Top 5, Top 5.

[Larz]

1 minute ago, chirorob said:

Martin lasted a lot longer then Earl Campbell, but Earl's prime was way better then Martin's.  I like Curtis, but don't put him in that category.  Earl's prime, he averaged 1600 a year with 13.75 touchdowns.  Curtis never had a run like that. 

LT was effectively done as an elite player at 28 years old.   But by then he had a 100 reception season, set the NFL record for points in a season, led the league in rushing twice, led in TDs 3 times, and was just a more explosive player.

What Martin brings to the table is more valuable in my opinion, but not as flashy.  I think that has a lot to do with why some fans under estimate him. (not saying you)

Martin was reliably productive and could do it all.  He could run inside and outside, got all the yards on the table, could break tackles and make guys miss. He was a great blocker and was very shifty, he never took a big hit which was more or less the secret to his success.  He didn't run out of bounds, he just knew how to give a defender his pads not his knee when the run was over.

Campbell was suicidal. Definition of a guy who gives up his body for the game.  I think he was the original thunder thighs guy, just tree trunks for legs.  I think he is too one dimensional to be considered better than Martin.

LT is very similar to Martin, but in my eyes he comes up short on career.

If we are debating a guy for 1 game its potentially different, but in my mind a "top 5" list is about total career and total game.

If we want to talk 1 game you bring in all kinds of guys, even Peterson or beast mode

It really comes down to the style I think.  some guys like burners, battering rams, spinners, I like the all around guys who can do it all.

 

[nycdan]

3 minutes ago, Larz said:

What Martin brings to the table is more valuable in my opinion, but not as flashy.  I think that has a lot to do with why some fans under estimate him. (not saying you)

Martin was reliably productive and could do it all.  He could run inside and outside, got all the yards on the table, could break tackles and make guys miss. He was a great blocker and was very shifty, he never took a big hit which was more or less the secret to his success.  He didn't run out of bounds, he just knew how to give a defender his pads not his knee when the run was over.

Campbell was suicidal. Definition of a guy who gives up his body for the game.  I think he was the original thunder thighs guy, just tree trunks for legs.  I think he is too one dimensional to be considered better than Martin.

LT is very similar to Martin, but in my eyes he comes up short on career.

If we are debating a guy for 1 game its potentially different, but in my mind a "top 5" list is about total career and total game.

If we want to talk 1 game you bring in all kinds of guys, even Peterson or beast mode

It really comes down to the style I think.  some guys like burners, battering rams, spinners, I like the all around guys who can do it all.

 

Campbell didn't catch much but if by one-dimensional, you mean power running, you are forgetting how fast he was.  Here's a great video.  Watch the first two runs as he flat out burns defensive backs.

But then watch the run at 0:48 and you can see his ability to blow through defenders.

The run right after that is his Barry Sanders mode - with a complete reverse-of-direction for a big gain.

Back to power at 2:08.  The vaunted Steeler defense looks like a bunch of scrawny teenagers.  Donnie Shell (#31) was a great DB.  He got rag-dolled.

And then there's his most famous play.  2:53.  Yes...the one against the Rams.  If you watch nothing else, watch this and all the new rules to protect players will make sense to you.  I'm amazed the LBs internal organs weren't completely re-arranged by that spearing hit (which was legal at the time)

No knock on Martin and the other great RBs.  But like someone said above, Campbell's first few seasons were the greatest run of dominance at the position I've ever seen, including Jim Brown.  Only the fact that he broke down too soon keeps him from the #1 spot.  If I could have any RB in history fresh out of college, there's no doubt it would be EC.

 

 

 

[Patriot Killa]

1 hour ago, Larz said:

I give the edge to Martin for all around game and consistency. Martin is under valued as a reciever and had more wiggle than he gets credit for. LT was also an all around player but I think his career ended with more of a whimper, the 30 year old wall got him.

