ADN

Isn't that how 97% of pass catching running running backs get passes Homez..? Screens and swings..? Marshall Faulk, who racked up a grand recieving didn't do it from the reciever spot...Isn't the whole point of having a back that can catch to bring up the safeties and free up the recievers..? It would defeat the purpose otherwise...The point is that the great ones were far from 1 dimensional players...You have a much greater chance of improving the people around you, the best trait of an extremely great palyer, by being versatile...

but again...my question isnt who is the most versitile....who makes his teamates better...its who is the better running back right now in the league...... and people would STILL say LT even though SA is breaking records this year...

You seem to want to insist on the measure of a good running back is his rushing numbers, when I think you'll find that the fans and the media both don't feel this is the case...The truth of the matter is that SA is pretty much 1 dimensional...Even LJ, who has only started 8 games, has twice as many catches as him...You don't get to be the best in any sport without being complete, do you..? Isn't this why great NBA scorers that don't play D never make it to the discussion..? You'd rather have TMac droppin' 50 and giving up 30..? Or will you take Kobe and his 30, and his shutdown D..? Yes SA is putting up special numbers, but if that's all that he has to define him, the title will belong to the more dangerous players...

Barry Sanders = Most Fun to Watch = Greatest of All Time IMO /:D" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt=":D" />

Style > Substance

Oh wow....you would be the type of person who would say style > substance......... loving mike vick is a sure sign of that....should have known.


Oh....and no, as far as a running back goes....I want the guy who can run the ball incredibly well....not the guy who can run and catch well....I got recievers who's job is to catch....why would i want a RB who does it too but because he does it, it depletes his rushing ability.

LT is not even in the top 5 in rushing ability in my opinion....there are plenty better...harder runners in the league... LT just hasn't gotten the job done for me......he aint no 1000 1000 guy...... but hes a 750 - 1250.....i'll take the guy getting 1800 yardsa nd putting up 26+ touchdowns every single day...


Maybe I'm old school.....

Larry Johnson hasn't shown it for a full season... yet - so let's no make him the best just yet. This isn't to say he isn't going to prove himself worthy in future.

It's certainly hard to argue with SA's numbers. The man is a TD machine. But LT is at this point a superior receiver out of the backfield. We should also consider who is better at picking up blitzes and keeping his QB alive. I haven't seen enough games to be able to offer a proper assessment on this.

QUOTE(Lost Ghost)Oh....and no, as far as a running back goes....I want the guy who can run the ball incredibly well....not the guy who can run and catch well........why would i want a RB who does it too but because he does it, it depletes his rushing ability.

If that makes perfect logical sense to you, I have nothing more to say...

.........agreed.

Let me clarify..

Style > Substance, only when you have enough Substance to embarass ppl with the Style /:D" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt=":D" />

Ie, AND1 guards have to have incredible ball handling skills to pull some of the moves they do,
Chad Johnson has to get in the endzone before he can celebrate, and would that list of CBs he has
up in his locker really be cool if he averaged 30 ypg? Nope..

Vick = style..... Peyton = substance...


when you say style > substance...... you're implying that style is more important than substance....not that people who have loads of substance are fun to watch when they have style too.....everyone will agree with that, but you imply that you would take a person with 70% style and 30% substance over someone of the oppisite creed....I on the other hand would not...