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.
Obviously more roster spots means guys are in the league that wouldn't be with fewer teams. But the proportion is the same. In 1969, 1 person in 195,192 were on an NFL roster. Today, that number is 1 person in 196,344. The NFL is still taking the absolute cream of the crop. Heck, if you pushed me, I'd say it's harder to get in the NFL now than it was back then (that is, the worst player in the NFL now is better than the worst player in the NFL then - even with 656 more roster spots).
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.
Perk, you have to remember that I saw Jim Brown play "live" for his last season, four games. he had the moves that Sanders had in addition to the power and speed. Brown had great hips and a spin move that is rarely seen even today. that's the thing that makes him what he is, he had the moves of Barry Sanders, the power and stiff arm of Derrick Henry, a sprinters speed and the grace and balance of a freakin' ballerina so that he was pretty hard to bring down.
the short video clips that we see don't really give a full picture of what he ran like.
@keets said: 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.
Perk, you have to remember that I saw Jim Brown play "live" for his last season, four games. he had the moves that Sanders had in addition to the power and speed. Brown had great hips and a spin move that is rarely seen even today. that's the thing that makes him what he is, he had the moves of Barry Sanders, the power and stiff arm of Derrick Henry, a sprinters speed and the grace and balance of a freakin' ballerina so that he was pretty hard to bring down.
the short video clips that we see don't really give a full picture of what he ran like.
this right here is the info i like to hear. unfortunately for me, all I really know about jim brown is what is left on his stat sheet. I know that he was a strong bruising punishing runner, and I know he dominated the running back league leader sheets like none before or since, but i never knew he was able to be an elusive runner as well.
Keets, what kind of speed did he have? did you ever see him on a break away run? were the DBs able to keep pace or catch up to him? did he have pull away speed where when he got free he could run away from defenders?
this is facinating to me. like you said, I have seen the old black and white footage, but honestly, the black and white stuff is not impressive like modern color high def. it is great to hear real first hand accounts.
yeah, he had break-away speed. what he could do was accelerate quickly after being hit past the line of scrimmage and spinning free. that acceleration helped him when he'd hit a hole and be past the LB's before they could react and it was difficult for a single DB to bring him down.
the thing that sticks in my mind is that the style of play back then was different. the old "student body right" end sweeps were more common-place and the schemes on both sides of the ball were simpler. although Teams used to trap-block it wasn't as common. to my recollection it was Chuck Noll who really perfected that style. Teams used to "shadow" Brown with a Linebacker so there was always at least one body on him. two of the most effective ways he was used, common for every Team back then, was the draw play and screen pass.
things were different when he played. one thing was consistent no matter who the opponent was, their game plan centered on stopping Jim Brown and it didn't work very often. when I was 10 years old he was already a Legend.
@keets said:
yeah, he had break-away speed. what he could do was accelerate quickly after being hit past the line of scrimmage and spinning free. that acceleration helped him when he'd hit a hole and be past the LB's before they could react and it was difficult for a single DB to bring him down.
the thing that sticks in my mind is that the style of play back then was different. the old "student body right" end sweeps were more common-place and the schemes on both sides of the ball were simpler. although Teams used to trap-block it wasn't as common. to my recollection it was Chuck Noll who really perfected that style. Teams used to "shadow" Brown with a Linebacker so there was always at least one body on him. two of the most effective ways he was used, common for every Team back then, was the draw play and screen pass.
things were different when he played. one thing was consistent no matter who the opponent was, their game plan centered on stopping Jim Brown and it didn't work very often. when I was 10 years old he was already a Legend.
thank you for the first hand description. I find that stuff fascinating. I am a pretty big stats guy, so to have a legends game come to life is really cool. maybe sounds like a faster version of earl campbell or possibly Bo Jackson version 1.0
there have been a lot of RB's that had over the top potential and left the game for whatever reason. we all know that Bo Jackson was injured but someone like Eric Dickerson seemed like he lost interest. I know the term "head case" is harsh but Dickerson always seemed like he was traded because he was a divisive presence. I loved watching him run, so smooth and quick.
