SI.com: Joe Posanski's 32 Greatest RBs of All-Time

[ouvan59]

Curtis Martin played 3 less years than Faulk and had 2,000 more rushing yards. Martin also rushed 1,000yds all but once in his 11 year career and that was his last season. Yet you don't hear alot of people mention Martin because he wasn't as flashy. But he was a great RB.

Martin had nearly 2,000 fewer total yards than Faulk. And it was only 1 fewer year not 3. 8 games if you want to be specific. He also had 36 fewer touchdowns than Faulk.

[ouvan59]

Bo Jackson is too high at 9 - Bo showed flashes of greatness before injuries derailed his career. But if by greatest we're talking potential, he could list Ki-Jana Carter in the top 20.

I agree. Bo shouldn't even be in the conversation. He was exciting as hell but because he never played a full season you can't consider him. A lot of guys could show up midseason after all the other players are dinged up from a month and a half of playing (not including preseason) and dominate. He might have been one of the greatest of all time but since his career amounted to about 2 1/4 seasons he's not on my list.

[pjfootballer]

is it me or is Riggins being overlooked? I mean LT and Priest Holmes, but a legend like Riggins, is it me?

I'm not sure. The rushing yards are there, the SB Ring is there and he was spectacular during the playoffs, but as a whole, his regular seasons were never anything to write home about. Holmes got in because it's his buddy.

Riggins is hard to guage because he put up 11,000 yards, but never over 1300, never led the league in rushing and has a ypc average at 3.9 for his career.

Chris Johnson 24th? You've GOT to be ****ing kidding me.

I hope I'm reading you right in that you think he shouldn't even be on this list. I'd agree with you.

[addicted]

4 straight seasons of 2K yards from scrimmage

4th alltime in yards from scrimmage behind only Jerry Rice, Emmitt Smith and Walter Payton.

136 career TDs

3 times Offensive Player of the Year

7 Pro Bowls

2 Super Bowls, 1 Ring

Not sure what else you would have wanted him to do. He wasn't a classic power back but he got the job done.

You just basically proved my point. My point is if you want to consider careers for Hall of Fame then you must consider the careers against there peers.

Faulk was HOF worthy for 4 years out of a 13 year career. Nothing more or less and that is the problem. He was basically non existant for the last 6 years of his career and his first team traded him away. The question to me is do you think that playing some of the best football 4 our of 12 years is enough to let a guy get in the Hall of Fame? I don't. Sorry. To me you have to produce ever year your in the game. It's the same reason I wouldn't vote for Kurt Warner for the HOF either. To me I can't forget his years in NY where he looked like a washed up piece of crap. How can you vote in a guy who was good/great for a small portion of his career? You can't go off of stats, you need to look at the entire career

[DefenderoftheStar]

I'm not sure. The rushing yards are there, the SB Ring is there and he was spectacular during the playoffs, but as a whole, his regular seasons were never anything to write home about. Holmes got in because it's his buddy.

Riggins is hard to guage because he put up 11,000 yards, but never over 1300, never led the league in rushing and has a ypc average at 3.9 for his career.

I hope I'm reading you right in that you think he shouldn't even be on this list. I'd agree with you.

I see your argument, but I think id take him before Priest Holmes, like you said buddy added, you can agree its way to early for Johnson, but i feel Riggins ran and played harder than some of the squishy running backs we got lately in the NFL.

[Dan T.]

You just basically proved my point. My point is if you want to consider careers for Hall of Fame then you must consider the careers against there peers.

Faulk was HOF worthy for 4 years out of a 13 year career. Nothing more or less and that is the problem. He was basically non existant for the last 6 years of his career and his first team traded him away. The question to me is do you think that playing some of the best football 4 our of 12 years is enough to let a guy get in the Hall of Fame? I don't. Sorry. To me you have to produce ever year your in the game. It's the same reason I wouldn't vote for Kurt Warner for the HOF either. To me I can't forget his years in NY where he looked like a washed up piece of crap. How can you vote in a guy who was good/great for a small portion of his career? You can't go off of stats, you need to look at the entire career

Where do you get the notion that he had only 4 good years? That isn't close to true. And you seem to be holding the fact that the Colts traded him away against him - he had his 3 most productive years AFTER the Colts traded him away.

[Beans]

L.T. is ranked way too low. Top 5 for sure. His 2006 season was the best ever for a running back. It seemed like every time he touched the ball (be it rushing, catching a pass, or throwing a pass) the Chargers would score. It's not his fault his team didn't get a ring. Blame Norv.

