Curtis Martin has no business being ranked over Earl Campbell.
Just because Curtis Martin played longer doesn't offset the fact Earl had one of the most dominant primes of anyone ever. Curtis Martin was never thought of like that, he was just consistently good, or at times even league average
any time a RB goes for 1,000+ and stays healthy 16 games that is above average to me...
if those are his 3 worst years then holy shit...
Campbell had a stronger prime, but it was short...Curtis played twice as long, has double the numbers...yes that means something
btw, go look at some of the average years for Earl
Aside from Earl, because that is really a prime vs. longevity debate...Martin should certainly be ranked above Gale Sayers all time.
1000 yards in 16 games is a seriously low expectation of being above average, especially back then when the run game with 1 featured back was much more prevelant, almost standard.
It's not even all about yards anyway....touchdowns and yards per carry are as important than the total number of yards rushing someone gets, that's why I don't value Martin' season where he got 1287 yards highly at all, 3.5 yards a carry is almost embarrassing for a HOF running back.
If Earl wasn't such a monster in his prime I could see Martin's longevity and durability making up for it, but Earl was on some prime Shaq shit back then.
1000 yards in 16 games is a seriously low expectation of being above average, especially back then when the run game with 1 featured back was much more prevelant, almost standard.
It's not even all about yards anyway....touchdowns and yards per carry are as important than the total number of yards rushing someone gets, that's why I don't value Martin' season where he got 1287 yards highly at all, 3.5 yards a carry is almost embarrassing for a HOF running back.
If Earl wasn't such a monster in his prime I could see Martin's longevity and durability making up for it, but Earl was on some prime Shaq shit back then.
it's not about my expectations for of above average...that IS above average
and like I said, if those are his three worst years, then holy fckin shit...I can dig up 3 much worse years from Earl
and prime Shaq is a horrible comparison, that would mean that Earl was slamming home rings every year...it was cheating almost...but that wasn't the case at all.
it's not about my expectations for of above average...that IS above average
and like I said, if those are his three worst years, then holy fckin shit...I can dig up 3 much worse years from Earl
and prime Shaq is a horrible comparison, that would mean that Earl was slamming home rings every year...it was cheating almost...but that wasn't the case at all.
If football was like basketball where one player can have an immense impact on a game, then yes you're rebuttle would have some merrit, although it would still be dumb. Shaq didn't win titles by himself, he did have Kobe, Phil Jackson and others that helped his cause.
Earl was a running back playing football. His dominance alone couldn't translate into rings.
If football was like basketball where one player can have an immense impact on a game, then yes you're rebuttle would have some merrit, although it would still be dumb. Shaq didn't win titles by himself, he did have Kobe, Phil Jackson and others that helped his cause.
Earl was a running back playing football. His dominance alone couldn't translate into rings.
You just said the exact same thing I did...the Shaq comparison is dumb
You just said the exact same thing I did...the Shaq comparison is dumb
Earl was above his peers the same way Shaq was to his.
In his prie he averaged 110 yards a game over the 3 years, led the league in rushing all three years and averaged close to 5 yards a carry and 1 touchdown per game.
Nobody even comes close to him in his prime, not even Walter Payton.
Re: Top Ten Running Backs of the Millennium