I believe the golden age of the Running Back might have been from the 1960-mid 1980's. it seems today that there's only 2-3 RB's at a time who are really top guys for any period of time. also, a Running Back is the lone Offensive "skill player" who gets no protection from the rules.
@keets said: 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.
Perk, you have to remember that I saw Jim Brown play "live" for his last season, four games. he had the moves that Sanders had in addition to the power and speed. Brown had great hips and a spin move that is rarely seen even today. that's the thing that makes him what he is, he had the moves of Barry Sanders, the power and stiff arm of Derrick Henry, a sprinters speed and the grace and balance of a freakin' ballerina so that he was pretty hard to bring down.
the short video clips that we see don't really give a full picture of what he ran like.
No disrespect but there is zero chance that Jim Brown had the same moves as Barry Sanders. ZERO
I can appreciate you seeing him play live and all but I’m just being straight up with you and saying I absolutely do not believe you that he had the moves of Barry Sanders.
As a young kid I’m sure you remember him being larger than life and at the time he was but let’s not get ridiculous here.
Literally your the first person I ever heard of who has ever remotely said he had Sanders moves, there is enough film on him and I’m just not seeing it neither is anyone else
No disrespect I’m just telling straight up where I’m at.
@coinkat said:
I am not going to select the greatest but I would not argue with those that select Jim Brown as the greatest.
I got no problem with anyone saying a legit candidate is the best ever and that includes guys like Brown, Payton, Smith ect. But I’m not going to stand down and accept anyone trying to tell me that Im wrong because Jim Brown was better than Sanders ( My Choice ) and give me reasons why that I don’t agree with..
I’m not going to stand down and accept anyone trying to tell me that Im wrong because Jim Brown was better than Sanders ( My Choice ) and give me reasons why that I don’t agree with
and yet another case of the pot calling the kettle black. I give up here, I'll probably be banned for saying that.
@keets said: I’m not going to stand down and accept anyone trying to tell me that Im wrong because Jim Brown was better than Sanders ( My Choice ) and give me reasons why that I don’t agree with
and yet another case of the pot calling the kettle black. I give up here, I'll probably be banned for saying that.
It works both ways, i didn’t expect you to bite your tongue and listen to my points then change your mind either lol
We both said our peace and you chose to not further discuss it with me which is fine. I don’t have a problem with you I just don’t agree with some of the stuff you said and you don’t agree with me either.
It’s all good as far as I’m concerned, if it’s not on your end I don’t really care but either way I’m not holding any grudges over this disagreement going forward
@keets said:
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
Correct. It isn't a knock against Brown. It is just pointing out the reasons why his 'numbers' were that much better than his peers. Much like why Babe Ruth out homered every team in the league that year, because 90% of the players were slap hitters who were trained to hit line drives and ground balls(and they were also drawn from a smaller gene pool due to much less people in the world and much less participants). It doesn't mean Ruth wasn't great....it just means Ruth would not out homer every team in the league now because he would have to hit 250 home runs in a season to do so, and do it against vastly superior pitchers who all throw harder and are physically taller and stronger.
The main reason I really do not feel compelled to select the greatest of all time is because that seems arbitrary and not absolute in that the entire professional sports environment is in a constant state of evolution. Pro football has changed and is simply not the same game it once was.
Jim Brown was likely the most influential running back ever and one simply cannot use the same yardstick in comparing him to Barry Sanders. Not only was Brown a legend, he set the bar for others to follow. And that bar in the 1957-1967 time frame cannot be measured to Sanders accomplished 30 years later. Make no mistake about it... Sanders is great and will always be part of any conversation in connection with great running backs. Seems the discussion would be better served to identify 5 or perhaps as many as 10 running backs that would be among the greatest running backs instead of selecting a single player.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@keets said:
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
Correct. It isn't a knock against Brown. It is just pointing out the reasons why his 'numbers' were that much better than his peers. Much like why Babe Ruth out homered every team in the league that year, because 90% of the players were slap hitters who were trained to hit line drives and ground balls(and they were also drawn from a smaller gene pool due to much less people in the world and much less participants). It doesn't mean Ruth wasn't great....it just means Ruth would not out homer every team in the league now because he would have to hit 250 home runs in a season to do so, and do it against vastly superior pitchers who all throw harder and are physically taller and stronger.
