SITE NEWS: We are moving all of our site and company news into a single blog for Sports-Reference.com. We'll tag all PFR content, so you can quickly and easily find the content you want.
Also, our existing PFR blog rss feed will be redirected to the new site's feed.
Pro-Football-Reference.com » Sports Reference
For more from Chase and Jason, check out their work at Football Perspective and The Big Lead.
Most Dominant RBs: Career List
On Monday, I explained the methodology used to rank every RB in every season in NFL history. Yesterday, we looked at the most dominant RB seasons of all time. Today we get to the career list.
I used 100% of each player's best season, 95% of his second best season, 90% of his third best season, and so on, to come up with a career rating. Only seasons where the player ranked above the baseline were included. In the table below, you see each player's career value and his corresponding rank. This shows how many adjusted yards above average he was for his career. I think this metric is most useful to determine the most dominant statistical RBs of all time and also as a HOF litmus test.
However, it's not the best list for simply determining career value. For your favorite team, having a guy rush for 1300 yards for ten seasons would be more valuable than a RB who would rush for 1600 yards for six seasons. However, in terms of being a HOFer, I think the latter would be more "worthy." He was more dominant, if not necessarily more valuable. That said, we shouldn't ignore this sort of value; so while the "VALUE" column shows each player's yards over average, the "REPLV" is the replacement value column, which shows each player's value over replacement. I've defined replacement as 75% of league average.
For figuring out whether or not Ricky Watters or Stephen Davis was the better NFL player, I think we want to look at replacement value. For deciding whether Barry Sanders or Emmitt Smith was the better RB, I think we want to look at value. One other note: older players are hurt when you use "replacement value" instead of value. An older RB who had a score of 500 when the average RB scored a 400 would be equal to a RB who scores 700 when the average was 600 when you compare the two to league average. Both would be +100. When you go to replacement, however, the older RB would be +200 and the modern RB would be +250. Enough talk; here's the list:
VALUE RK REPLV Rk
Jim Brown 6114 1 7971 1
Barry Sanders 5063 2 7312 3
Walter Payton 4544 3 7126 4
Marshall Faulk 4482 4 7445 2
Emmitt Smith 4459 5 7057 6
LaDainian Tomlinson 4222 6 7105 5
Eric Dickerson 3693 7 5457 7
O.J. Simpson 3486 8 4998 11
Priest Holmes 2937 9 4491 13
Earl Campbell 2867 10 4198 15
Thurman Thomas 2859 11 5083 9
Jim Taylor 2780 12 4155 16
Terrell Davis 2651 13 3964 19
Curtis Martin 2591 14 5203 8
Steve Van Buren 2582 15 3586 26
Edgerrin James 2571 16 5029 10
Shaun Alexander 2422 17 4221 14
Tiki Barber 2399 18 4906 12
Marcus Allen 1990 19 4120 18
Leroy Kelly 1961 20 3421 29
Clinton Portis 1923 21 3768 20
Lydell Mitchell 1912 22 3666 21
Jerome Bettis 1816 23 3650 22
Chuck Foreman 1803 24 3443 28
Ottis Anderson 1702 25 3542 27
William Andrews 1690 26 3293 32
Brian Westbrook 1678 27 3406 30
Ahman Green 1622 28 3611 25
Stephen Davis 1552 29 2668 45
Larry Johnson 1544 30 2723 43
Gerald Riggs 1539 31 2608 48
Tony Dorsett 1523 32 3644 23
Gale Sayers 1480 33 2669 44
Eddie George 1450 34 3391 31
Fred Taylor 1440 35 3632 24
Larry Brown 1383 36 2781 41
Abner Haynes 1379 37 2624 46
Joe Perry 1352 38 2498 49
Clem Daniels 1351 39 2787 40
Ricky Watters 1343 40 4127 17
Jamal Lewis 1333 41 2983 39
Wilbert Montgomery 1332 42 2985 38
Herschel Walker 1313 43 3235 34
John Riggins 1307 44 3143 35
Curt Warner 1302 45 2451 52
Roger Craig 1291 46 3261 33
Franco Harris 1251 47 3064 36
Corey Dillon 1247 48 3051 37
Ron A. Johnson 1211 49 2191 63
Ricky Williams 1208 50 2731 42
Lawrence McCutcheon 1192 51 2399 53
Chris Warren 1182 52 2328 55
Steven Jackson 1179 53 2466 50
Billy Sims 1147 54 2609 47
Rodney Hampton 1128 55 2275 60
