Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

John Riggins (at least in his Redskins´tenure). The only reception I remember of him was in Super Bowl XVII.

Despite his highlight-reel runs and TDs, I was surprised the King, Hugh McElhenny only had 58 career TDs. With his great ability to run and catch, I thought he would have a lot more, though they only played 12-game seasons most of his career and he shared the backfield with Joe Perry and JHJ. If any player could have been just as good a wide receiver as back, like Gifford or Moore, it was him. I couldnt believe he had as many fumbles as TDs, though he may have recovered many of them.

JohnTurney wrote:
Maybe he had more skills that were not shown off, but
when you get taken out on goalline and short yardage
in means your style that sometimes loses yards is a problem
and not the sign of a complete back like a Payton, Faulk, LT
or even Emmitt.

Not really buying this. Sanders averaged 10 rushing TDs a year and in 6 of his 10 seasons he had 11+ rushing TDs. Seems like overzealous coaching to me (gotta get Touchdown Tommy Vardell his touches) than an accurate reflection of Barry Sanders' ability. If Sanders was more of a jerk, that might not have ever happened. Then I'm not sure how Sanders was in a 'perfect system' if one year he leads the NFL in rushing TDs then two years later he is being subbed out at the goal line. If ever a player could excel in any system, it was Barry Sanders. The guy was a genius running the football. He had mediocre coaches, mediocre QBs, a bad supporting cast, yet he always produced. The irony in your "sometimes loses yards is a problem" statement is that the RB who had lost the most yards prior to Sanders was Walter Payton....yet Payton is the 'complete back'. I would guess that the "loses yards" isn't a stylistic problem, but moreso an indication that your supporting cast kind of sucks. I think that outside of Jim Brown, the two best RBs I have ever seen are Payton and Sanders because they could gain yards on their own. Their teams were terrible. I don't think enough was made of the fact that Payton and Sanders had to break 5 tackles to gain 10 yards. If Sanders' dimension was "production", then that is like George Halas saying "all Norm Van Brocklin can do is pass".

Despite the talent at wide receiver, if any run-and-shoot type team had a Barry Sanders, they should have been throwing to him more but the Lions for some reason didnt. Maybe they wanted to rest him more but that type of offense should have feasted on his ability in the open field. I always wondered if the Lions changed to that style simply because Barry wasnt the type to follow a fullback or even follow designed blocking, due to his great cutting and instincts. Had he had a Jim Kelly or Marino at QB, his receiving numbers might have been more like Roger Craig or Thurman Thomas but once they went chuck-and-duck, his production was mainly on the first two downs.I still feel had his team been better and challenging more for championships, he could have easily played another five years. Whats your take RichardBak, how did you feel about the Barry Sander's era?

Bryan wrote:
Not really buying this. Sanders averaged 10 rushing TDs a year and in 6 of his 10 seasons he had 11+ rushing TDs. Seems like overzealous coaching to me (gotta get Touchdown Tommy Vardell his touches) than an accurate reflection of Barry Sanders' ability. If Sanders was more of a jerk, that might not have ever happened. Then I'm not sure how Sanders was in a 'perfect system' if one year he leads the NFL in rushing TDs then two years later he is being subbed out at the goal line. If ever a player could excel in any system, it was Barry Sanders. The guy was a genius running the football. He had mediocre coaches, mediocre QBs, a bad supporting cast, yet he always produced. The irony in your "sometimes loses yards is a problem" statement is that the RB who had lost the most yards prior to Sanders was Walter Payton....yet Payton is the 'complete back'. I would guess that the "loses yards" isn't a stylistic problem, but moreso an indication that your supporting cast kind of sucks. I think that outside of Jim Brown, the two best RBs I have ever seen are Payton and Sanders because they could gain yards on their own. Their teams were terrible. I don't think enough was made of the fact that Payton and Sanders had to break 5 tackles to gain 10 yards. If Sanders' dimension was "production", then that is like George Halas saying "all Norm Van Brocklin can do is pass".

Most of that is pretty much well-known - he was a genius at running the football. He did have bad coaches, QBs. Don't think that is disputable.
Whatever the reason, "overzealous coaching" or what Proscout's Mike Giddings said "Flawed. Unreliable in short-yardage situations" he
was not on the field all the time.

It's just what happened. If you disagree, that's fine. Reasonable people can diagree, but I think a lot of people also saw Sanders play and if you want to say he was not used right, that's fine, but he wasn't effective in short-yardage because, mostly his style of running.

As far as receiving...they probably should have thrown to him more. But he simply was not a complete back in the way Walter was or Faulk or LT.
Walter is a complete back because he was elite runner, excellent receiver for a running back, and an excellent blocker. Same with Faulk and Tomlinson.
Sanders was a better runner, IMO. Did things those guys could not do. But they did things Sanders didn't do.

And that is what the post was about. Was he as one-dimensional as others? Not as much as Campbell or Riggins but Sanders maybe could have blocked, he
was physically capable, but he was not known as a complete back. Neither was Eric Dickerson. He was not a good blocker or receiver..but was one of top 2-3-4
runners ever.

