As you probably know, the NFL is announcing its top 100 players in league history as part of its 100-year anniversary. The nominating committee selected 24 running backs as finalists, and with the exception of active RB Adrian Peterson, every player is in the Hall of Fame. For the final team, 12 running backs were chosen. The table below shows the finalists and those selected for the official team:

So how did the NFL do in picking its team? Let’s begin with the obvious: Jim Brown, Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, and Walter Payton were locks.   No discussion necessary.  Another clear choice for the list of the best 12 running backs ever, based on longevity and dominance, would be Eric Dickerson.  He averaged over 100 rushing yards per game in 5 different seasons, leading the NFL in that category each year. He had dominant seasons with multiple teams and a variety of offensive linemen: we all know Dickerson is one of the best pure runners in league history.

I don’t know if I would rank him #6 all-time, but the next “obvious” pick to me would be Marion Motley.  As Bryan Frye notes, he was the greatest blocking back of all time and one of the most dominant rushers in history.  In Brad Oremland’s series, he also references Dr. Z’s legendary praise for Motley, and Brad has the Browns running back fifth on his list, too. As I wrote about Motley a decade ago, he was a dominant player who lost years to the war and played his prime during the AAFC era. Motley averaged 5.7 yards per carry and 13.0 yards per reception, showing the speed and athleticism that the powerful fullback possessed. He helped the Browns win five straight titles, and was a dominant linebacker on top of his blocking and rushing prowess. He’s one of the greatest players ever, and also was on the front lines of the integration of pro football. He makes the team.

Steve Van Buren makes a lot of sense as the other star from the pre-Brown era.  Van Buren was the first true workhorse back in pro football, and he led the NFL in rushing from 1938 to 1947, from 1945 to 1954, and for every 10-year period in between.  He led the NFL in rushing yards from 1945 to 1948, 1946 to 1949, 1947 to 1950, 1948 to 1951, and 1949 to 1952.  In 2012, I noted how remarkable it was that Van Buren was still the Eagles all-time leader in rushing touchdowns; well, that’s still the case, and at this rate, he’s going to be the record-holder there for a long time. He also rushed for nearly 300 yards in back-to-back title game victories for the Eagles.

That leaves five spots.  The committee actually chose Lenny Moore, Gale Sayers, O.J. Simpson, Earl Campbell and Dutch Clark.  Cases could be made to leave each of them out, which I’ll get to in a moment. The biggest snubs, without question are, Marshall Faulk and LaDainian Tomlinson, who absolutely should have been on the team. I’d also argue that Bronko Nagurski and Adrian Peterson have good claims, too. A few other honorable mentions in the footnote here. ^[1]Marcus Allen was a versatile player who could have starred in any era of pro football, making him the sort of player who should be honored; however, I don’t think he accomplished quite enough … Continue reading

For the final 5 spots, I think a head-to-head comparison makes sense for four of them:

Clark vs. Nagurski – who was the best back of the 1930s?

I was surprised to see Clark selected on this list, in part because he was more quarterback than running back.  I’m not sure if that’s a strong criticism here — given the way 1930s backs operated, it doesn’t feel right to compare him to modern quarterbacks, either — but he was less a running back and more a signal caller, drop-kick specialist, defensive star, and even player-coach.  Frankly, that’s more meaningful than being just a running back. His Lions were a great team of the era, although not as dominant as Nagurski’s Bears.

When the Pro Football Hall of Fame had its inaugural class, there were 6 backs chosen from the ’20s and ’30s: Jim Thorpe, Ernie Nevers, Bronko Nagurski, Red Grange, Johnny Blood, and Dutch Clark. Clark Hinkle, another 1930s running back, was selected the next year.  Any of those 7 backs would have been fine choices for this team, but I think it’s Nagurski who was the biggest snub.

Nagurski was nominally a fullback, but he was an All-Pro at fullback, defensive lineman, and offensive tackle; he was one of the giants of the two-way era.  When the NFL announced its 50th anniversary team prior to the 1969 season, it selected Jim Brown at first-team fullback and Gale Sayers at first-team halfback. But that committee — which was heavily biased in favor of modern players — chose Nagurski as its second-team fullback and Red Grange as its second-team halfback; 49ers Perry and McElhenny rounded out the third string. Clark was not chosen.

