Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Beaker
Originally posted by Fat Banana

Payton was a better back than Sanders imo. I consider Sanders #2. People forget that most of Payton's career was spent on horrible Bears teams with crappy o-lines. But then as a Bears fan I'm biased as well.


Uh. . .sanders' WHOLE career was spent on the Lions. I think that says enough.

Payton's whole career was spent on the Bears. The Bears were only good for 4 of his 13 seasons. Sanders' Lions teams weren't that bad. They won their sole playoff game since 1957 when he was on the team. Like I said I like Barry Sanders. I put him above Emmitt Smith, Jim Brown, Gayle Sayers, O.J., Eric Dickerson, etc. Legitimate arguments can be made for both players and I'll just leave it at that.

Put whether the team was successful or not and whatever the hell else aside, just put Barry Sanders and Walter Payton side by side and Barry is a superior HB. I was too young to care about football when he was playing, and not even born when Payton was playing, but from seeing all the clips on ESPN and Youtube and such Barry is just amazing. Generally I hate watching a player run 20 yards backwards to run 4 yards forward.. but with Barry it was like watching a magician. The Houdini of football.

Originally posted by Fat Banana
Originally posted by Beaker

Originally posted by Fat Banana


Payton was a better back than Sanders imo. I consider Sanders #2. People forget that most of Payton's career was spent on horrible Bears teams with crappy o-lines. But then as a Bears fan I'm biased as well.


Uh. . .sanders' WHOLE career was spent on the Lions. I think that says enough.

Payton's whole career was spent on the Bears. The Bears were only good for 4 of his 13 seasons. Sanders' Lions teams weren't that bad. They won their sole playoff game since 1957 when he was on the team. Like I said I like Barry Sanders. I put him above Emmitt Smith, Jim Brown, Gayle Sayers, O.J., Eric Dickerson, etc. Legitimate arguments can be made for both players and I'll just leave it at that.




You are a bears fan, so I will forgive you for this. However, I still think you are smoking crack

Ok enough of this! I believe Barry is the best. Unlike IHAS I was alive for part of Payton's career but didn't start watching football until 88 when I was 5. I started liking football because I heard of this awesome player who played both football and baseball. BO JACKSON! He was my god. Unfortunately his career was cut WAY too short. Then Barry Sanders filled that hole for me. I remained a Raiders fan but was a big Barry Sanders fan. I watched his entire career including when he retired WAY to early! But hell who wouldn't retire early when you were on a team who used and abused you. They rode Barry to the redzone and then took him out and gave away his touchdowns. I really believe that's why Barry quit. He had 4 TD's in 98(his final year) and the FB's had 7. All of those should have been Barry's. Add in the factor that the team just sucked. 29 TD's all year long! There you have it a reason to retire.

Well the point of this was originally to say that Beaker you are an idiot. Yes, I agree with you that Barry is the best. But for you to say that someone is smoking Crack because they believe Payton is the best is just ridiculous. I think Payton can be argued for. However Payton did have a superbowl team around him with great Defenses who gave the ball back to him and the offense constantly. Barry's teams couldn't do that. With Payton, the bears 2nd best year was better than any of the Lions with Sanders.

Originally posted by kadafitcd

Well the point of this was originally to say that Beaker you are an idiot. Yes, I agree with you that Barry is the best. But for you to say that someone is smoking Crack because they believe Payton is the best is just ridiculous. I think Payton can be argued for. However Payton did have a superbowl team around him with great Defenses who gave the ball back to him and the offense constantly. Barry's teams couldn't do that. With Payton, the bears 2nd best year was better than any of the Lions with Sanders.

Uh. . .I think you are looking a little too far into my silly statement there bud.

Originally posted by kadafitcd
However Payton did have a superbowl team around him with great Defenses who gave the ball back to him and the offense constantly. Barry's teams couldn't do that.


Only from '84-'87. From '75-'83 this wasn't the case. If someone thinks Barry was a better HB that is fine, it's your opinion. My opinion happens to be different. A few of you have said you weren't alive or old enough to see Payton play but you did see Barry and I can understand why you'd think Barry was a better HB. I was in the stands at Soldier Field when Walter broke Jim Brown's rushing record against the Saints. Purely from a running aspect I think Barry was probably better, but as an all-around HB (running, blocking, receiving, and even throwing) I have to go with Walter.

Those of you who never saw Payton run it's not easy to describe to you his never-die-easy approach to every single play. Not once in his career did he run out of bounds. Pushed or tackled out of bounds sure, but he never once aimed for the sideline. He'd rather hit the nearest defender than run out of bounds.

Originally posted by Fat Banana
Originally posted by kadafitcd

However Payton did have a superbowl team around him with great Defenses who gave the ball back to him and the offense constantly. Barry's teams couldn't do that.


Only from '84-'87. From '75-'83 this wasn't the case.

