I don't like it either but I can understand it. McCoy's run lasted from 2010-2017 while Charles was 2010-2015. Injuries and not being able to use that 2009 season really hurts Charles' case.

I also understand why people would choose Marshawn Lynch with the postseason success and signature runs.

.. But Frank Gore over Jamaal Charles? I'm sorry but no. Matt Forte or Jamaal Charles should have been given a spot over Gore.

Um you see Gores stats? Longevity is key here. It’s about all of the 2010s not just a couple good years

Gore was a good back, but never truly spectacular. Well 1 spectacular season. But hes kinda like another Curtis Martin. Just was always consistent.

Charles got ****ed on this list.

It's definitely a longevity vs efficiency/peak argument, but look at this graph. Peterson is a no-brainer, McCoy led the decade in yards from scrimmage, and Lynch takes the decade's lead in postseason rushing stats so they all make sense.

https://www.pro-football-reference.c...reTool#results

Out of 48 qualified rushers, Frank Gore was #4 in rushing yards. Very nice, very cool. Except he was #1 in carries, good for #37 in YPC. Ouch.

Frank Gore scored a TD every 45th touch on average. Jamaal Charles scored a TD every 25th touch.

Jamaal Charles>>>>>>>Frank Gore

Berry? He should be on the all injured team and over paid team. Did he even play 5 of the 10?

I looked. 5 exactly with out missing a whole bunch of games.

Roaf, Waters, Wiegmann, Shields, Tait..... Screwed over by one of the most inept defenses in the history of the NFL... :#:#:#:#:#:#:#

Which means Charles deserves to be on the list.

Berry should not be higher than 3rd string.

Please don’t remind me. Horrible team management there.

Elite level OL and running game. Atrocious defense.

Draft all defense. Miss on pretty much every pick. Let the offense get old and expensive. Then proceed to ignore QB once your decent QB gets his head spiked by Cincy. Talk about doing everything wrong.

Just had to hand it off......

and RBs, lol.

Better player vs. better career is a hard argument to have, though.

Was Charles better at his apex? Absolutely. But did Charles do more for his teams in his 90 games and 1100 carries than Frank Gore did for his over 150 games and 2400 carries?

Pretty tough to make that argument, isn't it?

Yeah, Charles was a better player, but I don't think that's how you name guys to teams like this. You do that based on total productivity over the defined time period.

Half the battle is showing up and ultimately, Gore showed up. In a game of attrition like football, that's a wildly underrated part of it (and why I don't think Charles is a HoFer or that Davis deserved any meaningful consideration either). Over the course of the decade, Gore simply did more than Charles did.

Honestly, I'd rather have 10 games of Jamaal Charles and 6 of some scrub free agent than 16 of the 2010s version of Frank Gore.

In either case, I understand that most wouldn't agree given Charles lack of longevity and volume, but what's the argument for Gore over Matt Forte?