Feedback. I can't decide?
2007-12-24 10:03:38 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Football (American)
Dillon M. I meant that Barry played for some good and bad Lions teams. I didn't mean he played for numerous NFL franchises.
2007-12-24 11:01:34 · update #1
Barry without a doubt , He didn't care about $$$ more about principal ,the Lions were not doing nothing to improve and didn't want to trade him so he stepped away during his peak years , Plus I met him at the SB in SAN DIEGO couple years ago dude was a cool cat. He would have obliterated the rushing record if kept playing.
2007-12-24 10:08:43 · answer #1 · answered by Bobby 2 Gunz 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Barry Sanders could make a 4 yard run into an exciting event,would have been nice if he had played for a good team,unfortunately he was the only Lion's scoring threat, Emmit Smith was one of the most durable backs in the NFL,many times playing hurt,and still gaining yards and scoring touchdowns,even with his 3 super bowl rings and several years leading the league in rushing,some have thumb their noses at him saying it was the Cowboys offensive line that should get the credit and not him,I would give the edge to Emmit,simply because he was a better blocker and pass catcher than Barry
2007-12-24 18:19:18 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Barry Sanders
2007-12-24 19:37:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Overall, Barry Sanders. He carried the offense and he was his own offensive line.
The only reason Emmit has more yards is because he played with the Cards when he was past of his prime while Sanders retired on top.
2007-12-24 18:58:55 · answer #4 · answered by M. Diego 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's a shame Sanders didn't have a good team around him like Smith did. I guess based on stats you have to say Emmitt Smith, but who knows what Barry Sanders could have done on a better team.
2007-12-25 14:18:56 · answer #5 · answered by Elle 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
barry sanders and even though u said that he played for more than one team and he didn't he only played 4 the Lions and while he was a worse blocker he was explosive, as u said, and i personally have never seen somebody who can make so many tacklers look stupid
2007-12-24 18:41:46 · answer #6 · answered by Doug C 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The only thing i give to Smith is his blocking, as far as any other aspect Barry takes it easily, Honestly hes the best of all time. He never had a team good enough to go anywhere. He quit WAY before smith and still had so many yards without any passing game to open the field up for him.
ALSO he broke BOTH of Rod Woodson's (pro bowler) ankles in the open field on triple move. Thats ******* amazing and if you can do that, your the best. Ive yet to see anything like that on a football field since.
Smith cant do this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqvU5R2EYeE
2007-12-24 18:18:14 · answer #7 · answered by a s 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It depends on what you like. Barry was certainly more fun to watch, but Emmit got the better results.
2007-12-24 18:51:07 · answer #8 · answered by I has a hat 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Statically Emmit because he played longer than Barry and has the records and the Superbowl rings.
2007-12-24 19:01:43 · answer #9 · answered by BB 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Barry by a long shot.
Emmit had the benefit of potentially the best O-line in history. Sanders never had a great O-line.
2007-12-24 18:36:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