Best Running Back

jad22

I am sure it has been done but how do you vote.? Brown, Sanders, Payton for me....
What about you?

Axtell

Jim Brown truly was a force...his only negative being his career was so short (relatively speaking).

Barry Sanders, however, did more with less than any other running back I've ever seen. He was on some abysmal teams, where he was the only weapon, and he still would have been the all time rushing leader if he hadn't retired early.

perkdog

I have done this post before and I stand by my pick - Barry Sanders

Potentally the best was Bo Jackson.

jaxxr

Jim Brown, no question, in my view. the best EVER !!!


Eric Dickerson. Barry Sanders. or Red Grange, might be the other running back, but believe me Jim Brown was the best.

If Earl Cambell lasted a few more years, he may have been Jim's partner in the best backfield of all-time.

stevek

If understanding the game of football, this conversation starts and ends quickly with Jim Brown. The debate should be who was second best? Very, VERY tough call for second but if I had to choose I say Earl Campbell.

1420sports

Too many to choose from.

As far as the ones I have seen play, Emmitt was an Eagle killer. I have seen many great backs play including Sanders (never did anything against the Eagles) but Emmitt Smith would kill em.

If there was one "universal line", as well as the same QB and WR's my guess would be Sanders.

DirtyHarry

I have seen interviews with defensive players from different eras. From a the standpoint of skills and force - Jim Brown, Earl Campell and Larry Czonka. These guys hurt you when you tackled them. From the standpoint of fluidity, reading routes and speed - Walter Payton, Emmit Smith and Barry Sanders. So, that does not answer the question.

kuhlmann

surprized i didnt see gale sayers name..

Emmitt Smith has to be considered top 3 IMO.. lets also see where ladainian tomlinson ends at..

dallasactuary

Brown, Campbell, Sanders

stown

From the players I actually saw play and in no particular / biased order would be Campbell and Sanders.

Speaking of Campbell, I picked up this bad boy at the latest Tri-Star show:




Let's see... $50 for an Earl auto (regardless of item) or $125 for Vince Young's on a helmet

tennesseebanker

Jim brown to me is the greatest back ever, To only play 9 seasons and to put up the type of numbers he did is amazing. He held the all-time rushing record for almost thirty years after 9 seasons remarkable.

megatron

Here is a previous post I made on the issue. I would only amend it to add Campbell to the mix somewhere

As a fan, I have to say that thus far, LT has been a pleasure to watch and better than Alexander since Alexander has a better line blocking for him. But then again, it is not Alexander's fault......just as it wasn't Emmitt Smith's fault that he played for a great offensive line most of his career.

Also, any list that has greats on it will be filled with should haves, would haves, and could haves. If Bo Jackson this, and Gale Sayers that, Terrell Davis this.....we can all say that, but it is what it is.

One note on Barry Sanders. As a fan, there is no one I would rather watch as he was the most exciting player I've ever seen. As a coach, there are about 10 guys I would rather have than him. We need to remember that for every 30+ yard run, he also had a loss in his rushing totals. I once heard that at one point, no one had more negative yards running than he did. As a coach, that would drive me up the wall. But then again, I'm no coach and am a fan, so he's on my list.

And Jim Brown is the best runner ever. He was a living dream. Every one wishes they were a running back that was way bigger than an average lineman back then. That is what made him great. Size, strength, and speed.

Here are my top 5 from the modern era

1. Jim Brown
2. Barry Sanders
3. Walter Payton - not the best runner, but one of the smartest and greatest blockers. Could QB as well and was a great leader.
4. Emmitt Smith - great runner despite a lot of help
5. Eric Dickerson - As a Payton fan, I always hated this guy when I was younger because I knew he was a better runner, but not better player.

perkdog

Let me say this, If you put Barry Sanders in play back when Jim Brown played he would have rushed for 20,000 +. You put Jim Brown in Barry Sanders shoes and he is a nobody, its that simple.

ctsoxfan

Jim Brown, the best of all time. The best I have personally seen play, though - are Payton and Sanders.

stevek

<< <i>Let me say this, If you put Barry Sanders in play back when Jim Brown played he would have rushed for 20,000 +. You put Jim Brown in Barry Sanders shoes and he is a nobody, its that simple. >>



This wins the "pathetic post of the month" award.

