Man, you guys are amazing with the insight into some of your arguments for certain players. I kind of agree with Jim Brown that comparing runners from different eras is too difficult. The truth is we simply don't know what numbers Barry Sanders may have put up running in Jim Brown's day and vice versa. Regardless, Marshall Faulk certainly deserves mention into a catagory of "How a player is used". Faulk wasn't great in Indianapolis. But in St. Louis he was. Say what you will about Mike Martz but he knew how to maximize Marshall's abilities 100%. And, Look what Sanders did when Bobby Ross FINALLY gave him a fullback to run behind instead of one back offenses. He ran for 2 thousand yards, 14 straight 100 yard games. AND, managed to equal what O.J. Simpson did 1973 which is run for 2000 in 14 games. Sanders had 53 yards in the first two then 2000 exactly in his last 14. And it was his 9th year in the league, not too shabby. Something needs to be said for how a player is used, whether correctly or not. Some coaches haven't a clue. Truthfully I can't say anything about Jim Brown, never saw him play. But for my own era, Faulk was simply complete. He could run, catch and block and did them all well. Without Faulk the Greatest Show on Turf was this years Detroit Lions. Just my two cents. Feel free to pick it apart like vultures.
<< <i>Man, you guys are amazing with the insight into some of your arguments for certain players. I kind of agree with Jim Brown that comparing runners from different eras is too difficult. The truth is we simply don't know what numbers Barry Sanders may have put up running in Jim Brown's day and vice versa. Regardless, Marshall Faulk certainly deserves mention into a catagory of "How a player is used". Faulk wasn't great in Indianapolis. But in St. Louis he was. Say what you will about Mike Martz but he knew how to maximize Marshall's abilities 100%. And, Look what Sanders did when Bobby Ross FINALLY gave him a fullback to run behind instead of one back offenses. He ran for 2 thousand yards, 14 straight 100 yard games. AND, managed to equal what O.J. Simpson did 1973 which is run for 2000 in 14 games. Sanders had 53 yards in the first two then 2000 exactly in his last 14. And it was his 9th year in the league, not too shabby. Something needs to be said for how a player is used, whether correctly or not. Some coaches haven't a clue. Truthfully I can't say anything about Jim Brown, never saw him play. But for my own era, Faulk was simply complete. He could run, catch and block and did them all well. Without Faulk the Greatest Show on Turf was this years Detroit Lions. Just my two cents. Feel free to pick it apart like vultures. >>
<< <i>Copy and paste is a wonderful thing..I didn't write that, Bob Carroll, a highly respected football historian did.
Case closed in my opinion. He pretty much nailed the debate shut, AND that was written DURING Barry's career.
Jason >>
He nailed the debate down for people that agree with him, there are others that could spin it in Sanders favor as well.
Great read, thanks for posting it! >>
I was actually looking for one of those..A piece written by a respected or known writer than spun Barry Sanders vs. Jim Brown as the greatest ever..I couldn't find one. If you've seen one or have an article I'd love to read it and see if it affects my opinion at all. I honestly don't know what info anyone would use to validate the argument other than what has already been stated here.
- Barry played against bigger, faster guys - Barry had a terrible O-line
What else puts Barry over Brown? because neither of these arguments hold any water IMO. Look at the article from Bob Carroll. I mean the breaks it down perfectly on how Barry actually HURT his team as much as he helped it. That isn't an opinion, that is fact. You can check the playoff records, stats. You can check Barry's stats playing outdoors. You can check the record book on who has the most negative yards rushing in history as well.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
The Sporting News Top 100 Greatest Players 1. Jim Brown 2. Jerry Rice 3. Joe Montana 4. Lawrence Taylor 5. Johnny Unitas 6. Don Hutson 7. Otto Graham 8. Walter Payton 9. Dick Butkus 10. Bob Lilly 11. Sammy Baugh 12. Barry Sanders 13. Deacon Jones 14. Joe Greene 15. Gino Marchetti 16. John Elway 17. Anthony Munoz 18. Ray Nitschke 19. Night Train Lane 20. John Hannah
Can ALL of these voters in ALL of these lists be THAT wrong? Jason >>
Marino snubbed again... >>
greg,
dont feel bad so was Favre.
Packers Fan for Life Collecting: Brett Favre Master Set Favre Ticket Stubs Favre TD Reciever Autos Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set Football HOF Rc's
this whole Barry Sanders thing is so out of hand. The Lions would not have made it to the playoffs had it not been for Barry, check the records before and after he was there, what's the argument gonna be? Rodney Peete or Scott Mitchell put the Lions into the playoffs? HAHAHA
<< <i>this whole Barry Sanders thing is so out of hand. The Lions would not have made it to the playoffs had it not been for Barry, check the records before and after he was there, what's the argument gonna be? Rodney Peete or Scott Mitchell put the Lions into the playoffs? HAHAHA >>
The Ravens won with Dilfer, the Redskins with Doug Williams and Mark Rypien..Mitchell and/or Peete were good enough. But they needed Barry to NOT put them in 3rd and 8's ten times per game...
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>you really have a hardon for hating on Barry >>
Only when people call him the greatest ever..Say he's top 5 and I wouldnt have an issue...Its a slap in the face to guys like Jim Brown and Walter Payton..
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>this whole Barry Sanders thing is so out of hand. The Lions would not have made it to the playoffs had it not been for Barry, check the records before and after he was there, what's the argument gonna be? Rodney Peete or Scott Mitchell put the Lions into the playoffs? HAHAHA >>
The Ravens won with Dilfer, the Redskins with Doug Williams and Mark Rypien..Mitchell and/or Peete were good enough. But they needed Barry to NOT put them in 3rd and 8's ten times per game...
Jason >>
I call BS on this. Gimme a break Jason, these teams you mentioned had alot of other things going for them than any Lions team Barry ever played for, to say Barry got them in 3rd and 8 ten times a game is the reason the never won is ridiculas. (with all due respect)
<< <i>you really have a hardon for hating on Barry >>
Only when people call him the greatest ever..Say he's top 5 and I wouldnt have an issue...Its a slap in the face to guys like Jim Brown and Walter Payton..
I call BS on this. Gimme a break Jason, these teams you mentioned had alot of other things going for them than any Lions team Barry ever played for, to say Barry got them in 3rd and 8 ten times a game is the reason the never won is ridiculas. (with all due respect) >>
Not THE reason, but a contributing factor. Lets not get into the all or nothing debate, because I agree its stupid. It wasnt ALL Barry good or bad. Barry helped them win, no doubt, but my point was that he hurt his teams chances as well. Thats all I'm saying..How did Jim Brown or Walter Payton ever hurt his teams chances. Payton played for a TON of bad teams for a lot of years.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>you really have a hardon for hating on Barry >>
Only when people call him the greatest ever..Say he's top 5 and I wouldnt have an issue...Its a slap in the face to guys like Jim Brown and Walter Payton..