@coinkat said:
The main reason I really do not feel compelled to select the greatest of all time is because that seems arbitrary and not absolute in that the entire professional sports environment is in a constant state of evolution. Pro football has changed and is simply not the same game it once was.
Jim Brown was likely the most influential running back ever and one simply cannot use the same yardstick in comparing him to Barry Sanders. Not only was Brown a legend, he set the bar for others to follow. And that bar in the 1957-1967 time frame cannot be measured to Sanders accomplished 30 years later. Make no mistake about it... Sanders is great and will always be part of any conversation in connection with great running backs. Seems the discussion would be better served to identify 5 or perhaps as many as 10 running backs that would be among the greatest running backs instead of selecting a single player.
I see your points but “Using the same yardstick” to measure Brown against Sanders is what it is, it’s a conversation, debate or argument about who was better. I’ve stated logical and sound reasons as to why I think Sanders was better yet Brown lovers dance around my points.
I don’t mind anyone saying he was the best ever, we all have our right to our opinions. And as I’ve stated I don’t mind anyone saying Brown, Payton, Dickerson ect.. was the best because they are all part of the conversation and nobody sounds like an idiot saying any of those names.
This being said who thinks who would be more dominant if the players were given the same type of opponents?
I’m sure Brown would be just fine and be a HOF’er but would he be as successful against 300+ pound Lineman as opposed to the 250 pounders he faced?
Would Barry be better facing 250 pound lineman as opposed to the 300 pounders he faced?
@coinkat said:
The main reason I really do not feel compelled to select the greatest of all time is because that seems arbitrary and not absolute in that the entire professional sports environment is in a constant state of evolution. Pro football has changed and is simply not the same game it once was.
Jim Brown was likely the most influential running back ever and one simply cannot use the same yardstick in comparing him to Barry Sanders. Not only was Brown a legend, he set the bar for others to follow. And that bar in the 1957-1967 time frame cannot be measured to Sanders accomplished 30 years later. Make no mistake about it... Sanders is great and will always be part of any conversation in connection with great running backs. Seems the discussion would be better served to identify 5 or perhaps as many as 10 running backs that would be among the greatest running backs instead of selecting a single player.
I see your points but “Using the same yardstick” to measure Brown against Sanders is what it is, it’s a conversation, debate or argument about who was better. I’ve stated logical and sound reasons as to why I think Sanders was better yet Brown lovers dance around my points.
I don’t mind anyone saying he was the best ever, we all have our right to our opinions. And as I’ve stated I don’t mind anyone saying Brown, Payton, Dickerson ect.. was the best because they are all part of the conversation and nobody sounds like an idiot saying any of those names.
This being said who thinks who would be more dominant if the players were given the same type of opponents?
I’m sure Brown would be just fine and be a HOF’er but would he be as successful against 300+ pound Lineman as opposed to the 250 pounders he faced?
Would Barry be better facing 250 pound lineman as opposed to the 300 pounders he faced?
“Tick Tick Tick” is a great Jim Brown movie, I had the trailer up but took it down since it has some racially offensive words in it but really it’s a great movie
I had a neighbor who saw Babe Ruth lay in th 1920’s…he said he was like Hercules…strong big and fast. We see the films when he was old and fat. No one ran home on third base when he was in right field…he threw a strike on the fly to home. He also was a great pitcher for the Re Sox…one 18 game season …two twenty game seasons. Was the greatest hitter…the he greatest hoe ru hitter,,,,because he had no target. stolehoealot and pitched one or two games a year forge Yankees ad won most,…give me another person
Brown or Sanders, take your pick, with the Juice third.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I saw Jim Brown play against the Giants in Yankee Stadium as a kid. The free safety Giant safety Spider Lockhart(who was great on a terrible team) comments were true. Brown was unstoppable….he only played 12 to 14 games a year. He played in against the run league…at his size and speed,,,,he would be unstoppable. Today Derrick Henry is unstoppable….a joke
I always thought it was also cool how both Brown and Sanders (unlike Smith) walked away while still at the height of their respective careers.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@craig44 said:
I never have personally seen any RB with better moves or quick cuts than Barry Sanders.
cant disagree with that one. He was truly a magician.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@Paddio1 said:
There is no one in Baseball ever who can bat number three and win the game pitching
Ohtani
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
The best I ever saw was Earl Campbell, but I think Brown was probably better.