Let’s be clear: we are splitting hairs, as Clark was one of the most decorated players of the decade. Nagurski and Clark were contemporaries, and Clark actually received more honors; he was a 1st-team All-Pro on the UPI team 6 times, the NFL 5 times; Nagurski was a UPI 1AP just four times, and on the NFL 1st team only three times. You can make a case that on paper, Clark accomplished more, or at least received more honors.

But the weight of evidence suggests that Nagurski was the greater player. In Sean Lahman’s Pro Football Historical Abstract, Nagurski was named the best two-way player of all time. Brad Oremland placed Nagurski at #21 on his all-time list, ahead of Clark, Grange, Thorpe, Nevers et al.  Fame is not always a good substitute for ability or production, but the weight of the evidence suggests that Nagurski was a better player than Clark. The Chicago Tribute wrote a great profile of Nagurski, where it ranked him as the third greatest Bear of all time, behind only Payton and Ditka. The accounts of Nagurski are legendary, and he led the Bears to three titles, and he was an enormous driving force behind all three titles.

Moore vs. Faulk

Moore was the original Marshall Faulk. There are only three players in NFL history with 5,000 rushing yards and 5,000 receiving yards, and who averaged at least 30 rushing yards per game and 30 receiving yards per game: Moore, Faulk, and Tiki Barber. Moore was a prolific scorer: as recently as 1984, he still ranked 2nd all-time in touchdowns to only Jim Brown. He led the NFL in yards per carry four times, but was probably more of a receiver than a rusher. He was an All-Pro at both positions and the prototype for the rushing/receiving threat we see today. He scored in 18 straight games and was one of the most versatile and explosive players of all time. If anything, Moore is underrated because he was a true tweener: he wasn’t a running back and he wasn’t a receiver: he alternated between both positions, and dominated at both.

And yet… it’s hard not to think that Faulk perfected what Moore began. In his career, Faulk had 43 games with both 50 rushing yards and 50 receiving yards; nobody else has more than 25 (and Moore had 14). Moore won an MVP, but Faulk was more decorated: he was the AP Offensive Player of the Year in 1999, 2000, and 2001. He was the 2000 AP, PFWA, and NEA MVP, and he was the PFWA and Bert Bell Award MVP in 2001. Moore played with a HOF QB, LT, and WR — Johnny Unitas, Jim Parker, and Raymond Berry — and Faulk had a similarly talented suporting cast with the Rams (Kurt Warner, Orlando Pace, Torry Holt, and Isaac Bruce). But Faulk also excelled with the Colts, winning AP Rookie of the Year in 1994 and leading the NFL in yards from scrimmage in 1998. Faulk ranked 5th on my list of career yards from scrimmage above the worst starter, and he was also a prolific scorer (136 touchdowns). Faulk had a level of sustained dominance that few have ever achieved: imagine a player who over a 16-game season, rushed for 1,457 rushing yards, caught 88 passes for 903 receiving yards, scored 18 touchdowns, and averaged 5.00 yards per carry. That would be an MVP-caliber season, and that’s what Faulk averaged per 16 games over a 75-game stretch. That’s 147.5 yards from scrimmage per game, and over a touchdown per game, with remarkable efficiency, too.

Faulk was probably a better receiver than Moore, and he was also a brilliant player who was also excellent in pass protection and rarely fumbled. You don’t have to squint much to make the case that Faulk is a top-5 running back of all time. The NFL 100 should have a place on it for Moore, but if you have to choose between the two, I would side with Faulk.

Campbell vs. Peterson

The opposite of the Moore/Faulk debate, here we get two pure power rushers who were not known for their versatility. Campbell offered little as a receiver or pass blocker, and never caught a receiving touchdown; Peterson was not much of a threat as a receiver, either, and he was an old school rusher who was on offenses that wouldn’t run him out of the shotgun. Lesser talents would have been out of the league: Campbell and Peterson were so tough, so powerful and strong, and so dominant, that offenses weren’t interested in trying to outsmart the defense.

