Amp lee was a free agent pick-up by the Vikings.

Regarding Amp Lee, it appears the 49ers released him during their "mortgaging the future" free agency plan of 1994, then he must have signed with the Vikings.

It's hard to believe he would have been worse than Derek Loville...

Drug test equipment aside, ol' Onterrio really did have a ton of talent. Really makes you wonder how often success at the elite level of athletics is prevented by purely mental attributes, or lack thereof.

Amp Lee was cut from the 49ers in a salary cap move; the 49ers decided to keep Dexter Carter (who also returned kickoffs and punts) instead.

It's interesting how Emmitt Smith had a great season in 1995, then fell off in '96 and '97 (posting negative DVOA both years) before reestablishing himself in '98 and '99.

The offensive line stayed the same from '95-'97 (with the exception of Center Clay Shriver who replaced the 38 year old Ray Donaldson in '97, but was himself replaced by Mark Stepnoski a year later). However when Emmitt had his resurgence in '98 and '99, the aging (and probably drug addled) Mark Tuinei was replaced by Larry Allen moving over to LT from RG and the rookie Flozell Adams was inserted at RG. Then in '99 the aging (and probably drug addled) Nate Newton retired, making room for everyone to go to their orginal positions: Allen to come back to Guard, Adams to move over to LT, and newcomer Everett McIver filling in temporarily at RG.

Long story short: They replaced old and drug-binging OLineman with younger guys and Emmitt suddenly became a productive runner again. O-Line effect on RB production is evident.

I never would have guessed Jamal Anderson would rank so high in terms of receiving value.

I'm glad to see Stephen Davis in 1999 was as good as I thought he was-60% Success Rate while 51% was second in the league.

Of all the RBs whose careers have been fully covered or nearly so, the only ones I would mind seeing not inducted are Faulk and Tomlinson. Everybody else on the lists I would not mind seeing left out, though I assume at least Bettis and Martin have good shots at making it.

Faulk was one of my favorite players before he cursed at me for asking a question while interviewing him at my highschool home coming.

Ever since, I have an irrational hatred for him.

The question was,

"How does it feel to be 0-11? Do you think you'll win a game this season?"

It may not have been 0-11, could have been another 0-? number. Don't remember what week it was in.

And to think that Polian traded away Faulk (in the prime of his career) for a 2nd and 5th rounder.

One of the most lopsided trades in the history of the league IMO.

The argument for Terrell Davis becomes a lot weaker when you realize that Priest Holmes out-produced him in every metric except "best seasons by pure rushing DYAR." Otherwise, Holmes had better rushing DVOA in his best seasons, higher rushing DYAR per season in his career, was a better receiver, and had more combined value in his best seasons, combined value per year in his career, in career rushing value and combined career value.

I know Davis produced in the playoffs, but Holmes only had the chance to play in 1 career playoff game with the Chiefs. He made the most of it. Stats: 24 carries for 176 yards, 5 catches for 32 yards, 2 TDs in the famous "game without a punt." (He also contributed to a Super Bowl with the Ravens, although he didn't play well.)

Marshall Faulk and Amp Lee were both on the 99 Rams.

We miss you Rush....

first impression of this list- man, Dick Vermeil can coach.

McNabb guy,
It has to be worth something that only three running backs have had 500 dyar season and TD had two of them.

Everyone agrees that Marshall Faulk is a no-brainer for Canton. My question is, why is his name not mentioned more often in "greatest back of all time discussions"? Is receiving by running backs really that undervalued? If I was picking a team from a pool of every player ever in their prime to play under the current rules, Faulk would be in it.

Re: 13

Is receiving by running backs really that undervalued?

Yes. It's the same reason it took people so long to recognize how good Tiki Barber and Brian Westbrook are.

Oops, I made one mistake in the Davis vs. Holmes post- Davis has a higher rushing DYAR per season.