Joe Morris 1123 56 1972 68
Paul Lowe 1096 57 1845 73
Cliff Battles 1094 58 1802 78
George Rogers 1069 59 2235 61
Robert Smith 1045 60 2295 58
Terry Allen 985 61 2315 57
Jim Nance 981 62 1632 89
Adrian Peterson 975 63 1541 97
Floyd Little 967 64 2289 59
Dan Towler 962 65 1604 91
Cookie Gilchrist 952 66 1705 82
Deuce McAllister 944 67 2118 64
Lenny Moore 905 68 2465 51
James Wilder 893 69 1986 67
Eddie Price 887 70 1410 111
Timmy Brown 861 71 1888 71
Larry Csonka 858 72 2074 65
Barry Foster 858 73 1469 102
Charlie Garner 851 74 2345 54
Otis Armstrong 849 75 1555 94
Frank Gifford 846 76 1949 69
Jamal Anderson 844 77 1805 77
Neal Anderson 843 78 2318 56
Garrison Hearst 805 79 1933 70
Delvin Williams 791 80 1667 86
Rick Casares 741 81 1504 100
J.D. Smith 727 82 1608 90
John Brockington 724 83 1572 93
Billy Cannon 717 84 1171 118
Bill Paschal 711 85 1158 119
Michael Turner 699 86 1015 136
Bill Brown 697 87 1836 74
Mark van Eeghen 691 88 1678 85
James Brooks 690 89 2025 66
Hoyle Granger 684 90 1459 104
Christian Okoye 675 91 1240 117
Alan Ameche 658 92 1434 108
Greg Bell 655 93 1660 87
DeAngelo Williams 651 94 968 142
Frank Gore 637 95 1700 83
Dorsey Levens 613 96 1390 113
John Henry Johnson 612 97 1463 103
Gene Roberts 604 98 984 139
Rudi Johnson 599 99 1811 76
Beattie Feathers 591 100 872 155
- I did not use an AFL modifier like I did in the Greatest WR Ever series. Part of the reason was because there were not many standout RB performances like there were at WR, and part of the reason was I'm waiting for JKL to finish up his great work on his AFL vs. NFL series.
- In case you missed it, I addressed the low rankings of Gale Sayers and especially Marion Motley (not ranked) in yesterday's post. However, you should not be surprised to see that Paul Hornung didn't make the list. Also, don't forget this post on Gifford, Moore, Mitchell and Taylor discussing all purpose players and my post on the history of the AP MVP award.
- Csonka, Harris and Riggins: These three power backs rank quite a bit behind the modern HOF RBs. Part of that is because they split time with other RBs on their rosters and were really in the pre-stud RB era. But it's also arguable that none of them would have made the HOF without their post-season resumes. As we'll see tomorrow, these guys had some of the best post-seasons of all times. And while many Terrell Davis supporters say he should be in the HOF because Gale Sayers is, that may not be their best argument. All three RBs won a SB MVP, as did Davis, and their playoff success (both individually and team) is what brought them to Canton. For Davis, I think the case is even easier. They have him beat in longevity but not in level of dominance (at least statistically).
- Priest Holmes ranks very highly on the list. I was surprised to see that, but thoughts about his offensive line aside, his numbers are just astounding. He's like Earl Campbell or Terrell Davis without the respect or the rings. If he never got hurt in '02 (his best season, which could have been the greatest season of all time) or '04 (had huge per game numbers but missed 8 games), no one would be able to ignore his numbers. If you pro-rate his 54 games (from '01 to '04) to 64, you get 1370 carries, 6497 rushing yards, 83 rushing TDs, 267 receptions, 2564 receiving yards and 7 receiving TDs with only 12 fumbles. That's a seasonal average of 343/1624/21 and 67/641/2 with three fumbles. Four straight years of that would be HOF worthy, I think. If you pro-rate his numbers in his two missed seasons (instead of prorating his weighted average), you'd get 349/1651/22 and 64/612/2 with 3.5 fumbles per year. I'm not sure which way is more appropriate, but either way we're talking over 100 yards rushing a game, huge receiving numbers and 1.5 TDs a game. His offensive line was terrific, but he was an absolute monster for four straight years.
- There's not much to say about Jim Brown. He ranked as the most dominant RB in the league in seven of his nine seasons and finished just a hair behind Jim Taylor in 1961.
