Best RB Ever - fun poll...participate or die

[Cornelius]

Forgive me, but I'm lost on the bolded part. Explain please?

He's a Cowboy homer and thinks Emmitt is better than Barry. Sums up his long winded garbage post.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

I'm going to vote Jim Brown, just because he was the most dominant in his era...but this is a tough discussion because I don't even think you can clump Jim Brown in a discussion with Sweetness and Emmitt/Barry...such different eras of football.

 

[nflman2033]

I'm going to vote Jim Brown, just because he was the most dominant in his era...but this is a tough discussion because I don't even think you can clump Jim Brown in a discussion with Sweetness and Emmitt/Barry...such different eras of football.

Best post in thread

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

I'm going to vote Jim Brown, just because he was the most dominant in his era...but this is a tough discussion because I don't even think you can clump Jim Brown in a discussion with Sweetness and Emmitt/Barry...such different eras of football.

I disagree. RB is the position that has changed the least over the decades.
Jim Brown played at 6ft2 232 lbs thats 10 lbs heavier than Peterson and 8 pounds lighter than Steven Jackson. An inch taller but same build and weight as guys like Herschel Walker and Bo Jackson. And thats without the rosettastone milk and squat thrust training players have today.

His only change would likely come from lining up further in the backfield and not having to lead block for anyone. Jim Brown vs a 6 man front and a nickel package for large portions of the game would likely be as productive as him getting the handoff at FB and running into 8 guys a yard later. Considering his numbers in 12-14 game seasons adjustment and comparison arent that difficult IMO.



Lastly Barry/Emmitt/Brown/Payton/Sayers/Campbell/Simpson...all those guys would be ripping up the league at torrid paces whether it was 1965 or 2011. We're talking about freakish talents; all of them. Anyone of them would be best back in the league so long as they got 20+ touches a game.

 

[ralaw]

I disagree. RB is the position that has changed the least over the decades.
Jim Brown played at 6ft2 232 lbs thats 10 lbs heavier than Peterson and 8 pounds lighter than Steven Jackson. An inch taller but same build and weight as guys like Herschel Walker and Bo Jackson. And thats without the rosettastone milk and squat thrust training players have today.

His only change would likely come from lining up further in the backfield and not having to lead block for anyone. Jim Brown vs a 6 man front and a nickel package for large portions of the game would likely be as productive as him getting the handoff at FB and running into 8 guys a yard later. Considering his numbers in 12-14 game seasons adjustment and comparison arent that difficult IMO.

I didn't see Brown play, but arguments that I've heard have to do with him being "a man amongst boys" Some have said that he was ahead of his time......a time in which defensive players weren't that great of athletes and didn't play within the sophisticated defensive systems that we've seen in more modern times.

IDK, but for me Brown seems to have been the most dominant in his era, so he is who I go with.

 

[nwfisch]

Armando Allen.

 

[NAHSTE]

Johnny U today would have 4000 yards a season, LT would be a beast off the edge, Prime would be a shutdown corner. But Jim Brown would be T.J. Duckett.
.

:lol:

 

[nflman2033]

I disagree. RB is the position that has changed the least over the decades.
Jim Brown played at 6ft2 232 lbs thats 10 lbs heavier than Peterson and 8 pounds lighter than Steven Jackson. An inch taller but same build and weight as guys like Herschel Walker and Bo Jackson. And thats without the rosettastone milk and squat thrust training players have today.

His only change would likely come from lining up further in the backfield and not having to lead block for anyone. Jim Brown vs a 6 man front and a nickel package for large portions of the game would likely be as productive as him getting the handoff at FB and running into 8 guys a yard later. Considering his numbers in 12-14 game seasons adjustment and comparison arent that difficult IMO.



Lastly Barry/Emmitt/Brown/Payton/Sayers/Campbell/Simpson...all those guys would be ripping up the league at torrid paces whether it was 1965 or 2011. We're talking about freakish talents; all of them. Anyone of them would be best back in the league so long as they got 20+ touches a game.

lol.

but the difference isn't the change at RB, its the change in the size of the defense he was playing against, he looked like a man against boys when he played, and you said that like it was common to see 6'2 230lb running backs back in the 60's, he was no question the exception.

 

[steeljake]

Not to mention on of our own(ramjackson) has posted more then a few games from before our time here.

i always knew you were a moron... you calling rams29 one of 'our' own proves it.

 

[dell71]

I have to agree with KoF on this one, and I'll expand on what he said to explain it better, I hope.

