Your #1 pick of any player who ever played football

cardbender · December 23, 2007 10:36AM

Not to answer for Sayheykid, but I will. I think these lineman would do the trick blocking for Barry:

Lomas Brown
Kevin Glover
Bill Fralic
Jeff Hartings

All pro-bowl calibre guys according to you Jason. Although none of them will ever get serious HOF consideration, unlike Jim Brown's lineman have or in the future Emmitt Smith's linemen will.

Also how about the QB being:

Rodney Peete, let's try Andre Ware, maybe Scott Mitchell, Bob Gagliano, Charlie Batch, how about the great Chuck Long, or throw in a year of David Krieg. Any of them should be sufficient for Barry to run for his annual 1500+ yards and 10 TD's every year and doing it against stacked lines and 8 man fronts, as these were his QB's while in the NFL.

I really wonder how Barry would've performed with a great QB?

In Barry's 10 years, only once did a QB have a great season and that was the infamous Scott Mitchell in 1995 with 32 TD's and 4400 yards.

Coach:

Wayne Fontes or Bobby Ross (he rushed for over 2000 yards in 1997 for Ross, ya think he was complaining about Barry's production?) .

How would you know Barry didn't run the play called in the huddle? Perhaps Sanders' took the handoff, went to hit the hole but due to his shabby blockers not being able to hold the point, Sanders cut away and tried to make something out of nothing. That's exactly the type of player I'd want playing for me. Creative, elusive, trying to score every time he touched the ball. Not just plunging into the pile for a one yeard gain. That's what average players do. Sanders' was far from average.

For those that want to see some balance to this Barry Sanders slam, check out NFL.com, click on the Detriot Lions link at the top of the site. From there click 'The Lions' tab near the top, then drop down to the 'history and records section'. You'll find all of Sanders' records there. I hope you have some time to check it out, it will take a while to sift through them all, there's so many pages of them.

If you want to see the video highlights, from the Lions main page go to the 'Multimedia' tab and drop down to the video highlights section. There you will find not only his record setting loss highlight link that was posted earlier in this thread but also a nice highlight reel of some of Barry's finest runs. Just trying to be fair to all the Sanders fan's out there. I don't know how to post a video link or I would've.

While I do think Jim Brown is the greatest ever, I also feel everyone else is entitled to post their own opinion here too about who they feel is the 'best ever' without be bullied into thinking they haven't seen enough of the all-time greats to warrant a valid opinion.
Everyone's opinion matters. Could be Sayheykid is 60 years old and saw Jim Brown play in person a couple of dozen times and believes Sanders to be the best he ever saw despite these viewings.

Just for the heck of it:
here's a listing of Sanders' 100 yard rushing games:

Date / Opponent/ Yards/ Att

12/6/1998 at Jax Barry Sanders 102 18
11/15/1998 Chi Barry Sanders 114 24
11/8/1998 at Phi Barry Sanders 140 20
11/1/1998 Arz Barry Sanders 107 27
10/25/1998 Min Barry Sanders 127 24
10/15/1998 GB Barry Sanders 155 25
9/28/1998 TB Barry Sanders 131 27
9/14/1998 Cin Barry Sanders 185 26
12/21/1997 NYJ Barry Sanders 184 23
12/14/1997 at Min Barry Sanders 138 19
12/7/1997 at Mia Barry Sanders 137 30
11/27/1997 Chi Barry Sanders 167 19
11/23/1997 Ind Barry Sanders 216 24
11/16/1997 Min Barry Sanders 108 19
11/9/1997 at Was Barry Sanders 105 15
11/2/1997 at GB Barry Sanders 105 23
10/19/1997 NYG Barry Sanders 105 24
10/12/1997 at TB Barry Sanders 215 24
10/5/1997 at Buf Barry Sanders 107 25
9/28/1997 GB Barry Sanders 139 28
9/21/1997 at NO Barry Sanders 113 18
9/14/1997 at Chi Barry Sanders 161 19
12/23/1996 at SF Barry Sanders 175 28
12/8/1996 Min Barry Sanders 134 20
11/24/1996 at Chi Barry Sanders 107 21
11/17/1996 Sea Barry Sanders 134 16
11/3/1996 at GB Barry Sanders 152 20
9/8/1996 TB Barry Sanders 125 20
9/1/1996 at Min Barry Sanders 163 24
11/23/1995 Min Barry Sanders 138 24
11/19/1995 at Chi Barry Sanders 120 24
10/29/1995 GB Barry Sanders 167 22
10/15/1995 at GB Barry Sanders 124 18
10/8/1995 Cle Barry Sanders 157 18
9/17/1995 Arz Barry Sanders 147 24
9/3/1995 at Pit Barry Sanders 108 21
12/17/1994 Min Barry Sanders 110 17
12/10/1994 at NYJ Barry Sanders 127 23
12/4/1994 GB Barry Sanders 188 20
11/13/1994 TB Barry Sanders 237 26
10/30/1994 at NYG Barry Sanders 146 26
10/23/1994 Chi Barry Sanders 167 23
10/2/1994 at TB Barry Sanders 166 20
9/25/1994 NE Barry Sanders 131 18
9/19/1994 at Dal Barry Sanders 194 40
9/4/1994 Atl Barry Sanders 120 27
1/8/1994 GB* Barry Sanders 169 27
11/7/1993 TB Barry Sanders 187 29
10/17/1993 Sea Barry Sanders 101 22
10/3/1993 at TB Barry Sanders 130 22
9/12/1993 at NE Barry Sanders 148 32
12/28/1992 at SF Barry Sanders 104 19
12/20/1992 Chi Barry Sanders 113 20
12/6/1992 at GB Barry Sanders 114 16
11/22/1992 at Cin Barry Sanders 151 29
11/8/1992 Dal Barry Sanders 108 18
10/25/1992 at TB Barry Sanders 122 21
9/6/1992 at Chi Barry Sanders 109 19
12/22/1991 at Buf Barry Sanders 108 26
12/8/1991 NYJ Barry Sanders 114 20
11/24/1991 at Min Barry Sanders 220 23
11/10/1991 at TB Barry Sanders 118 23
10/6/1991 Min Barry Sanders 116 25
9/29/1991 TB Barry Sanders 160 27
9/22/1991 at Ind Barry Sanders 179 30
9/15/1991 Mia Barry Sanders 143 32
12/22/1990 at GB Barry Sanders 133 19
12/10/1990 LARd Barry Sanders 176 25
11/22/1990 Den Barry Sanders 147 23
11/4/1990 Was Barry Sanders 104 11
12/24/1989 at Atl Barry Sanders 158 20
12/17/1989 TB Barry Sanders 104 21
12/10/1989 at Chi Barry Sanders 120 26
11/23/1989 Cle Barry Sanders 145 28
11/19/1989 at Cin Barry Sanders 114 18
10/29/1989 at GB Barry Sanders 184 30
9/24/1989 Chi Barry Sanders 126 18

Yeah, that Sanders guy sure didn't follow his blockers very well.
I wonder how he got all those yards????

Rich

perkdog · December 23, 2007 10:51AM

I am really looking forward to Jasons rebuttle to that one!

JasP24 · December 23, 2007 11:10AM

Nah, Im done debating Barry Sanders...It seems everyone gets their feelings hurt whenever someone posts an alternate opinion of Sanders that says anything other than he was the greatest ever...