- I was curious to see where Curtis Martin would end up on this list. Not surprisingly, he ranks a bit higher when comparing him to replacement rather than to league average. Martin had a bunch of very good seasons but few great ones. His place in history is tough to rank. He wasn't as good as Campbell or Davis were in their primes, but he stuck around for a very long time. I think putting him at #14 is appropriate and respectable. Ricky Watters is sort of a poor man's version of Martin; he ranks 40th on the "Value" list and 17th on the "Replacement" list. Watters isn't a HOF player, IMO, but I do think he was a very valuable running back for a long time. And that's what those two numbers says.
Are older RBs well represented on this list? Among the top 30 RBs, only three (Brown, Taylor, Van Buren) debuted before 1960 and only two more (Simpson and Kelly) entered the league before the merger. There are many possible reasons for that, but here's one quick fix. Give each RB 10 points for every season they ranked #1, 9 points for every season they ranked #2, 8 points for ranking as the third best RB, etc. How would that list look?
The table below shows you. To take an example, Joe Perry (relative to league average) was the top RB in the league twice (10, 10), the third best RB once (8), fourth best, once (7), and also ranked 6th, 7th and 10th (5, 4, 1). That totals 45, which is what you see in the "Avg." column. Relative to replacement, he ranked 1st twice (10, 10), fourth twice (7, 7), seventh once (4) and tenth (1). That totals 39, shown in the "Rep." column. His ranks (shown in the earlier table) relative to league average (Val Rk) and replacement (Rep Rk) are reprinted below.
Player Debut Avg. Rep. Val Rk Rep Rk Jim Brown 1957 86 87 1 1 Barry Sanders 1989 84 81 2 3 Walter Payton 1975 69 73 3 4 Steve Van Buren 1944 63 59 15 26 Emmitt Smith 1990 61 59 5 6 Eric Dickerson 1983 56 54 7 7 LaDainian Tomlinson 2001 49 55 6 5 Thurman Thomas 1988 48 50 11 9 Jim Taylor 1958 47 44 12 16 Marshall Faulk 1994 46 47 4 2 Joe Perry 1948 45 39 38 49 O.J. Simpson 1969 43 42 8 11 Curtis Martin 1995 42 41 14 8 Earl Campbell 1978 37 36 10 15 Leroy Kelly 1964 37 38 20 29 Cliff Battles 1932 37 41 58 78 Tony Dorsett 1977 36 26 32 23 Gale Sayers 1965 35 29 33 44 Tuffy Leemans 1936 34 36 131 128 Tony Canadeo 1941 34 28 134 144 Dutch Clark 1931 33 36 164 132 Shaun Alexander 2000 32 31 17 14 Terrell Davis 1995 31 30 13 19 Priest Holmes 1997 31 29 9 13 Edgerrin James 1999 31 30 16 10 Dan Towler 1950 31 31 65 91 Eddie Price 1950 31 31 70 111 Chuck Foreman 1973 30 32 24 28 William Andrews 1979 30 32 26 32 Lawrence McCutcheon 1972 30 26 51 53 Bill Dudley 1942 30 28 114 148 Larry Brown 1969 29 28 36 41 Tiki Barber 1997 28 32 18 12 Lydell Mitchell 1972 28 30 22 21 Ottis Anderson 1979 28 25 25 27 Jerome Bettis 1993 28 23 23 22 Frank Gifford 1952 28 30 76 69 Rick Casares 1955 28 23 81 100 Marcus Allen 1982 27 30 19 18 John Riggins 1971 27 24 44 35 Floyd Little 1967 27 24 64 59 Alan Ameche 1955 27 28 92 108 Swede Hanson 1931 27 22 117 149 Franco Harris 1972 26 20 47 36 Wilbert Montgomery 1977 26 32 42 38 Lenny Moore 1956 26 28 68 51 Clinton Portis 2002 25 27 21 20 Rodney Hampton 1990 25 20 55 60 Hugh McElhenny 1952 25 31 109 112 Gerald Riggs 1982 24 17 31 48 Abner Haynes 1960 24 27 37 46 Clem Daniels 1960 24 27 39 40 Ron A. Johnson 1969 24 25 49 63 Cookie Gilchrist 1962 24 20 66 82 Bill Paschal 1943 24 23 85 119 Paul Lowe 1960 23 19 57 73 Eddie George 1996 22 25 34 31 John Henry Johnson 1954 22 15 97 103 Andy Farkas 1938 22 24 120 140 Curt Warner 1983 21 21 45 52 Herschel Walker 1986 21 23 43 34 Larry Csonka 1968 21 16 72 65 Ace Gutowsky 1932 20 20 172 206 Charlie Trippi 1947 20 20 222 209 Bronko Nagurski 1930 20 23 346 287
This list has a lot of things going for it. The top 21 RBs are all HOFers or locks to end up there one day (Smith, Tomlinson, Faulk, Martin). Of the 65 players with 20 or more 'points', seven of the players debuted in the '30s, six in the '40s, ten in the '50s, eleven in the '60s, eleven in the '70s, seven in the '80s, ten in the '90s and three in the '00s. This list probably gives the best cross section of NFL history. Just about every older player moves up on this list and every modern player moves down.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 8th, 2009 at 7:44 am and is filed under History. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

As far as the last list, there's a simple reason why older players move up: it's a lot easier to be in the top 10 when the league has 12 teams than when the league has 32.