I'll take your word for it but they have like 30 hall of famers, thay can be picky

why not ?  When martin retired he was #4 ALL TIME in rushing yards, and #10 ALL TIME is yards from scrimmage with 100 total TD's in 11 years. 

Agree on Brown and Dickerson.

Yeah, injuries really piled up on LT close to the end of his run in SD. 

[Patriot Killa]

5 hours ago, Long Island Leprechaun said:

Really? I'm a Curtis fan, but he's not in the same league as LT or Campbell. And anybody who starts a thread about running backs and leaves off Jim Brown should be truly embarrassed. And then puts Barry Sanders behind Eric Dickerson and Emmit Smith. And leaves out OJ Simpson as well. Kids these days...

 

5 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

Any list that doesn't start with Jim Brown at the top is off to a bad stop.  Can't imagine how many yards he would have run for if his OLmen could use their hands like the modern day player. 

I'll never sin again.

[Savage69]

3 hours ago, Larz said:

I give the edge to Martin for all around game and consistency. Martin is under valued as a reciever and had more wiggle than he gets credit for. LT was also an all around player but I think his career ended with more of a whimper, the 30 year old wall got him.

I'll take your word for it but they have like 30 hall of famers, thay can be picky

why not ?  When martin retired he was #4 ALL TIME in rushing yards, and #10 ALL TIME is yards from scrimmage with 100 total TD's in 11 years. 

Agree on Brown and Dickerson.

In that case Vinny was better then Montana in passing yardage.. LT as a receiver had 4772 yds and 17 td's,and as a runner 145 tds.. Martin had 90 rushing and 10 receiving.. There is a reason LT was a first ballot HOF'er..

[Long Island Leprechaun]

5 hours ago, Larz said:

I give the edge to Martin for all around game and consistency. Martin is under valued as a reciever and had more wiggle than he gets credit for. LT was also an all around player but I think his career ended with more of a whimper, the 30 year old wall got him.

I'll take your word for it but they have like 30 hall of famers, thay can be picky

why not ?  When martin retired he was #4 ALL TIME in rushing yards, and #10 ALL TIME is yards from scrimmage with 100 total TD's in 11 years. 

Agree on Brown and Dickerson.

I'm not a big fan of compiled stats that benefit from longevity and carries. Martin was a consistent, reliable 4.0 yd/carry back and was impressive in racking up 1000 yard+ seasons, but he was not a dominating back and he was, by his own admission, an "overachiever" even for where he was at. Tomlinson was a tremendously versatile back who was simply more talented than Martin. Martin had the same yds/carry as Otis Anderson, who played longer. That's not a good thing. I'm an old timer and I can even remember seeing Jim Brown on our little black and white tv in the early 60's watching football with my dad. i certainly remember Gayle Sayers, who was just plain electrifying, especially as a returner. There are a handful of truly super-elite RB's -- Brown and Sanders are in a class by themselves, in my opinion, then O.J,, Campbell, and Dickerson. Payton and Smith are favorites, but were somewhat more in the Curtis Martin class -- average yards per carry, durable foot soldiers. the Faulks and Tomlinsons have to be judged a bit differently because of their versatility/added dimension. Martin is HOF, but belongs with Franco Harris, john Riggins, Jerome Bettis in the lower tier of the hall. Just my opinion. Ask yourself which RB you would build an offense around. Martin would not be even a top 15 choice.

[Long Island Leprechaun]

4 hours ago, nycdan said:

Campbell didn't catch much but if by one-dimensional, you mean power running, you are forgetting how fast he was.  Here's a great video.  Watch the first two runs as he flat out burns defensive backs.

But then watch the run at 0:48 and you can see his ability to blow through defenders.

The run right after that is his Barry Sanders mode - with a complete reverse-of-direction for a big gain.

Back to power at 2:08.  The vaunted Steeler defense looks like a bunch of scrawny teenagers.  Donnie Shell (#31) was a great DB.  He got rag-dolled.