The argument for Terrell Davis becomes a lot weaker when you realize that Priest Holmes out-produced him in every metric except “best seasons by pure rushing DYAR.”

Wait, can't we put both of them in Canton? Is there some new Highlander-style "There Can Be Only One" rule about Davis and Holmes in the HOF? Why not enshrine both of them?

Re. 9: "I know Davis produced in the playoffs, but Holmes only had the chance to play in 1 career playoff game with the Chiefs."

Why are you penalizing Davis by discounting his playoff games because Holmes didn't get the opportunity? If you want to head down that path you could start discounting Holmes' receiving stats by saying the Denver schemes never featured RBs running routes (or some equivalent rubbish).

Seriously, Davis' post-season stats are spectacular, you can make a great case for him as the most dominant playoff RB of all time. 240 carries, 1140 yards, 12 TDs is a good season and he did that in 8 games against superior teams in high-pressure games. Halfway to a 2200yd+ season in playoff games alone is an incredible feat.

13, I don't think Faulk would be the automatic vote even if the criteria would be to use today's rules. I think Walter Payton would still wind up fitting in--great runner, excellent blocker, caught the ball really well, extremely smart, pretty much everything. Of course, the advanced stats don't go back for enough to do that kind of a measurement, but I'd still go for Payton.

#8: And to think that Polian traded away Faulk (in the prime of his career) for a 2nd and 5th rounder.

One of the most lopsided trades in the history of the league IMO.

It was a while ago, but if I recall correctly, Faulk was at the end of his contract and had already said he was going somewhere else, and Polian had to get what he could for him. And of course, the Colts drafted James and produced the biggest record improvement in league history the next year. I don't think they missed him all that much. Surely any perceived mistake made by Polian re: Faulk was made up for by him having the good sense to draft Edge over Bob Marley.

Sorry, I was wrong. Faulk's contract wasn't ending, but it had 2 years left on it and he had publicly expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that the Colts wouldn't renegotiate it.

Ironically, the NY Times article about it specifically says that they traded away Faulk so they could draft Ricky Williams (who I think I'm going to start calling "Pineapple Express").

Meh, after reading this, I am inclined to say it is impossible to quantitatively measure RBs in any meaningful way. I see a proponderance of Chiefs, Broncos, and Colts (coincidentally teams that have had great olines and/or qbs). I see Faulk who appears to be a bested by Edge on similar Colt teams but is a god on the Rams.

Considering Sanders' 1997 season is ranked 3rd all-time in the 2007 Prospectus yet can't break top 20 in the last 13 years with this metric makes me seriously wonder about the validity of whatever is being measured.

Actually Faulk was threatening to hold out unless it was re-negotiated, Polian took it personally, bad mouthed Faulk in the media, said he wouldn't trade Faulk to an AFC team, then was shocked when he could only get a 2nd and a 5th rounder.

Cause you know...talking bad in the media about the player you are trying to deal has negative effects on their market value (who knew?).

Don't get me wrong...I love Polian's ability to evaluate talent, build a winner, etc....but he is one supreme asshole, and the Faulk trade, the pushing of the Jet employee, etc. have not been some of his finer moments.

But yea...Edge over Marley was sheer genius.

21

I think you are right on vis a vis the complete ambivalence of a lot of FO data to individual talent. While FO does try at times to stress that these are stats judging groups and units and situations, and not players, they often slide right back into that language because its easier and draws more eyeballs.

FO is good for fantasy analysis, and team/unit analysis, but for raw individual talent it isn't much better than the eyeball test. (then again neither is any other system). It does have some use identifying guys who combine a lot of 60 yarders with a lot of -3s. vs someone who has slightly fewer 60 yarders and a lot of 3s, the later is a lot more valuable I think.