JD,
Yeah, that's why older players move up. They don't dominate the list, though, because they generally had shorter careers and shorter peaks than modern players. Rick Casares next to Jerome Bettis is a good example; both were similar types of runners and arguably Casares was the better guy. At any rate, having them tied at 28 'points' seems better to me than having one ranked 23rd and one ranked 81st. The other interesting note among modern players is how much separation Barry gets from everyone else besides Jim Brown.
I'm going to say that part of the reason that modern players have longer careers is that their salary allows them to be all-year football players, which allows them to maintain conditioning/muscle mass etc. Forty years ago, some guys still had offseason jobs that they went back to.
Regarding the difference of the two lists presented today, I would second JD's statement. The reason why the top 21 of the second list are in the Hall is because they "dominated" their era. The second list shows that well. The first list shows guys like Priest Holmes who had a very good, but very short, peak.
This is what makes Terrell Davis a good HOF debate. If he would have had 2 more average seasons (say 250 att-1000 yds-10 TD's) he would be a lock--and he wouldn't have moved up much on either list, if at all.
I was pretty happy with the top part of the results of the initial list. I was worried about Walter Payton after seeing him not represented much on the top seasons ever, but I was satisfied seeing him at third. The biggest issue I had with the top 100 is seeing players like Adrian Peterson at 63rd and Michael Turner at 86th. I know the way you ranked them was in favor of being great over a short span rather then being good over a long span, but it still feels a little off to me having the 63rd most dominant RB ever playing only 2 seasons. I think giving a top season at 100% it's value, 2nd best season 95% and so on works well for the top part of the rankings, but I'm not so sure at the bottom part of the list. But I guess the methodology was to find the most dominant RB's ever, and not to say that this one average to good RB was better then this other average to good RB.
I did enjoy seeing the second method, seeing guys like Steve Van Buren and Dutch Clark so high. It would be interesting if their would be a way to somewhat combine these. Maybe have the same way to make the first list, but then give a bonus for being the best RB that year, a smaller bonus for being the second best RB, and so on. I know that would make the list a lot more objective, but still might be interesting to play around with.
Chase,
It is absolutely not plausible that Priest Holmes is the 9th-best RB in history. I don't think there's a convincing argument that he's in the top 25. You've made a huge "what-if" argument based on games he didn't play in.
I agree with your general theory that a few high-impact seasons are more important than many above-average seasons, but I think it's carried to an untenable extreme here.
There are a lot of player comparisons -- I won't list them all, but let's start with Holmes 9th, Dorsett 32nd -- that are obviously and indisputably wrong.
This is an ambitious project, and it clearly requires further refinement.
Something else I thought of with the methodology. Hopefully I did my math right.
So let's say Player A rushed for 1400 adjusted yards in 14 games in a 16 game season. Giving him 80% of what he usually gets gives him a new total of 1560 yards, which is 97.5 yards/game. If the average was 50 yards/game, which means he was 47.5 yards/game above the average. Multiplying that by 16 games gives him an overall score of 760 in the adjusted rushing yards category.
Then let's say Player B also rushed for 1400 yards during 14 games, but during a 14 game season. That's 100 yards/game, and with the same average of 50 yards/game, Player B would be 50 yards/game above the average. Multiply that by 15 games(since it is the average of 16 and the # of games that season), and that's a total of 750 points.
These two players performed exactly the same over the same number of games, yet a player who got injured or suspended or whatever caused him to miss 2 games scores more points then someone who didn't miss a game. I know it's just a minor difference, and something needs to be done about players who have played a different number of games, but it is still something that I think can be tweaked.