And then there's his most famous play.  2:53.  Yes...the one against the Rams.  If you watch nothing else, watch this and all the new rules to protect players will make sense to you.  I'm amazed the LBs internal organs weren't completely re-arranged by that spearing hit (which was legal at the time)

No knock on Martin and the other great RBs.  But like someone said above, Campbell's first few seasons were the greatest run of dominance at the position I've ever seen, including Jim Brown.  Only the fact that he broke down too soon keeps him from the #1 spot.  If I could have any RB in history fresh out of college, there's no doubt it would be EC.

 

 

 

Then you didn't see Jim Brown. Even Earl Campbell would tell you that no one dominated the game like him. It's not even close. And in Jim Brown's day, he ran the same slant over and over again. Teams sat waiting for him and he still blew through them. Ray Nitschke said Jim Brown was the only player he ever feared, and if you knew Nitschke you understand why that was the highest compliment a player could ever be given.

Here's Campbell on Brown:

Earl Campbell

May 2, 2012 ·

It was a true honor to be referenced by the greatest of all time Mr. Jim Brown. He mentioned me at the 2:47 mark, but please listen to the whole interview. Let me know what you as fans think.
http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=7858936

[Jet Nut]

9 hours ago, HessStation said:

Not just best RB but football player I've ever seen step on the field. Put Bo on a good team, healthy and dedicated to just football and he would have shattered every record in the book.

Sorry, as both a football player and RB he isn't anywhere near top 5.  And of you think he was great look at any highlight of Jim Brown.  Add in his unbelievable per game numbers over 8 years.  You need more than 3

[Long Island Leprechaun]

3 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

Sorry, as both a football player and RB he isn't anywhere near top 5.  And of you think he was great look at any highlight of Jim Brown.  Add in his unbelievable per game numbers over 8 years.  You need more than 3

9 years. And I fully agree. In 1963 Jim Brown ran for nearly 1900 yards in a 14 game season and averaged 6.2 yards per carry. Dickerson took 16 games to break 2100. Campbell in 1980 put up 1900+ in 15 games but averaged mid 5's per carry. O.L in 1973 broke 2000 in 14 games and averaged 6.0 per carry. Those were legendary seasons. Brown literally dominated the game for nearly nine years. He was the Babe Ruth of football. A 6'2", 230 pound back with close to 4.4 speed in an era when that was crazy freakdom. they come along like that every fifty years. There's been no one like him since. Nobody

[ASH1962]

Brown

Payton

Campbell

Dorsett

Bo

[Obrien2Toon]

12 hours ago, chirorob said:

I can only go on guys I have seen.

#1 Peyton.   When he retired all time leader in rushing yards and receptions by a running back.  Like Barry, did it on some real bad Bears teams.

#2  Barry Sanders

#3 Earl Campbell.   Really only a 4 year prime, but what a prime.

#4 Marshall Faulk.  Rams have 2 SB if Martz runs Marshall 20+ times against the Pats.   He could do it all, great football IQ, block, run, catch, split out wide.  Amazing.

#5 Eric Dickerson.  Love him, amazing.  Fumbled 10-12 times a year hurts a bit.

Just misses for me.  TD on the Broncos.  Thurmon Thomas.   A Peterson

 

Like I said, I never saw Jim Brown at all, nor Gale Sayers.

I always had TD in the most overrated category.

That was more of a system than anything else,

guys like O. Gary and M. Anderson stepped in and they didn't skip a beat.

Same goes for P. Holmes, L. Johnson, etc with the chiefs

[nycdan]

6 hours ago, Long Island Leprechaun said:

Then you didn't see Jim Brown. Even Earl Campbell would tell you that no one dominated the game like him. It's not even close. And in Jim Brown's day, he ran the same slant over and over again. Teams sat waiting for him and he still blew through them. Ray Nitschke said Jim Brown was the only player he ever feared, and if you knew Nitschke you understand why that was the highest compliment a player could ever be given.

