NFL Network/ 10 Greatest Cowboys.

[bluejerseyjinx]

I thought T.D. had a couple years of a 14 game schedule. My bad, but not really relevant to my main point. Nevertheless, Emmitt did get 12-14 touches more a game and did have an extra playoff round to compile stats. Landry didn't want his RB's getting burned out and banged up. Its just me, nothing against Emmitt at all, I love the guy and he brought so much to our team and still to this day am so proud he was a Cowboy. total class act and even better person. Had T.D or Barry Sanders ran behind that line with the same amount of carry's, T.D. would have torched all of Emmitt's records, easily.

[bluejerseyjinx]

Go back and look at super Bowls V & VI. 70% of the formations had only one WR in the game. A lot of double back sets. Like T.D., Duane Thomas was the main guy, but Walt Garrison, Calvin Hill and Dan Reeves all got their share of touches in both games. Even when T.D. came along in 1977, he had to share touches with Preston Pearson, Robert Newhouse, Scott Laidlaw and Timmy Newsome. Also when it came to MY EYE Test, Its not close for me. T.D. is the best RB that put on a Cowboy uniform. I almost put Don Perkins ahead of Emmitt. What a special talent he was in a short time during our nursury building years on some very bad teams.

[bluejerseyjinx]

I can understand Emmitt ahead of TD. All time leading rusher probably merits that. But having Mike Irvin ahead of the all time leading rusher in the history of the NFofL is utter lunacy.

Bogus list.

I don't have a problem with Irvin on the list, but no way #3. I even have Drew Pearson ahead of Irvin. I'm still extremely upset Pearson isn't in the HOF. To put up those #'s in a run dominated league. If Staubach and Pearson, were playing in todays league and rules, well, everyone would say it was illegal.

I wouldn't put Pearson above Irvin either. Irvin had better career stats, more rings, and every person on those 90's teams to a man will say that Irvin was the emotional leader of those 90's teams (even Aikman has said that). That was never said about Pearson. I agree that Pearson should be in the HOF though. So should Cliff Harris and Charlie Waters.

Of course he had better stats playing more games in a pass happy league. All the more special what Drew did in a run happy league, all the magic and comebacks in huge key moments. No way, Aikman and Irvin couldn't even be allowed or are capable of carrying Staubach's and Pearson's briefcase.
A you left out ED "Too Tall" Jones. Actually, with our past rich history, 10 is not enough.

[Mr B]

I don't have a problem with Irvin on the list, but no way #3. I even have Drew Pearson ahead of Irvin. I'm still extremely upset Pearson isn't in the HOF. To put up those #'s in a run dominated league. If Staubach and Pearson, were playing in todays league and rules, well, everyone would say it was illegal.

I wouldn't put Pearson above Irvin either. Irvin had better career stats, more rings, and every person on those 90's teams to a man will say that Irvin was the emotional leader of those 90's teams (even Aikman has said that). That was never said about Pearson. I agree that Pearson should be in the HOF though. So should Cliff Harris and Charlie Waters.

Of course he had better stats playing more games in a pass happy league. All the more special what Drew did in a run happy league, all the magic and comebacks in huge key moments. No way, Aikman and Irvin couldn't even be allowed or are cable of carrying Staubach's and Pearson's briefcase.
A you left out ED "Too Tall" Jones. Actually, with our past rich history, 10 is not enough.

The 90's Cowboys were not a pass happy team. They were extremely run heavy. They had the NFL's All Time Leading Rusher on their team. I would take Roger over Troy but would not rank Pearson over Irvin. Ed Jones is a favorite of mine too. Also another guy that doesn't get a lot of respect but was a very solid player for a long time is Tony Tolbert.

[Otis Driftwood]

First off... the fact of Drew Pearson not being in the Pro Football Hall of Fame is in and of itself preposterous - especially with that prima donna Lynn Swann being in. Absurd. Drew Pearson was better than Lynn Swann and most Steeler fans I have known over the years agree.

Now that THAT'S off my chest...

Comparing E. Smith and TD is a conundrum. I lean toward Smith strictly from a productivity standpoint. Yes - he ran behind arguably the best Offensive line ever when it was in it's heyday. Let's not forget however that Dorsett's O-Line was considered pretty damn good at the time itself. Some numbers to ponder (I excluded the numbers from their time with other teams and focused on the Cowboys)...

- TD averaged 4.3 Y/A... Smith 4.2
- TD had 2,755 carries in 157 Cowboys games - 17.5 carries per game. Emmett - 4,052 carries in 201 games - 20.1 carries per game
- Dorsett fumbled 81 times (12 in the playoffs) - Emmett 55 times (4 in the playoffs... Four!)
- Receiving is where TD shines with 3,500+ yards, 8.9 yards per catch and 13 TD's. But Emmett was no slouch at 3,200 yards, 6.3 yards per catch and 11 TD's. He was every bit a three down back that Tony was.

I have no problem with anyone choosing Dorsett over Emmett. The arguments about him not being used more are sound... that's how Landry was. The one number that stands out for me is that in 13 seasons, Emmett had almost 1,300 more carries than Dorsett did in 11 seasons. A freaking RB that is getting hit every single play... and he just kept coming.

Durability alone doesn't make him better. But durability along with those number does.. at least for this 49 year Cowboys fan. I'll take Emmett.

[Mr B]

First off... the fact of Drew Pearson not being in the Pro Football Hall of Fame is in and of itself preposterous - especially with that prima donna Lynn Swann being in. Absurd. Drew Pearson was better than Lynn Swann and most Steeler fans I have known over the years agree.

Now that THAT'S off my chest...

Comparing E. Smith and TD is a conundrum. I lean toward Smith strictly from a productivity standpoint. Yes - he ran behind arguably the best Offensive line ever when it was in it's heyday. Let's not forget however that Dorsett's O-Line was considered pretty damn good at the time itself. Some numbers to ponder (I excluded the numbers from their time with other teams and focused on the Cowboys)...

- TD averaged 4.3 Y/A... Smith 4.2
- TD had 2,755 carries in 157 Cowboys games - 17.5 carries per game. Emmett - 4,052 carries in 201 games - 20.1 carries per game
- Dorsett fumbled 81 times (12 in the playoffs) - Emmett 55 times (4 in the playoffs... Four!)
- Receiving is where TD shines with 3,500+ yards, 8.9 yards per catch and 13 TD's. But Emmett was no slouch at 3,200 yards, 6.3 yards per catch and 11 TD's. He was every bit a three down back that Tony was.

I have no problem with anyone choosing Dorsett over Emmett. The arguments about him not being used more are sound... that's how Landry was. The one number that stands out for me is that in 13 seasons, Emmett had almost 1,300 more carries than Dorsett did in 11 seasons. A freaking RB that is getting hit every single play... and he just kept coming.

Durability alone doesn't make him better. But durability along with those number does.. at least for this 49 year Cowboys fan. I'll take Emmett.

Durability is definitely what separated Emmitt from most if not all the all time greats. It's possible that TD would have put up better numbers than Emmitt if given the same number of carries however there's also a good than that he doesn't hold up as well as Emmitt did. His knee injury in Denver is a sign of what might have happen had he been given as heavy a load as Emmitt. Emmitt was legendary for the way he took care of his body. If there is one thing Zeke should pick Emmitt's brain about is what he did to take care of himself physically. Like when and how often to take ice baths and how often to get those deep tissue massages.