Many people including myself, not only rate Jim Brown as the greatest running back of all time, but if having to pick someone as the "greatest football player" of all time then I would also pick Jim Brown. Jim Brown is also right up there on many lists as one of the greatest athletes of all time. Learn a little history about a player before ever making such pathetic analogies again.

perkdog

Listen STEVEK last I checked you were not the guide that everyone on the boards here look to for every answer ok so back up a bit, your response is pathetic, what HISTORY of this player are you going to teach me anyways? Jim Brown was a great back no doubt but as far as althetisism Barry Sanders had more talent, Brown played back in the 50's when athletes were part time athletes, The players that Sanders lined up against were in far better shape and were bigger, faster and stronger. Football is a much more fast paced game now than it was back in Browns day. That is my point, so dissagree if you want, but dont act like you are a know it all and get computer tuff.

perkdog

I have seen films of Jim Brown and absolutly respect his game and him knocking down would be tacklers are great to watch and is immpressive, I dont believe Barry Sanders could do that back in Jim Browns day- not even close, but put Jim Brown in todays game and he will not do that. The tackling in the NFL is awful with everyone trying to hit instead of tackle for the most part but I just dont see him plowing people over and outrunning db's and safeties in Barry's playing field. Now lets hear some of your wisdom stevek.

stevek

<<< Listen STEVEK last I checked you were not the guide that everyone on the boards here look to for every answer ok so back up a bit, your response is pathetic, what HISTORY of this player are you going to teach me anyways? Jim Brown was a great back no doubt but as far as althetisism Barry Sanders had more talent, Brown played back in the 50's when athletes were part time athletes, The players that Sanders lined up against were in far better shape and were bigger, faster and stronger. Football is a much more fast paced game now than it was back in Browns day. That is my point, so dissagree if you want, but dont act like you are a know it all and get computer tuff.

I have seen films of Jim Brown and absolutly respect his game and him knocking down would be tacklers are great to watch and is immpressive, I dont believe Barry Sanders could do that back in Jim Browns day- not even close, but put Jim Brown in todays game and he will not do that. The tackling in the NFL is awful with everyone trying to hit instead of tackle for the most part but I just dont see him plowing people over and outrunning db's and safeties in Barry's playing field. Now lets hear some of your wisdom stevek. >>>

You're just burying yourself further. Now your post has just won the "pathetic post of the year" award...and that's not easy to do with Axtell and joestalin posting here - LOL

Look - you often make good points but you are so way off base here. You should know better than to compare players of today with players from forty years ago - that's not a valid comparison. Players have to and can only be compared to how they performed when they did play. If you keep harping on this rediculous point, I'm going to award you the "pathetic post of all-time" award.

Besides, a little guy like Barry Sanders in the NFL of the 1960's and how "dirty" they played, might have quit much sooner because he couldn't take it. So Barry Sanders hypothetically may have done worse in the NFL of the 1960's. You can plainly see how pathetic it is to discuss hypotheticals of plugging in players from different eras - which is exactly what you did.

Steve

perkdog

I dont see how you can say that it is pathetic to plugg players from one era to another era when talk of the "BEST" is brought up, what is the point of discussing it then? It is just speculation anyways so whats your problem?

Please humor me and argue my pathetic points.

stevek

<< <i>I dont see how you can say that it is pathetic to plugg players from one era to another era when talk of the "BEST" is brought up, what is the point of discussing it then? It is just speculation anyways so whats your problem?

Please humor me and argue my pathetic points. >>




I'll add one more point so that hopefully you will get it...a guy like Jim Thorpe is widely considered to be one of the best athletes of all time. But if taking his performance statistics and comparing them to the last Olympics, he probably wouldn't even make a college team, let alone qualify for the Olympics. Beginning to understand this very simple concept a little better now?...probably not.

And congratulations on the award...Well deserved!

Axtell

You say that Sanders wouldn't have put up with the dirty play of the era Brown played in, and that Thorpe wouldn't have made a college team today.

