Seve used to practice with pine cones. He wasn't much for the gym as I recall. Greg Norman is one of the guys who I credit with changing the game. He wasn't much for the pressure, but the guy was one of the first to really bring weight training to golf.
it wasn't a thing back then. i wasn't in the gym trying to add 10 pounds of muscle; I was trying to get my hands on graphite shafts so i could knife through the air like butter
@perkdog said:
Marion Motley was just as big as Brown and dominated in his day as well.
Not many people ever talk about him and he is a HOF'er
He played in far better situations than Brown, he had a better YPC at 5.7
The game was a lot different in the early 50's as opposed to when Brown played
That is a good example. The really only difference is their usage patterns for the number of carries. I was going to say earlier that one of the reasons why those early Brown's teams were so good is because of Motley too, and they did integrate and had about 1/3 of the leagues black players.
So if we are going to assign a players worth based on winning, then Motley had many more titles than Brown...gotta be fair if that is a key criteria. Five to one. Perhaps Brown's yds weren't quite as meaningful's as Motley's since they didn't win as much
BTW the Redskins didn't even integrate until 1962! I don't know if people realize the integration aspect in the NFL that it may have been slower than MLB.
BTW, I see a lot of posters in this thread who hold post season 'failures' against other players.
For Jim Brown's career he averaged a paltry 3.7 yds per carry in the post season and only 60 yds a game ONE TD. Doesn't sound like the best RB to me(based on your guy's past criteria)
Motley averaged 7.1 yds per carry in the post season. So maybe we do have the reason why Motley has five titles and Brown only one .
I might even say that Motley single handidly won three titles for his teams in the championship game:
13 carries for 98 yds
13 carries for 109 yds
14 carries for 133 yds
16 carries for 113 yds
Motley was also a two way player who excelled on defense as well!
Add Motley's two way status then you factor it hurts his running game stats. I think a good case can be made that Motley was a better football player than Brown.
@craig44@coolstanley@Maywood i know that you guys use that measurement to kill other players' careeers. Can't have it both ways.
You can also count those Motley championship performances as being more of a factor for those titles than Graham when you circle back to that debate since Motley was the key player in three of those title games. Graham in the other one.
Testimonials from his era on Motely being better than Jim Brown, including his coach who said Motley was a better all around RB than Jim Brown:
"Marion Motley. His name is nowhere to be found among pro football’s all-time leaders in rushing yards.
His career and best single season rushing totals seem paltry compared to running greats of more recent
years. His career as a pro was all too brief, his time in the NFL briefer still, shortened by prejudice and
bad knees. Most contemporary football fans would be hard pressed to say who he was, let alone to
include him alongside Jim Brown, Eric Dickerson, Barry Sanders and Walter Payton. He is not even
among the official top 10 all-time rushers on his own team.
But yet. But yet, there is the testimony of those who played with or against Motley as well as those who
saw him play. Paul Brown, who coached them both, said that Motley was a better all-around running back
than Jim Brown. Esteemed football writer Paul Zimmerman, who saw him from the beginning of his pro
career with the Browns in the All-America Football Conference, has written that Motley was not just the
greatest back, but the greatest football player, of all time. And in 1994, Motley was one of seven backs
selected by the Pro Football Hall of Fame to its 75th anniversary all-time team."
PS Motley did not start his career until age 26 and he broke the color barrier(tied in same year with a couple other players).
In addition to being an elite RB with an incredible 5.7 yards per carry, he was also an elite linebacker. Paul Brown claimed Motley could have made the HOF as a linebacker and that Motley was a better all around RB than Jim Brown.
Motley, the two way elite player, was the key factor in at least four of the Cleveland Brown's championships, including the best player for his team in THREE title games.
So to wrap this all up, Graham's titles which were so heavily used to rank him ahead of Brady, he must cede at least half of those to the elite two way player Marion Motley as being the key to those titles. So Brady was better. End of debate.
Second, in terms of the best RB of all time, that argument for Jim Brown can be put to rest as he is not. Per many people's criteria, Brown averaged only 3.7 yds per carry in the post season with one title...while Motley averaged 7.1 yds per carry in the post season leading to five titles...and that in addition to Motley's late start and him hurting his running stats by being a two way player at linebacker, puts Motley is easily a better football player than Jim Brown.
Coach Paul Brown is the final nail in the coffin as he coached them both and said that Motley was the better all around running back ahead of Jim Brown.
Brown wasn't even better than the best RB in the pre super bowl era as that goes to Motley. End of the Jim Brown debate claiming he was the best ever. He wasn't .