As I was reading the list, I was flipping out how the formula favored modern players. Thanks for addressing it. Any list that has Preist(9,13), Tiki(18,12), Portis (21,20), and Ahman (28,25) ahead of Dorsett (32,23), Sayers (33,44) and Franco (47,36) is just silly. I do not feel that the list is accurately titled, however. It should be "The Adjusted List of Most Productive RBs." Unlike the Art Monk argument, you can use the "does the player strike fear?" argument for RBs. That's what dominance is, right? Tiki and Ahman never scared defenses, but Czonka and Riggins sure did.
P.S. It was cool to see Christian Okoye on that list. He was awesome in the most literal sense of the word.
Overall, great work, as usual. These posts are what people mean when they say "the numbers don't lie."
Good comments, guys. I'll address them all in the next couple of days.
Roby: Csonka and Barber had almost the same number of games played. Csonka had 16 games of 100+ rushing yards and his career high was 137. Barber had 38 games of 100+ rushing yards; 12 times Barber rushed for over 137 yards. And obviously Barber blows him out of the water when you include receiving yards. Barber's best four TD seasons (15, 11, 11, 9) beat Csonka (13, 9, 8, 7).
What about Green and Riggins? Riggins has a big edge in games and games started, yet Green still beats him 34-29 in terms of 100+ yard rushing games, and he has four games of more rushing yards than Riggins' career high. Green was the better receiver, Riggins the better TD guy. But Riggins does pass Green on tomorrow's list, once you include post-season numbers.
So why are the modern RBs ahead of the older RBs? Because modern RBs are workhorses, and older RBs generally were not. Is that "fair" to older RBs? If they weren't as valuable to their team because they were splitting carries, I think it's reasonable to penalize them for that. Tony Dorsett's top three carry seasons were 342, 305 and 302. Portis has 352, 343 and 342 and a league-leading 325 carries in '07. Those small differences can add up. So while Dorsett may have been more dominant among RBs in his era, the RB6 in 2007 may be more valuable to his team than the RB3 in 1977.
Note the difference with QBs and era adjusting. 20 TDs and 20 INTs would be very good in 1971, but not in 2005. But since one QB can take all the snaps, QB1 in 1971 is about equal to QB1 in 2001. The system I'm using to grade the RBs accounts for era -- remember each RB gets compared to the league average RB that season -- but there's not much it can do to account for the evolution of the game.
Nathan,
That's a good observation but it is slightly off.
RB A with 1400 ARY in 14 games when the league average is 50 ARY/G, he'd be +50 for each of 14 games (+700) and he would also be -10 for two games (since we assume the backup(s) get 80% of average, he should be penalized for costing his team 20% of average). So his total would be +680 on the season. Does that make sense? It's not that he gets 80% of his production while out; it's his team gets 80% of average production while out, so he gets -20%.
RB B would be +700, and then era adjusted would be +750.
Ah, that makes more sense. Thanks for explaining where my understanding of your system was a little off.
Chase,
I didn't say that Riggins and Czonka had better stat, because clearly they don't. I guess it's a question of what dominance means to you. Their numbers don't match up because Czonka shared carries with Mercury Morris. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a formidable RB who played with Tiki (obviously not his fault). Also, modern RBs are asked to catch more than their predecessors were. I'm not trying to hate on Tiki (or any of the others), but from watching them, I never felt they were "dominant"
Roby,
How would you define dominance?
Nathan,
You hit the nail on the head. The methodology was to find the most dominant RBs; but I think the 100/95/90 method works for the replacement list to decide which average or good RB was better. Peterson ranks 97th on that list and Turner ranks 136th compared to replacement. After about RB20 or so, I prefer to use the replacement list than the relative to average list. But both have their uses.
Brad O.,
Why is it indisputably wrong that Holmes is ahead of Dorsett? He was arguably the driving forced behind three dominant offenses, so it's not like he was piling up meaningless stats. Dorsett was on some great offenses, too, but can you argue that he was a bigger part of those offenses? (Ignoring offensive line questions).
I get that Dorsett is a legendary name and Priest Holmes isn't. But Dorsett was named first-team All Pro once in his career; Holmes was given that honor three times. So you're going to have to come back with something more than Dorsett is obviously and indisputably better than Holmes. Dorsett ranked in the top five in rushing yards just two times and the top five in rushing TDs two different times. He certainly doesn't have that one dominant season.