So why, then, is it so hard to concede his point - that Brown would have been an average players in today's game? Is it impossible to suggest that might be the case? As you mention, it's tough if not impossible to compare players of different eras. But Brown, in today's game with linemen running 4.4 40s, would he still have been the same dominating force?

It is of course impossible to say...but because you disagree with him, he gets your pathetic post of the year award?

Way to have an open mind there sparky.

stevek

<< <i>You say that Sanders wouldn't have put up with the dirty play of the era Brown played in, and that Thorpe wouldn't have made a college team today.

So why, then, is it so hard to concede his point - that Brown would have been an average players in today's game? Is it impossible to suggest that might be the case? As you mention, it's tough if not impossible to compare players of different eras. But Brown, in today's game with linemen running 4.4 40s, would he still have been the same dominating force?

It is of course impossible to say...but because you disagree with him, he gets your pathetic post of the year award?

Way to have an open mind there sparky. >>




<<<<< As you mention, it's tough if not impossible to compare players of different eras. >>>>>

That's the way to totally contradict yourself. You basically fully agree with me, then you bring up the hypothetical about Jim Brown? You shouldn't smoke crack and post here at the same time.

kuhlmann

You shouldn't smoke crack and post here at the same time.

LOL classic even from an eagles fan!

stevek

<< <i>You shouldn't smoke crack and post here at the same time.

LOL classic even from an eagles fan! >>




At least the Cowboys fans here usually post good arguments. The thing I can't stand is a dope who can't even debate correctly and contradicts himself in his own post!!!

But I won't mention Axtell's name

Axtell

stevek-

Do you know the word hypothetical? I mean you are a Phillies fan, so be default, your vocabulary is limited to 4 letter words not suitable for a family environment like this, but look it up.

You were the one trying to mix eras, then saying 'oh no you can't do that!' You dope, you said:



<< <i>Besides, a little guy like Barry Sanders in the NFL of the 1960's and how "dirty" they played, might have quit much sooner because he couldn't take it. So Barry Sanders hypothetically may have done worse in the NFL of the 1960's >>



While trying to insult perk's assertion that Sanders would dominate in any era. Then said 'that's how silly you look trying to compare players of different eras'. YOU DID IT TOO YOU IDIOT.

I think you completely misunderstood the gist of my post (which is understandable...you philly fans are known for consuming tons of alcohol, why else was there a jail at the old eagles stadium?) I took YOUR TWO EXAMPLES of Sanders in the 60s and Thorpe today, and went and put Brown in today's NFL, and showed it was, as you quoted, 'difficult if not impossible' to mix the eras.

I am sorry your simple mind is unable to comprehend simple debate. I guess the combination of being dropped on your head repeatedly as an infant with the ritualistic alcohol and drug use has done little to further your learning capabilities.

I'd suggest you seek a counselor to learn how to deal with your problems, but then you'd probably post your witty 'pathetic post of the year!' award.

Go away, you twit.

Boopotts

<< <i> Besides, a little guy like Barry Sanders in the NFL of the 1960's and how "dirty" they played, might have quit much sooner because he couldn't take it. So Barry Sanders hypothetically may have done worse in the NFL of the 1960's. You can plainly see how pathetic it is to discuss hypotheticals of plugging in players from different eras - which is exactly what you did.

Steve >>




That's like saying 'If you put Albert Pujols in MLB 60 years ago he might have quit early because he was scared to go to the plate without a helmet'. I don't see how anyone can get around the fact that today's NFL players are bigger, faster and stronger than NFL players from past eras. You look at tape from an NFL game in the 60's and the game moves at roughly the same speed as a D II game today.

I wouldn't argue for Barry Sanders here, because he wasn't much of a blocker (and neither was Brown). And if the discussion is 'who's the best running back' then you have to take all facets of the game into account. But it's worth noting, as Axtell did previously, that Sanders put up his numbers on some very bad teams, and did so in a single back set for almost his entire career. It was him vs. the opposing front seven of the defense; there was no Moose Johnston clearing a path. He was, IMO, simply the most gifted pure runner the game has ever seen, and while that may not translate into being the best running back it's still worth noting.

stevek

Axtell - No need to keep posting your pathetic viewpoint because you've already won the award. The prize has been sent to you. The prize is a Pro Graded 7 Ryan Leaf rookie card, and also a coupon for a free hamburger at Jack-In-The-Box. You'll have to pay extra if you want cheese on it. Note that the coupon is only good on Tuesdays. Enjoy the card and the burger...you deserve it...and again -congratulations!