And Craig, the other - or rather, related - mistake made in era arguments (especially, and painfully, with QBs) is that people want to plop the old-timer down in the game as it is played today and say "he wouldn't be great". You addressed the reasons why that's a silly thing to say on its own terms, but that's only half the silliness. The other half is the avoidance of plopping the modern player down in the old-time game. Plop Tom Brady down on Sammy Baugh's teams and how sure could anyone possibly be that Brady would be better? Better at throwing a forward pass? Maybe. But Baugh led the league in punting, he led the league in punt blocks, and he led the league in interceptions in addition to a whole slew of QB stats. And he did all of that in 1943. Maybe I do want Brady as my QB if I'm playing football in the 2010's, but I definitely want Baugh if I'm playing football in the 1940's. There is an unstated assumption that football today is "real" football and the prior versions of the game are not just different but "less than" today's game. Spoiler alert: "real" football was played in every decade, even if the way it was played changed over time. I'm on record as saying picking a GOAT in football is objectively impossible, and I'm not likely to change my position on that. But, if you put a gun to my head and made me pick one, I'd pick Baugh or Hutson or someone like them, who were skilled at virtually every aspect of the game.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@coinkat said:
Please feel free to add my name. What is absurd will remain in dispute. And that might be the best place to end the discussion-
You can end the discussion at anytime and I will continue to call anyone who thinks this way nonsensical because it is.
I’ve spoken to a number of people who saw Brown play and they literally all
Laughed and said Brown had power and speed but not even close to Sanders moves. Most of them still think Brown was the best which is totally fine but again to say he had Barry Sanders moves is utterly absurd
Comments
Obviously more roster spots means guys are in the league that wouldn't be with fewer teams. But the proportion is the same. In 1969, 1 person in 195,192 were on an NFL roster. Today, that number is 1 person in 196,344. The NFL is still taking the absolute cream of the crop. Heck, if you pushed me, I'd say it's harder to get in the NFL now than it was back then (that is, the worst player in the NFL now is better than the worst player in the NFL then - even with 656 more roster spots).
IDK. Is there a player on the Jets that could have won a spot on a team from the 50s?
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
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.
Perk, you have to remember that I saw Jim Brown play "live" for his last season, four games. he had the moves that Sanders had in addition to the power and speed. Brown had great hips and a spin move that is rarely seen even today. that's the thing that makes him what he is, he had the moves of Barry Sanders, the power and stiff arm of Derrick Henry, a sprinters speed and the grace and balance of a freakin' ballerina so that he was pretty hard to bring down.
the short video clips that we see don't really give a full picture of what he ran like.
this right here is the info i like to hear. unfortunately for me, all I really know about jim brown is what is left on his stat sheet. I know that he was a strong bruising punishing runner, and I know he dominated the running back league leader sheets like none before or since, but i never knew he was able to be an elusive runner as well.
Keets, what kind of speed did he have? did you ever see him on a break away run? were the DBs able to keep pace or catch up to him? did he have pull away speed where when he got free he could run away from defenders?
this is facinating to me. like you said, I have seen the old black and white footage, but honestly, the black and white stuff is not impressive like modern color high def. it is great to hear real first hand accounts.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
yeah, he had break-away speed. what he could do was accelerate quickly after being hit past the line of scrimmage and spinning free. that acceleration helped him when he'd hit a hole and be past the LB's before they could react and it was difficult for a single DB to bring him down.
the thing that sticks in my mind is that the style of play back then was different. the old "student body right" end sweeps were more common-place and the schemes on both sides of the ball were simpler. although Teams used to trap-block it wasn't as common. to my recollection it was Chuck Noll who really perfected that style. Teams used to "shadow" Brown with a Linebacker so there was always at least one body on him. two of the most effective ways he was used, common for every Team back then, was the draw play and screen pass.