To dismiss his dominance as “running over small, slow white guys” is skimming the surface at best. The fact of the matter is he was a physical freak for any era of pro football. At 6-2, 232 lbs he was the same height and 10-15 lbs. heavier than Adrian Peterson. He practically dwarfs Marion Barber, who’s known as a human battering ram. Brown also had sprinter speed which stands up to today’s backs and possibly surpasses them. He did indeed run track in college (and played lacrosse, considered one of the very best to ever play that sport also). His 4.5 40 time seems a tad slow at first glance. When you see the truth of it though, you should realize it’s amazing:

When the Browns used a hand timer to check his speed in the 40-yard dash on one of the first days of practice, he ran it in a blistering 4.5 seconds while wearing his entire uniform, including shoulder pads and helmet, and entering the sprint from a three-point stance.

Peterson ran the 40 in 4.4 while wearing shorts and a t-shirt and anyone who’s ever watched him (prior to this past weekend's knee injury) knows he has breakaway speed. What would JB have ran in a pair of shorts? I have to believe it would be better than a 4.4.

If you’ve seen clips of Brown then you know he ran hard as well. I know, all the defenders were small and slow. To some extent that’s true. As best I can tell without finding any hard evidence, the average linebacker was roughly 225-230 lbs and stood about 6-2 (a few sites allude to these numbers). Now, the average player at the same position is roughly the same height (maybe even a inch shorter) and goes about 20 lbs. bigger. Granted, they are probably faster as well. However, A 230 lb. freight train with great speed can still run plenty of players over and disappear if you let him turn the corner. By the way, Brown is bigger than Jonathan Vilma, London Fletcher, D’Qwell Jackson, Pat Angerer, and NaVorro Bowman to name a few. In fact, his playing size is within 10 lbs and 1 inch in height of most of the league’s top tacklers. That's not to mention that those small defenders of his time pretty much had carte blanche to try and decapitate ball carriers.

What's also overlooked is that he also played with much smaller, less athletic offensive lines too. Most people agree that the average player is bigger and more athletic than during Brown's time. This applies to lineman also. In 1965, Brown's final season, the average weight of the five regular starters on his o-line was 249 lbs. The heaviest guy was only 265. In today's NFL, he wouldn't have a lineman smaller than 300 lbs and most would be closer to 320. And just like the defenders they would be faster and operating in more complex blocking schemes. Therefore, it stands to reason that the blocking he got now would be at least as good as it was then. With that in mind, he'd probably still encounter first contact at about the same spot on the field he would be used to from his day.

I think Brown would be a beast in any era.

 

[DSpydr84]

This is such a tough debate, but in my opinion it's Walter Payton (although I voted for Barry because I'm a homer-thug :smug: ).

I think Payton has it all. Somebody mentioned it earlier, he ran the ball like he stole it. He had that "won't be denied" attitude. I love that quality about a player, especially a running back. Combined with great agility and speed, he had everything you'd want in a running back.

Jim Brown was a man among children, and I shouldn't hold it against him, but I am. He was one of the most physically gifted players in NFL history given the time period and average body-type of people in the league. I think the equipment the players had plays a big factor in this as well. It probably hurt like a bitch trying to tackle this guy (when like I said, he's physically a monster). Modern equipment might have slowed down Brown's production as many players would be less afraid to hit him.

Emmitt Smith will always be considered a product of the Cowboys or "nothing" without the players he had around him, but he was a damn good back. His vision and quickness were unbelievable, and he had incredible balance. Those are three of the best qualities you can have as a running back. I never thought he got the credit he deserved, and I would venture to say that it was Emmitt who made the Cowboys, not the other way around.

Barry Sanders was in a class of his own at what he did. Nobody can or ever will Barry like Barry. In terms of excitement, I don't think there was anyone better. He ran like a scared rabbit. Did that hurt him in terms of skills as a running back? Sure. But his ability to avoid tackles was magical.

 

[nflman2033]

I have to agree with KoF on this one, and I'll expand on what he said to explain it better, I hope.

To dismiss his dominance as “running over small, slow white guys” is skimming the surface at best. The fact of the matter is he was a physical freak for any era of pro football. At 6-2, 232 lbs he was the same height and 10-15 lbs. heavier than Adrian Peterson. He practically dwarfs Marion Barber, who’s known as a human battering ram. Brown also had sprinter speed which stands up to today’s backs and possibly surpasses them. He did indeed run track in college (and played lacrosse, considered one of the very best to ever play that sport also). His 4.5 40 time seems a tad slow at first glance. When you see the truth of it though, you should realize it’s amazing:



Peterson ran the 40 in 4.4 while wearing shorts and a t-shirt and anyone who’s ever watched him (prior to this past weekend's knee injury) knows he has breakaway speed. What would JB have ran in a pair of shorts? I have to believe it would be better than a 4.4.