Skinpinch

<< <i>I have seen films of Jim Brown and absolutly respect his game and him knocking down would be tacklers are great to watch and is immpressive, I dont believe Barry Sanders could do that back in Jim Browns day- not even close, but put Jim Brown in todays game and he will not do that. The tackling in the NFL is awful with everyone trying to hit instead of tackle for the most part but I just dont see him plowing people over and outrunning db's and safeties in Barry's playing field. Now lets hear some of your wisdom stevek. >>



Not if Jim Brown was on the 90's Cowboys, then he could just waltz through the gaping holes that the O-Line created, as did Emmitt Smith

Don't forget that Jim Brown would also be able to juice up his body, and build it up to knock down the defenders who do the same(juicing and training) in todays game. Yes, football players still juice, despite their supposed strict testing. Jim Brown was a mean tough man and RB. Jim Brown on modern juice and weight training is Ray Lewis, only more gifted and a RB.

Don't forget that every football rule change from after Brown's time slowly made it easier for offense to be created.

If running the ball were soo hard in todays game, then somebody forget to tell the defenders as running backs are just PILING up yards! They sure don't seem to be having a hard time against the supposed faster, stronger, and 'better' defenders. I see defenders getting knocked back all the time by 'weaker' guys than Brown. I see guys missing tackles even more. Brown wasn't just a 'knocking down guy' either.

Being Emmitt Smith's elder by how many years, Jim Brown could probably kick his butt today if they got into a fight. Yet Emmitt had no problem doing what he did against the stronger and supposedly better 'defense'.... disregarding the fact that Emmitt had one of the best 0-lines in history. I don't think Emmitt was faster, he wasn't more shifty, and he certainly wasn't tougher, but he did it(again disregard the O-Line factor). Emmit did have the 'it' factor to help him achieve greatness, as did Brown.

Great athletes are born. The top of any era can play with the top in any other era. 50 years in evolution doesn't change the natural atheltic ability born into a human. What can change the ability are advancements in technique, training, nutrition, and modern juice. Those are what make up the miniscule differences in the Olympic times from 50 odd years ago. Just think Jim Thorpe on Ben Johnson's routine.

There are other factors that mask, or artificially change the ACHIEVEMENT of an athlete, such as competition as in number of teams, the watering down factor, sociological impacts on sports participation etc... It gets complicated!

Skinpinch

Forgot to add...Jim Thorpe was the grandson of famous indian Warrior Black Hawk. He also attended the infamous Carlisle school. An interesting connection of bridging different American era's!

Axtell

<< <i>Axtell - No need to keep posting your pathetic viewpoint because you've already won the award. The prize has been sent to you. The prize is a Pro Graded 7 Ryan Leaf rookie card, and also a coupon for a free hamburger at Jack-In-The-Box. You'll have to pay extra if you want cheese on it. Note that the coupon is only good on Tuesdays. Enjoy the card and the burger...you deserve it...and again -congratulations! >>

Boopotts

<< <i>

<< <i>I have seen films of Jim Brown and absolutly respect his game and him knocking down would be tacklers are great to watch and is immpressive, I dont believe Barry Sanders could do that back in Jim Browns day- not even close, but put Jim Brown in todays game and he will not do that. The tackling in the NFL is awful with everyone trying to hit instead of tackle for the most part but I just dont see him plowing people over and outrunning db's and safeties in Barry's playing field. Now lets hear some of your wisdom stevek. >>



Not if Jim Brown was on the 90's Cowboys, then he could just waltz through the gaping holes that the O-Line created, as did Emmitt Smith

Don't forget that Jim Brown would also be able to juice up his body, and build it up to knock down the defenders who do the same(juicing and training) in todays game. Yes, football players still juice, despite their supposed strict testing. Jim Brown was a mean tough man and RB. Jim Brown on modern juice and weight training is Ray Lewis, only more gifted and a RB.