Jason >>
only in your opinion >>
Correct..Isn't that what we are all doing here? Isnt that the point of the initial question? Post opinions?
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I call BS on this. Gimme a break Jason, these teams you mentioned had alot of other things going for them than any Lions team Barry ever played for, to say Barry got them in 3rd and 8 ten times a game is the reason the never won is ridiculas. (with all due respect) >>
Not THE reason, but a contributing factor. Lets not get into the all or nothing debate, because I agree its stupid. It wasnt ALL Barry good or bad. Barry helped them win, no doubt, but my point was that he hurt his teams chances as well. Thats all I'm saying..How did Jim Brown or Walter Payton ever hurt his teams chances. Payton played for a TON of bad teams for a lot of years.
Yeah, so post your #1 pick and move on. A post or two stating how you feel Sanders doesn't deserve it is cool, but geez, everytime his name comes up you just run it into the ground.
<< <i>Yeah, so post your #1 pick and move on. A post or two stating how you feel Sanders doesn't deserve it is cool, but geez, everytime his name comes up you just run it into the ground. >>
My mistake...I'll keep all opinions to myself from now on, I didn't know it was hurting feelings...I thought this was a debate thread.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Yeah, so post your #1 pick and move on. A post or two stating how you feel Sanders doesn't deserve it is cool, but geez, everytime his name comes up you just run it into the ground. >>
My mistake...I'll keep all opinions to myself from now on, I didn't know it was hurting feelings...I thought this was a debate thread.
Jason >>
good one...but really, read my post again. You know it's overkill, and sure your knowledgeable about NFL hall of fame football players, but I equate you to hating Barry Sanders as Joe Stalin is to loving the Bucs. That's all.
<< <i>Yeah, so post your #1 pick and move on. A post or two stating how you feel Sanders doesn't deserve it is cool, but geez, everytime his name comes up you just run it into the ground. >>
My mistake...I'll keep all opinions to myself from now on, I didn't know it was hurting feelings...I thought this was a debate thread.
Jason >>
good one...but really, read my post again. You know it's overkill, and sure your knowledgeable about NFL hall of fame football players, but I equate you to hating Barry Sanders as Joe Stalin is to loving the Bucs. That's all. >>
Well, that's unfortunate. I don't hate Barry at all. I rate him very highly in my all-time RB rankings, easily top 5. Others on this thread have ranked him lower. When presented an argument trying to prove to me that Barry was better than Jim Brown, I'm sorry but I feel compelled to try and keep the true value of the old timers alive. I'm a fan of the game, I've studied and collected NFL history long before I started collecting cards. I've said it many times before, I wish the NFL would promote its history the way baseball does. Guys like Jim Brown and Johnny Unitas should be looked upon like Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle are in baseball...Icons and legends. Instead, most NFL fans don't know the game existed pre-1970s Steelers. Its a shame, and if I have to be the only guy trying to keep the memory of the TRUE all-time greats alive so be it. It shouldn't hurt feelings, but rather maybe push someone who's never read up or never watched some of the older guys to learn more about them.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Not THE reason, but a contributing factor. Lets not get into the all or nothing debate, because I agree its stupid. It wasnt ALL Barry good or bad. Barry helped them win, no doubt, but my point was that he hurt his teams chances as well. Thats all I'm saying..How did Jim Brown or Walter Payton ever hurt his teams chances. Payton played for a TON of bad teams for a lot of years.
Jason >>
Jim Brown hurt his Browns teams by not blocking too well and letting his QB's (Milt Plum or Frank Ryan) get pasted from d-lineman. I wonder how many Cleveland drives he killed by missing blocking assignments? We'll never know. Jim Brown was not even considered a 'good' blocker in his day and he himself and Football historians such as Bob Carroll have freely admitted.
He didn't have particularly have 'great' playoff games either. He got drafted by a great franchise that was loaded with talent and were perennial playoff teams (unlike Sanders). These aren't knocks on Brown, but it's not like he came to a Cleveland team that went 2-10 either. The Browns were one of the greatest teams in the NFL during the 1950's and '60's. Even though they had the 'greatest player' on their team, it took the Cleveland Browns until 1964 or Jim Brown's 8th year in the league, before they won a Championship. Gary Collins caught 3 TD's in that game, Jim Brown didn't score.
Personally I'll take the blown blocking assignments with Jim Brown's 100+ yards per game and 5.2 avg. , just as I'll take Barry Sanders likewise averages throughtout his career with his carries for losses and then the tremendous plays he turned what appeared to be another loss into huge gains.
Madden says Sanders was the greatest. I think he's pretty much seen it all in his nearly 50 years of Football coaching and announcing. I don't agree with his statement but I respect it. He has valid reasons to feel that way about Sanders...... yearly production. Quality production. Outstanding years. Sanders never had a bad year, like Jim Brown. I can't say the same for Marshall Faulk or even the great Walter Payton.
Payton really had no weaknesses but his last year was a real clunker. He hung around one year too many. It happens to nearly all the great ones, except Brown and Sanders.
And yeah, this Barry bashing is turning into beating a dead horse.
Jason, Correct me if I'm wrong but is it more Barry Sanders style of running that annoys you so much? The large losses and hugh gains. Do you feel his running was so inconsistant it's not great and therefore he's not great?
I feel the same way you do on the old-timers. They were fantastic in their time and true Football fans should do themselves a favor and try to learn as much about the pre 1970 players as they can. There's still a lot of players that played in the pre-Super Bowl era that deserve to be in the HOF, but will likely never get there as statistics get inflated because of current rules or great lineman like Al Wistert of the Eagles are forgotten somehow.
Look at the passing game. 4000 yard passing years are becoming routine. Receivers catching a 100 balls a year, again routine.
In 2007 Randy Moss catches 23 TD's in 16 games for a 1.44 TD's per game. In 1942 Don Hutson catches 17 TD's in 11 games for 1.55 TD's per game and Hutsons' accomplishment is never even mentioned by the media.
Not THE reason, but a contributing factor. Lets not get into the all or nothing debate, because I agree its stupid. It wasnt ALL Barry good or bad. Barry helped them win, no doubt, but my point was that he hurt his teams chances as well. Thats all I'm saying..How did Jim Brown or Walter Payton ever hurt his teams chances. Payton played for a TON of bad teams for a lot of years.
Jason >>
Jim Brown hurt his Browns teams by not blocking too well and letting his QB's (Milt Plum or Frank Ryan) get pasted from d-lineman. I wonder how many Cleveland drives he killed by missing blocking assignments? We'll never know. Jim Brown was not even considered a 'good' blocker in his day and he himself and Football historians such as Bob Carroll have freely admitted.
