Options
Is Jim Brown the greatest running back of all time?
doubledragon
Posts: 23,059 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Many consider Jim Brown to be the greatest running back that ever lived, he was a beast indeed, I would have loved to watch this man play. What do you think, is he the best ever?
0
Comments
Yes. End of discussion
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
Not in my opinion, I’d take Barry Sanders
the best i ever saw was barry sanders. when I look at the stat sheet though, it is awfully hard to put anyone over jim brown. i wish I could have seen him play. his dominance over his own peers is unprecedented.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I just don't know, I'm stuck between Barry Sanders and Jim Brown, I just can't choose. If there is one player I could go back in time to watch, it would be Jim Brown, the guy is mythical.
He is mythical because back in the 1960’s everyone made things out to be much bigger than they actually were.
Don’t get me wrong Brown was as big of a deal at that time, he was a bigger than most of the lineman and faster than a lot of the DB’s but the size and speed of these guys were nothing compared to who Barry Sanders played against. Not to mention a lot of Browns peers were part time football players and had real jobs during the offseason.
Jim Brown considered Marion Motley better than him.
Hard to watch Barry dance without dropping your jaw. Payton was a complete back. He could run, catch, block and even tackle if he had to. Emmitt was tough but not in this discussion.
I like Spider Lockhart's quote. " The only way to stop Jim Brown was to give him a movie contract."
Yes sir I agree
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
Barry Sanders was certainly the most slippery running back I've ever seen, he did things that nobody else could do, just when you thought you had him, he gets away.
Just look at these runs by Barry Sanders in this video, it's just mind boggling.
I just cant get past Jim Browns stat sheet. played 9 seasons, led league in rushing 8 times (was injured the 9th season), yards per game 8 times, TD 5 times, Yards from scrimmage 6 times, and for his career, averaged over 100 yards per game and over 1 TD per game.
As much as i love Barry, he just cant match those stats.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
There were very few HOF running backs playing when Brown was suited up. This helps his mystique as well
thats true, it was a very different game back then. I do stand by the statement that Barry is the best i ever saw do it.
Jim brown is like looking in the baseball record book at Babe ruths stats. they are monumental, but it was a very different game then.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Don’t get me wrong Brown was as big of a deal at that time, he was a bigger than most of the lineman and faster than a lot of the DB’s but the size and speed of these guys were nothing compared to who Barry Sanders played against. Not to mention a lot of Browns peers were part time football players and had real jobs during the offseason.
Perk, it isn't "mystique" or anything else you want to believe. it is absurd to hold any player's size, speed or anything else against them. it equates to someone criticizing Barry Sanders because he was too quick or elusive, those are assets and not liabilities. Jim Brown was a superior athlete at the time he played and almost certainly would have been during any other era. he was "World Class" in multiple Sports just as the greatest athletes across time have been, not limited to one specific discipline. Jim Brown has been called the greatest Lacrosse player that ever lived and affected a change in the rules. in College Track he placed in the Top Five in the Decathlon and was an All-American in Basketball.
it isn't beyond the realm of possibility to say that he could have played in any Professional Sport he chose or gone on to represent the USA in the Olympics. he simply chose the NFL. please don't hold that against him.
also, why is it a knock against a player from that era that they worked in the off-season?? that was a result of the pay structure, nothing else. Jim Brown proved in College at Syracuse that he was disciplined and focused, he played in some Sport and trained during the entire year. to be honest, I see nothing that you posted which makes any sense past just pure bias. if you can, post something that shows why JB doesn't deserve the accolades he gets every time this topic comes up. players across the years who are more closely in tune with the Sport than we are see this clearly,
one last point: during his nine year career Jim Brown never missed a single down due to an injury. he always, always answered the bell and should be seen as the image of durability, a man who was blessed with a fabulous body and set of athletic skills who took good care of himself. if you ever see him at games he's still in good shape and could probably take care of himself --- at 85!!!
one further point: Barry Sanders did what he did in 151 games, Jim Brown did what he did in 118.
