he is a first ballot HOFer right now.
He is the last feature back.
I can't see a solid argument that he is a better RB than Adrian Peterson bruh. Let's not be in the moment here.Easily the best running back I’ve ever seen personally besides Adrian Peterson….and you can make a solid argument that he’s better than AP too.
Never seen a player with the home run playing ability like Derrick Henry. If he didn’t share touches with fraud ass Murray his first couple of years his career stats would’ve been insane.
I just named them like wtfHow can you look at King Henry and say some of these running backs better?
Like not to disrespect the older running backs who I've never seen in their prime, but who better then him?
I just named them like wtf
Are you 15? Or did you watch those guys. I’m not some stuck on the past dude breh but be for real rn
I’m not gon hold you from a pure running perspective Faulk ain’t fukking wit Henry at all. It depends on how much you weigh Faulk’s receiving. From 2000 to now it’s been LT AD and The King all having their respective runs as the best back of their time. I don’t think we can start the all timer convos until Henry hangs em up. I will say if he has three elite season of production over 30(including this one) and goes 2,000 again while doing it he’s gotta be top 10I can't see a solid argument that he is a better RB than Adrian Peterson bruh. Let's not be in the moment here.
I would not rank DH above Barry, AP, Emmitt. I was too young to see ED, obviously Jim Brown (crazy seeing him in real life, old JB still looked like he could play in 2001).
Marshall Faulk (sheesh) would have a word as well.
I basically rank guys like this - if there was an all-time all player in there prime first, you taking DH every errybody???
I can't see a solid argument that he is a better RB than Adrian Peterson bruh. Let's not be in the moment here.
I would not rank DH above Barry, AP, Emmitt. I was too young to see ED, obviously Jim Brown (crazy seeing him in real life, old JB still looked like he could play in 2001).
Marshall Faulk (sheesh) would have a word as well.
I basically rank guys like this - if there was an all-time all player in there prime first, you taking DH every errybody???
Yea. Two 2,000 yard seasons plus everything else he would easily be top 10 all time. He’s top three in this century already and he’s prolly the last workhorse we will see for a LONG TIME(the league always comes back around so I don’t think it’s gonna be Rbbc forever)I think there’s definitely and argument for Henry or Peterson. I said that earlier in this thread.
If Henry rushes for 2,000 yards this year, I think he’d have a STRONG argument.
That person wasn’t me lmaoI've watched the NFL since 2000 and I know my history, and the only person I can accept an argument for is Peterson.
I saw somebody said Shawn the Tip Toe Burglar Alexander and Frank I played 1000 years Gore were better.
Top 10 I won’t deny youI’m not gon hold you from a pure running perspective Faulk ain’t fukking wit Henry at all. It depends on how much you weigh Faulk’s receiving. From 2000 to now it’s been LT AD and The King all having their respective runs as the best back of their time. I don’t think we can start the all timer convos until Henry hangs em up. I will say if he has three elite season of production over 30(including this one) and goes 2,000 again while doing it he’s gotta be top 10
Yea I just recently watched his film against the Vikings his rookie year 20/224 3 tds and I don’t think Henry will ever beat AD on the eye test, Because AP’s twitchiness and explosiveness. But TWO 2,000 yards seasons would give him a legit argument against anyone. That’s a big IF though even though he’s on pace this yearTop 10 I won’t deny you
I can’t believe I didn’t add LT. My brain is getting old
I love Henry. Even when people were down on him
But man o man AP was HIM. Hearing players and coaches talk about AP vs DH is light years apart