Sorry, but I watched Barry play and he isn't the greatest player in NFL history, nor the greatest RB..Thats JUST MY OPINION..Ive stated that 100 times, but for whatever reason I keep having to re-state it.

Believe what you want, choose who you want..Throw in the 10 million "what ifs" for Barry all day and all night...I'm not related to Jim Brown...I dont DISLIKE Barry Sanders although it probably seems that way since I post a differing opinion...I also do not have an all-time favorite player other than guys I root for on my hometown team...I am a football historian first and foremost..Collecting vintage game tape was a hobby long before cards...I've given my honest assessment based on everything I've watched and seen..If I thought Barry was the best I would say so..

I'm tired of discussing Barry and his pros and cons...IMO, no one ever listens to reason when I've done it now or in the past..Guys have their favorites and refuse to take off the rose colored glasses and see the weaknesses that came with the Sanders package...

So be it..Lets just agree to disagree...
Jason

perkdog · December 23, 2007 11:19AM

Not what I expected but a very cordial response.

Fabfrank · December 23, 2007 11:26AM

In defense of jason (not that he needs defending), I read no where in his posts that he was bullying anyone. If anything, sayhey posted his opinion as a fact and Jason rebuffed it with facts. Whether Sanders ran for 4.9, 5.0, or 5.1 yards per carry is splitting hairs. It's even difficult to use awards, MVP's and all-pro selections to compare the two players because they accumulated so many accolades in their careers. Here are the brief bios the HOF website says of each player
Barry David Sanders. . .Detroit's first-round draft pick, 1989. . .Electrifying running style. . .First player to rush for 1,000 yards his first 10 seasons. . .Led NFL in rushing four times. . .NFL's MVP, 1997. . .Gained 2,053 yards including record 14 straight 100-yard games, 1997. . .Career rushing record: 15,269 yards, 99 TDs. . .First- or second-team All-NFL each of his 10 seasons. . .Selected to 10 Pro Bowls. . .Born July 16, 1968, in Wichita, Kansas.

James Nathaniel Brown. . .Syracuse All-America, 1956. . . Browns' No. 1 draft pick, 1957. . .Awesome runner, led NFL rushers eight years. . .All-NFL eight of nine years. . .NFL's Most Valuable Player, 1957, 1958, 1965. . . Rookie of the Year, 1957. . . Played in nine straight Pro Bowls. . .Career marks: 12,312 yards rushing, 262 receptions, 15,459 combined net yards, 756 points scored. . .Born February 17, 1936, in St. Simons, Georgia.

Both are worthy considerations and I've seen more film of Sanders than I have of Brown, but I would choose Brown over Sanders.

To actually stay on topic of this thread, when Jimmy Johnson built the Cowboys teams of the 90's he said that any succesful franchise needed key personnel at 5 positons. The first 2 were luxuries. An accurate QB and a versatile RB. Well he did well there with Aikman and Emmitt. The next 3 were crititcal. A dominant left tackle to protect his QB (E. Williams), a pass rushing specialist to put pressure on the opposing teams QB (C. Haley) and a shut down DB to take away the other teams top WR (D. Sanders).
He felt all the other positions personnel were interchangeable and you could always find someone productive to fill those positions.

With that thought, I would choose Reggie White as the cornerstone of building a winning franchise.

perkdog · December 23, 2007 12:00PM

<< To actually stay on topic of this thread, when Jimmy Johnson built the Cowboys teams of the 90's he said that any succesful franchise needed key personnel at 5 positons. The first 2 were luxuries. An accurate QB and a versatile RB. Well he did well there with Aikman and Emmitt. The next 3 were crititcal. A dominant left tackle to protect his QB (E. Williams), a pass rushing specialist to put pressure on the opposing teams QB (C. Haley) and a shut down DB to take away the other teams top WR (D. Sanders).
He felt all the other positions personnel were interchangeable and you could always find someone productive to fill those positions. >>

Tough to argue with a guy like Jimmy Johnson on this. Bottom line it is a team game and pretty much of everyones "Favorite/best player" are worthy of mention, this is a fun debate to argue and can be looked at in a bunch of different ways.

Great topic and responses here! This never really got going when a similar post was drawn up in the sports talk forum, funny how it grew legs here!

sayheykid54 · December 23, 2007 12:13PM

Cardbender, I appreciate all of your detailed information regarding Barry Sanders fantastic career. I have had the personal luxury of viewing both Barry Sanders and Jim Brown in actual live games. I feel that based on my FIRST hand recollections Barry Sanders is the better back. Jim Brown was fortunate to compete against lower level competition, with players being much smaller and considerably slower . I noticed the change over the years that the game had become lightning fast and players had become much larger and faster. When watching Sanders run he very seldomly if ever took a crushing hit by a defender. Reggie White and John Lynch were astounded at his raw abilities when they competed against him on a regular basis. I respect Jim Brown as one of the best ever, but I feel his numbers are just SKEWED a bit based on the time frame he played in. Your entitled to your opinion, but based on first hand viewing you can't and won't convince me otherwise.

JasP24 · December 23, 2007 12:50PM

The original question posed was this:

"if you had to pick one player from any era who has ever played football to build your team around, who would it be. In other words, who is the best football player ever, as ranked among hall of fame football players."

The opinions given by actual HOF players:

"John Unitas received the most votes of any quarterback, the player that received the most votes of any player was Jim Brown."

Nuff said...

The way I understood the question, is that we are taking players based on what they did in THEIR OWN ERA..Not trying to transpose Johnny U or Jimmy Brown to a 2007 lineup. Based on how much better Jim Brown was than his peers of the 60s and vs. the competition he faced, is the reason he was chosen by me, as well as the majority of HOFers...Most of time it looked like he was a professional playing against a bunch of high schoolers..He was that dominant IN HIS ERA...I just don't see an argument that any other RB in history was as dominant vs. his competition, regardless of how big, small, stong or weak they were...

Saying that modern players are better because they face bigger faster competition is ridiculous..ALL of the players are bigger, faster and more juiced...The offensive players are bigger and faster now too...Like baseball..Its juiced vs. juiced...Based on this arguement I can only infer that those who think Barry is the greatest for this reason also believes Barry Bonds is the greatest baseball player of all-time..

Jason

JasP24 · December 23, 2007 12:58PM

This ranking was compiled using top 10 lists from a panel of ESPN NFL experts. The voters were: John Clayton (JC), Len Pasquarelli (LP), Sean Salisbury (SS), Mark Schlereth (MS), Joe Theismann (JT), Randy Mueller (RM), Sal Paolantonio (SP), Greg Garber (GG), Merril Hoge (MH), Peter Lawrence-Riddell (PLR) and James C. Black (JB).

Players received 10 points for a first-place vote, nine points for second and so on down to one point for a 10th-place vote.

Top 10 NFL players
Player/Voter Total
1. Jim Brown 102
2. Jerry Rice 72
3. Joe Montana 65
4. Walter Payton 60
5. Lawrence Taylor 55
6. Johnny Unitas 46
7. John Elway 45
8. Dick Butkus 28
9. Reggie White 16
10t. Sammy Baugh 15
10t. Decon Jones 15
Others receiving votes (points): Anthony Munoz (12), Jack Lambert (10), Dan Marino (9), Jim Parker (8), Dick "Night Train" Lane (7), Ray Lewis (7), Mel Blount (6), Barry Sanders (5), Mike Webster (4), Deion Sanders (4), Rod Woodson (4), Ronnie Lott (3), Bart Starr (2), Bob Lilly (2), Emmitt Smith (1), Joe Greene (1)

Pretty solid list IMO...