Hold on and back up.
I’m not holding anything against Brown or any of the guys that worked real jobs in the off season, I’m stating facts
Brown was bigger than most lineman.
Most guys had off-season jobs.
Brown was a world class athlete
Brown was an all time great
My point which Ofcourse you say is “Bias” which is a bunch of BS btw because I’m not “Biased” about anything, I’m just stating my argument against him being better than Sanders, it’s not like I’m saying we shouldn’t consider Brown because of him being bigger and his opponents were part time football players.
Sanders was playing against FAR SUPERIOR athletes
Sanders opponents worked at becoming better football players year round with superior nutrition and training as well as medical advances
Sanders was just as durable and played in longer seasons than Brown.
He walked away healthy just like Brown did.
Those are my points, take them or leave them I don’t care if you agree with me or not but don’t throw that “Bias” BS at me. I can say who I think is the best just like you can, it’s not like I’m being unreasonable here, we are talking about Barry Sanders who a LOT other people say is the best as well.
If I was saying Jim Taylor or Paul Hornung was better then you would be able to back
up your “Bias” nonsense.
Walter Payton gets my vote. But Brown was great no doubt.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Perk, the way you state things makes it sound like Brown had an unfair advantage and Sanders was at a disadvantage. you can't really believe that, can you??
No there is nothing fair or unfair about it, it was different eras. Im just stating the facts that you and every other Brown guy dances around.
Tell me I’m wrong that Sanders didn’t play against better athletes?
Tell me Sanders was not much smaller than Brown yet just as durable
Tell me Brown wasn’t bigger than most lineman
Even HOF baseball players and most of the FB players had jobs in the off season.
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
I have run into this type of ERA argument on other sports forums I frequent. it usually goes one of two ways.
then posters will argue back and forth that there were equipment differences, travel differences, training, food, surgeons, etc that would even out the playing field.
I find scenario 2 to be more realistic. if they were switched at birth, clemens no longer is 240 pounds and may not be as tall. he certainly would not have the same training and would have to deal with all the disadvantages of playing in 1904. conversely, Mathewson would have all the physical advantages a modern player would have. he would likely be bigger and stronger and the training methods would maximize his performance.
suffice to say, If one believes in evolution, 50 or 100 or 150 years is not even close enough for human beings to evolve into bigger, stronger, faster animals. It is far, far far more likely that physical differences we see in athletes today are due to nutrition, training, equipment, and specialization.
any player who dominated in his era, would have, if given the same advantages of a modern player, dominated in any era.
if Walter Johnson were given the same upbringing, advantages as Clayton Kershaw, you can bet he would be an athletic outlier in 2016 just as he was in 1912. he would look different, and wouldnt be completing every game he started, but he would still be a stud. Same for Kershaw going the other way.
likewise, if Jimmie Brown were playing in 2009, one could expect him to be just as much of an athletic outlier as he was in 1960.
at least, that is how i look at it
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
"any player who dominated in his era, would have, if given the same advantages of a modern player, dominated in any era."
I don't believe this is true at all. I think most of the all time greats in previous eras (ie prior to the nutrition, training, etc.) managed to achieve their peak physical performance despite that lack of nutrition, training, etc. For the most part, those athletes would benefit very little from all the advances in the modern era. Instead it is the competition they faced that would be the primary beneficiaries of the improved nutrition, training, etc. It is especially true for basketball and football players where athleticism plays such a crucial role in success.
Robb
Athletes are better trained today. Lots of money involved. However with 32 teams the talent gets watered down a bit. Good players can pad their stats when they play the Jets, Panthers, Redskins and a few other teams. BTW the Raiders and another team wanted to sign Brown as a back who could get that one or two yards when needed. Jim brown was 49 years old. The Commissioner vetoed it.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Yes, and Jim Brown even appeared on the cover of Sports Illustrated in a Raiders uniform.
the "era comparison" always gives the advantage to the latest time period. I find this to be flawed and craig makes some interesting points to counter it. I would add that the different rules make any comparison difficult. the rules in place during the earlier time and the specialization used in the most recent time also apply. during the 1960's and earlier players were expected to do more things and to do them all the time. not too many years earlier, Lou Groza played Offensive Tackle and was The Browns' place-kicker. while brown was closing out his career, Gary Collins was the Teams Flanker and Punter. likewise, Jim Brown played most all the downs on Offense, that's just how the game was played then.