things were different when he played. one thing was consistent no matter who the opponent was, their game plan centered on stopping Jim Brown and it didn't work very often. when I was 10 years old he was already a Legend.
thank you for the first hand description. I find that stuff fascinating. I am a pretty big stats guy, so to have a legends game come to life is really cool. maybe sounds like a faster version of earl campbell or possibly Bo Jackson version 1.0
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
there have been a lot of RB's that had over the top potential and left the game for whatever reason. we all know that Bo Jackson was injured but someone like Eric Dickerson seemed like he lost interest. I know the term "head case" is harsh but Dickerson always seemed like he was traded because he was a divisive presence. I loved watching him run, so smooth and quick.
I believe the golden age of the Running Back might have been from the 1960-mid 1980's. it seems today that there's only 2-3 RB's at a time who are really top guys for any period of time. also, a Running Back is the lone Offensive "skill player" who gets no protection from the rules.
No disrespect but there is zero chance that Jim Brown had the same moves as Barry Sanders. ZERO
I can appreciate you seeing him play live and all but I’m just being straight up with you and saying I absolutely do not believe you that he had the moves of Barry Sanders.
As a young kid I’m sure you remember him being larger than life and at the time he was but let’s not get ridiculous here.
Literally your the first person I ever heard of who has ever remotely said he had Sanders moves, there is enough film on him and I’m just not seeing it neither is anyone else
No disrespect I’m just telling straight up where I’m at.
not worth discussing any further.
Thank You
I am not going to select the greatest but I would not argue with those that select Jim Brown as the greatest.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I got no problem with anyone saying a legit candidate is the best ever and that includes guys like Brown, Payton, Smith ect. But I’m not going to stand down and accept anyone trying to tell me that Im wrong because Jim Brown was better than Sanders ( My Choice ) and give me reasons why that I don’t agree with..
I’m not going to stand down and accept anyone trying to tell me that Im wrong because Jim Brown was better than Sanders ( My Choice ) and give me reasons why that I don’t agree with
and yet another case of the pot calling the kettle black. I give up here, I'll probably be banned for saying that.
It works both ways, i didn’t expect you to bite your tongue and listen to my points then change your mind either lol
We both said our peace and you chose to not further discuss it with me which is fine. I don’t have a problem with you I just don’t agree with some of the stuff you said and you don’t agree with me either.
It’s all good as far as I’m concerned, if it’s not on your end I don’t really care but either way I’m not holding any grudges over this disagreement going forward
@perkdog
🙌
Correct. It isn't a knock against Brown. It is just pointing out the reasons why his 'numbers' were that much better than his peers. Much like why Babe Ruth out homered every team in the league that year, because 90% of the players were slap hitters who were trained to hit line drives and ground balls(and they were also drawn from a smaller gene pool due to much less people in the world and much less participants). It doesn't mean Ruth wasn't great....it just means Ruth would not out homer every team in the league now because he would have to hit 250 home runs in a season to do so, and do it against vastly superior pitchers who all throw harder and are physically taller and stronger.
The main reason I really do not feel compelled to select the greatest of all time is because that seems arbitrary and not absolute in that the entire professional sports environment is in a constant state of evolution. Pro football has changed and is simply not the same game it once was.
Jim Brown was likely the most influential running back ever and one simply cannot use the same yardstick in comparing him to Barry Sanders. Not only was Brown a legend, he set the bar for others to follow. And that bar in the 1957-1967 time frame cannot be measured to Sanders accomplished 30 years later. Make no mistake about it... Sanders is great and will always be part of any conversation in connection with great running backs. Seems the discussion would be better served to identify 5 or perhaps as many as 10 running backs that would be among the greatest running backs instead of selecting a single player.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Exactly my point
I see your points but “Using the same yardstick” to measure Brown against Sanders is what it is, it’s a conversation, debate or argument about who was better. I’ve stated logical and sound reasons as to why I think Sanders was better yet Brown lovers dance around my points.
I don’t mind anyone saying he was the best ever, we all have our right to our opinions. And as I’ve stated I don’t mind anyone saying Brown, Payton, Dickerson ect.. was the best because they are all part of the conversation and nobody sounds like an idiot saying any of those names.