But, not trying to convince you - I see the evidence a little bit differently in terms of these aspects but see it the same as far as the running and the poor surroundings. And hwne a guy is graded as flawed in one aspect of his game by PSI (and you don't have to accept their opinions) it carries at least some weight with me.

I'd give Barry Sanders a 10 in running, a 6 in receiving for a back, maybe 5 (average? or less) pass pro, and maybe average or less on short-yardage and goalline.
Walter--maybe an 8-9 running, but elite-call it 8-9 in receiving, maybe 10 in RB pass pro, maybe an 9-10 in short yardage goalline....those are just off the top of my head.
Faulk and Tomlinson, very similar to Payton
Dickerson, very similar to Sanders, except he was excellent in SY/GLine. Just not a great blocker or receiver.

Kind of opens another topic in that many great players, even GOATS can have flaws . . . in total Package Sanders is top 5 back, some say higher...so whatever the flaws or
whatever the reason for "misuse" which is possible . . . he's still an all-time great, upper, upper echelon as Ron Meyers would term players.

Anyway, a good discussion and as everyone knows there is no "right" answer anyway

Brian wolf wrote:I think Adrian Peterson might have been the best one-dimensional back

I've never really thought about this but I think that A.P. is a good nominee although I have no idea if his deficiencies in receiving and blocking were because of poor coaching or more because he simply wasn't interested in either.

racepug wrote:

Brian wolf wrote:I think Adrian Peterson might have been the best one-dimensional back

I've never really thought about this but I think that A.P. is a good nominee although I have no idea if his deficiencies in receiving and blocking were because of poor coaching or more because he simply wasn't interested in either.

This is kind of the heart of it...it would seem any athlete of the caliber of these guys can do anything. But when we look at these things are we doing what we think they could do, or what happened?

I guess we all do some of both when making our guesses on these topics. Certainly, Peterson was capable of being a good pass protector . . . but for whatever reason he was never mentioned as being all that good at it, at least not to the level of the ones often mentioned.

We can all see what a back in terms of the passing tree, some did more than others . . . but is that because they were just better at it? Coached better? Better instincts?

Hard to know. Desire? Scheme?

As for AP. IMO his career path seems similar to the Eric Dickerson end of the spectrum as opposed to the Payton end.

Any great back would want to be complete and work on his deficiencies but Adrian was such a running weapon and productive, that he could get more of a rest on third down, without the coaches demanding he stay on the field for every down.

Thats the thing about elite backs, if they are productive runners and help score points, they dont have to be as dimensional unless the coaching demands it. The coaches have to decide on giving them rest. Like John Madden once said, he was glad that former Raider coach John Rauch wanted to utilize and develop OJ Simpson into a wingback receiver or decoy, rather than just let him run. As long as the ball wasnt in his hands, he was fine wherever Simpson lined up. I think Rauch really wanted to develop his skills as a runner and receiver but didnt have a QB or offense to make him more dimensional. When Saban joined, he gave the ball to OJ, like he did Cookie Gilchrist. Didnt matter whether Ferguson developed at QB or not ...

Brian wolf wrote:Any great back would want to be complete and work on his deficiencies but Adrian was such a running weapon and productive, that he could get more of a rest on third down, without the coaches demanding he stay on the field for every down.

Thats the thing about elite backs, if they are productive and help score points, they dont have to be as dimensional unless the coaching demands it. The coaches have to decide on giving them rest. Like John Madden once said, he was glad that former Raider coach John Rauch wanted to utilize and develop OJ Simpson into a wingback receiver or decoy, rather than just let him run. As long as the ball wasnt in his hands, he was fine wherever Simpson lined up. I think Rauch really wanted to develop his skills as a runner and receiver but didnt have a QB or offense to make him more dimensional. When Saban joined, he gave the ball to OJ, like he did Cookie Gilchrist. Didnt matter whether Ferguson developed at QB or not ...

also, different era, in the 1970s receiving backs became more of a thing, some more than others...Foreman and Mitchell leading the way, Payton not as involved, though I do have clips of him running go routes...but he was not like those guys . . . Bears offense not a Marchiborda/Jerry Burns-style thing.

More and more though, running backs had to pass block more and lead block less---even LT and Faulk not asked to do that, Payton was, which is why, IMO, he stands out. But LT and especially Faulk ran receiver routes plus full RB tree. And were excellent pass pro...

So to your point, I think it's valid to say that some guys like Dickerson and Sanders an AP and others were not asked to do things the more complete backs were asked to do. It is possible the could have done more . . . however, with Sanders, not being "reliable" on short yardage . . . is not a myth, it's just not enough to take away from his greatness

Speaking of dimensional backs, though his receiving wasnt much and he was more a role player, Rocky Bleier just had his 1968 rookie jersey put out by Ebbets.com. I had no idea he wore #26. After injuries in Nam, he was lucky to ever play again. They released a cool #15 1947 jersey from Steve Van Buren as well and Sonny Jurgensen's 1957 #9 jersey for interested fans.