I'm a little surprised that Alexanders '05 season only cracks one of these lists.

re11
yeah, but he still lose to Raiders in Super owl 15.
He was good coahc anywya espeically when he deliver Supr bowl trophy to St. Louis team.
Good coach of Rbs as he coached W Montgomery, P Holmes, Larry Johnso, Faulk, Amp lee, Sampkin Gado, and some others.

good chance Team of decade for2000s rBs going t o be Ladinaian TRomlinson and Westbrook or James

Re #15: Oops, I made one mistake in the Davis vs. Holmes post- Davis has a higher rushing DYAR per season.

Remember, too, that that per-season average is weighed down heavily by the 3 post-injury years where he was just dead weight. I'd be curious to see what "uninjured Terrell's" rush DYAR per season was. I'm sure it'd blow Holmes out of the water.

This is where I start running into issues when debating Davis for the HoF. I think the best comparison for Terrell Davis is really Kurt Warner- both guys were equally dominant at their peak's. The big difference between the two is that Warner has since "fallen from grace" (i.e. played at nowhere near his peak levels), while Davis never had the opportunity. I think that's a big blind spot that I personally have- if I consider Davis a HoFer, then Kurt Warner should get in for the same reasons, but I balk at the idea of Warner in the hall because of how he's played since leaving St. Louis (not bad, but not great, either).

Also, 2002 was an *absurd* year for RBs in the AFC West. LaDanian Tomlinson went for 2172 yards from scrimmage and 15 TDs... and was the 4th best RB in the division. All four RBs eclipsed 1850 yards from scrimmage. Holmes' season was the second best season of the DYAR era, Garner's was the 6th, and Portis's was the 12th. There had to have been something in the water, because that's just crazy.

Even more absurd? Oakland had the NFL's 3rd best rushing defense and Denver it's 4th, according to traditional yards allowed.

13 -

Not to open a can of worms here, but I'd go with Marcus Allen. Reason - he graded out as an A+ not only as a runner and receiver, a la Faulk, but also as a blocker. He just flattened people (even spent time as fullback when Bo came along). Finally, as if all that wasn't enough, he was an excellent passer. During a few of those years with the Raiders it was sometimes said, only half-jokingly, that he was the best QB on the team.

- Alaska Jack

My recollection was that Amp Lee wasn't left out for Dexter Carter, but for Ricky Watters.

Ricky was drafted a year ahead of Amp Lee, both in the second round (both 45th overall, oddly). Ricky was injured for that first season, but was the starter for the next two years, while Amp got about a third of the workload (worth noting that the niners also had an excellent set of fullbacks, the last years of Tom Rathman, the first years of William Floyd, and Marc Logan filling in where necessary).

Coming into that third season, the perception seemed to be that the niners didn't need both Ricky and Amp - they were very similar players, and it made sense to get something in trade for Amp. Whilst the season immediately following the trade was a good one (Steve Young's Primatectomy and the beatdown of the Chargers in SB XXIX), Ricky then decided he wanted out as well. The niners entered salary cap hell (blazing a trail that many other teams have since followed), and entered into the subsequent season with the immortal Derek Loville at RB.

Even so, he had some nice stats as a back-up, and the general feeling was the that the niners had been so dominant in the previous year that they would walk to a repeat. I distinctly remember talking myself into Mr Loville in that offseason, which made the subsequent exit from the playoffs at the hands of the upstart Packers very, very hard to stomach.

A feeling made only worse by Favre's subsequent failure in the Championship game against the Cowboys, where he seemed to imagine all his receivers were at least 9' tall...

re 27
I don't know how other people have felt but it was always my impression that Kurt Warner was sort of a product of the system. Not to say that TD wasn't, but the offensive talent that those Rams teams had was extraordinary. Trent Green started 5 games in 2001 when Kurt Warner was injured and played in a total of 8 and threw for over 2000 yards and had the highest passer rating in the league. I think there is probably a reason Kurt Warner was found in a grocery store or whatever the story was I was forced to hear incessantly and that reason is that he isn't as good as his season in St. Louis indicate. Also, he was onlly dominate for about 2.5 seasons, while TD was dominate for 4.