Jason

JasP24 · December 23, 2007 1:01PM

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

JasP24 · December 23, 2007 1:09PM

In his new book, "The Paolantonio Report: The Most Overrated and Underrated Players, Teams, Coaches & Moments in NFL History," Sal Paolantonio challenges some of your long-held beliefs about America's popular game.

Barry Sanders -- Overrated

Barry Sanders, who was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2004 (his first year of eligibility), scored one touchdown for every 35 touches in his 153 regular-season games, but just one touchdown in 112 postseason touches in six playoff games.

Indeed, Sanders' only career playoff touchdown was a 47-yard run against the Dallas Cowboys in a 1991 divisional-round playoff game in the Pontiac Silverdome. The Lions won that game 38-6. Sanders' touchdown came in the final minutes of the fourth quarter with Detroit already leading 31-6. The following week, the Lions went on the road to play the Washington Redskins at RFK Stadium. Sanders was not a factor. Detroit took a 41-10 beating.

Barry Sanders wasn't the same player away from home.
Sanders' postseason performance supports the notion that he was a product of the cozy, climate-controlled Silverdome. Nice carpet for easy, stop-on-a-dime maneuvering. Seventy-two degrees. Detroit faithful keeping the defensive line off balance with high decibel support.

In four career outdoor postseason games, Sanders averaged a paltry 2.8 yards per carry. He never scored a touchdown. And he never ran for more than 65 yards in a single game. With Sanders, the Lions went 0-4 in outdoor playoff games, losing by an average of 17 points.

Nobody is suggesting that a bust of Barry should not be in Canton. He's the third-leading rusher of all time with 15,269 yards. He holds the all-time NFL record for consecutive 1,000 seasons with 10, from 1989 to 1998. Sanders was the first player to rush for 1,500 yards in a season five times. He was selected to 10 Pro Bowls. In 1997, when he rushed for 2,053 yards, he was NFL co-MVP, an honor he should have not had to share with Brett Favre that season. In 1988, Sanders won the Heisman Trophy at Oklahoma State.

But this picture of perfection has a nasty blemish. Once Sanders got to the big stage, and got out of the Silverdome, he was a bust.

Take the wild-card playoff game at Lambeau Field in 1994. That season, Sanders averaged 5.7 yards per carry -- the second-highest total of his career. In the first round of the playoffs against the Green Bay Packers, on Lambeau Field's frozen tundra, Sanders set an NFL postseason record for rushing futility. He had 13 carries for minus-one yard. He had four catches that day -- for four yards. Which means he had 16 touches for a total of three yards -- 2.7 yards less than he averaged per rush in the regular season.

Now, the spirited defense of putting him in the Hall of Fame on the first ballot always includes the theory that Sanders was the only thing the Lions had going for them in The Barry Sanders Era. That's exactly what it is -- a theory, and a bad one at that.

Did we forget about wide receivers Herman Moore and Brett Perriman? The Lions stretched the field for Sanders -- especially in the Dome. This helped him be wildly successful -- in the regular season. And in the years when the Lions went to the playoffs, their defense was not awful. It was middle of the pack -- ranked 11th in 1991, 15th in 1993, 19th in 1994, 14th in 1995 and 10th in 1997.

There is another ugly scar on Sanders' career: His Greta Garbo act on the way out the door.

After rushing for 1,491 yards in 1998, Sanders abruptly and mysteriously retired. At the time, he was 1,457 yards shy of Walter Payton's all-time rushing record. His defenders say Sanders -- who played the game with dignity and class -- did not owe anybody anything. As long as he was at peace with the decision, that was enough. That's bunk.

Here was a man who benefited greatly from the support of his teammates, his organization and his fans -- and he just turned his back on them without a word of gratitude. He left his teammates and a franchise in the lurch, to the point that the Lions demanded he return $7.3 million of his signing bonus.

Years later, when it was time for him to become eligible for Canton, Sanders had to be coaxed into providing some kind of explanation for his untimely retirement.

It was too little, too late.

Postscript: Of the five leading rushers in NFL history, Sanders is the only one to never reach a Super Bowl. The others -- Emmitt Smith, Walter Payton, Curtis Martin and Jerome Bettis -- all reached at least one Super Bowl. And all but Martin won at least one NFL championship ring.

cardbender · December 23, 2007 4:19PM

Jason,
I guess calling you a bully was a little much. No offense intended, I apologize. I know you're very knowledgeable/passionate about the game and of it's history. I think we can all attest to that by many of your great posts, usually backed by solid facts/stats.

The reason I posted defending Sanders was because everyone is entitled to answer this thread about who they might select as the greatest without being told they don't know what they're talking about. When a few people said Barry was the best 'in their opinion', you seemed to take it as a badge of honor to belittle him, his career, and prove them wrong.

Posting a video clip of his losses was not really a fair way of looking at a great players career accomplishments. You could have easily posted his 'good video' along with his 'losses' from the same website, but choose not to in order to validate your side of this discussion.

What if I could dig up footage of Jim Brown and all his blown blocking assignments, when his inability to block rushers meant Milt Plum or Frank Ryan were getting creamed? Would that paint a fair picture of his greatness or convince other posters that he wasn't the best ever? Afterall, like I've posted before all runners seem to have weaknesses in their game. Brown's weakness was blocking and he himself freely has admitted this in quite a few interviews.

You're right, Sanders did have some awful playoff games. I remember the Packers game in particular when he was held to basically zero yards in the cold. Back in the '65 Championship game, Jim Brown was coming off a league leading 1500 + rushing year and 17 rushing TD's in a 14 game regular season. He went into Green Bay and was held to only 50 yards in the title game while Paul Hornung and Jim Taylor put up nearly 100 yards each in the mud. The Cleve. Brown's lost 23-12. Does that one Title game where Jim Brown couldn't even out rush a basically washed up Hornung lessen Brown's great career? Absolutely not, but I could try to post video highlights of this game here to convince others it does.

What great player hasn't had a few rotten playoff games. Check out Johnny U's playoffs in the 1960's and early '70's. Lot's of dud's in there too. Still considered one of the best if not the best QB in many experts eyes as evidenced by your all-time great lists.

Gale Sayers teams never played in the playoffs. Fran Tarkenton's great Vikings teams never won the Super Bowl. To say that NOT winning a championship impacts a players greatness is just plain wrong. Many times it's just opportunities. More so in a team sport like Football than any other team sport.

The Lions as a team haven't done much playoff game winning since the 1950's and the Bobby Layne/Tobin Rote era lead teams. We're talking 50 years here! But do you really blame Barry 100% for the Lions' recent playoff failings? If, another if, Emmitt Smith were on the Lions instead of Sanders, would they have played better and won more often? You never know. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe Emmitt runs for 'only' 12,000 career yards and 100 TD's. Teams try to deploy plays based on their talent on hand. The Lions were no different trying to exploit Sanders' skills on their opponents.

I think the Lions got everything out of Barry Sanders they could. The Lions drafted poorly in my opinion over his career, but that's all hindsight. The Lions were a .500 to slightly better than .500 team during Sanders' career. Their defenses were in the middle of pack many years as you pointed out. Sanders was 'the star' that every team game planned against trying to stop him on Sunday. Some did, many didn't.

It's a fallacy Barry didn't run well on grass, his lifetime stats are about even for turf vs. grass production, obviously the Lions W/L record is better at home. Although you do have it right in the playoffs. He was not that great.