If you’ve seen clips of Brown then you know he ran hard as well. I know, all the defenders were small and slow. To some extent that’s true. As best I can tell without finding any hard evidence, the average linebacker was roughly 225-230 lbs and stood about 6-2 (a few sites allude to these numbers). Now, the average player at the same position is roughly the same height (maybe even a inch shorter) and goes about 20 lbs. bigger. Granted, they are probably faster as well. However, A 230 lb. freight train with great speed can still run plenty of players over and disappear if you let him turn the corner. By the way, Brown is bigger than Jonathan Vilma, London Fletcher, D’Qwell Jackson, Pat Angerer, and NaVorro Bowman to name a few. In fact, his playing size is within 10 lbs and 1 inch in height of most of the league’s top tacklers. That's not to mention that those small defenders of his time pretty much had carte blanche to try and decapitate ball carriers.

What's also overlooked is that he also played with much smaller, less athletic offensive lines too. Most people agree that the average player is bigger and more athletic than during Brown's time. This applies to lineman also. In 1965, Brown's final season, the average weight of the five regular starters on his o-line was 249 lbs. The heaviest guy was only 265. In today's NFL, he wouldn't have a lineman smaller than 300 lbs and most would be closer to 320. And just like the defenders they would be faster and operating in more complex blocking schemes. Therefore, it stands to reason that the blocking he got now would be at least as good as it was then. With that in mind, he'd probably still encounter first contact at about the same spot on the field he would be used to from his day.

I think Brown would be a beast in any era.

Sorry the bottom line is still the same and that you can not compare them, because the game is different, you are speculating with hypotheticals, you maybe right but you can't prove it one way or the other, all you can say is he dominated his era better than any other RB dominated his era.

It's silly when that isn't enough and you have to try and pull him out of time to see how he would fair in todays game.

 

[Tailback U]

Brown was a horse, that much is obvious.

He is out running or running over pretty much everyone else on the football field.

But if you really watch his style of running, I don't see much else that stands out. His balance and toughness are unmatched, but I am not really impressed with his vision, cutting, or juking. I just see a guy that takes the ball and runs as fast and as hard as he can either around defenders or through them, albeit with ease.

 

[DJ Rhude]

You can't go wrong with the great Jim Brown (who got my vote) or the elusive, dynamic Barry Sanders (My all time favorite back) but what pleases me most about this poll is that Emmitt Smith only got 5 votes (just four more than Terrell Davis who shouldn't even be in this poll!).....Finally I have some material to rub in the faces of the Smith homers at the office who I have eternally ridiculed for them having the audacity to say Smith was better than Sanders...*prints poll, enlarges and pastes on office wall for all to see*

:smugrussell:

 

[jms493]

:damn:

 

[DSpydr84]

I have to agree with KoF on this one, and I'll expand on what he said to explain it better, I hope.

To dismiss his dominance as “running over small, slow white guys” is skimming the surface at best. The fact of the matter is he was a physical freak for any era of pro football. At 6-2, 232 lbs he was the same height and 10-15 lbs. heavier than Adrian Peterson. He practically dwarfs Marion Barber, who’s known as a human battering ram. Brown also had sprinter speed which stands up to today’s backs and possibly surpasses them. He did indeed run track in college (and played lacrosse, considered one of the very best to ever play that sport also). His 4.5 40 time seems a tad slow at first glance. When you see the truth of it though, you should realize it’s amazing:



Peterson ran the 40 in 4.4 while wearing shorts and a t-shirt and anyone who’s ever watched him (prior to this past weekend's knee injury) knows he has breakaway speed. What would JB have ran in a pair of shorts? I have to believe it would be better than a 4.4.

If you’ve seen clips of Brown then you know he ran hard as well. I know, all the defenders were small and slow. To some extent that’s true. As best I can tell without finding any hard evidence, the average linebacker was roughly 225-230 lbs and stood about 6-2 (a few sites allude to these numbers). Now, the average player at the same position is roughly the same height (maybe even a inch shorter) and goes about 20 lbs. bigger. Granted, they are probably faster as well. However, A 230 lb. freight train with great speed can still run plenty of players over and disappear if you let him turn the corner. By the way, Brown is bigger than Jonathan Vilma, London Fletcher, D’Qwell Jackson, Pat Angerer, and NaVorro Bowman to name a few. In fact, his playing size is within 10 lbs and 1 inch in height of most of the league’s top tacklers. That's not to mention that those small defenders of his time pretty much had carte blanche to try and decapitate ball carriers.

