Yeah I want to clarify, I don't think Emmitt isn't an All-Time great---->I do...
My question is more born out of seeing guys like LT and Faulk omitted, and asking what made Emmitt better than them. I know about the accomplishments and when i saw him play, he was still really good, but since i missed his absolute peak I can't firsthand say why I would place him over other guys beyond the volume stats...
So I think I wasn't clear in earlier posts. I think Emmitt was a great player, I'm just not sure or sold on what made him better than other All-Timers...
Faulk is probably the best back I've ever seen, peak-for-peak. LT, Ricky, AD are all up there too, so just using my frame of reference, it's hard to see what separates Emmitt from these guys other than longevity and cumulative totals because of it (which does matter), because when I saw Emmitt, he was still a top tier back but that was simultaneously as Faulk was dominating and just before LT and Ricky came of age, and the Emmitt i saw was good but not at that level...
@AvadaKadaBreh helped by describing what he was elite at. Apologies all around though for not being clear--->I do think dude is great, I just need some clarification myself...