He did put up 169 yards on the Packers at the Silverdome in the '93 playoffs, but the Lions lost a close one 28-24. In a head to head playoff match up with E. Smith and Cowboys in Jan. '92, the Lions won 38-6 at home with Sanders scoring a TD with only 69 yards rush.. Emmitt had 80 yards on 15 carries in the loss. That year the Lions were 12-4. The Lions then got throttled by the Redskins in the NFC Champ. game at Wash. They got behind early, stopped running the ball and tried to play catch up. Sanders only had 11 carries for 44 yards and zero TD's in that road loss. Andre Ware actually made a QB relief appearance in that blowout. So Sanders wasn't a complete playoff bust and his playoff production mirrors a lot of other NFL greats.

I don't think Barry Sanders juiced either. To associate him with Barry Bonds is a slap in Sanders' face. Although I agree there's a lot of juicing in the last 25 years in all sports unfortunately.

Also Jim Brown decided to retire from pro Football in August of 1966 while filming 'The Dirty Dozen' in England, leaving his Brown's team in the lurch about a month before the start of the next season. It's been rumored he quit over money too, although Jim Brown spins it another way now as a disagreement with owner Art Modell. Luckily for the Cleveland Browns they had Leroy Kelly on the roster and ready to step in.

So I guess that's another thing Jim Brown and Barry Sanders have in common. They were both enigma's to say the least. Maybe even self-centered stars.

To re-read the opening post question again, I probably wouldn't start my team with a running back. I would want a versatile athlete that could play multiple postions and play them well. I might choose Sammy Baugh when considering all era's. You'd have your QB pos. covered, he was one of the game's all-time finest punters, and he played DB well.

My all-time favorite player is Bart Starr.
I think the greatest player of all-time is Jim Brown.
Most exciting player to watch in NFL history: Barry Sanders.

My 10 'favorite' players in NFL history:

Bart Starr
Sonny Jurgensen
Johnny Unitas
Jim Brown
Joe Montana
Steve Young
Jerry Rice
Bob Lilly
OJ Simpson
Barry Sanders

That's about I have to say about Barry and again
Jason no offense towards you at all.

I hope everyone has a Merry Christmas.

Rich

GDM67 · December 23, 2007 4:42PM

It's interesting that the consensus of Jason's lists has the order among running backs being Brown first, then Payton and Sanders third. Those three men make up the first 60% of my personal Top five, pretty much in that order, although the space between them is, to my mind, miniscule.

unitas · December 23, 2007 9:20PM

Johnny "Golden Arm" Unitas

1960toppsguy · December 23, 2007 10:45PM

I need to update the list as it is inaccurate:

Top 10 NFL players
Player/Voter Total
1. Jim Brown 102
2. Jerry Rice 72
3. Joe Montana 65
4. Walter Payton 60
5. Lawrence Taylor 55
6. Johnny Unitas 46
7. John Elway 45
8. Dick Butkus 28
9. Reggie White 16
10t. Sammy Baugh 15
10t. Decon Jones 15
Others receiving votes (points): Anthony Munoz (12), Jack Lambert (10), Dan Marino (9), Jim Parker (8), Dick "Night Train" Lane (7), Ray Lewis (7), Mel Blount (6), Barry Sanders (5), Mike Webster (4), Deion Sanders (4), Rod Woodson (4), Ronnie Lott (3), Bart Starr (2), Bob Lilly (2), Emmitt Smith (1), Joe Greene (1) Bruce Smith (1)Text

gregm13 · December 24, 2007 1:20AM

<< 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...

sayheykid54 · December 24, 2007 3:23AM

In addition to playing against undersized slow players Jim Brown ran behind three HOF linemen. Groza, Hickerson, and Mccormack all helped to pad his skeewed numbers. Barry Sanders offensive line was almost non-existent, actually pathetic. Look at the actual contributing factors that allowed Brown to put up his numbers, and any reasonably intelligent person can see through the FLUFF. Your arguments don't come close to stacking up in my opinion.

Barry Sanders is the Best running back in the history of the NFL.

JasP24 · December 24, 2007 4:03AM

<< In addition to playing against undersized slow players Jim Brown ran behind three HOF linemen. Groza, Hickerson, and Mccormack all helped to pad his skeewed numbers. Barry Sanders offensive line was almost non-existent, actually pathetic. Look at the actual contributing factors that allowed Brown to put up his numbers, and any reasonably intelligent person can see through the FLUFF. Your arguments don't come close to stacking up in my opinion.

Barry Sanders is the Best running back in the history of the NFL. >>

Jim Brown and FLUFF in the same paragraph??? That may be the first time in history...lol

And you actually watched him play??? You say he ran behind 3 HOF lineman as if they all played together on the same line for his entire career...

1957-Groza
1958 Groza, McCormack
1959-Groza, Hickerson, McCormack (He only averaged 4.6 per carry this season..2nd lowest of his career)
1960-Hickerson, McCormack
1961-McCormack
1962-Hickerson, McCormack (Brown's worst season)
1963-Hickerson (Brown's best season)
1964-Hickerson
1965-Hickerson

Lastly, again one back scratches the other..Would McCormack or Hickerson made the HOF if they hadn't blocked for a HOF caliber RB? Both were elected as Senior candidates and "blocking for Jim Brown" was one of the selling points for each...

Just the facts...

Jason

SKINSFAN · December 24, 2007 4:25AM

Udersized and slow ?????????????

Little story from last year .
The Redskins playing the Eagles some drunk guy starts beating on the broadcasters door the starts to climb into the both.
1 of the annoucers a man well over 60 now grabs the guy by the shirt picks him up off his feet opens the door and knocks him out and then tosses him out the door ,who was this old guy

1 OF THOSE UNDERSIZED SLOW GUYS Sam Huff.

Back in the 50,s and 60,s you did not see roughing flags it was truely a mans game

I THINK YOU NEED TO BE PUT IN A ROOM WITH GUYS LIKE Huff OR Rosey Grier OR Dick Butkus ,Bednarik Just to name a few and you can explain your ideas of slow small guys to them

ps my vote would be either Jim Brown or Jim Thorpe

sayheykid54 · December 24, 2007 4:50AM

Simple fact. Today's players are faster and bigger than the player's from the past. That is FACT.

jaxxr · December 24, 2007 5:10AM

Speaking of offensive linemen,

One of the few HOF limeman Jim Brown ran behind, was voted in, primarily as a placekicker, Lou "The Toe" Groza was good OT, but certainly not HOF worthy based on his blocking only.

John McKay, former head coach of USC ( Anthony Munuoz' school ) and later the Tampa Bay Bucs, was once asked who was the best football player he ever coached.
He had coached quite a few great running backs, however his answer was John Hannah, at the time an Alabama U. lineman playing in an all-star game of which McKay was the coach. McKay stated big John was perhaps the smartest player he ever coached and had unbelievable skill and power.

JasP24 · December 24, 2007 5:14AM

<< Simple fact. Today's players are faster and bigger than the player's from the past. That is FACT. >>

Bigger? Sure, chemically enhanced both legal and illegal that they didn't have in the 60's..But faster? Thats debatable...Bigger doesn't always equal better either..As Art stated and I have stated many times already, the rules back then were WAY different..If you combined the rules of the 60s era with the chemically enhanced athletes of today the NFL would be a blood sport..Multiple deaths IN GAME every year...