Here's Campbell on Brown:

Earl Campbell

May 2, 2012 ·

It was a true honor to be referenced by the greatest of all time Mr. Jim Brown. He mentioned me at the 2:47 mark, but please listen to the whole interview. Let me know what you as fans think.
http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=7858936

I forgot that Brown's first three seasons were 12 games.  Certainly not going to argue your point.  I think if Campbell had stayed healthy enough to play nine seasons at the level of his first three, it would be an amazing debate but he didn't and so I have no problem with Brown-Campbell as 1-2 and I'd have to put OJ as 3.  I am partial to big RBs who can kill you with speed or power and OJ was all that too. 

I loved watching Barry play but on third and short, I don't think he was as reliable as those other guys.  He racked up yards on the big runs but he also took a lot of tackles behind the line if I remember.  I could see putting him and Walter 4 and 5 but I would have Dickerson in that mix as well and while I haven't seen him mentioned much in this thread, AP as well.

So basically, that's my top-7 FWIW.

 

 

[Jet Nut]

1 hour ago, Long Island Leprechaun said:

9 years. And I fully agree. In 1963 Jim Brown ran for nearly 1900 yards in a 14 game season and averaged 6.2 yards per carry. Dickerson took 16 games to break 2100. Campbell in 1980 put up 1900+ in 15 games but averaged mid 5's per carry. O.L in 1973 broke 2000 in 14 games and averaged 6.0 per carry. Those were legendary seasons. Brown literally dominated the game for nearly nine years. He was the Babe Ruth of football. A 6'2", 230 pound back with close to 4.4 speed in an era when that was crazy freakdom. they come along like that every fifty years. There's been no one like him since. Nobody

Add in he retired at the top of his game.  In his 9th season he had his second highest season total with over 1500 yards in 14 games, 110 yards per game average.  One season this beast averaged over 130 per game.  He had another 1500 yard season, 12 game schedule.  Almost 1900 yards in a 14 game season.  Unreal, Bo didnt come close, no one else did, he easily was the best ever, even if you didnt see him play

[Jet Nut]

34 minutes ago, nycdan said:

I forgot that Brown's first three seasons were 12 games.  Certainly not going to argue your point.  I think if Campbell had stayed healthy enough to play nine seasons at the level of his first three, it would be an amazing debate but he didn't and so I have no problem with Brown-Campbell as 1-2 and I'd have to put OJ as 3.  I am partial to big RBs who can kill you with speed or power and OJ was all that too. 

I loved watching Barry play but on third and short, I don't think he was as reliable as those other guys.  He racked up yards on the big runs but he also took a lot of tackles behind the line if I remember.  I could see putting him and Walter 4 and 5 but I would have Dickerson in that mix as well and while I haven't seen him mentioned much in this thread, AP as well.

So basically, that's my top-7 FWIW.

 

 

Browns first 4 seasons were 12 game seasons

[Long Island Leprechaun]

Brown, Campbell and OJ had similar styles (Dickerson in the group as well) -- all big, fast, agile, angry runners. Sanders and Sayers were gifted in a different way -- both electrifying, balletic, cut back runners who were like elusive ghosts. It's like arguing who's the greater super hero. For me, guys like Payton and Smith were a notch down. They weren't as talented, but they were hard workers and over achievers. Smith benefited from some of the best O-lines in the history of the NFL, but that doesn't diminish his durability and consistency. Guys like Bo Jackson and Terrell Davis were monsters, but injury killed what might have been legendary careers. I read an article once interviewing Gayle Sayers and he pointed out how different the game was in his era vs. modern game. Just one point that seems trivial, but for a runner made a big difference -- the repositioning of the hash marks on the field. In the old days, the hash marks were spread much more widely and the ball was placed near one or the other for each down. The effect was to create a strong and weak side of the field. As Sayers noted, on a running play, teams would rarely run into the short side of the field, so defenses could better defend the run. RB's had essentially half the field to work with and defenses knew where they were going.