This being said who thinks who would be more dominant if the players were given the same type of opponents?
I’m sure Brown would be just fine and be a HOF’er but would he be as successful against 300+ pound Lineman as opposed to the 250 pounders he faced?
Would Barry be better facing 250 pound lineman as opposed to the 300 pounders he faced?
The speed of the defenders as well.
Jim Brown in the 1979 CHIPS episode titled 'Roller Disco.'
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
“Tick Tick Tick” is a great Jim Brown movie, I had the trailer up but took it down since it has some racially offensive words in it but really it’s a great movie
A big plus for Sanders is he was tremendous even though his team sucked. A big plus for Brown is any team he would be on would not suck.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
I never have personally seen any RB with better moves or quick cuts than Barry Sanders.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I had a neighbor who saw Babe Ruth lay in th 1920’s…he said he was like Hercules…strong big and fast. We see the films when he was old and fat. No one ran home on third base when he was in right field…he threw a strike on the fly to home. He also was a great pitcher for the Re Sox…one 18 game season …two twenty game seasons. Was the greatest hitter…the he greatest hoe ru hitter,,,,because he had no target. stolehoealot and pitched one or two games a year forge Yankees ad won most,…give me another person
P
And he stole home….alot
Brown or Sanders, take your pick, with the Juice third.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I saw Jim Brown play against the Giants in Yankee Stadium as a kid. The free safety Giant safety Spider Lockhart(who was great on a terrible team) comments were true. Brown was unstoppable….he only played 12 to 14 games a year. He played in against the run league…at his size and speed,,,,he would be unstoppable. Today Derrick Henry is unstoppable….a joke
I always thought it was also cool how both Brown and Sanders (unlike Smith) walked away while still at the height of their respective careers.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
cant disagree with that one. He was truly a magician.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
There is no one in Baseball ever who can bat number three and win the game pitching
Best player ever in a world where that NBA and NFL….Olympic Committee non existent
Ohtani
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
The best I ever saw was Earl Campbell, but I think Brown was probably better.
And Craig, the other - or rather, related - mistake made in era arguments (especially, and painfully, with QBs) is that people want to plop the old-timer down in the game as it is played today and say "he wouldn't be great". You addressed the reasons why that's a silly thing to say on its own terms, but that's only half the silliness. The other half is the avoidance of plopping the modern player down in the old-time game. Plop Tom Brady down on Sammy Baugh's teams and how sure could anyone possibly be that Brady would be better? Better at throwing a forward pass? Maybe. But Baugh led the league in punting, he led the league in punt blocks, and he led the league in interceptions in addition to a whole slew of QB stats. And he did all of that in 1943. Maybe I do want Brady as my QB if I'm playing football in the 2010's, but I definitely want Baugh if I'm playing football in the 1940's. There is an unstated assumption that football today is "real" football and the prior versions of the game are not just different but "less than" today's game. Spoiler alert: "real" football was played in every decade, even if the way it was played changed over time. I'm on record as saying picking a GOAT in football is objectively impossible, and I'm not likely to change my position on that. But, if you put a gun to my head and made me pick one, I'd pick Baugh or Hutson or someone like them, who were skilled at virtually every aspect of the game.
I’m just glad @keets didn't troll back in here to spew his nonsensical “Jim Brown had the same moves as Barry Sanders”
Welcome to Sports Talk @Paddio1
There is nothing nonsensical about Jim Brown or what Keets wrote within this thread/discussion..
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
“Jim Brown had the same moves as Barry Sanders”. Is what he said, if you believe that then I’m adding you to the nonsensical statement as well.
I mean it’s absurd that anyone would believe any of that
Please feel free to add my name. What is absurd will remain in dispute. And that might be the best place to end the discussion-
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
You can end the discussion at anytime and I will continue to call anyone who thinks this way nonsensical because it is.
I’ve spoken to a number of people who saw Brown play and they literally all
Laughed and said Brown had power and speed but not even close to Sanders moves. Most of them still think Brown was the best which is totally fine but again to say he had Barry Sanders moves is utterly absurd