pittpnthrs":2okmlvqd said:
chris98251":2okmlvqd said:
pittpnthrs":2okmlvqd said:
godawg":2okmlvqd said:
I can only imagine what Marshawn would have been able to accomplish running behind Walter Jones and Steve Hutchinson.
Why exactly would Lynch be better? Alexander was quicker and had better vision.
[youtube]BDOBejlx7Us[/youtube]
7 possible tackles broken, Shaun would not have even made it thru the line and would have went down.
These runs are what Lynch did, and that person that said Shaun would have had only an additional 200 yards in his career? How many yards was this run for extra yards, I call BS on that observation.
You are missing the point though. Lynch and Alexander are totally different runners. Lynch's MO was running through people and getting yards after contact. Alexander's MO was making people miss and flowing down the field and through lanes. Some people think that if Lynch had Alexanders Oline, Lynch would have put up much better numbers than Alexander and thats just not the case, Apples and oranges. Its the same as saying Lynch would have been better than Barry Sanders in Detroit. Its just not true. They were just different types of runners.
I dont understand the logic here. Lynch's 'MO" was gaining yards no matter what the defense did or for that matter, the offensive line did. It wasnt to run people over. But if you were there to stop him and he couldnt go around you, he would go through you. Dude was way more elusive and had incredible vision. Lynch without a doubt would have flourished well beyond what he did in seattle had he played behind Walt and Hutch. Jesus. his beast mode run was about stutter stepping, finding a crease that maybe 3 or 4 other backs in the league might have hit, and then making the entirety of the Saints defense look like peewee flunkies. THE OLINE GAVE HIM A SLIVER, and he manufactured the rest.
Shaun had vision when he was up to speed and their was an obvious hole already created whether off tackle or on a swing play or pitch out. But look at his highlight reel. ITS THE SAME HIGHLIGHT REEL AS THE HAWKS OFFENSIVE LINE HIGHLIGHT REEL. Not so necessarily with truly gifted, HOF backs. They run through you, around, you, over you... and they do that whether they are running behind a great line or not (Usually). And i say usually because there are RBs like Emmit Smith who racked up HUGE numbers behind a HOF line to the point you cant deny him HOF status.. he broke Sweetness's record. But you tell me, stats aside, whether based on his raw gift as a runner whether you'd take him ahead of Sanders, LT, TD, Lynch, Payton, Brown, Dickerson, Warner, and probably half dozen other all-time great backs. He, like Shaun, made a career gaining big yards AFTER the play execution and O line got him to the second level. Anyone who has played the game at TE, RB and WR will tell you that finding daylight and a running lane when you are almost at full speed and when you've gotten through the teeth of the DLINE and are on LB's trying to get an angle on you or DB' slicing across the field is COMPLETEY different and infinitely easier than fabricating yards AT or BEHIND the LOS when the blocking isnt there.
Count the number of SA highlight runs that dont involve him running through a wide open hole in the defense. They are few and far between. If the defender was there to stop him before he got to the second level or at mid to top speed , SA wasnt gonna do a lot. Thats why he was a different back sans Hutch and the continuity on the O-Line that brought him success prior to 2005.
Lynch would have crushed it with Walt, Hutch, Gray, etal. No doubt. He killed it with far less, fabricating legend from scraps.
Being soft at the point of contact IS NOT a defining characteristic of a HOF back. You dont have to be Campbell or Lynch. You can be cut from the Sanders, LT or Faulk cloth and juke the crap out of guy. (BTW, Lynch could do that too - Google Lynch jukes Ray Lewis - Classic). Shaun got the yards that were on the table when the blocking worked well. Not when it didnt.