He didn't have particularly have 'great' playoff games either. He got drafted by a great franchise that was loaded with talent and were perennial playoff teams (unlike Sanders). These aren't knocks on Brown, but it's not like he came to a Cleveland team that went 2-10 either. The Browns were one of the greatest teams in the NFL during the 1950's and '60's. Even though they had the 'greatest player' on their team, it took the Cleveland Browns until 1964 or Jim Brown's 8th year in the league, before they won a Championship. Gary Collins caught 3 TD's in that game, Jim Brown didn't score.
Personally I'll take the blown blocking assignments with Jim Brown's 100+ yards per game and 5.2 avg. , just as I'll take Barry Sanders likewise averages throughtout his career with his carries for losses and then the tremendous plays he turned what appeared to be another loss into huge gains.
Madden says Sanders was the greatest. I think he's pretty much seen it all in his nearly 50 years of Football coaching and announcing. I don't agree with his statement but I respect it. He has valid reasons to feel that way about Sanders...... yearly production. Quality production. Outstanding years. Sanders never had a bad year, like Jim Brown. I can't say the same for Marshall Faulk or even the great Walter Payton.
Payton really had no weaknesses but his last year was a real clunker. He hung around one year too many. It happens to nearly all the great ones, except Brown and Sanders.
And yeah, this Barry bashing is turning into beating a dead horse. >>
Great post. I actually agree with 99% of this. I think you might be overstating Browns poor blocking simply because he was rarely USED as a blocker. His Qbs were getting pasted mostly because blockers couldn't use their hands to block (hold) in those days..QBs had less time, and Brown (from most of the film I've seen) was used as a checkdown receiver out of the backfield. If Brown had a weakness IMO, it would be his fumbles. He wasn't Tiki Barber, but he put the ball on the ground fairly often.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Jason, Correct me if I'm wrong but is it more Barry Sanders style of running that annoys you so much? The large losses and hugh gains. Do you feel his running was so inconsistant it's not great and therefore he's not great?
I feel the same way you do on the old-timers. They were fantastic in their time and true Football fans should do themselves a favor and try to learn as much about the pre 1970 players as they can. There's still a lot of players that played in the pre-Super Bowl era that deserve to be in the HOF, but will likely never get there as statistics get inflated because of current rules or great lineman like Al Wistert of the Eagles are forgotten somehow.
Look at the passing game. 4000 yard passing years are becoming routine. Receivers catching a 100 balls a year, again routine.
In 2007 Randy Moss catches 23 TD's in 16 games for a 1.44 TD's per game. In 1942 Don Hutson catches 17 TD's in 11 games for 1.55 TD's per game and Hutsons' accomplishment is never even mentioned by the media.
Rich >>
Thats a fair assessment Rich. I watched more than Sportscenter Barry highlights in my time. Some other guys have as well, and other guys havent. I've had this debate numerous times and I always walk away feeling that the guys arguing FOR Barry base everything they saw on whatever Sportcenter highlight they watched of Barry and boy he had plenty of them. Most (not all) that have watched a lot of FULL GAME Barry know very well his weaknesses. Was he the most elusive RB ever? I would say so. He could stop on a dime. His acceleration from zero to full speed is probably the best I've ever seen as well. BUT, he did way too much dancing around in the backfield. I've seen NUMEROUS times that he could have hit a hole for a 5 yard gain that he passed up to try and make some crazy juke only to get stuffed for -1. He also never ran anyone over. I don't agree that a guy can be the greatest simply because he had a few spectacular plays. One of the best? Sure, but putting him in front (without even a question) of Jim Brown is shortsighted and insulting to the history of the game IMO. I know you've seen many of the things I've seen from both of these guys. I wish everyone else willing to have this debate would have seen the same things we have. If the NFL would use its new Network to its advantage maybe that will happen someday and we can have a more realistic debate.
Until that happens, I agree its beating the dead horse.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Maybe we can move on from the Running back debate for a bit...
How about WR? If his career wasnt cut short Sterling Sharpe could have been right up there with one of the best WR's, I look at him like I look at Gale Sayers. Promising career cut short
My all-time personal favorites are (in no order) :
Hutson Alworth Warfield Largent Rice Harrison
Maybe not the best ever or even top six, but these are the guys I like. Not the largest in size receivers/ends but they all had great speed, ran percise patterns, and were gutsy.
Hard to make a top five list. I added Harrison to make it a half dozen. I like his quiet, humble way on the field and steady production. Helps having Manning throwing him the ball too.
Left off:
Ray Berry Moss Owens C. Carter
to round out my top ten. I hope I didn't forget anyone.
With the expanded 16 game schedules and easier passing rules in the modern era, the numbers are starting to go through the roof with catches, yardage and TD's, so I imagine the slant would be to have more of those guys on a all-time great WR list.
Lets hear you other guys take on the all-time WR's.......
Great post. I actually agree with 99% of this. I think you might be overstating Browns poor blocking simply because he was rarely USED as a blocker. His Qbs were getting pasted mostly because blockers couldn't use their hands to block (hold) in those days..QBs had less time, and Brown (from most of the film I've seen) was used as a checkdown receiver out of the backfield. If Brown had a weakness IMO, it would be his fumbles. He wasn't Tiki Barber, but he put the ball on the ground fairly often.
Jason >>
Jason, Yeah, I sometimes forget about the blocking rule changes over the years. You're right about the game film too. I don't remember many teams keeping in a RB to help with the blocking. There was lot's less blitzing in those days too, so it wasn't really needed as compared to today's game. It was a different game back in 1960. It's too bad Jim Brown didn't dedicate himself to block like say John Henry Johnson, who many historians say was the best blocking fullback around. Jimmy Brown was too busy punishing would be tacklers with his runs I guess. Plus he wasn't going to be getting paid any more money from the Browns' team for blocking as well as he ran the ball. Maybe would've generated a pat on his back by Coach Paul Brown, that's about it.
-------------------------------
Good point about sportscenter too and really all halftime shows. It's all the same repetitive highlights all day long. If you've seen one great run once, it's played back 10 more times every Sunday during the halftime breaks or on Sportscenter. Slowly these current players and the great plays, they get ingrained into your brain. Pretty soon a lot of the old players accomplishments are overlooked and forgotten about. I imagine many people might think the NFL didn't exist before cable TV came along. Sure that's a generalization but ask almost any casual fan to name 10 great NFL players from pre 1960. My bet is 99% of them can't do it. Ask any hard core fan that's under 35 years old to name who the all-time reception leader was before Steve Largent broke the record and I would guess many couldn't do that either. I would hope this wouldn't be true but I think it might be.
Has anybody else here read Johnny Sample's book Confessions of a Dirty Ballplayer? He has a couple of long sections in the back where he rates the WRs and QBs he played against. He's uniquely qualified because he played from '58 to '68, in both the NFL and AFL. He played for the back to back Colts championship teams and the Jets team in SB III.