I'm gonna clap the dust off my hands and put this to bed. Good night.
I think Terry can say Otto was the best and not have everyone treat him like an old guy who isnt right in the head. Its certainly not a fact that Tom Brady was a better QB than Otto. No data makes it a fact that either was better than the other. It may not be the popular opininion but he's entitled to it.
I have noticed people can say you cant compare eras but still want to say a player they watched in the last few years is the greatest of all-time. You cant compare so Otto disqualified but Brady is the best of all-time. Its all opinion, there is now way to know. If you put Tom Brady on the Pittsburgh Steelers in 1950 is he going to beat Otto Graham. ??? But its all fun to discuss.
With QBs in the NFL a lot of it is your talent but there are so many other factors. A huge part of it is opportunity. Its coach. Roster. Defense. A system that works for that player. A potential QB whisperer. Patience. Brady could easily have never played a down in the NFL. He couldn't win the QB starting job in college. The great Drew Henson. He was drafted in the 6th round. Would have been easy for him to not have been drafted at all. Or drafted by a terrible team where he struggled to make an impression that had him making the team 2 years later. Drew Bledsoe got hit by a truck. He was an outstanding QB. He could not have not taken that shot, stayed the starting QB for years, won some titles himself and the Patriots could have chosen to go with a veteran backup. Then game over GOAT. Maybe get some reps with the London Monarchs.
So many QBs that get put high on the all-time list, Super Bowl victories play a part of it. But so easy to see it go another way. If Brett Favre stays with Glanville in Atlanta maybe it doesn't go far. If Roethlisberger doesn't play for 2 great coaches does he win any and is he on anybody's list. If Jim Kelly plays for the Cowboys does he have 5 Super Bowl wins instead of 4 losses. If Dan Marino had a Pro Bowl RB would he have a hand full of ring? If Carson Palmer player for Bill on the Pats is he the goat? I think with QBs its tough to separate all that helped them or hurt them and give them a final score.
What could Otto have done under different circumstances? Hard to say. But under his circumstances all he did was win. Hard to find fault with that.
Comments
I'm always amazed when Jim Brown's size is used against him in a discussion. I guess we just disagree on things, but thanks for the explanation.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
it wasn't a thing back then. i wasn't in the gym trying to add 10 pounds of muscle; I was trying to get my hands on graphite shafts so i could knife through the air like butter
Marion Motley was just as big as Brown and dominated in his day as well.
Not many people ever talk about him and he is a HOF'er
He played in far better situations than Brown, he had a better YPC at 5.7
The game was a lot different in the early 50's as opposed to when Brown played
I'll settle this GOAT RB debate right now. Its not Brown and its not Sanders.
It's Sweetness.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ohio State Buckeyes - National Champions
That is a good example. The really only difference is their usage patterns for the number of carries. I was going to say earlier that one of the reasons why those early Brown's teams were so good is because of Motley too, and they did integrate and had about 1/3 of the leagues black players.
So if we are going to assign a players worth based on winning, then Motley had many more titles than Brown...gotta be fair if that is a key criteria. Five to one. Perhaps Brown's yds weren't quite as meaningful's as Motley's since they didn't win as much
BTW the Redskins didn't even integrate until 1962! I don't know if people realize the integration aspect in the NFL that it may have been slower than MLB.
BTW, I see a lot of posters in this thread who hold post season 'failures' against other players.
For Jim Brown's career he averaged a paltry 3.7 yds per carry in the post season and only 60 yds a game ONE TD. Doesn't sound like the best RB to me(based on your guy's past criteria)
Motley averaged 7.1 yds per carry in the post season. So maybe we do have the reason why Motley has five titles and Brown only one
.
I might even say that Motley single handidly won three titles for his teams in the championship game:
13 carries for 98 yds
13 carries for 109 yds
14 carries for 133 yds
16 carries for 113 yds
Motley was also a two way player who excelled on defense as well!
Add Motley's two way status then you factor it hurts his running game stats. I think a good case can be made that Motley was a better football player than Brown.
@craig44 @coolstanley @Maywood i know that you guys use that measurement to kill other players' careeers. Can't have it both ways.
You can also count those Motley championship performances as being more of a factor for those titles than Graham when you circle back to that debate since Motley was the key player in three of those title games. Graham in the other one.
Testimonials from his era on Motely being better than Jim Brown, including his coach who said Motley was a better all around RB than Jim Brown:
"Marion Motley. His name is nowhere to be found among pro football’s all-time leaders in rushing yards.