[Raideraholic]

22 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

I don't get the love for Bo.  He played only a handful of seasons, reached 950 yrds once, never close to that again and only a few TDs per year.  Is it because he played 2 sports or his athleticism?   I mean his numbers are Blair Thomas like....Maybe

Bo Jackson if he stayed healthy and played a full season( missed the first 4 weeks - baseball season ) would have been without a doubt one of the best Rb's to ever play the game.   He didn't and shouldn't be on the list.   Raiders probably win a couple superbowls if he stayed healthy,    Marcus Allen lesser talent than Bo Jackson had way better career.

Emmit Smith doesn't deserve to be on any best RB list. He was a product of playing behind one of the best offense lines. ( probably would be some where in the 20's  before I get to Emmit Smith on my list) .  Imagine what Barry Sanders could have done playing behind that offense line .

[HighPitch]

Anyone remember johnny johnson? He was pfetty good. Nice guy had him in my cab once

[GKnight83]

On 7/7/2017 at 6:57 PM, Joejet said:

Not sure how you can have a legitimate list that doesn't contain Jim Brown!

I have to agree.  Also, I do not see how any top 5 cannot include Barry Sanders and OJ Simpson since both of their teams basically sucked.

From a Jet perspective I understand the list provided.  Personally I do not like dancers like CM and FM.  I do like EB and TJ.

[Lupz27]

1 hour ago, HighPitch said:

Anyone remember johnny johnson? He was pfetty good. Nice guy had him in my cab once

Isn't he the guy that took one for like 96 yards vs the Bears, but got tackled at the 1 on Sunday Night Football, and then the Jets preceded to go run, run, run, run turn over on downs the next 4 plays?  Think it was the 94 coached Pete Carroll team.

[Jet Nut]

2 hours ago, Raideraholic said:

Bo Jackson if he stayed healthy and played a full season( missed the first 4 weeks - baseball season ) would have been without a doubt one of the best Rb's to ever play the game.   He didn't and shouldn't be on the list.   Raiders probably win a couple superbowls if he stayed healthy,    Marcus Allen lesser talent than Bo Jackson had way better career.

Emmit Smith doesn't deserve to be on any best RB list. He was a product of playing behind one of the best offense lines. ( probably would be some where in the 20's  before I get to Emmit Smith on my list) .  Imagine what Barry Sanders could have done playing behind that offense line .

But he didnt stay healthy.  His numbers never were close to best ever numbers.  His numbers were Blair Thomas without baseball thrown in to create the story.  Projecting how good he would have been with better health and more time is pointless.  I could do that with Freeman McNeil too.  

 

[HessStation]

Cool stories brah's, question was, to ever step on the field. It's Bo by a long shot. BFF, Hess

[Raideraholic]

2 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

But he didnt stay healthy.  His numbers never were close to best ever numbers.  His numbers were Blair Thomas without baseball thrown in to create the story.  Projecting how good he would have been with better health and more time is pointless.  I could do that with Freeman McNeil too.  

 

That is beyond stupidity the Blair Thomas Bo Jackson comparison.    Blair Thomas was a bust.  Bo Jackson for the short time was one of the most exciting Rbs in all of football.

You say that any football fan will question how much you know about the game.( tell me you are a young man who just looking at stats- little more understanding.

Btw. Play a 162 major league season , come in the fifth week of the football season  ( no training camp) , and be one of the explosive Rbs to ever play the game.  Nah Bo was over-rated.   Stuff like that why you aren't as smart,  as you think you are.