He rates the Receivers on a scale of 1-5 (highest being best) in several categories (speed, running patterns, hands, mental toughness) and the only guy who gets 5s across the board is Lance Alworth.
Its hard to argue against Rice as the greatest ever. Take away the long career that boosted his stat totals to astonomical amounts and just look at his greatest 6 season stretch and the guy was virtually unstoppable. Much like Randy Moss this year, but Rice did it every year. Don Hutson was the innovator, he was the guy doing it before anyone else had done it. He was so head and shoulders above the competition its hard to argue against him as well. I've seen so much of Rice on the field vs. so little of Hutson on the field, I've got to give Rice the nod based on what my eyes tell me. Hutson invented it, Rice perfected it.
I could break them down even more..
Greatest hands- Largent Greatest run after catch- Rice Greatest route runner- Harrison Most spectacular/highlight film guy (The Barry factor)- Lynn Swann
Honorable mention to the following:
Ray Berry Steve Largent Elroy Hirsch Cric Carter Terrell Owens
I could understand any of these in someone's top 5. Moss, although he had a spectacular year, still has some making up to do for his "lost" seasons in Oakland and some of the things he did in Minnesota. T.O. hasn't been a good guy or good teammate over the years either, but he always performed on the field.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>I imagine many people might think the NFL didn't exist before cable TV came along. Sure that's a generalization but ask almost any casual fan to name 10 great NFL players from pre 1960. My bet is 99% of them can't do it. Ask any hard core fan that's under 35 years old to name who the all-time reception leader was before Steve Largent broke the record and I would guess many couldn't do that either. I would hope this wouldn't be true but I think it might be.
Joe, You're the exception to my statement. Maybe I should've went back a little in time to say who's record did Ray Berry break for the career receptions mark. You probably know that one too!
<< <i>Has anybody else here read Johnny Sample's book Confessions of a Dirty Ballplayer? He has a couple of long sections in the back where he rates the WRs and QBs he played against. He's uniquely qualified because he played from '58 to '68, in both the NFL and AFL. He played for the back to back Colts championship teams and the Jets team in SB III.
He rates the Receivers on a scale of 1-5 (highest being best) in several categories (speed, running patterns, hands, mental toughness) and the only guy who gets 5s across the board is Lance Alworth. >>
Hey Greg, I haven't read that book but I've heard of it. Do us a favor and list a few of the receivers Sample says were the best. It would be interesting to hear the perspective from a player that played in the great era of the 1960's. Pretty much when rules allowed a lot of muggings and anything goes towards manhandling the receivers and ends.
His system (he writes that Ray Berry used a similar system to plan his games) goes from 1-5, 1 being lowest and 5 best.
He rates receivers on, in order: Speed; Ability to run patterns; Ability to catch the ball; Blocking ability and Intimidation (i.e., how easy it was to intimidate and/or annoy the receivers, something John was very good at.)
Some of the HOFers and other notables and their scores:
Tommy McDonald - 4.5, 3.5, 5, 4.5 and 3.
Of Tommy, he also writes: "Tommy McDonald was the only man I ever really feared going into a ball game. He would never quit, never give up. He didn't mind running across the middle, the toughest area to play because you always get hit hard there."
Paul Warfield - 5, 5, 4, 3.5 and 3 (which he admits is only based on covering him once.)
Lenny Moore - 5, 4.5, 5, 5 and 5.
"I don't think anyone ever really knew how fast he was capable of going. He told me one time when I asked him that question, 'I only run as fast as I have to.'"
Raymond Berry - 3, 5, 5, 4 and 5.
"He worked harder at being a pass reciever than any other player I have ever known or heard about. I think he ran pass patterns better than any other man who ever played professional football."
Charley Taylor - 5, 4, 4.5, 5 and 3.
Jerry Smith - 3.5, 4.5, 5, 5 and 4.
Frank Gifford - 4, 3.5, 2, 3.5 and 1.
"Of all the ballplayers I have covered, Frank was the easiest to get to. I really gave it to Frank Gifford and he hated me for it."
Otis Taylor - 5, 2.5, 5, 3 and 5.
Lance Alworth - 5's across the board.
"In my opinion, he is the best pass receiver in professional football. He did everything perfectly and there was no intimidating him."
Terrell Owens needs to be given some love! I don't like him...but he is good, scary good. T.O. would be great in any era. He's so big, fast and physical it wouldn't matter what the rules were during any time or who was covering him. If the QB can throw him the ball T.O. will be great. Seriously, think about it. T.O. right now playing in the 50's. Granted, T.O. may have ended up at DE back then but we're playing fantasy land here, he would have been a friggin' freak. And to throw more gas on the fire. Barry Sanders is the greatest running back I've ever seen. I agree with all the faults people speak about. But he is, for me, the best. But I love Marshall too. Can I have them both? Man I may have to re-think this. Is it possible I would vote for Barry as the best I've ever seen but take Marshall if building a team. What's that say about Barry? See Barry must be great, even when someone tries to talk about other players it ends up back at Barry. Who cares.....I hate Tom Brady and that is not open for debate!!!! Good Day!
Ofcourse Terrell Owens would be a stud in any era! These "All time" lists are made up of a group of players that brought to the table the very best game amongst their peers. As mentioned previously it is difficult to gauge players from different eras against each other, both players dominated in their era and thats why they are both mentioned ( IE: Terrell Owens/Ray Berry )
BTW- You can Hate Brady all you want but he is the best QB ever IMO, others may disagree but anything less than a top 3 is ridiculas.
<< <i>Has anybody else here read Johnny Sample's book Confessions of a Dirty Ballplayer? >>
I read the book about 10 years ago, but do not remember it all now. Basically, Sample complains about racism and being black balled out of the league, and defends some possible questionable Sample moments as lies or misunderstandings.
I read the book while I was interviewing Baltimore Colts members and asked many of the players what they thought. None of the black players seemed to think that Sample got the short end of the stick, meaning he was not treated any different then the other black players. Mind you, at this time the US was quite racist and players talked about having seperate sleeping quarters and the like, and Baltimore itself was a hot bed.
I think it was Jim Parker...or maybe it was Lenny Moore...who told me a story about Weeb Ewbank taking his team to a different hotel because the black players were not allowed to stay at the one they were at.
Anyway, none of the players took Sample's side and there seemed to be a consistant, Sample wasted his chance type of thinking.
Clear Skies, Mark
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>Tom Brady... Brett Farve... Come on, with all due respect they are great modern day players, but with all the rule changes over the years to limit the defense and give the offense(Quarterback) such an unfair advantage, its safe to say that these cream puff modern day Quarterback's, with the possible exception of Montana and Farve, would most likey not even made it in the glory days of football. Let alone put up the kind of numbers they do now. Why?