Don't forget that every football rule change from after Brown's time slowly made it easier for offense to be created.

If running the ball were soo hard in todays game, then somebody forget to tell the defenders as running backs are just PILING up yards! They sure don't seem to be having a hard time against the supposed faster, stronger, and 'better' defenders. I see defenders getting knocked back all the time by 'weaker' guys than Brown. I see guys missing tackles even more. Brown wasn't just a 'knocking down guy' either.

Being Emmitt Smith's elder by how many years, Jim Brown could probably kick his butt today if they got into a fight. Yet Emmitt had no problem doing what he did against the stronger and supposedly better 'defense'.... disregarding the fact that Emmitt had one of the best 0-lines in history. I don't think Emmitt was faster, he wasn't more shifty, and he certainly wasn't tougher, but he did it(again disregard the O-Line factor). Emmit did have the 'it' factor to help him achieve greatness, as did Brown.

Great athletes are born. The top of any era can play with the top in any other era. 50 years in evolution doesn't change the natural atheltic ability born into a human. What can change the ability are advancements in technique, training, nutrition, and modern juice. Those are what make up the miniscule differences in the Olympic times from 50 odd years ago. Just think Jim Thorpe on Ben Johnson's routine.

There are other factors that mask, or artificially change the ACHIEVEMENT of an athlete, such as competition as in number of teams, the watering down factor, sociological impacts on sports participation etc... It gets complicated! >>




This is a great point and one that I had previously overlooked. When we have these discussion we're usually assuming that we would just transport the Jim Brown of 1961 into today's game, but that really isn't fair. If he had access to the same nutrional supplements (har har), training and so forth that today's athletes enjoy it seems logical to assume he would be an elite back in today's game.

joestalin

1. Brown
2. Sanders
3. Emmitt
4. Caddy

JS

aro13

Boopotts - It is pretty simple. The best players are still the best players as the game evolves. John Elway was a great quarterback in 1984 and he was great in 1996. The game changed between 1984 and 1996 but the best players evolve. You can use these comparables for all sports. In hockey Wayne Gretzky was great in 1979 and in 1999. That is a 20 year gap. In bball Lew Alcindor was a force in 1970 and as Kareem in the middle of the 80's. As the sport gets better technology and training methods the best players remain ahead of their peers and they change along with the game. The best players do not fade away because athletically they can not keep pace.

I do not think Emmitt Smith gets enough credit. The perception is that Emmitt was only great because of his offensive line. Emmitt was the perfect back for that line. He made his cuts BEFORE he hit the hole. It takes great confidence in your abilities and your line to do that. He was a great back to block for and does not get enough credit.

Boopotts

<< <i>Boopotts - It is pretty simple. The best players are still the best players as the game evolves. John Elway was a great quarterback in 1984 and he was great in 1996. The game changed between 1984 and 1996 but the best players evolve. You can use these comparables for all sports. In hockey Wayne Gretzky was great in 1979 and in 1999. That is a 20 year gap. In bball Lew Alcindor was a force in 1970 and as Kareem in the middle of the 80's. As the sport gets better technology and training methods the best players remain ahead of their peers and they change along with the game. The best players do not fade away because athletically they can not keep pace.

I do not think Emmitt Smith gets enough credit. The perception is that Emmitt was only great because of his offensive line. Emmitt was the perfect back for that line. He made his cuts BEFORE he hit the hole. It takes great confidence in your abilities and your line to do that. He was a great back to block for and does not get enough credit. >>




All good points. As I said in my earlier thread this is something I had previously overlooked, but it makes a lot of sense once I thought about it.

ToppsCo1lector

Well, I'm partial to Edgerrin James. Now yes he still has quite a few years left in his tank but considering what he's done already he'll be one of the greats imo when he retires. Not only a great rb, one of the best back blockers and has good hands out of the backfield. I'm not saying he's the best ever, but eventually I think he'll rank up there with the greats.

fiveniner

<< <i>surprized i didnt see gale sayers name..

Emmitt Smith has to be considered top 3 IMO.. lets also see where ladainian tomlinson ends at.. >>



If Gale would have stayed healthy there is no telling what he may have done.Should rank behind Brown and Sanders,Payton without a doubt.