Re: 30

Read the article posted in #2. The same day the 49ers cut Lee, they re-signed Carter. Watters was the feature back; they weren't going to cut him.

31. Indeed. Perhaps the greatest strength that Warner brought to the position (other than the ability to throw an accurate deep ball to hit those fast WRs) was an NFL-Fresh body to sacrifice in Martz's brutal pass protect schemes. He has the talent to be a good NFL QB, don't get me wrong (he would probably still be pretty productive if not for his thumb). But his all-world numbers for those few years were probably inflated a little by the talent around him.

Re: 32

Cos analysing team decisions from 15 years ago is fun :)

I wouldn't read so much into cutting Lee and re-signing Carter on the same day. Was this just the first day where things could be done in a new year salary cap?

Watters was the feature back, but Carter was barely an afterthought while Lee was on the team. Watters had already lost an entire season (admittedly, his rookie year) to injury, and was not much more productive than Lee while they were sharing time.

Given that Watters left a year later, would they have been better off keeping Lee, and trading Watters?

I wouldn’t read so much into cutting Lee and re-signing Carter on the same day. Was this just the first day where things could be done in a new year salary cap?

No. The cap kicked in on March 18 of 1994, while the 49ers' moves took place on May 4. They made no other moves that day, but had made some earlier in the offseason (cutting Steve Bono, signing Ken Norton, others).

Carter was barely an afterthought while Lee was on the team.

Carter was an afterthought in the run game, but he was their only real punt returner (and finished 4th in the league in yards per return) and primary kick returner (not good, but better than Lee). Lee was ineffective in 10 kick returns.

Watters had already lost an entire season (admittedly, his rookie year) to injury, and was not much more productive than Lee while they were sharing time.

Watters' yards per carry in 1992: 4.9; 1993: 4.6.
Lee's in 1992: 4.0; 1993: 3.2.

Watters' yards per catch in 1992: 9.4; 1993: 10.5.
Lee's in 1992: 5.1; 1993: 7.2.

After the 98 season, I remember hearing/reading something that Terrell Davis averaged over 100 yds per game. The only player to have done that for a career is Jim Brown.

re34
No, becausue Lee was not a good enough RB to get over 200 carries ayear. He was slow for a RB. He was a good pass cratcher, but only a bckaup type runner

We look at QB's running, which makes sense for most of them.

I'd love to see some #'s on RB's passing. Of course, since only a couple of them do much of that, I'm really just looking to see if its enough to put Tomlinson higher on the list when looking at more than running.

I'm pretty sure he's the best passing half back in the last 40 years. Perhaps doesn't get the opportunity to do it enough... but:

8-11 for 143 yards, 7 TD's and no interceptions. I'm guessing thats a couple hundred or more DYAR. There have been 2 times when the play didn't look good, and he didn't throw. One was a 1 yard sack and one was a few yards gain. He has otherwise thrown the ball away if the intended target is not open.

The most prolific otherwise RB in passing that I can think of was Walter Payton. He was:
11 for 34 for 331 yards 8 TD's and 6 INTs.

Definitely not a chunk of total player value worth talking about for 95% of RB's, but there are a few exceptions to that. And unlike QB's receiving -- its not just the Kordell Stewart's of the league contributing in the off-role ways.

Well, I think that's the problem ... because hardly any RBs throw more than one or two passes in a career, it would be really difficult to credit Tomlinson appropriately. It seems as though it ought to be worth more than a QB posting those numbers, but how much more, and why? A quantitative assessment would be difficult to do.

Re individual stats: yeah, football's so much harder to analyze, particularly when pretty much all the players on the field for any given play do "nothing". You'd almost need to use something like Madden, where you could know how the play and the defense were supposed to work, overlay that on the "all 22" film, and then compare each player's performance to his assignment. Baseball has it so much easier ...

Are we not referring to Ontario Smith as SOD anymore?