A Deacon Jones head slap would send most of them crying "Foul"
A crushing blow from Butkus while he trys to twist your head off. (Career Over)
A "Nighttrain" Lane forearm knockout means your recievers don't get a Free pass to run untouched anywhere on the field. >>
By the same token, how well do you think players of the 50s & 60s would be able to compete in today's game where they're unable to use the thug tactics of the past? Today's complex offenses and defenses - not to mention vastly superior athletes - would leave them with their heads spinning.
Comments
Faulk wasn't great in Indianapolis. But in St. Louis he was. Say what you will about Mike Martz but he knew how to maximize Marshall's abilities 100%.
And, Look what Sanders did when Bobby Ross FINALLY gave him a fullback to run behind instead of one back offenses. He ran for 2 thousand yards, 14 straight 100 yard games. AND, managed to equal what O.J. Simpson did 1973 which is run for 2000 in 14 games.
Sanders had 53 yards in the first two then 2000 exactly in his last 14. And it was his 9th year in the league, not too shabby. Something needs to be said for how a player is used, whether correctly or not. Some coaches haven't a clue.
Truthfully I can't say anything about Jim Brown, never saw him play. But for my own era, Faulk was simply complete. He could run, catch and block and did them all well. Without Faulk the Greatest Show on Turf was this years Detroit Lions.
Just my two cents. Feel free to pick it apart like vultures.
<< <i>Man, you guys are amazing with the insight into some of your arguments for certain players. I kind of agree with Jim Brown that comparing runners from different eras is too difficult. The truth is we simply don't know what numbers Barry Sanders may have put up running in Jim Brown's day and vice versa. Regardless, Marshall Faulk certainly deserves mention into a catagory of "How a player is used".
Faulk wasn't great in Indianapolis. But in St. Louis he was. Say what you will about Mike Martz but he knew how to maximize Marshall's abilities 100%.
And, Look what Sanders did when Bobby Ross FINALLY gave him a fullback to run behind instead of one back offenses. He ran for 2 thousand yards, 14 straight 100 yard games. AND, managed to equal what O.J. Simpson did 1973 which is run for 2000 in 14 games.
Sanders had 53 yards in the first two then 2000 exactly in his last 14. And it was his 9th year in the league, not too shabby. Something needs to be said for how a player is used, whether correctly or not. Some coaches haven't a clue.
Truthfully I can't say anything about Jim Brown, never saw him play. But for my own era, Faulk was simply complete. He could run, catch and block and did them all well. Without Faulk the Greatest Show on Turf was this years Detroit Lions.
Just my two cents. Feel free to pick it apart like vultures. >>
Very well said.
<< <i>Copy and paste is a wonderful thing..I didn't write that, Bob Carroll, a highly respected football historian did.
Case closed in my opinion. He pretty much nailed the debate shut, AND that was written DURING Barry's career.
Jason >>
He nailed the debate down for people that agree with him, there are others that could spin it in Sanders favor as well.
Great read, thanks for posting it!
<< <i>
<< <i>Copy and paste is a wonderful thing..I didn't write that, Bob Carroll, a highly respected football historian did.
Case closed in my opinion. He pretty much nailed the debate shut, AND that was written DURING Barry's career.
Jason >>
He nailed the debate down for people that agree with him, there are others that could spin it in Sanders favor as well.
Great read, thanks for posting it! >>
I was actually looking for one of those..A piece written by a respected or known writer than spun Barry Sanders vs. Jim Brown as the greatest ever..I couldn't find one. If you've seen one or have an article I'd love to read it and see if it affects my opinion at all. I honestly don't know what info anyone would use to validate the argument other than what has already been stated here.
- Barry played against bigger, faster guys
- Barry had a terrible O-line
What else puts Barry over Brown? because neither of these arguments hold any water IMO. Look at the article from Bob Carroll. I mean the breaks it down perfectly on how Barry actually HURT his team as much as he helped it. That isn't an opinion, that is fact. You can check the playoff records, stats. You can check Barry's stats playing outdoors. You can check the record book on who has the most negative yards rushing in history as well.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>Here's another:
The Sporting News Top 100 Greatest Players
1. Jim Brown
2. Jerry Rice
3. Joe Montana
4. Lawrence Taylor
5. Johnny Unitas
6. Don Hutson
7. Otto Graham
8. Walter Payton
9. Dick Butkus
10. Bob Lilly
11. Sammy Baugh
12. Barry Sanders
13. Deacon Jones
14. Joe Greene
15. Gino Marchetti
16. John Elway
17. Anthony Munoz
18. Ray Nitschke
19. Night Train Lane
20. John Hannah
Can ALL of these voters in ALL of these lists be THAT wrong?
Jason >>
Marino snubbed again... >>
greg,
dont feel bad so was Favre.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>this whole Barry Sanders thing is so out of hand. The Lions would not have made it to the playoffs had it not been for Barry, check the records before and after he was there, what's the argument gonna be? Rodney Peete or Scott Mitchell put the Lions into the playoffs? HAHAHA >>
The Ravens won with Dilfer, the Redskins with Doug Williams and Mark Rypien..Mitchell and/or Peete were good enough. But they needed Barry to NOT put them in 3rd and 8's ten times per game...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>you really have a hardon for hating on Barry >>
Only when people call him the greatest ever..Say he's top 5 and I wouldnt have an issue...Its a slap in the face to guys like Jim Brown and Walter Payton..
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>this whole Barry Sanders thing is so out of hand. The Lions would not have made it to the playoffs had it not been for Barry, check the records before and after he was there, what's the argument gonna be? Rodney Peete or Scott Mitchell put the Lions into the playoffs? HAHAHA >>
The Ravens won with Dilfer, the Redskins with Doug Williams and Mark Rypien..Mitchell and/or Peete were good enough. But they needed Barry to NOT put them in 3rd and 8's ten times per game...
Jason >>
I call BS on this. Gimme a break Jason, these teams you mentioned had alot of other things going for them than any Lions team Barry ever played for, to say Barry got them in 3rd and 8 ten times a game is the reason the never won is ridiculas. (with all due respect)
<< <i>
<< <i>you really have a hardon for hating on Barry >>
Only when people call him the greatest ever..Say he's top 5 and I wouldnt have an issue...Its a slap in the face to guys like Jim Brown and Walter Payton..
Jason >>
only in your opinion
<< <i>
I call BS on this. Gimme a break Jason, these teams you mentioned had alot of other things going for them than any Lions team Barry ever played for, to say Barry got them in 3rd and 8 ten times a game is the reason the never won is ridiculas. (with all due respect) >>
Not THE reason, but a contributing factor. Lets not get into the all or nothing debate, because I agree its stupid. It wasnt ALL Barry good or bad. Barry helped them win, no doubt, but my point was that he hurt his teams chances as well. Thats all I'm saying..How did Jim Brown or Walter Payton ever hurt his teams chances. Payton played for a TON of bad teams for a lot of years.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>you really have a hardon for hating on Barry >>
Only when people call him the greatest ever..Say he's top 5 and I wouldnt have an issue...Its a slap in the face to guys like Jim Brown and Walter Payton..