I don't know any other way to equate it other than to say based on that premise, sayheykid must believe that Barry Bonds is the greatest baseball player of all-time. Or that his own icon Willie Mays or Babe Ruth are somehow less of a player because they played in a time when guys were smaller and ballparks were bigger...

Jim Brown was a masher in a game full of mashers..Football is a physical sport. The root premise is man vs. man on field combat. To choose a guy who avoided contact at all cost as the greatest player ever in a contact sport is very misguided IMO. The glasses must be as rose colored as they get here..lol

Jason

JasP24 · December 24, 2007 5:26AM

<< Speaking of offensive linemen,

One of the few HOF limeman Jim Brown ran behind, was voted in, primarily as a placekicker, Lou "The Toe" Groza was good OT, but certainly not HOF worthy based on his blocking only.

John McKay, former head coach of USC ( Anthony Munuoz' school ) and later the Tampa Bay Bucs, was once asked who was the best football player he ever coached.
He had coached quite a few great running backs, however his answer was John Hannah, at the time an Alabama U. lineman playing in an all-star game of which McKay was the coach. McKay stated big John was perhaps the smartest player he ever coached and had unbelievable skill and power.

>>

Yeah, but Hannah played when guys were smaller and slower, so no way he could be the greatest pulling guard to ever play the game...Forget about how he dominated bigger D-lineman bigger than himself at the point of attack...Forget about his quickness into the hole, consistently taking out MLBs like Jack Lambert as he paved the way for whatever scrub RB the Patriots were running out there...If he played pre-1990 he was facing inferior competition, so how could we say he's the best?

(note the sarcasm)

Jason

JasP24 · December 24, 2007 5:35AM

Some players have what is known as football speed. Others have track speed. Some have both. In his prime, Darrell Green may have had the best combination of the two. Jerry Rice, in his prime, never ran under 4.5 seconds in the 40-yard dash for the stopwatch. Yet in terms of football speed, he was about a 4.3 guy. On the other hand, Eddie Kennison won races that made him the NFL’s fastest man in gym shorts. But after he puts the pads on, he rarely shows that type of speed on the field. With this in mind, we asked NFL insiders who they believe had the best combination of track and football speed. (List only includes post-merger players.)

1. Bob Hayes / Cowboys – "World’s fastest man and fastest football player in his prime."

2. Darrell Green / Redskins — "Nolan Ryan was throwing 100 mph when he was over 40 (years old), and Green was running sub-4.4 (in the 40) and still running with all the racehorses."

3. Cliff Branch / Raiders and Mel Gray / Cardinals (tie) — "Both were diminutive sprinters no defensive back could stay with. If they were close to even, they were leavin’, and you needed to keep a seven- to 10-yard cushion against both or else they would eat up your cushion and be by you before you could react."

5. Bo Jackson / Raiders — "Before his injury, he was the fastest big man I ever saw. However, he still was more track- than football-fast."

6. Randy Moss / Vikings — "If he trained for it, he could be a world-class sprinter."

7. Wesley Walker / Jets — "A true jet."

8. Homer Jones / Giants, Browns — "A king-size receiver who could run like a deer."

9. Deion Sanders / Falcons, 49ers, Cowboys, Redskins — "Rare playing speed and excellent but not great track times."

10. Rick Upchurch / Broncos — "Could go from zero to 60 like a race car."

Others mentioned: Stanley Morgan, Lance Alworth, Isaac Curtis, Willie Gault, Jimmy Johnson (49ers), Willie Buchanon (Packers; before injury) and Eric Dickerson.

Sorry, but I don;t see a run of "90's-present" players on this list..In fact the fastest to ever play in the NFL based on this write up is Bullet Bob Hayes who played when??? Yep, the 60s..

jay0791 · December 24, 2007 5:52AM

Bigger and faster.....hmmmmmm
Look at the guts of most of these modern day lineman...300+ pounds
I'm not sure....the guys name maybe joe washington.......his gut is so big he can't be in the game for more than one play ...or run out of oxygen.......bent over weezing after the play......thank god that's available nowadays on the sidelines......
imagine the stamina one had to have to play both ways-defense and offense back then. No room for a few extra pounds on chuck bednarick. No commercial breaks to catch your wind !!!
O J ran the 100 in 9.6 (recorded by a lapd giving chase) lets see...bob hayes- the fastest man in the world played in the 1960's
They were just as fast then as now. Given all the opportunities available to the modern guys like nutrition, sports specialty trainers...and on and on...the older guys would be just as big. Dick Butkus would eat alive anyone in his lane: past, present, and future.

jaxxr · December 24, 2007 6:18AM

I believe Ollie Matson, Chicago Cards, was the first Olympic track medal winner to play in the NFL,
after Jim Thorpe of course !

cardbender · December 24, 2007 8:29AM

I honestly feel Jim Brown would excel in any era.

Maybe one of the best ways to judge players (with statistics, ie QB's, RB's, WR's/Ends) is to see how they performed in they're own era's.

If you really sit down and look at the numbers, Jim Brown was head and shoulders above any and all rushers in his era and by a very wide margin.

Look at his second season in 1958, he led the NFL with 1527 rushing yards, 5.9 5.9 avg with 17 TD's. The runner-up rusher (Alan Ameche - playing on the NFL championship team) had 791 yards, 4.6 avg, and 8 TD's. So he had nearly double the yardage and TD's with a full yard better average gain. Impressive to say the least. A man amongst boys if you will.

Take his record setting 1963 season, Jim Brown rushed for 1863 yards, 6.4 avg., 12 TD's. The runner up, HOF'er Jim Taylor of the Packers and playing on a great 11-2-1 team, rushed for 1018 yards, 4.1 avg., and 9 TD's. More than 800 yards less than Jim Brown!

1965: Brown's last year, 1544 yards, 5.3 avg., and 17 TD's.
Runner up: Gale Sayers: 867 yards, 5.2 avg., and 14 TD's.
Again nearly double the runner up's total in yardage. The Bears had a pretty solid team that year too and went 9-5.

So while it's often difficult to compare era's, a great way to discuss this is to try comparing players in their own era's and see how they stack up.

I've already stated numerous times I'm a big Barry Sanders fan and he's certainly one of the greatest players ever in my mind and I can see the argument being made about him being considered the greatest ever in some people's eyes. But Jim Brown was really so much head and shoulders above players in his own era that it's mind boggling.

I'm not trying to convince anyone reading this to change their mind, just posting my opinion backed by some stats.

cardbender · December 24, 2007 8:47AM

<< This ranking was compiled using top 10 lists from a panel of ESPN NFL experts. The voters were: John Clayton (JC), Len Pasquarelli (LP), Sean Salisbury (SS), Mark Schlereth (MS), Joe Theismann (JT), Randy Mueller (RM), Sal Paolantonio (SP), Greg Garber (GG), Merril Hoge (MH), Peter Lawrence-Riddell (PLR) and James C. Black (JB).

Players received 10 points for a first-place vote, nine points for second and so on down to one point for a 10th-place vote.

Top 10 NFL players
Player/Voter Total
1. Jim Brown 102
2. Jerry Rice 72
3. Joe Montana 65
4. Walter Payton 60
5. Lawrence Taylor 55
6. Johnny Unitas 46
7. John Elway 45
8. Dick Butkus 28
9. Reggie White 16
10t. Sammy Baugh 15
10t. Decon Jones 15
Others receiving votes (points): Anthony Munoz (12), Jack Lambert (10), Dan Marino (9), Jim Parker (8), Dick "Night Train" Lane (7), Ray Lewis (7), Mel Blount (6), Barry Sanders (5), Mike Webster (4), Deion Sanders (4), Rod Woodson (4), Ronnie Lott (3), Bart Starr (2), Bob Lilly (2), Emmitt Smith (1), Joe Greene (1)

Pretty solid list IMO...