I was privileged to see both Jim Brown and Archie Griffin play, and they shared something in common: they were both so well conditioned and athletically fit that although they were the "workhorse" during games they dominated in the 2dn half. the other players just couldn't keep up with them.
I saw enough of Barry sanders on TV to say he was the same, only in a smaller package. his dominance grew as games wore on. Sanders' only impediment is the Team he played on. I think with a better Team he would have had a longer career but may not have had the stats that he has simply because of the other talent that would have been around him. if he could have played 15 years, then Emmitt Smith would have been chasing Barry instead of Walter Payton.
during the time he played, the biggest impediment for Jim Brown setting unbreakable records is the number of games the NFL played.
I would strongly disagree with you. you are saying that Ruth, Williams, Dimaggio, Cobb, G.C. Alexander and the like achieved peak conditioning without modern training, equipment and nutrition? absolutely not. Can you imagine the monster Ted Williams would have been with modern nutrition and training techniques? get him into the weight room and add to that slim 200 pound frame. not to mention, take away Joe Dimaggio's cigarettes. think of the older players who smoked. of course a guy like ty cobb or rogers hornsby would have benefitted from modern training. it is silly to think not. none of these guys would have had off-season jobs. and yes, even the stars had jobs. they would be able to train all year round.
no, the older players did not reach their athletic potential when they played.
what makes you think only their competition would benefit from modern improvements? Is the same true today? I would say not. proof?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
the key to comparing across eras, is that we cannot directly do it. the best way is to find the outliers. that would be the Ruths, Chamberlains, Unitas, Red Granges, Lefty Groves and yes, Jim Browns. then see how much of an outlier they were against their own peers.
because of all the things mentioned above, nutrition, training techniques, equipment changes, rules changes etc, direct comparisons are bound to be lacking.
see which players dominated in the context of their own times, then compare how the biggest outliers played against their own competition. Bill James called it the black ink test. see who led his league the most, who was better against their peers. because we know the human body cannot evolve in such a short time as 100 years, the physical differences have to be caused by something other than evolution. IE. better nutrition, supplements and specific training.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
to make it really simple, why do you think OL today average 310 pounds and OL in the 1970s averaged 265-70 pounds?
only 50 years between the two?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
why do you think OL today average 310 pounds and OL in the 1970s averaged 265-70 pounds?
since muscle is more dense(heavy) than fat, I suppose the easy answer is the weight room. a better test of this line of thinking might be to take Barry Sanders back to 1957 absent nutrition, training techniques, equipment changes, rules changes etc. and wonder what he would have done.
You don’t get Sanders moves from much else than god given talent. In fact it would be easier to be a Jim Brown type RB than Sanders.
Now before you flip out on me I’m not saying it would be easy to be “Jim Brown” what I’m saying is building power and speed can be done easier than creating the moves that Sanders had.
Jim Brown was special and one of the greatest ever but so wasn’t Sanders and I chose to think Sanders was better. Nothing I’m saying is disrespectful to Brown or taking anything away from him.
This is false. In 1969, the last year of the AFL, there were 26 pro football teams. However, they also had rosters of 40 players so 1040 players in 1969. In 2021, there are 32 teams of 53 players - 1696 players, an increase of 63%. In 1969, the US popular was 203 million. In 2021, it's 333 million - an increase of 64%. So the NFL is actually the size it should be based on population growth.
.......
I don't think that national population growth can be used in this way to say that expanded numbers of teams doesn't water down the talent. Regardless of population, more teams will mean more roster spots are being filled with guys who wouldn't be in the league if their roster spot didn't exist. I understand your point, but I don't agree.