[HessStation]

 

[Long Island Leprechaun]

2 hours ago, HessStation said:

Cool stories brah's, question was, to ever step on the field. It's Bo by a long shot. BFF, Hess

Ugh. Bo showed flashes of tremendous ability and talent. No doubt. But he will always be a "potential" great who couldn't deliver on that promise. He joins many players who were "could have beens." Doesn't belong on this kind of list. And he wasn't the best to ever step on the field "by a long shot." That's just stupid.

[SenorGato]

Not enough Marshall Faulk on these all time lists, maybe Tomlinson too 

[EM31]

There are lots of sad parts to this thread but including Curtis Martin anywhere in the main conversation is a complete joke.

(all time 3) Gayle Sayers, Jim Brown, and Earl Campbell.  All three were all before my time... But others whose opinion I respect agree they are in the conversation if not THE ENTIRE conversation.

(longevity question) Depending on how you feel about there being a bare minimum for longevity then Bo Jackson might get a mention in the first list (or not).  I think he is the most freakishly gifted athlete I have even seen play the game.  For one game in their prime I would take him over any player on any of the lists below but then there is the whole pesky longevity question.

Other Notables (who I did see play - no particular order).

1) Dickerson

2) Sanders

3) Peterson

4) LT

5) Walter Payton (only saw him at the end of his career)

6) Faulk

7) Emmit Smith

8) OJ Simpson (only saw him at the end of his career)

..............................................................................................

Below this is another list.... The "almost in the conversation" list

Tony Dorsett, Priest Holmes, John Riggins etc.

.......................................................................................................

And then below that list is where Curtis belongs IMO.  Very good player.  HOF because of his remarkable longevity but nowhere near the best even of his own generation.

Curtis Martin, Thurman Thomas, those kinds of players.

 

 

[Obrien2Toon]

4 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

But he didnt stay healthy.  His numbers never were close to best ever numbers.  His numbers were Blair Thomas without baseball thrown in to create the story.  Projecting how good he would have been with better health and more time is pointless.  I could do that with Freeman McNeil too.  

 

Wow, Blair Thomas.

I think Bo has the highest ypc of Rbs in history.

 

[Long Island Leprechaun]

16 minutes ago, Obrien2Toon said:

Wow, Blair Thomas.

I think Bo has the highest ypc of Rbs in history.

 

wrong again. Bo Jackson had around 500 carries in his career. Jim Brown had over 2200. Jim Brown averaged 5.2 yards in that stretch.Bo averaged 5.5 in less than a quarter. Michael Vick has more rushing attempts than Bo jackson and a higher average (over 7). How many part time backs have high numbers because they are used situationally? We never saw Bo Jackson even complete an entire season in his short career because of baseball and injuries. Put a guy out there for 2000 carries and watch them converge toward the mean. Brown never did that. He was a monster day in and day out.

[Jet Nut]

18 hours ago, Raideraholic said:

That is beyond stupidity the Blair Thomas Bo Jackson comparison.    Blair Thomas was a bust.  Bo Jackson for the short time was one of the most exciting Rbs in all of football.

You say that any football fan will question how much you know about the game.( tell me you are a young man who just looking at stats- little more understanding.

Btw. Play a 162 major league season , come in the fifth week of the football season  ( no training camp) , and be one of the explosive Rbs to ever play the game.  Nah Bo was over-rated.   Stuff like that why you aren't as smart,  as you think you are.

That's all good, compare their numbers 

[Smashmouth]

When these lists are made I think it only fair for the poster to explain what he expects from the RB position so you know where they are coming from. 

When I look at great RB's I look at RB"s that can shut a game down in the 4th quarter and protect a lead by not letting the other team get the ball back since everyone runs the ball with a few minutes left in the 4th quarter . The best at this was Emmitt Smith and its not even close. Its also the reason why I don't have  guy's like Barry Sanders/Dickerson on this list. Barry was the most talented RB I have ever seen but the guy danced around way too much and I think still holds the record for most rushes losing yards behind the LOS that and he was just not the type of back to shut down games in the 4th Quarter.