What's also overlooked is that he also played with much smaller, less athletic offensive lines too. Most people agree that the average player is bigger and more athletic than during Brown's time. This applies to lineman also. In 1965, Brown's final season, the average weight of the five regular starters on his o-line was 249 lbs. The heaviest guy was only 265. In today's NFL, he wouldn't have a lineman smaller than 300 lbs and most would be closer to 320. And just like the defenders they would be faster and operating in more complex blocking schemes. Therefore, it stands to reason that the blocking he got now would be at least as good as it was then. With that in mind, he'd probably still encounter first contact at about the same spot on the field he would be used to from his day.

I think Brown would be a beast in any era.

The forgotten part of this whole debate is the player's equipment. It probably really hurt to tackle Jim Brown on a consistent basis, more-so than how it affects people today tackling power running backs. That catered to his style.

Not trying to take anything away from the guy, but we all had that friend in tackle football games in the backyard that nobody wanted to tackle. That was Jim Brown in the NFL. With updated equipment, I don't know if players are so fearful of bringing him down.

To me, that gives the other three running backs a bonus. But it's all speculation.

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

lol.

but the difference isn't the change at RB, its the change in the size of the defense he was playing against, he looked like a man against boys when he played, and you said that like it was common to see 6'2 230lb running backs back in the 60's, he was no question the exception.

Cookie Gilchrist , Jim Nance , Merion Motely , Rick Caseras and a few others were the same size as Brown or larger , were also among league leaders in carries/yards in the same years Brown was mauling defenses. It being just about Browns size is just a myth. Noone had his combination of speed and power making the typical 3 yards and a cloud of dust in that era into look out here comes a freight train.

I have to agree with KoF on this one, and I'll expand on what he said to explain it better, I hope.

To dismiss his dominance as “running over small, slow white guys” is skimming the surface at best. The fact of the matter is he was a physical freak for any era of pro football. At 6-2, 232 lbs he was the same height and 10-15 lbs. heavier than Adrian Peterson. He practically dwarfs Marion Barber, who’s known as a human battering ram. Brown also had sprinter speed which stands up to today’s backs and possibly surpasses them. He did indeed run track in college (and played lacrosse, considered one of the very best to ever play that sport also). His 4.5 40 time seems a tad slow at first glance. When you see the truth of it though, you should realize it’s amazing:



Peterson ran the 40 in 4.4 while wearing shorts and a t-shirt and anyone who’s ever watched him (prior to this past weekend's knee injury) knows he has breakaway speed. What would JB have ran in a pair of shorts? I have to believe it would be better than a 4.4.

If you’ve seen clips of Brown then you know he ran hard as well. I know, all the defenders were small and slow. To some extent that’s true. As best I can tell without finding any hard evidence, the average linebacker was roughly 225-230 lbs and stood about 6-2 (a few sites allude to these numbers). Now, the average player at the same position is roughly the same height (maybe even a inch shorter) and goes about 20 lbs. bigger. Granted, they are probably faster as well. However, A 230 lb. freight train with great speed can still run plenty of players over and disappear if you let him turn the corner. By the way, Brown is bigger than Jonathan Vilma, London Fletcher, D’Qwell Jackson, Pat Angerer, and NaVorro Bowman to name a few. In fact, his playing size is within 10 lbs and 1 inch in height of most of the league’s top tacklers. That's not to mention that those small defenders of his time pretty much had carte blanche to try and decapitate ball carriers.

What's also overlooked is that he also played with much smaller, less athletic offensive lines too. Most people agree that the average player is bigger and more athletic than during Brown's time. This applies to lineman also. In 1965, Brown's final season, the average weight of the five regular starters on his o-line was 249 lbs. The heaviest guy was only 265. In today's NFL, he wouldn't have a lineman smaller than 300 lbs and most would be closer to 320. And just like the defenders they would be faster and operating in more complex blocking schemes. Therefore, it stands to reason that the blocking he got now would be at least as good as it was then. With that in mind, he'd probably still encounter first contact at about the same spot on the field he would be used to from his day.

I think Brown would be a beast in any era.