Jason >>
only in your opinion >>
Correct..Isn't that what we are all doing here? Isnt that the point of the initial question? Post opinions?
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
I call BS on this. Gimme a break Jason, these teams you mentioned had alot of other things going for them than any Lions team Barry ever played for, to say Barry got them in 3rd and 8 ten times a game is the reason the never won is ridiculas. (with all due respect) >>
Not THE reason, but a contributing factor. Lets not get into the all or nothing debate, because I agree its stupid. It wasnt ALL Barry good or bad. Barry helped them win, no doubt, but my point was that he hurt his teams chances as well. Thats all I'm saying..How did Jim Brown or Walter Payton ever hurt his teams chances. Payton played for a TON of bad teams for a lot of years.
Jason >>
Fair enough for me.
<< <i>Yeah, so post your #1 pick and move on. A post or two stating how you feel Sanders doesn't deserve it is cool, but geez, everytime his name comes up you just run it into the ground. >>
My mistake...I'll keep all opinions to myself from now on, I didn't know it was hurting feelings...I thought this was a debate thread.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>Yeah, so post your #1 pick and move on. A post or two stating how you feel Sanders doesn't deserve it is cool, but geez, everytime his name comes up you just run it into the ground. >>
My mistake...I'll keep all opinions to myself from now on, I didn't know it was hurting feelings...I thought this was a debate thread.
Jason >>
good one...but really, read my post again. You know it's overkill, and sure your knowledgeable about NFL hall of fame football players, but I equate you to hating Barry Sanders as Joe Stalin is to loving the Bucs. That's all.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Yeah, so post your #1 pick and move on. A post or two stating how you feel Sanders doesn't deserve it is cool, but geez, everytime his name comes up you just run it into the ground. >>
My mistake...I'll keep all opinions to myself from now on, I didn't know it was hurting feelings...I thought this was a debate thread.
Jason >>
good one...but really, read my post again. You know it's overkill, and sure your knowledgeable about NFL hall of fame football players, but I equate you to hating Barry Sanders as Joe Stalin is to loving the Bucs. That's all. >>
Well, that's unfortunate. I don't hate Barry at all. I rate him very highly in my all-time RB rankings, easily top 5. Others on this thread have ranked him lower. When presented an argument trying to prove to me that Barry was better than Jim Brown, I'm sorry but I feel compelled to try and keep the true value of the old timers alive. I'm a fan of the game, I've studied and collected NFL history long before I started collecting cards. I've said it many times before, I wish the NFL would promote its history the way baseball does. Guys like Jim Brown and Johnny Unitas should be looked upon like Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle are in baseball...Icons and legends. Instead, most NFL fans don't know the game existed pre-1970s Steelers. Its a shame, and if I have to be the only guy trying to keep the memory of the TRUE all-time greats alive so be it. It shouldn't hurt feelings, but rather maybe push someone who's never read up or never watched some of the older guys to learn more about them.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
Not THE reason, but a contributing factor. Lets not get into the all or nothing debate, because I agree its stupid. It wasnt ALL Barry good or bad. Barry helped them win, no doubt, but my point was that he hurt his teams chances as well. Thats all I'm saying..How did Jim Brown or Walter Payton ever hurt his teams chances. Payton played for a TON of bad teams for a lot of years.
Jason >>
Jim Brown hurt his Browns teams by not blocking too well and letting his QB's (Milt Plum or Frank Ryan) get pasted from d-lineman. I wonder how many Cleveland drives he killed by missing blocking assignments? We'll never know. Jim Brown was not even considered a 'good' blocker in his day and he himself and Football historians such as Bob Carroll have freely admitted.
He didn't have particularly have 'great' playoff games either. He got drafted by a great franchise that was loaded with talent and were perennial playoff teams (unlike Sanders). These aren't knocks on Brown, but it's not like he came to a Cleveland team that went 2-10 either. The Browns were one of the greatest teams in the NFL during the 1950's and '60's. Even though they had the 'greatest player' on their team, it took the Cleveland Browns until 1964 or Jim Brown's 8th year in the league, before they won a Championship. Gary Collins caught 3 TD's in that game, Jim Brown didn't score.
Personally I'll take the blown blocking assignments with Jim Brown's 100+ yards per game and 5.2 avg. , just as I'll take Barry Sanders likewise averages throughtout his career with his carries for losses and then the tremendous plays he turned what appeared to be another loss into huge gains.
Madden says Sanders was the greatest. I think he's pretty much seen it all in his nearly 50 years of Football coaching and announcing. I don't agree with his statement but I respect it. He has valid reasons to feel that way about Sanders...... yearly production. Quality production. Outstanding years. Sanders never had a bad year, like Jim Brown. I can't say the same for Marshall Faulk or even the great Walter Payton.
Payton really had no weaknesses but his last year was a real clunker. He hung around one year too many. It happens to nearly all the great ones, except Brown and Sanders.
And yeah, this Barry bashing is turning into beating a dead horse.
Correct me if I'm wrong but is it more Barry Sanders style of running that annoys you so much? The large losses and hugh gains. Do you feel his running was so inconsistant it's not great and therefore he's not great?
I feel the same way you do on the old-timers. They were fantastic in their time and true Football fans should do themselves a favor and try to learn as much about the pre 1970 players as they can. There's still a lot of players that played in the pre-Super Bowl era that deserve to be in the HOF, but will likely never get there as statistics get inflated because of current rules or great lineman like Al Wistert of the Eagles are forgotten somehow.
Look at the passing game. 4000 yard passing years are becoming routine. Receivers catching a 100 balls a year, again routine.
In 2007 Randy Moss catches 23 TD's in 16 games for a 1.44 TD's per game. In 1942 Don Hutson catches 17 TD's in 11 games for 1.55 TD's per game and Hutsons' accomplishment is never even mentioned by the media.
Rich
<< <i>
<< <i>
Not THE reason, but a contributing factor. Lets not get into the all or nothing debate, because I agree its stupid. It wasnt ALL Barry good or bad. Barry helped them win, no doubt, but my point was that he hurt his teams chances as well. Thats all I'm saying..How did Jim Brown or Walter Payton ever hurt his teams chances. Payton played for a TON of bad teams for a lot of years.
Jason >>
Jim Brown hurt his Browns teams by not blocking too well and letting his QB's (Milt Plum or Frank Ryan) get pasted from d-lineman. I wonder how many Cleveland drives he killed by missing blocking assignments? We'll never know. Jim Brown was not even considered a 'good' blocker in his day and he himself and Football historians such as Bob Carroll have freely admitted.