That's 4 seasons to Barry's 0 seasons. But, I agree that they were both great. I take the side of Sanders. But like you say. I saw Sanders I never Saw Payton. I have seen a lot of film and highlights of his though. I do put him up there with Barry. And Beaker yes I know you were just making a smart remark but I had to strike you down for it out of respect for Payton.

Originally posted by Fat Banana
Purely from a running aspect I think Barry was probably better, but as an all-around HB (running, blocking, receiving, and even throwing) I have to go with Walter.

Oh hell, if we are going to talk about all-around HB, I gotta throw Marshall Faulk's name out there. That guy could do it all, and do it all very well. He could run with power, run with finesse, block as well as most fullbacks and catch as well as most tight ends. It is too bad his prime did not last longer, but he was one hell of a workhorse.

Originally posted by Beaker
Originally posted by Fat Banana

Purely from a running aspect I think Barry was probably better, but as an all-around HB (running, blocking, receiving, and even throwing) I have to go with Walter.

Oh hell, if we are going to talk about all-around HB, I gotta throw Marshall Faulk's name out there. That guy could do it all, and do it all very well. He could run with power, run with finesse, block as well as most fullbacks and catch as well as most tight ends. It is too bad his prime did not last longer, but he was one hell of a workhorse.



I would have to agree. You could throw Brian Westbrook into the mix there too without all his injuries he would have been great. And still is really good.

Originally posted by kadafitcd
Originally posted by Beaker

Originally posted by Fat Banana


Purely from a running aspect I think Barry was probably better, but as an all-around HB (running, blocking, receiving, and even throwing) I have to go with Walter.

Oh hell, if we are going to talk about all-around HB, I gotta throw Marshall Faulk's name out there. That guy could do it all, and do it all very well. He could run with power, run with finesse, block as well as most fullbacks and catch as well as most tight ends. It is too bad his prime did not last longer, but he was one hell of a workhorse.



I would have to agree. You could throw Brian Westbrook into the mix there too without all his injuries he would have been great. And still is really good.

I thought about Westbrook too. He is an excellent receiving back, but he is no more then a mediocre power back, which is why I gave Faulk the nod. But you could make the case that his receiving abilities make up for this weakness.

i'd def give faulk the nod as power back. but westy can still take it goalline and inside, he'll rebound this year, these injuries are minor.

Originally posted by Beaker
Originally posted by Fat Banana

Purely from a running aspect I think Barry was probably better, but as an all-around HB (running, blocking, receiving, and even throwing) I have to go with Walter.

Oh hell, if we are going to talk about all-around HB, I gotta throw Marshall Faulk's name out there. That guy could do it all, and do it all very well. He could run with power, run with finesse, block as well as most fullbacks and catch as well as most tight ends. It is too bad his prime did not last longer, but he was one hell of a workhorse.



Faulk was one of the best, but I'd take Payton over him. Another thing Payton had over Sanders and Faulk is he played most of his games the way football was meant to be played. Outdoors in the elements.

Just to add to the Payton vs. Sanders arguement:

you have to take this into account. The Bears were a RUNNING team when they had Payton. That's all they did. Even in '85 when they had the illustrioius Jim McMahon, they were always a run-first team.

When Wayne Fontes took over as the coach of the Lions in 1989 (Barry was drafted in 1988), he brought with him the Run and Shoot Offense. The Lions marched all manner of running QB's and 4 WR sets onto the field to try and light up the score board.

Barry Sanders, for his career, only averaged 306 carries per season. Payton averaged 349 per season. Not to mention, most of Payton's attempts were in a 2 TE, Power I style running offense, while Barry always ran out of Single Back and usually with 3-4 WRs on the field instead of TE's.

He NEVER had a lead blocker until very late in his career.

And then there's the offensive line the Lions had. Lomas Brown was an All Pro tackle, but other than him they were shit. Eric Andolsek probably would've been a Pro Bowler but he got hit by a run away dump drunk in his front yard and died in 1992. Mike Ultley would've been a Pro Bowler, but he got paralyzed to start the '91 season. Thumbs up!!

Both great running back, both in my all time top 5. Both ranked below Jim Brown, imo.

Originally posted by BerkeyTerps
i'd def give faulk the nod as power back. but westy can still take it goalline and inside, he'll rebound this year, these injuries are minor.

Can he really take it goalline? What's it been 3-4 times inside the 5 with no points? hahaha EAGLES SUCK @ GOALLINE! The Sad thing is My Raiders can't hardly even make it to the 5!

Jim Brown was a great one. I don't know a whole lot about him so I wouldn't say anything for or against him. I was always under the assumption that he was a Bruiser Power Back and that was it. But like I said I don't know much about him.

Originally posted by PhireHawk

Both great running back, both in my all time top 5. Both ranked below Jim Brown, imo.

Tell ya what. I do not think Jim Brown was the best running back of all time, but he was without a doubt the best ATHLETE of his time. I do not think there was a sport in America he could not play at a professional level. He was also a pretty good kicker too.