Originally Posted by -p.tiddy-
if we were ranking primes, I would rank AD top-5 all time
if we are ranking careers?...how can you have him over Bettis or Martin?...there is no way to justify it
I'm rankings the best RBs of all time. You can justify it by watching Peterson, Martin, Bettis run with the pigskin. There are things Peterson can do on the field as a RB that Martin/Bettis could not. So skill and abilities Peterson wins. Pull out their primes? Peterson wins. I dont need to review an entire career when a special athlete is in front of my eyes. Its one thing if Peterson didnt play a single down. But he's had games that were among the NFL best in history already. Bettis has had 2 seasons with double digit TDs. Career under 4ypc. I've seen Bettis at his best and he doesnt measure up to Peterson.
So you can try to word it to defend your argument "best career which means who has the most total yards, tds" all you want. There is a reason why some people consider Barry, Jim, Walter as better RBs than Emmitt Smith. Same argument applies here. Has little to do with total yards rushed. IF thats how you want to base "Top 10 Rbs of all time?" Solid. Not me.
And if you ask me why wouldnt I apply this argument to guys like Tomlinson, Faulk? Because they too were special RBs in my eyes. Martin/Bettis were good, never great. Never phenominal. To me they are 2nd tier not first tier. Not with the elite. There are other Rbs I didnt mention I'd rank over Martin. Solid RB, just not great. Bettis solid RB, just not great.