He didn't have particularly have 'great' playoff games either. He got drafted by a great franchise that was loaded with talent and were perennial playoff teams (unlike Sanders). These aren't knocks on Brown, but it's not like he came to a Cleveland team that went 2-10 either. The Browns were one of the greatest teams in the NFL during the 1950's and '60's. Even though they had the 'greatest player' on their team, it took the Cleveland Browns until 1964 or Jim Brown's 8th year in the league, before they won a Championship. Gary Collins caught 3 TD's in that game, Jim Brown didn't score.
Personally I'll take the blown blocking assignments with Jim Brown's 100+ yards per game and 5.2 avg. , just as I'll take Barry Sanders likewise averages throughtout his career with his carries for losses and then the tremendous plays he turned what appeared to be another loss into huge gains.
Madden says Sanders was the greatest. I think he's pretty much seen it all in his nearly 50 years of Football coaching and announcing. I don't agree with his statement but I respect it. He has valid reasons to feel that way about Sanders...... yearly production. Quality production. Outstanding years. Sanders never had a bad year, like Jim Brown. I can't say the same for Marshall Faulk or even the great Walter Payton.
Payton really had no weaknesses but his last year was a real clunker. He hung around one year too many. It happens to nearly all the great ones, except Brown and Sanders.
And yeah, this Barry bashing is turning into beating a dead horse. >>
Great post. I actually agree with 99% of this. I think you might be overstating Browns poor blocking simply because he was rarely USED as a blocker. His Qbs were getting pasted mostly because blockers couldn't use their hands to block (hold) in those days..QBs had less time, and Brown (from most of the film I've seen) was used as a checkdown receiver out of the backfield. If Brown had a weakness IMO, it would be his fumbles. He wasn't Tiki Barber, but he put the ball on the ground fairly often.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Jason,
Correct me if I'm wrong but is it more Barry Sanders style of running that annoys you so much? The large losses and hugh gains. Do you feel his running was so inconsistant it's not great and therefore he's not great?
I feel the same way you do on the old-timers. They were fantastic in their time and true Football fans should do themselves a favor and try to learn as much about the pre 1970 players as they can. There's still a lot of players that played in the pre-Super Bowl era that deserve to be in the HOF, but will likely never get there as statistics get inflated because of current rules or great lineman like Al Wistert of the Eagles are forgotten somehow.
Look at the passing game. 4000 yard passing years are becoming routine. Receivers catching a 100 balls a year, again routine.
In 2007 Randy Moss catches 23 TD's in 16 games for a 1.44 TD's per game. In 1942 Don Hutson catches 17 TD's in 11 games for 1.55 TD's per game and Hutsons' accomplishment is never even mentioned by the media.
Rich >>
Thats a fair assessment Rich. I watched more than Sportscenter Barry highlights in my time. Some other guys have as well, and other guys havent. I've had this debate numerous times and I always walk away feeling that the guys arguing FOR Barry base everything they saw on whatever Sportcenter highlight they watched of Barry and boy he had plenty of them. Most (not all) that have watched a lot of FULL GAME Barry know very well his weaknesses. Was he the most elusive RB ever? I would say so. He could stop on a dime. His acceleration from zero to full speed is probably the best I've ever seen as well. BUT, he did way too much dancing around in the backfield. I've seen NUMEROUS times that he could have hit a hole for a 5 yard gain that he passed up to try and make some crazy juke only to get stuffed for -1. He also never ran anyone over. I don't agree that a guy can be the greatest simply because he had a few spectacular plays. One of the best? Sure, but putting him in front (without even a question) of Jim Brown is shortsighted and insulting to the history of the game IMO. I know you've seen many of the things I've seen from both of these guys. I wish everyone else willing to have this debate would have seen the same things we have. If the NFL would use its new Network to its advantage maybe that will happen someday and we can have a more realistic debate.
Until that happens, I agree its beating the dead horse.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
How about WR? If his career wasnt cut short Sterling Sharpe could have been right up there with one of the best WR's, I look at him like I look at Gale Sayers. Promising career cut short
My all-time personal favorites are (in no order) :
Hutson
Alworth
Warfield
Largent
Rice
Harrison
Maybe not the best ever or even top six, but these are
the guys I like. Not the largest in size receivers/ends but
they all had great speed, ran percise patterns, and were gutsy.
Hard to make a top five list. I added Harrison to make it a half dozen. I like his quiet, humble way on the field and steady production. Helps having Manning throwing him the ball too.
Left off:
Ray Berry
Moss
Owens
C. Carter
to round out my top ten. I hope I didn't forget anyone.
With the expanded 16 game schedules and easier passing rules in the modern era, the numbers are starting to go through the roof with catches, yardage and TD's, so I imagine the slant would be to have more of those guys on a all-time great WR list.
Lets hear you other guys take on the all-time WR's.......
<< <i>
Great post. I actually agree with 99% of this. I think you might be overstating Browns poor blocking simply because he was rarely USED as a blocker. His Qbs were getting pasted mostly because blockers couldn't use their hands to block (hold) in those days..QBs had less time, and Brown (from most of the film I've seen) was used as a checkdown receiver out of the backfield. If Brown had a weakness IMO, it would be his fumbles. He wasn't Tiki Barber, but he put the ball on the ground fairly often.
Jason >>
Jason,
Yeah, I sometimes forget about the blocking rule changes over the years. You're right about the game film too. I don't remember many teams keeping in a RB to help with the blocking. There was lot's less blitzing in those days too, so it wasn't really needed as compared to today's game. It was a different game back in 1960. It's too bad Jim Brown didn't dedicate himself to block like say John Henry Johnson, who many historians say was the best blocking fullback around. Jimmy Brown was too busy punishing would be tacklers with his runs I guess. Plus he wasn't going to be getting paid any more money from the Browns' team for blocking as well as he ran the ball. Maybe would've generated a pat on his back by Coach Paul Brown, that's about it.
-------------------------------
Good point about sportscenter too and really all halftime shows. It's all the same repetitive highlights all day long. If you've seen one great run once, it's played back 10 more times every Sunday during the halftime breaks or on Sportscenter. Slowly these current players and the great plays, they get ingrained into your brain. Pretty soon a lot of the old players accomplishments are overlooked and forgotten about.
I imagine many people might think the NFL didn't exist before cable TV came along. Sure that's a generalization but ask almost any casual fan to name 10 great NFL players from pre 1960. My bet is 99% of them can't do it. Ask any hard core fan that's under 35 years old to name who the all-time reception leader was before Steve Largent broke the record and I would guess many couldn't do that either. I would hope this wouldn't be true but I think it might be.
Rich
He rates the Receivers on a scale of 1-5 (highest being best) in several categories (speed, running patterns, hands, mental toughness) and the only guy who gets 5s across the board is Lance Alworth.