Emmitt ahead of Barry ruins the credibility of this list.

[Beans]

This is going to be controversial, but I think Jim Brown is the most overrated player ever. In today's NFL, he is just a guy. Imagine the running backs of today in yesterday's NFL. In Brown's day, the freaking defensive tackles were as heavy as today's linebackers. That era of football just sucked compared to today's. I think the 80's and very early 90s were the bestest of times.

As more and more time passes, memories of legends past grow into even taller tales. Next thing you know Jim Brown will have been 10 feet tall shooting lightning out of his ass.

For his time, he was the man, but since I wasn't born, I couldn't care less.

[jflow78]

Wow, I would have put Sanders at #2. Barry never had a decent OL, never had a decent passing game, and never had a decent HC, yet he was still constantly carrying his team on his shoulders year in and year out.

Just wonder what would have happenned if the Packers had picked Sanders instead of Tony Mandarich. Sanders was picked right after Green Bay nabbed the roid rager who busted pretty quickly. At that point I think the Cowboys and Packers would have been going to SBs nearly every year (well, and if Jones hadn't fired Johnson, what an ***).

[addicted]

Where do you get the notion that he had only 4 good years? That isn't close to true.

7 seasons he rushed over 1000 yards out of the 12 seasons he played. He received all of his awards and recognition in 4 years out of his career. After the 2001 season he was done yet didn't retire until 2007. Happy to use facts to back up my own opinion Dan

You don't answer my questions though. For a 12 year career Faulk played at a Hall of Fame level for 1/3 of it, less then average for 1/3 of it, and good for 1/3 of it. Is that Hall of Fame worthy to you? To me it's not. To me a HOF player is a complete player for at least 10 years. Faulk was not a complete player for 10 years

And you seem to be holding the fact that the Colts traded him away against him - he had his 3 most productive years AFTER the Colts traded him away.

Umm no Dan your just holding onto that. I'm asking a question you don't seem to comprehend. Let me try again

If a player was considered to be a Hall of Famer when he played would a team that held his right trade him away at the peak of his career? Emmit Smith, Thuman Thomas, Walter Payton, Marcus Allen, and Barry Sanders are all Hall of Fame RB's who recently went into the hall. None of them were traded while they still had milage and all were considered the class of what they did while they were playing. It's absurd to me that the Colts considered him a HOF RB and then threw him away at the peak of his career.

I'm not knocking him just saying I don't believe he belongs in that class of players. He was great sure, HOF worthy? No

[pvkeeper19]

To me a HOF player is a complete player for at least 10 years. Faulk was not a complete player for 10 years

Lynn Swann and Floyd Little immediately come to mind as players who don't meet (or approach) those criteria. The fact that they're in the HOF immediately calls your reasoning into question, irrespective of Faulk's accomplishments.

Faulk's abbreviated resume: 2 MVP awards, averaged better than 1000 rushing and 500 receiving yards per season, led the league in TDs and scrimmage yards twice, seven Pro Bowls, 3 first team and 3 second team All-Pro selections, 136 combined TDs... he ranks 10th all time in rushing yards, 7th in rushing TDs, 7th in offensive TDs, 4th in yards from scrimmage, 6th in all-purpose yards, 24th in receptions (second among running backs).

Yes, Marshall Faulk is a Hall of Famer.

[Dan T.]

7 seasons he rushed over 1000 yards out of the 12 seasons he played. He received all of his awards and recognition in 4 years out of his career. After the 2001 season he was done yet didn't retire until 2007. Happy to use facts to back up my own opinion Dan

You don't answer my questions though. For a 12 year career Faulk played at a Hall of Fame level for 1/3 of it, less then average for 1/3 of it, and good for 1/3 of it. Is that Hall of Fame worthy to you? To me it's not. To me a HOF player is a complete player for at least 10 years. Faulk was not a complete player for 10 years

Umm no Dan your just holding onto that. I'm asking a question you don't seem to comprehend. Let me try again

If a player was considered to be a Hall of Famer when he played would a team that held his right trade him away at the peak of his career? Emmit Smith, Thuman Thomas, Walter Payton, Marcus Allen, and Barry Sanders are all Hall of Fame RB's who recently went into the hall. None of them were traded while they still had milage and all were considered the class of what they did while they were playing. It's absurd to me that the Colts considered him a HOF RB and then threw him away at the peak of his career.