Jason >>

Solid list, I agree. The only thing lacking is players who started their career before 1950. There's only one on this list, Sammy Baugh. So do these ex-players and so-called experts that make up these lists really believe that Football began in 1950? I don't see Nagurski, Don Hutson, Red Grange, Mel Hein, Van Buren, Luckman, anywhere on this list. So I would take their experts opinion with a grain of salt. It's somewhat biased towards the modern era.

The other Sporting News list was from a book published in I believe 2000 or thereabouts, I have the book, just not handy now, otherwise Peyton Manning would be on the list.

So yeah lists are great, I enjoy looking them over, but they should cover the entire 87 years of pro football history, not just the post Korean war era.

JasP24 · December 24, 2007 11:19AM

<< 

So yeah lists are great, I enjoy looking them over, but they should cover the entire 87 years of pro football history, not just the post Korean war era. >>

Totally agree..Especially when it comes to Don Hutson and Steve Van Buren..Hutson was #6 on the Sporting News top 100..I'd definitely have to find a way to put him in my top 10, and have always found it hard to accept Jerry Rice over Hutson in the greatest WR debate...Simply based on how much more dominant he was over the other WRs of his day..It would be like a guy in 2007 catches 250 passes for 2500 yards in a season..

The tough thing about evaluating those guys is the lack of game footage pre-1950...There just isnt much out there, so for the most part you have to rely on newspaper stories and the stats..And many of the stats going back to the Red Grange days are incomplete as well..So its a tough sell...Heck, I'm happy when we can at least discuss pre-1970 players at this point..When you talk to non-harcore fans of the game, not many know anything about the game pre-1970s...

Jason

1960toppsguy · December 24, 2007 11:44AM

Bruce Smith . . . where would he fall in this heralded list?

JasP24 · December 24, 2007 12:13PM

<< Bruce Smith . . . where would he fall in this heralded list? >>

58. Bruce Smith

Fuzz · December 24, 2007 12:17PM

JasP,
For your spped list, how about James Jett?

GDM67 · December 24, 2007 1:54PM

<< Udersized and slow ?????????????

Little story from last year .
The Redskins playing the Eagles some drunk guy starts beating on the broadcasters door the starts to climb into the both.
1 of the annoucers a man well over 60 now grabs the guy by the shirt picks him up off his feet opens the door and knocks him out and then tosses him out the door ,who was this old guy

1 OF THOSE UNDERSIZED SLOW GUYS Sam Huff. >>

<< I THINK YOU NEED TO BE PUT IN A ROOM WITH GUYS LIKE Huff OR Rosey Grier OR Dick Butkus ,Bednarik Just to name a few and you can explain your ideas of slow small guys to them >>

Exactly. Or Deacon Jones, Nitschke, Gino Marchetti or Bob Lilly (several of whom have personal variations on the "I Hit Jim Brown...And When I Woke Up Sometime Later..." anecdote.)

Skip Bayless has made this same "weak competition" argument about Jim and it's no more convncing from him. The sole thing you can point to about Jim is that he never had to face several contemporary defensive stalwarts like Bobby Bell and Buck Buchannan, because of them playing in the AFL. That's a wrinkle that pops up in every discussion of great players of the decade, no matter which league they played in.

JasP24 · December 28, 2007 12:32AM

Some interesting stats I saw today that plays into our debate:

50-PLUS RUSHES (Career)
Barry Sanders (20)---3062 attempts---Thats one per every 153.1 carries
Jim Brown (15)---2359 attempts---Thats one per every 157.3 carries
LaDainian Tomlinson (14)---2349 attempts---One per every 167.8 carries
Fred Taylor (13)---2285 attempts---One per every 175.8 carries
Warrick Dunn (12)---2472 attempts---One per every 206 carries
Robert Smith (12)---1411 attempts---One per every 117.6 carries
Tiki Barber (12)---2217 attempts---One per every 184.8 carries

Looking at this, Robert Smith was actually a better breakaway back than Barry, and they played during the same era..Jim Brown is right behind his career average with FAR FEWER negative yard rushes...

10-PLUS RUSHES (Career)
Emmitt Smith (437)---4409 attempts---One per every 10.1 carries
Barry Sanders (363)---3062 attempts---One per every 8.4 carries
Curtis Martin (343)---3518 attempts---One per every 10.3 carries
Marshall Faulk (332)---2836 attempts---One per every 8.5 carries
Fred Taylor (311)---2285 attempts---One per every 7.3 carries

I value this stat even more than the rare 50+ highlight runs..Fred Taylor has a better career average than Barry of breaking off important 10+ yard runs...These are first downs for their respective teams. That moves the chains, that wins football games...Masrshall Faulk is just behind Barry, and honestly I would think hard about choosing Faulk over Barry if we were picking teams...Faulk was one of the best every receivers out of the backfield, not to mention a master of the blitz pickup...He's been called a "coach on the field" by most of his teammates including Peyton Manning and Kurt Warner the year Warner was NFL and Super Bowl MVP...He rarely got tackled in the backfield..Even though he was small he was quick to the hole, not a lot of dancing around back there...

Definitely something to consider IMO...

Jason

Wabittwax · December 28, 2007 4:28AM

<< Wow!!!!

Those Jim Brown/ Gale Sayers video clips gave me goosebumps!! It also slammed the the door on the Barry Sanders debate. I love Barry and he was a spectacular player, but Im sorry, the all-time leader in yards lost from scrimmage is just not in the same league as Brown and Sayers. I gotta go watch them Sayers clips again!! >>

It looks like we were watching totally different videos. I completely saw the opposite. Brown and Sayers running style was one of determination of not going down rather than pure skill or running ability. Barry Sanders made defensive backs look silly. Brown's running style was to run hard and fast. Barry's style was an artform. To label him as the all time leader in yards lost is a little unfair. He did play for the Lions, which should only raise his status as a true talent. When his O-Line collapes (repeatedly) he will wind up taking losses. But then he rebounds by completely shredding and 11 man defense almost by himself. What would his numbers have been if he ran behind the Cowboys O-Line of the 90's? Maybe not the best player ever but he has my vote for the best RB ever.

MeteoriteGuy · December 28, 2007 4:29AM

I think the subject has changed a little. We went from who do you want to build your team around, to who is the best player ever.

And for my team I still want Barry and LT to build my team around....

I would built my team around players I grew up watching, rather then players my dad grew up watching. I see it as a totally different sport now and I don't want any of old beat you up and kick players on my team. I would have enough press problems after going after TO.

Clear Skies,
Mark

Wabittwax · December 28, 2007 4:37AM

By the way, this will turn into the same argument as Baseball. The "greatest" players are always dead and retired in most people's mind, even though pro sports athletes are almost bred from birth nowadays, like horses in racing. Has anyone seen the physique (sp?) of Terrell Owens? Is anyone going to say that any player from the 50's and 60's was built like that? What does a modern player have to accomplish for some people to give them their due credit. It's almost like a player gets better in people's minds as time goes by after they retire. It's a sad state of nostaglia.