1a-Rice
1b-Hutson
3-Alworth
4-Harrison
5-Warfield
Its hard to argue against Rice as the greatest ever. Take away the long career that boosted his stat totals to astonomical amounts and just look at his greatest 6 season stretch and the guy was virtually unstoppable. Much like Randy Moss this year, but Rice did it every year. Don Hutson was the innovator, he was the guy doing it before anyone else had done it. He was so head and shoulders above the competition its hard to argue against him as well. I've seen so much of Rice on the field vs. so little of Hutson on the field, I've got to give Rice the nod based on what my eyes tell me. Hutson invented it, Rice perfected it.
I could break them down even more..
Greatest hands- Largent
Greatest run after catch- Rice
Greatest route runner- Harrison
Most spectacular/highlight film guy (The Barry factor)- Lynn Swann
Honorable mention to the following:
Ray Berry
Steve Largent
Elroy Hirsch
Cric Carter
Terrell Owens
I could understand any of these in someone's top 5. Moss, although he had a spectacular year, still has some making up to do for his "lost" seasons in Oakland and some of the things he did in Minnesota. T.O. hasn't been a good guy or good teammate over the years either, but he always performed on the field.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Tom Brady without question >>
shady brady? no way...he is a cheat
go to youtube, search shady brady and bill belicheat for the best video ever!
<< <i>I imagine many people might think the NFL didn't exist before cable TV came along. Sure that's a generalization but ask almost any casual fan to name 10 great NFL players from pre 1960. My bet is 99% of them can't do it. Ask any hard core fan that's under 35 years old to name who the all-time reception leader was before Steve Largent broke the record and I would guess many couldn't do that either. I would hope this wouldn't be true but I think it might be.
Rich >>
Charlie Joiner. I'm 33, what do I win
Joe
You're the exception to my statement. Maybe I should've went back a little in time to say who's record did Ray Berry break for the career receptions mark. You probably know that one too!
Rich
<< <i>Has anybody else here read Johnny Sample's book Confessions of a Dirty Ballplayer? He has a couple of long sections in the back where he rates the WRs and QBs he played against. He's uniquely qualified because he played from '58 to '68, in both the NFL and AFL. He played for the back to back Colts championship teams and the Jets team in SB III.
He rates the Receivers on a scale of 1-5 (highest being best) in several categories (speed, running patterns, hands, mental toughness) and the only guy who gets 5s across the board is Lance Alworth. >>
Hey Greg,
I haven't read that book but I've heard of it. Do us a favor and list a few of the receivers Sample says were the best. It would be interesting to hear the perspective from a player that played in the great era of the 1960's. Pretty much when rules allowed a lot of muggings and anything goes towards manhandling the receivers and ends.
Rich
He rates receivers on, in order: Speed; Ability to run patterns; Ability to catch the ball; Blocking ability and Intimidation (i.e., how easy it was to intimidate and/or annoy the receivers, something John was very good at.)
Some of the HOFers and other notables and their scores:
Tommy McDonald - 4.5, 3.5, 5, 4.5 and 3.
Of Tommy, he also writes: "Tommy McDonald was the only man I ever really feared going into a ball game. He would never quit, never give up. He didn't mind running across the middle, the toughest area to play because you always get hit hard there."
Paul Warfield - 5, 5, 4, 3.5 and 3 (which he admits is only based on covering him once.)
Lenny Moore - 5, 4.5, 5, 5 and 5.
"I don't think anyone ever really knew how fast he was capable of going. He told me one time when I asked him that question, 'I only run as fast as I have to.'"
Raymond Berry - 3, 5, 5, 4 and 5.
"He worked harder at being a pass reciever than any other player I have ever known or heard about. I think he ran pass patterns better than any other man who ever played professional football."
Charley Taylor - 5, 4, 4.5, 5 and 3.
Jerry Smith - 3.5, 4.5, 5, 5 and 4.
Frank Gifford - 4, 3.5, 2, 3.5 and 1.
"Of all the ballplayers I have covered, Frank was the easiest to get to. I really gave it to Frank Gifford and he hated me for it."
Otis Taylor - 5, 2.5, 5, 3 and 5.
Lance Alworth - 5's across the board.
"In my opinion, he is the best pass receiver in professional football. He did everything perfectly and there was no intimidating him."
Fred Biletnikoff - 3, 4.5, 3.5, 2 and 2.
Don Maynard - 5, 4, 2.5, 1 and 2.
And to throw more gas on the fire. Barry Sanders is the greatest running back I've ever seen. I agree with all the faults people speak about. But he is, for me, the best. But I love Marshall too. Can I have them both? Man I may have to re-think this. Is it possible I would vote for Barry as the best I've ever seen but take Marshall if building a team. What's that say about Barry? See Barry must be great, even when someone tries to talk about other players it ends up back at Barry. Who cares.....I hate Tom Brady and that is not open for debate!!!!
Good Day!
BTW- You can Hate Brady all you want but he is the best QB ever IMO, others may disagree but anything less than a top 3 is ridiculas.
<< <i>Has anybody else here read Johnny Sample's book Confessions of a Dirty Ballplayer? >>
I read the book about 10 years ago, but do not remember it all now. Basically, Sample complains about racism and being black balled out of the league, and defends some possible questionable Sample moments as lies or misunderstandings.
I read the book while I was interviewing Baltimore Colts members and asked many of the players what they thought. None of the black players seemed to think that Sample got the short end of the stick, meaning he was not treated any different then the other black players. Mind you, at this time the US was quite racist and players talked about having seperate sleeping quarters and the like, and Baltimore itself was a hot bed.
I think it was Jim Parker...or maybe it was Lenny Moore...who told me a story about Weeb Ewbank taking his team to a different hotel because the black players were not allowed to stay at the one they were at.
Anyway, none of the players took Sample's side and there seemed to be a consistant, Sample wasted his chance type of thinking.
Clear Skies,
Mark
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>Tom Brady... Brett Farve... Come on, with all due respect they are great modern day players, but with all the rule changes over the years to limit the defense and give the offense(Quarterback) such an unfair advantage, its safe to say that these cream puff modern day Quarterback's, with the possible exception of Montana and Farve, would most likey not even made it in the glory days of football. Let alone put up the kind of numbers they do now. Why?
A Deacon Jones head slap would send most of them crying "Foul"
A crushing blow from Butkus while he trys to twist your head off. (Career Over)
A "Nighttrain" Lane forearm knockout means your recievers don't get a Free pass to run untouched anywhere on the field. >>
By the same token, how well do you think players of the 50s & 60s would be able to compete in today's game where they're unable to use the thug tactics of the past? Today's complex offenses and defenses - not to mention vastly superior athletes - would leave them with their heads spinning.
Tabe