Dominance to me having teams gameplan to make you work as hard as possible to gain every yard because they know they ultimately can't stop you. Pair that with having more physical tools than your counterparts (which ususally means higher productivity, but not necessarily.) It's tough because at times, Jamal Lewis and Ricky Williams couldn't be stopped, but they are not too high on the list of all-time greats (rightfully so). I guess to me, dominance is more about physical prowess than statistics piled up. Curtis Martin is one of the greats. Long HOF career. Did everything well and never fumbled. Undisputably valuable. Of the flip side, Terrell Davis had four great years, did not pile up a high career yardage total, is likely not a HOF'er, but to me was more "dominant." Does anybody else think this?
--
On Preist, It's not his fault that he had an O-line that paved an 8 TD highway once, but it hurts him that a guy like Derrick Blaylock was able to score just as many as him. and Blaylock is no Ernie Nevers.
Chase,
First of all, let me acknowledge that I keep forgetting this is a list of "most dominant" rather than "best", and I can see where a certain definition of "most dominant" would give dramatically more weight to great seasons.
That said, Holmes had one legendary season (2002), 2½ very good seasons (01-04), and a decent 1000-yard season in '98.
Dorsett had 6 good seasons (77-78, 81-83, 85) and a total of 8 1000-yard seasons, not including the 82 strike year, which certainly would have been 9.
If you're focused exclusively on the great seasons, I guess Holmes was more dominant. Dorsett never had a season like Holmes in '02. But Dorsett's sustained greatness, basically one of the top five or so RBs in the game for a decade, makes him much more dominant in my mind. I think he contributed a lot more to his teams than Holmes did.
If fantasy football had been big during Dorsett's career, he would have been a first-round draft pick every year from '78-'86. Holmes was from '02-'05. I just don't see 3½ years as constituting real dominance. I certainly don't see it justifying the difference between 9th and 32nd. If you were building a real team, and you could draft Dorsett or Holmes, I think you would take Dorsett. I know I would.
That's one example. Do you want to justify Stephen Davis ahead of Joe Perry? Ricky Williams and Adrian Peterson before Floyd Little, Dan Towler, and Lenny Moore? Csonka = Barry Foster? Frank Gifford 76th?
Perhaps I should use softer language than "clearly and indisputably wrong", but I don't see any of that being tenable.
Brad,
Dorsett definitely contributed more to his teams than Holmes did. But the question is, how much more valuable was Dorsett to his team than an average RB? You brought up fantasy football -- Dorsett and Holmes have almost the same VBD score for their careers, and Holmes has the three best seasons. When you think of Priest Holmes, you think of Holmes in his prime. And as long as you don't give too much credit to the KC OL (which is a legitimate question), there's no way you can say that Holmes wasn't much better in his prime than Dorsett.
If I was building a real team, I would take Dorsett. But he was not more dominant than Holmes.
I think your other points are fair ones. But they all seem to be about rating peak performance too strongly and minimizing sustained career success. I think people could go both ways on that one, although it also seems that older players may be undervalued by my system. To some extent, though, I find that appropriate.
A more interesting and relevant stat to consider might be standard deviation of runs from scrimmage. Has anyone ever charted that? I don’t know what the results would be, but if one guy (let’s call him Emmitt Smith) was more consistent in his gains than someone (oh let’s call him Barry Sanders) who had average skewing big gains but also a lot of stuffs, which isn’t as conducive to sustaining drives and winning games, then it might PARTLY explain why one wins 3 Super Bowls and the other doesn’t.
I don’t know where to go about getting that data, but one admittedly imperfect clue as to what the results might be are number of rushing first downs. From 1990-2002 the Cowboys averaged 111.62 rushing first downs per season. From 1989-1998 the Lions averaged 103.3 rushing first downs. For one dominant five year stretch (1992-1996) Dallas averaged 124.2 rushing first downs, a level the Sanders era Lions never came close to approaching. The problem is that’s influenced by a lot of factors, and most elite teams, even pass heavy ones like the 49ers with good but not great backs, will have a high number of rushing first downs. Still, I don’t think yardage should be the only factor used in evaluating the greatness of running backs.
Thank you, PFR for putting John Riggins where he belongs. If ever a guy "hogged" the credit (lol) for the work of his offensive line ... I would have loved to have seen you breakdown his career pre Hogs when he made it into the top ten in rushing once. Would he had even broken the top 100.
Every time people go on about Riggins "dominant" performancein the '82 playoffs and Super Bowl XVII and how this makes him an all time great power back. I always come back with, "Well in that case you must consider Tim Smith the greatest running back in NFL history, cause he's the only back to rush for 200 yards in a Super Bowl. Or we could consider the Hog Factor. Whaddya think?"
Any list that has Larry Brown on it is a good list. He does not have to be (and should not be) number one, but I like to see him remembered.