Campbell led the NFL in rushing yards three times; Peterson did, too, and also led the league in rushing yards per game a fourth time. Both players led the NFL in rushing touchdowns twice. Campbell won an MVP award in ’78, ’79, and ’80, and was the AP OPOY each season. Peterson was less accomplished, as the MVP honors now almost always go to the quarterbacks; that said, he won an MVP award in ’08 and ’12.

At their best, these were two of the most dominant powerful rushers ever. From mid-October 1980 through mid-October 1981, Campbell rushed for 2,230 yards. From October 2012 through September 2013, Peterson rushed for 2,186 yards and averaged over 6.0 yards per carry! Both generally carried their offenses, as both backs played most of their career with below-average passing attacks. That might have added to their mythology, but hurt their chances of winning a title.

There are two big differences between the two players. While Peterson was a very powerful player, he was also very fast: he is actually the record holder for 50+ yard rushing touchdowns. The other is longevity: Peterson has 56 100-yard rushing games; Campbell has 40. Campbell had a 6-year prime and finished with 9,407 rushing yards; Peterson has been good for a decade, and has 13,960 rushing yards. You could argue who was better at their very best, but given the longevity, I think Peterson was a better choice than Campbell.

Simpson vs. Tomlinson

Two of the best combinations of power and speed in NFL history. The two most dominant fantsy seasons ever. Simpson and Tomlinson were both all-time greats, and both are worthy choices for this team. Simpson has two of the greatest rushing seasons in NFL history; Tomlinson has put together one of the greatest careers ever.

How do you pick between these two? Once again, longevity favors the modern player. Tomlinson was a little better for a little longer. Both played 11 years: Simpson from ’69 to ’79, and Tomlinson from ’01 to ’11. Both led the NFL in rushing yards during this time; Simpson gained 31% more rushing yards than anyone else, while Tomlinson gained 34% more yards. The big difference is touchdowns: Simpson was 2nd in touchdowns, which arguably wasn’t his fault as he played on poor offenses. Tomlinson, though, rushed for 145 touchdowns, 47 more than any other player during this time. And in terms of yards from scrimmage, the gap widens: Tomlinson had 53% more yards than any other player during his era; Simpson had 35%.

Both players won an OPOY and MVP award, and Simpson has a slight edge in Pro Bowls and All-Pros. Simpson benefitted from a great offensive line, but there’s no denying the natural talent that Simpson possessed. If you wanted to call him the greatest combination of power and speed in running back history besides Jim Brown, I wouldn’t argue the point. The thing is, Tomlinson could do everything and didn’t give up much in the way of power or speed to Simpson. Tomlinson was a better blocker, a better receiver, a better passer, more durable, fumbled less often, and had a nose for the end zone, too. As great as Simpson was, Tomlinson was a bit more versatile and did it for longer: Simpson missed half of two seasons due to injury. Tomlinson reached 100 touchdowns in just 89 games, the fastest in NFL history, and at that point he had 102 touchdowns and also 5 passing touchdowns. Tomlinson is also the greatest fantasy running back of all time. And if you are a looking for another reason to leave Simpson off the list in favor of Tomlinson, I am sure you can think of one.

A word about Sayers

When Brad Oremland did his series, he left Sayers off his list entirely, lumping him in the honorable mentions section. Meanwhile, Bryan Frye picked him as his third back on his all-time 53-man roster. In reality, nobody argues much about Sayers the player: everyone knows that on a per-game basis, at his peak, Sayers is one of the most remarkable talents ever. The question is how much do you value longevity: Sayers suffered a serious knee injury in his 50th NFL game, and he returned for one more (great, but lesser) season before suffering yet another knee injury that would end his career. Through 50 games, he had over 5,000 yards from scrimmage and averaged over 5.00 yards per carry, which puts him in a group with only Jim Brown and … well, Jamaal Charles. Sayers was also one of the best returners in NFL history, and his talent flashed off the screen: he was not the product of a great offensive system, he was the system. He’s in the short discussion for most electric runner in history, but I would not argue if you wanted to keep him off the list due to his shorter career. Sayers had just 20 games in his career with 100+ rushing yards, and only 31 with 75+ rushing yards. How you value peak performance vs. sustained dominance is up to each of you, but I’d probably have left Sayers off my list (and I certainly would leave him off at the expense of Tomlinson or Faulk).

Conclusion

Those are my thoughts on the top running backs in NFL history. What do you think?