Ahman Green or Shaun Alexander?

[Fritz]

I think LT has to be #1. He gained over 12,000 yards in the decade. he's obviously over now, but the guy did it all.

I'd say LT #1

2. Edge James

3. Green

4 Jamal Lewis second highest total yards in the decade and a 2000+ season. I know you NFC boys don't think much of him, but he was the man for a number of seasons.

5. Alexander. He is a really good person and I think it helps his voting appeal with the media/writers. Boone County High School in Florence KY is 8 miles from my house. The road that leads to it is Shaun Alexander Drive. I've been at a handful of Golf Outings and charity events where Shaun has been present and I've never met him. So if this was personally biased, he'd be #1 on the list.

I'm with the Boss. Shaun owes a lot of his personal success to Walter Jones and Steve Hutchinson.

Marshall Faulk came a little early for the All Decade Team, but he did some damage in the 2000's.

I think his wife is concerned about this.

[MJZiggy]

One track mind...

[The Leaper]

Personally, I think Green was a better RB...better receiver, more speed.

However, I can't disagree with giving Alexander the nod. He scored a lot more TDs, which is a very important stat for RBs. He also helped take a team to a Super Bowl, which Green did not do.

There are good arguments to make on both sides IMO.

[The Leaper]

Per the fumbling...

Green did fumble more than his share IMO for a guy who wasn't a pure power runner. I would expect guys like Jamal Lewis and Alexander to fumble more often than other RBs, because they carried the rock a lot between the tackles in a power running game. Green, while certainly a physical runner, was not a typical power runner.

I don't think he fumbled in horrible excess...more like slightly above average. It also seemed like the Packer lost more than their fair share of those fumbles compared to how often other RB fumbles are recovered by the offense.

That is why I think Green came to earn the "fumbler" moniker...not really fair, because it wasn't a statistically significant difference, but there is a small grain of truth in it due mostly to bad luck.

[MJZiggy]

I think he got the nickname because his fumbles came in bunches. He'd put it on the ground for a few weeks, then his coaches would come up with a fix and he'd go a long while without one. I think statistically he fumbled less than other backs, but it may seem worse if we lost a lot of those fumbles.

[Noodle]

Nothing to add on the fumbles, all good points, though I disagree with Leaper a bit as Green did a lot of power running between the tackles and did not shy away from contact. At all.

But the TD issue is kind of interesting.

Alexander had 28 more TDs than Green rushing the ball. But in Green's glory years, 2000-2004, and 2006 (2005 was the injury year) we had a lot of touchdown passes of 5 yards or less, about 50 in all. Heck, of those 50, 27 were for three yards or less.

So if Green had been given some more opportunities when were down close, the rushing TD gap would likely be much closer.

[Patler]

But the TD issue is kind of interesting.

Alexander had 28 more TDs than Green rushing the ball. But in Green's glory years, 2000-2004, and 2006 (2005 was the injury year) we had a lot of touchdown passes of 5 yards or less, about 50 in all. Heck, of those 50, 27 were for three yards or less.

So if Green had been given some more opportunities when were down close, the rushing TD gap would likely be much closer.

Yup, there was a reason Bubba Franks went to the Pro Bowl, and it wasn't for his nimble play in the middle of the field.

For years Seattle had some of the leagues worst receivers for dropped passes. They also had 650 pounds of all pro blocking on the left side. 1st and goal was a running play more often than not.

GB was different. Even when Green churned out yards like crazy, 1st and goal was typically a passing down for them.

[MichiganPackerFan]

Anyone know how many carries Green had in the red zone compared to Alexander?

[hoosier]

Anyone know how many carries Green had in the red zone compared to Alexander?

This is the only site I know of that breaks rushing stats down according to field position. You would have to look up each year for both RBs and calculate totals.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/splits?playerId=1432&sYear=2003

[MadtownPacker]

Since they are close Im going by whoever was best at getting that 3rd or 4th & 1. It was great knowing that Green would get it almost every time. Was Alexander that good?

[KYPack]

Since they are close Im going by whoever was best at getting that 3rd or 4th & 1. It was great knowing that Green would get it almost every time. Was Alexander that good?

Alexander got everything possible out of his potential. He scored 100 rushing TD's in the decade. But he fell way off after the Seahawks let Steve Hutchinson walk in FA. That was a stupid move on their part. They could have signed Hutch prior to his walk year, but their GM dropped the ball.

3 & 1? I'd give the ball to Ahman. Quicker and more raw power. What if Seattle would have kept Green? Which guy would ahve played?

[The Leaper]

On a 3rd and 1, the OL is more important than the RB.

[Fritz]

I don't know. If you have a sucky o-line, that's bad, of course, but a really good back can sometimes find a way to gitrdone.

Ahman Green was phenomenal for a stretch of time in the early 2000's. Strong, powerful, yet home run speed. And he could block.

[Patler]

Ahman Green was phenomenal for a stretch of time in the early 2000's. Strong, powerful, yet home run speed. And he could block.

....and he could catch. 135 receptions for 1,153 yards his first two seasons in GB.

[Fritz]

Yes, that, too. Had he been able to produce at that level over a longer period of time, he'd have been hall of fame material.