His career and best single season rushing totals seem paltry compared to running greats of more recent
years. His career as a pro was all too brief, his time in the NFL briefer still, shortened by prejudice and
bad knees. Most contemporary football fans would be hard pressed to say who he was, let alone to
include him alongside Jim Brown, Eric Dickerson, Barry Sanders and Walter Payton. He is not even
among the official top 10 all-time rushers on his own team.
But yet. But yet, there is the testimony of those who played with or against Motley as well as those who
saw him play. Paul Brown, who coached them both, said that Motley was a better all-around running back
than Jim Brown. Esteemed football writer Paul Zimmerman, who saw him from the beginning of his pro
career with the Browns in the All-America Football Conference, has written that Motley was not just the
greatest back, but the greatest football player, of all time. And in 1994, Motley was one of seven backs
selected by the Pro Football Hall of Fame to its 75th anniversary all-time team."
To put this thread to rest.
PS Motley did not start his career until age 26 and he broke the color barrier(tied in same year with a couple other players).
In addition to being an elite RB with an incredible 5.7 yards per carry, he was also an elite linebacker. Paul Brown claimed Motley could have made the HOF as a linebacker and that Motley was a better all around RB than Jim Brown.
Motley, the two way elite player, was the key factor in at least four of the Cleveland Brown's championships, including the best player for his team in THREE title games.
So to wrap this all up, Graham's titles which were so heavily used to rank him ahead of Brady, he must cede at least half of those to the elite two way player Marion Motley as being the key to those titles. So Brady was better. End of debate.
Second, in terms of the best RB of all time, that argument for Jim Brown can be put to rest as he is not. Per many people's criteria, Brown averaged only 3.7 yds per carry in the post season with one title...while Motley averaged 7.1 yds per carry in the post season leading to five titles...and that in addition to Motley's late start and him hurting his running stats by being a two way player at linebacker, puts Motley is easily a better football player than Jim Brown.
Coach Paul Brown is the final nail in the coffin as he coached them both and said that Motley was the better all around running back ahead of Jim Brown.
Brown wasn't even better than the best RB in the pre super bowl era as that goes to Motley. End of the Jim Brown debate claiming he was the best ever. He wasn't .
I'm gonna clap the dust off my hands and put this to bed. Good night.
And that... my boy... is how you get a cat out of a hammock!
Outstanding dissertation @1948_Swell_Robinson
🍻
I think Terry can say Otto was the best and not have everyone treat him like an old guy who isnt right in the head. Its certainly not a fact that Tom Brady was a better QB than Otto. No data makes it a fact that either was better than the other. It may not be the popular opininion but he's entitled to it.
I have noticed people can say you cant compare eras but still want to say a player they watched in the last few years is the greatest of all-time. You cant compare so Otto disqualified but Brady is the best of all-time. Its all opinion, there is now way to know. If you put Tom Brady on the Pittsburgh Steelers in 1950 is he going to beat Otto Graham. ??? But its all fun to discuss.
With QBs in the NFL a lot of it is your talent but there are so many other factors. A huge part of it is opportunity. Its coach. Roster. Defense. A system that works for that player. A potential QB whisperer. Patience. Brady could easily have never played a down in the NFL. He couldn't win the QB starting job in college. The great Drew Henson. He was drafted in the 6th round. Would have been easy for him to not have been drafted at all. Or drafted by a terrible team where he struggled to make an impression that had him making the team 2 years later. Drew Bledsoe got hit by a truck. He was an outstanding QB. He could not have not taken that shot, stayed the starting QB for years, won some titles himself and the Patriots could have chosen to go with a veteran backup. Then game over GOAT. Maybe get some reps with the London Monarchs.
So many QBs that get put high on the all-time list, Super Bowl victories play a part of it. But so easy to see it go another way. If Brett Favre stays with Glanville in Atlanta maybe it doesn't go far. If Roethlisberger doesn't play for 2 great coaches does he win any and is he on anybody's list. If Jim Kelly plays for the Cowboys does he have 5 Super Bowl wins instead of 4 losses. If Dan Marino had a Pro Bowl RB would he have a hand full of ring? If Carson Palmer player for Bill on the Pats is he the goat? I think with QBs its tough to separate all that helped them or hurt them and give them a final score.
What could Otto have done under different circumstances? Hard to say. But under his circumstances all he did was win. Hard to find fault with that.
Kinda misleading to say Bart has 7 since it double counts his two Super Bowls by crediting him for both the NFL and Super Bowl.
My bad, yes you are correct. He won 5 titles, not 7.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ohio State Buckeyes - National Champions