JasP24 · December 28, 2007 4:43AM

Maybe a more valid debate would be Barry Sanders vs. Marshall Faulk..Their careers overlapped. Both smaller RBs, neither was a brusier...

I would actually probably take Marshall, simply because he brings so much more to the table across the board. Barry had the better "avoid being touched" ability, but Faulk also had that to a lesser degree. He was head and shoulders better in the passing game (catching and blocking). He was also a TD machine and made his teammates around him better by providing them with much insight on defensive tendencies of the teams they were playing. I've never once heard that or read that about Barry.

Jason

JasP24 · December 28, 2007 4:50AM

<< By the way, this will turn into the same argument as Baseball. The "greatest" players are always dead and retired in most people's mind, even though pro sports athletes are almost bred from birth nowadays, like horses in racing. Has anyone seen the physique (sp?) of Terrell Owens? Is anyone going to say that any player from the 50's and 60's was built like that? What does a modern player have to accomplish for some people to give them their due credit. It's almost like a player gets better in people's minds as time goes by after they retire. It's a sad state of nostaglia. >>

Its a double edged sword, and in the media at least, the flavor of the day always gets the new "greatest ever" label. Rarely do we hear about the old time greats. Unlike baseball where the Babe Ruths and Mickey Mantles are untouchable names.

Peyton Manning and Tom Brady are easily top 10 all-time QBs and they are both active players...The greatest active RB IMO is LT, but he wouldn't be in my top 5, maybe close to top 10, but its all about the body of work. WRs, TO and Moss I actually think have been more dominant than Marvin Harrison. I know Harrison has the ring and the numbers, but Moss and T.O. can simply dominate the competition.

So many things can happen with active players..Look at Randy Moss..He was headed to being one of the all-time greats, then goes to Oakland and is a turd..What if he never goes to New England? Would he have still been considered an all-timer? Probably not...Once a player retires you can reflect on EVERYTHING that player accomplished and did on the field. Active guys, the book is still incomplete.

Jason

1960toppsguy · January 5, 2008 2:10AM

Bruce Smith #78 without a doubt

glossycrazy · January 5, 2008 4:30AM

Defensively: Dick Butkus, Alan Page, Ray Lewis, and LT! All are/were BEASTS!
Offensively: Jerry Rice, Barry Sanders, Jim Brown, and Gayle Sayers!
Enough Said!
Paul

sayheykid54 · January 5, 2008 9:27AM

Jim Brown's rushing accomplishments are without a doubt tainted because of the players he competed against. I equate it to playing football with your younger smaller brother's in the backyard, and putting a good whipping on them.

His numbers WOULD be above average if he played in today's NFL, but nowhere near what he finished with!!!!!

JasP24 · January 5, 2008 9:47AM

Marshall Faulk---Better than Barry Sanders..Hands down..Give me an argument against that...lol

Jason

JasP24 · January 5, 2008 9:49AM

And Robert Smith was a better breakway runner...(see stats above in ref to 50+ yard rushes)

JasP24 · January 5, 2008 9:51AM

<< Jim Brown's rushing accomplishments are without a doubt tainted because of the players he competed against. I equate it to playing football with your younger smaller brother's in the backyard, and putting a good whipping on them.

His numbers WOULD be above average if he played in today's NFL, but nowhere near what he finished with!!!!! >>

If he played today he would get 16 game seasons and go against defenses more aimed at stopping the pass..He would have ended with 20,000+ yardage totals if he played today...

Jason

JasP24 · January 5, 2008 9:53AM

THE GREATEST EVER!

By Bob Carroll
The Coffin Corner Volume XIX, Number 6

John Madden said something pretty funny a couple of weeks ago, and I laughed. But then I realized he was serious. What he said was that Barry Sanders was "the greatest runner of all time." Maybe he said "greatest ever." I was yukking too much to get every nuance. But I'm sure he added an est on to great.

Well, as anyone over the age of 40 (except John Madden) knows, there's been at least one -- and arguably, several -- greater than Sanders. Not that Barry isn't one of the best. I don't think anyone will complain if he goes into the Pro Football Hall of Fame the first year he's eligible. But the greatest? Get real!

Even this season, when Sanders is having a career year, some coaches might prefer having Terrell Davis or Jerome Bettis in their backfield. A couple of years ago, I'm sure a lot of them would have preferred Emmitt Smith. Neither Davis, Bettis, nor Smith can dodge or weave with Sanders, and I think he might win a straightaway dash too. But what they can do better than the Lion star is keep drives going. They are big and burly, and when they cradle a football in their well-muscled arms you can be reasonably certain they will gain some yards -- on average, nearly five.

Sanders may go seven to a dozen downs mixing three-yard gains with three-yard losses. That means that three or four Lions' drives could go three-and-out. So, you say, on the fifth drive, he goes 65 yards for a touchdown. What's the big deal?

The big deal is that all yards are not created equal. When you get them, where you get them, and how reliably you get them during the course of a game makes a huge difference. Davis and Bettis don't have to gain more yards than Sanders to be more valuable because they gain more valuable yards.

The big deal is that we should recognize the potential points lost by Detroit on those stalled drives where Barry gains two yards on three attempts. That doesn't happen all the time, of course, anymore than Davis and Bettis alway keep drives going. But if you start at your 25 with a competive quarterback and Terrell Davis in your backfield, you are more likely to negotiate 75 yards or a large part of it than than you are if you have Sanders in the situation. Betting on which one might collect all 75 in one fell swoop is a very different matter.

What really hurts is the potential points the Lions' opponents get because they tend to to start with better field position. And we might also toss in a little sympathy for the Lions' defense which gets precious little time to catch its breath. By the fourth quarter, that can make a heck of a difference. Last year, the Lions' time of possession averaged almost six minutes less than their opponents' time with the ball.

Even Sanders' strength -- his wondrous ability to go all the way -- works against the Lions because it puts their defense back on the field quickly. I'm sure the Lions' defense is happy to see the Detroit touchdown, but I'll bet in their hearts they would have preferred it came after a seven-minute drive.

Of course, it's hard to argue against Sanders as the best when he has one of those games where he scores four touchdowns with a couple of them coming on whirling, twirling, impossible runs. He is capable of magnificent games. But the Lions seldom finish over .500 for the season.

Wait a minute, you say, don't put all that on Sanders. Football is a team game. There are forty-something other Detroit players contributing to a losing season. True enough. Barry has not always had the best or healthiest offensive line, and he's never had John Elway as his quarterback.

It would be interesting for Sanders and Davis to switch teams for a season. Sanders might gain more yards and Davis might gain fewer. Or, Mike Stranahan might decide that he wanted a bigger, more reliable ground-gainer in there most of the time and spot Sanders' appearances. And Davis might keep right on chuggin'. Let's not go too far into speculation.

Besides, it's too early in his career to begin touting Terrell Davis as "the greatest ever." You probably won't hear that until 2003. But John Madden and a few others expect to be taken seriously when they suggest that Sanders fits that profile.

Personally, I'd take Walter Payton, Gale Sayers, Earl Campbell, Steve Van Buren, or Bronko Nagurski, if all other factors were equal. There are a couple of others who I might think hard about. But let's not waste any more time. We'll go right to the top.

THE VERY BEST-EST

Jim Brown was the greatest runner ever.

Period.

That is so obvious to anyone who ever saw him play a number of games that one can be taken aback when asked to prove it. It's like someone said, "Prove the sky is blue."

Frankly, I don't know how to prove the sky is even up there, but I think I can make a good case for Jim Brown.