I'm not knocking him just saying I don't believe he belongs in that class of players. He was great sure, HOF worthy? No

By your yardstick, Hall of Famers Eric Dickerson, Gale Sayers, John Riggins, Franco Harris, Marcus Allen, Larry Czonka, and others don't belong there. Running back is the shortest-lived position in football.

Your characterization of Faulk's career is absurd. And you still aren't making a lick of sense regarding the Colts. They traded Faulk and drafted Edgerrin James in the draft that year. So they did okay. So did Faulk. The next 3 years with the Rams Faulk's production was off the charts for a running back... So the Colts letting him go has zero to do with Faulk's worthiness as a running back.

And Faulk isn't the only running back to hang on past his prime (as if that's some sort of mark of shame.) If THAT's how you measure Hall of Fame worthiness, then Jim Brown and Barry Sanders would be the only running backs in the Hall.

[Bang]

Walter Payton

Eric Dickerson

Jim Brown

Emmitt Smith

Barry Sanders

~Bang

[thebluefood]

If Red Grange is up there, Cliff Battles should be, too.

[GreenRiggins]

http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/08/08/thirty-two-great-running-backs/?eref=sihp

Debate away...

Can't argue with the Top 5 except for maybe a swap of positions for a spot or two BUT where's my guy The Diesel ?!?!?

[Dan T.]

Can't argue with the Top 5 except for maybe a swap of positions for a spot or two BUT where's my guy The Diesel ?!?!?

He was at a memorabilia show selling autographs for 100 bucks a pop. Oh wait, did you mean where was the Diesel during the HoF ceremonies?

[pjfootballer]

Actually, Marcus Allen was still in his prime when the Raiders let him go, He was one of those backs that I thought should get more carries. They were always trying to replace him and Bo Jackson didn't help. One thing it did was prolong his career.

[pjfootballer]

I see your argument, but I think id take him before Priest Holmes, like you said buddy added, you can agree its way to early for Johnson, but i feel Riggins ran and played harder than some of the squishy running backs we got lately in the NFL.

No doubt a HOFer. He just went about it more quietly than others. He was very consistant, much like Curtis Martin. Riggins was never at the top of the rushing charts or stats (sans the 1983 season when he had 1300+ yards and 24 TDs). And his running style was one of a kind. Did you know he was a sprinter at Kansas? His combination of power and short burst is what made him successful.

[addicted]

Sorry Dan but I just don't consider Marshall Faulk among the best RB's that ever played the game. His rushing numbers aren't that impressive and it's only when you consider his pass catching numbers when you can make a case for him. Not to mention his team thought they were better off with out him on the team and that his best years came on turf just turns me off about him. I think Faulk cheapens the RB HOF class and I'll be surprised when I see him get in. There are many more players more deserving of that honor imo then Faulk. But hey that's just my opinion, think what you want

[Dan T.]

Sorry Dan but I just don't consider Marshall Faulk among the best RB's that ever played the game. His rushing numbers aren't that impressive and it's only when you consider his pass catching numbers when you can make a case for him. Not to mention his team thought they were better off with out him on the team and that his best years came on turf just turns me off about him. I think Faulk cheapens the RB HOF class and I'll be surprised when I see him get in. There are many more players more deserving of that honor imo then Faulk. But hey that's just my opinion, think what you want

His numbers and awards stack up with the top running backs of all time. I have nothing invested in whether he gets in or not, but a good case can be made for him to wear the gold jacket.

[illone]

How Riggins is not on that list is ridiculous.

[darklight1216]

I was hoping J. Lew might be there.

At least one Raven made it.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Of course Marshall Faulk is a HOFer.

[ouvan59]

You just basically proved my point. My point is if you want to consider careers for Hall of Fame then you must consider the careers against there peers.

Faulk was HOF worthy for 4 years out of a 13 year career. Nothing more or less and that is the problem.

HUH? He had 4 spectacular years and several other really good ones. He made 7 Pro Bowls. Who among his peers had a better career? Certainly not Curtis Martin. Certainly not Edgerrin James. Certainly not Ricky Williams. Thurman Thomas is in the same neighborhood but he scored 50 fewer Tds than Faulk. Emmitt Smith and Barry Sanders are the only peers of his that can claim they were better. I think you are trying to look only at his rushing yardage to judge him.

[doncherry]

Roger Craig belongs on the list way before Bo Jackson or Edge James. Craig's absence constitutes a glaring ommission. And I hate the 49ers....