[QUOTE=Omniscient]
It’s probably not authoritative information, but when there are anecdotes flying around about Barry’s superhuman ability to survive plays with multiple D-lineman deep in the backfield and every play, it’s worth noting that the other guys on the roster managed to get back to the line of scrimmage and beyond on occasion (something Barry often failed to do).
A backups YPC might be dubious when used as a measure of OL talent, but the assertions in this thread go farther than that by making it sound as if Barry had a uniquely inept line for 13 years. Were it true you’d assume lesser backs on the same team would be utterly helpless regardless of the circumstance. Perhaps it simply points out that Barry’s line was on par with everyone else’s on average.
[/QUOTE]
That’s just not what’s been going on in this thread. Every reference to the offensive line in this thread has been in response to you pointing out how many negative plays he was involved in. If you start with the numbers, they indicate that he was really, really good. The burden shifts over to the “overrated” camp to explain why he doesn’t belong in the discussion. You and Trunk used his number of failed rushes and anecdotal references to him ignoring holes to do so.
And in response to that, you’ve gotten a few – a few – indications that he wasn’t running behind a great line, and was looking at a lot more difficult 1 yard gains than some other running backs might have been. And that’s the point the “anecdotes flying around about Barry’s superhuman ability to survive plays with multiple D-lineman deep in the backfield and every play” (a fair and evenhanded characterization, by the way) were attempting to make.
And in response to that, now we have Ron Rivers and Cedric Moore. And Varlos pointed out that those numbers are probably completely meaningless, even within the context of the discussion that’s taken shape here, because there’s not much to go on when you pick out two individual seasons by individual players in limited roles.
But anyway, even beside the philosophical point about sample size and different roles, let’s assume that those two examples mean something. What about 1988, when the Lions ran for a killer 3.2 yards per carry? What about ‘89, when Sanders’ backups ran for a full yard and a yard and a half-yard less per carry? Or '90 – a full half a yard? '91? '92? '94 (when Derrick Moore himself averaged a third of the yards Sanders did, '93 being the year already cited above)?
I mean, if you guys want to talk about how the other Lions running backs ran during the time Sanders was there, and rely on those results as indicative of whether his line was creating his high yards per carry based on how they compare to those other backs, I’m pretty comfortable with that, since, in fact, the other guys on the roster WERE pretty generally helpless, all things considered. Picking out one guy who cracked off a single 48 yard carry that raised his average more than half a yard, and another back who had one decent year that wasn’t even as good as Sanders’ average seems like pretty scant support for your position, even if there’s a position to be staked out in the first place. If there’s a trend there, it’s a trend toward the running game sucking without Sanders.
So now we’re back to square one. He had great numbers, and I submit again that there’s documentary evidence that he had to face a lot more pressure in the backfield than most great running backs did, which explains why he lost so many yards.