Actually, I'm sure I can make a better case than Brown himself. Jim steadfastly refuses to compare different running backs from different eras, arguing that each one is unique. He's right. Not only does each runner bring his own strengths to the field, but game situations may favor one runner over another.

The runner you'd most like to have in your backfield if you're two touchdowns behind at the beginning of the fourth quarter is probably very different from the one you'd want if you were leading by one with three minutes left.

Nevertheless, the gauntlet was slammed down when Madden made that "greatest" comment. Somebody has to say something!

Let me start by getting a quibble out of the way. The only knock on Brown you ever hear is that he didn't block much. Like hardly ever. Of course, he wasn't hired to block and was usually sent out in the flat as a receiver on pass plays anyway, but if you're going to rate running backs on their blocking, you can give the crown to John Henry Johnson and go home. We're talking running here. Not blocking. Not pass receiving. Not deportment in the huddle. Running!

Sanders doesn't do much blocking either. Nor should he. Imagine, "Wow! Sanders threw his whole body into blocking that 300-pounder so Whosis could gain an extra yard. Wait a minute! Is that Sanders who's not getting up?"

So limiting ourselves to running only, let's look at the numbers.

THE NUMBERS

As of this writing (after the final 1997 regular season game), Sanders has 2,719 career rushing attempts, 13,778 yards, a 5.1 average, and 95 touchdowns. Jim Brown had 2,359 attempts, 12,312 yards, a 5.2 average, and 106 TDs. Brown played nine seasons. Sanders is in his ninth.

But what we're not mentioning is how many games they played. Remember, Brown played four twelve-game seasons and five fourteen game seasons. All Sanders' seasons have been 16-gamers. He missed seven games, and Brown never missed one. With the games played, we can look at their per game statistics.

Gm ATT YDS TD
Brown 118 20.0 104.3 .89
Sanders 137 19.8 100.6 .69

It's not a BIG difference, but Brown wins on every count.

THE SIZES

The Sanders people always whine that the defenders are bigger today than they were in Brown's day. True, but so what? Wake up, people! It's not the size difference between the runner and the defensive line and linebackers. The difference that matters is the size between the offensive line and the defenders.

Let's look at that.

In 1964, when Jim Brown's team won the NFL Championship, his offensive linemen averaged 252 pounds. The Baltimore Colts, the team Cleveland defeated in the title game, had defensive linemen averaging 248.5 pounds and linebackers at 229.2. The Browns had three and a half pounds on the Colts' D-line and 22.8 pounds on the linebackers.

In 1994, when Sanders had his best season until this one, his offensive line averaged 288 pounds. San Francisco's Super Bowl winners averaged 267.5 pounds across their defensive line and 236.5 in their linebacking corps. Hmmm. That gives Detroit a 20.5 weight advantage against the 49ers' line and a whopping 51.5 on the linebackers.

The size difference between the back and the defenders does make a difference as far as injuries are concerned but no big difference in the total yardage either Sanders or Brown could get. Sanders doesn't run over people the way Brown used to; he slip-slides-squirms past them. It comes out to the same thing. And injuries don't figure in the mix, Sanders, by missing only seven games in nine years, is remarkable. Brown's perfect attendance is other-worldly.

For what its worth, Sanders is no midgit. He weighs over 200 pounds. Brown usually went 235 which made him bigger than the average linebacker. Sure, it was an advantage. It's part of what made Brown the greatest. His size helped him get the tough yards, just as Bettis' size helps him today. Davis is a little bigger than Sanders. He gets tough yards too. Sanders doesn't get as many of the tough yards as Davis, though he certainly gets some. Sanders gains most of his yards with defensive backs chasing him from behind. Brown, Davis, Bettis, and Smith gained most of theirs with defenders still in front of them.

Sanders dodges around people better than anybody. Jim might not run over as many today, but he'd run over some. One-on-one with most of today's linebackers, my money's on Jim. Against defensive backs, it'd be no contest. I don't think Sanders would run around more people if he was playing thirty years ago. In fact, there are reasons he might dodge past fewer.

THE REASONS

First of all, Sanders plays on a more "runner-friendly" field today than Brown did. The hash marks have been moved in toward the center of the field. Sanders is never limited by a "short side" when he runs wide. Brown often was.

Even more important, Sanders plays most of his games on an artificial carpet. So long as a runner doesn't tear up a knee or bleed to death from a rug burn, fake grass gives him an advantage in making sharp cuts, the very thing that Sanders excels at. Brown had to contend with good old slippery, oops-there's-a-soft-spot, cow-dinner grass.

And, remember, Barry also plays more than half his games indoors. No slippy wet spots!

Ah, but Barry has an even bigger advantage -- one that dates back to the late 1970s when the rulemakers decided to make the game more air-dominated. They let the blockers extend their arms and use their hands. Brown's blockers had to get a shoulder into an opponent. And then the rulemakers, in their infinite wisdom, outlawed the bump-and-run, making the average game's most significant play a long pass interference. The net result was that defenses today, with a few exceptions, have to play the pass first and the run second.

But that's only part of it. Because of the emphasis on passing, teams used fewer hitters in their defensive backfield and began employing smaller, quicker "cover men." Besides speed and size, many of them had , and still have,something else in common -- they couldn't tackle worth a damn.

If anyone out there wants to tell me that today's players, particularly defensive backs, tackle better than the guys did thirty years ago, I'll call the fellows in the white coats and tell them to bring their net. For every blast laid on a receiver when he's unprotected over the middle, there are a dozen half-hearted arm tackles in the secondary.

SUMMING UP

Barry Sanders may be the greatest breakaway runner since Red Grange faced Michigan.

Bronko Nagurski may have been the best line smasher since the invention of the tank.

But Jim Brown was the greatest line-smashing, breakaway runner since ever.

It's a natural thing for people to compare the players they've seen with the ones they weren't born soon enough to see and then come down in favor of the ones they've seen. In Pittsburgh, it's a commonplace that Roberto Clemente was "the greatest player the Pirates ever had."

Like Honus Wagner played for the Yankees?

I can certainly forgive some kid just getting over acne for bestowing the title "Greatest Ever" on Barry Sanders. He doesn't understand that 130 yards from Jim Brown would put more points on the board than 130 yards by Barry Sanders. Reason: Brown's 130 would keep five or ten drives going until Cleveland had a touchdown or field goal. Barry's 130 would come mostly on a couple of long runs while he contributed little on the other Lions' possessions.

Our kid doesn't see the differences between 1960 and 1997 (except to be certain that people were dumber then). I'll forgive his ignorance.

But John Madden? Shame!

sayheykid54 · January 5, 2008 9:56AM

Marshall Faulk only had a career 4.3 average in a wide open offense. The only back in the history of the NFL that can be compared to Barry Sanders is I hate to say this........Jim Brown.

sayheykid54 · January 5, 2008 9:59AM

Jasp, you must have a ton of time on your hands to continually post illogical long-winded responses. Take a break.

JasP24 · January 5, 2008 10:02AM

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

JasP24 · January 5, 2008 10:05AM

<< Marshall Faulk only had a career 4.3 average in a wide open offense. The only back in the history of the NFL that can be compared to Barry Sanders is I hate to say this........Jim Brown. >>

So based strictly on YPC, Sanders was better? Look at EVERY OTHER POSSIBLE comparison and Faulk was 5 times better than Barry in every other category...

Your #1 pick of any player who ever played football

Comments