Based on this Franco Harris honorable mention along with Larry Csonka 

Oh and FWIW Bo Jackson should not even be anywhere close to this list . Sure we all saw his talent but part of being an all time great RB is longevity and Bo Just didn't come close 

 

1.) Walter Peyton

2.) Emmitt Smith

3.) Earl Campbell

4.) Marshall Faulk

5.) Jim Brown

--- Current

1.) David Johnson

2.) Le'Veon Bell

3.) Ezekiel Elliot

4.) DeMarco Murray

5.) Marshawn Lynch

Top 5 Jet RB's --

1.) Curtis Martin

2.) Freeman McNeil 

3.) Matt Snell

4.) Thomas Jones

5.) John Riggins - would have been 1 if he stayed here

[chirorob]

On 7/8/2017 at 11:20 AM, nycdan said:

If you are talking versatility, I'd say it's a solid argument.  But if you are talking about pure athletic greatness, I would counter with Usain Bolt.  What he does is literally an evolutionary step ahead of everyone else around him.  He dominates his sport like no one since Edwin Moses did but even more so.   Watching him race live is a treat...not because you wonder if he'll win, but by how wide a margin.  He makes other world-class sprinters look like chubby ten-year-olds.

Yes, I possibly just derailed this thread but so worth it!

 

Bolt is insanely gifted runner.  Insane.  A whole new level, a cheat code in a video game.

Bo threw out Harold Reynolds at the plate by throwing a ball 340 feet or so on a line to the catcher.   Bo ran over the Boz and pushed him into the end zone.  Bo had, in my poor opinion, the best combo of speed, and strength, and arm power I have ever seen.  His highlight reel may be my favorite, because it's everything.   All Star game home run, break a bat over his head, throws from the outfield, running down the tunnel against Seattle. 

[chirorob]

21 hours ago, SenorGato said:

Not enough Marshall Faulk on these all time lists, maybe Tomlinson too 

I had Marshall.   Loved that guy.  Every member of the Rams say he was the one that made the Greatest Show on Turf work.

[nycdan]

1 hour ago, chirorob said:

I had Marshall.   Loved that guy.  Every member of the Rams say he was the one that made the Greatest Show on Turf work.

Marshall is a good inclusion because he was a different type of RB than we had ever seen before.  He was complete, perhaps the most well-rounded RB ever.  Not the greatest runner of all time but  absolutely great nonetheless.  Probably the greatest receiving back ever.  Blocked like a boss.  Fast (4.35 40).  Consistent performance for almost 10 years.  Was the focus of him team's offense for most of his career.

Perhaps the only knock you could make was that he wasn't a huge guy who could move the pile or blow through LBs but that would be nitpicking.  I would definitely consider an argument for him in one of the 4-5 slots on my list.

[#27TheDominator]

What? You guys are too young to remember Jim Thorpe? 

[chirorob]

4 minutes ago, nycdan said:

Marshall is a good inclusion because he was a different type of RB than we had ever seen before.  He was complete, perhaps the most well-rounded RB ever.  Not the greatest runner of all time but  absolutely great nonetheless.  Probably the greatest receiving back ever.  Blocked like a boss.  Fast (4.35 40).  Consistent performance for almost 10 years.  Was the focus of him team's offense for most of his career.

Perhaps the only knock you could make was that he wasn't a huge guy who could move the pile or blow through LBs but that would be nitpicking.  I would definitely consider an argument for him in one of the 4-5 slots on my list.

See, he couldn't plow through a line, but he could get through a crease.

Marcus Allen was not a top 5 guy (although real good, Super Bowl MVP, regular season MVP).   But from the 3 yard line, that guy could figure out how to get in the end zone.   You are totally right on the blocking, everyone who talks about him talks about his football IQ.  Peyton Manning talks about how unbelievable helpful Marshall was for him in his rookie year.  He could read a defense every bit as well as any QB, and call out blitzes.