This entirely. Certainly better said than I did.opcorn:

Sorry the bottom line is still the same and that you can not compare them, because the game is different, you are speculating with hypotheticals, you maybe right but you can't prove it one way or the other, all you can say is he dominated his era better than any other RB dominated his era.

It's silly when that isn't enough and you have to try and pull him out of time to see how he would fair in todays game.

Theres no need to. Rushing leader 8 friggin times. 1500/15 in a 12 game season 1800 in a 14 game season, Guy averaged nearly a TD game which is almost double 2 of the others on the list.

Payton/Smith/Sanders may be talked about as greatest runners , running backs etc. But Jim Brown is almost always the no.1 greatest football player regardless of position by anyone who knows that theyre talking about. Payton is rarely in that convo Barry/Emmit never would be.

Brown was a horse, that much is obvious.

He is out running or running over pretty much everyone else on the football field.

But if you really watch his style of running, I don't see much else that stands out. His balance and toughness are unmatched, but I am not really impressed with his vision, cutting, or juking. I just see a guy that takes the ball and runs as fast and as hard as he can either around defenders or through them, albeit with ease.

The fact he was always 5-6 yards past the LOS at the FB position should speak to his vision. If it all waddled down to "who would be the best today" its a different argument that guys like Simpson and Sayers would dominate.

The forgotten part of this whole debate is the player's equipment. It probably really hurt to tackle Jim Brown on a consistent basis, more-so than how it affects people today tackling power running backs. That catered to his style.

Not trying to take anything away from the guy, but we all had that friend in tackle football games in the backyard that nobody wanted to tackle. That was Jim Brown in the NFL. With updated equipment, I don't know if players are so fearful of bringing him down.

To me, that gives the other three running backs a bonus. But it's all speculation.

lol. Now were using pain to tackler as a measuring stick ?

This league is full of guys who couldnt wrap tackle and infant let alone a 232 lb track star. If Shaun Alexander , Ricky Williams , and Jamal Lewis can have 1800-2000 yard seasons against these well equipped defenses I think Jim Brown would do just fine.


**
Side note one of my favorite football quotes /stories... I can never recall who it was though so Im paraphrasing possibly poorly.

So the conversation about running backs came up and I asked him...who was the greatest he ever saw ?

"Jim Brown of course"

So I asked How much yardage do you think he'd put up if he was playing today ?

"Hm....probably about 8-900 yards"

8-900 ?.... Thats not exactly a lot of yardage.

"Well you have to remember Jim Browns 65 years old thered be some drop off"

 

[Villain]

All that really matters is being the best at your position in your time.

 

[Shayn•Da•Pain]

I think it's important to point out Jim Brown's durability. In 9 season he started every game. His toughness was second to none, as he'd play injured, often getting up slow and limping back to the huddle one play, and breaking 5 tackles for 15 yards the next play. He was imposing to the point defenses were demoralized.

Just found this out, in 1963 Brown broke seven 50+ yard touchdowns in a 14 game season, while Barry's most was five 50+ yard TDs in a 16 game season.

Before Jim Brown, the most yards in a season was 1,432 by Spec Sanders in a 14 game season. By the time Brown played the seasons were reduced to 12 game seasons, and yet Jim Brown rushed for 1,527 yards in 12 games (2 less than Spec) which was a record at the time. His numbers compared to other contemporary ball carriers was staggering. By the time Jim Brown retired he had the top 3 best rushing seasons of all time, by far. And had 7 of the top 10 most rushing yard seasons as well. He was consistent to say the least.

I'd also like to note, that you can compare players of different era's, based on contemporary study. In that I mean how well did these players stack up against other men of there era. Fact of the matter is that Jim Brown was head and shoulders above his peers before and after him. The same can not be said for these others.

Walter Payton lead the league in rushing just once, out of 13 seasons, where his contemporaries such as Earl Campbell who lead the league 3 times and Eric Dickerson who lead the league 4 times had a higher ceiling than Walter.

Emmit and Barry had 4 each, so they certainly didn't outpace their contemporaries. In fact the year after Barry broke 2K, TD did it too. When Emmitt broke the TD record, soon after it was broken just about every other year by a random somebody.

The only back on this list that far and away supersedes his contemporaries was Jim Brown.

 

[dell71]

All that really matters is being the best at your position in your time.

Actually, I'm fine with this. By this measuring stick it's Brown and it's not even close which is what I based my vote on. I just don't like that an argument for other guys is that Jim Brown was just bigger than everyone else. That's selling him way short.