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

[nflman2033]

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.







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




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.




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.







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"

and of the big backs you listed, how fast where they, I am well aware of how fast Jim Brown was, but it still doesn't take away from the fact that he played against a bunch of White Slow small defenses.

and my other point is that dell was trying to pull him out of time and hypothetically place him in the modern game which is ridiculous. As stated many times by me and others how much he dominated his own era is enough to make him the best RB of alltime. I have idea why you guys want to play that hypothetical, it should just be enough that he was the most dominating player of his era.

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

Just in defense of him. Others brought it up. If they didnt than yeah it was needless.

 

[Shayn•Da•Pain]

and of the big backs you listed, how fast where they, I am well aware of how fast Jim Brown was, but it still doesn't take away from the fact that he played against a bunch of White Slow small defenses.

and my other point is that dell was trying to pull him out of time and hypothetically place him in the modern game which is ridiculous. As stated many times by me and others how much he dominated his own era is enough to make him the best RB of alltime. I have idea why you guys want to play that hypothetical, it should just be enough that he was the most dominating player of his era.

That's not the most accurate statement, Blacks and Hispanics played football in this era too. You make it seem like 100% of the guys he faced were slow and white.

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.

Agreed. #1: If there were more 6'2" 232 lbs RB's with sprinter speed, they'd have played RB, but this happens to be a rare athlete in any era, obviously. #2: The year before Brown entered the league, Rick Casares 6'2" 226 lbs (6 lbs lighter than Brown) lead the league in rushing with 1,146 yards, which was the 3rd best season ever, at that time. #3: Marion Motley who played just a few years before Brown, was 6'1" 232 lbs. He wasn't the only big back, but he was the only big back that could run like a horse.

 

[dell71]

and of the big backs you listed, how fast where they, I am well aware of how fast Jim Brown was, but it still doesn't take away from the fact that he played against a bunch of White Slow small defenses.

and my other point is that dell was trying to pull him out of time and hypothetically place him in the modern game which is ridiculous. As stated many times by me and others how much he dominated his own era is enough to make him the best RB of alltime. I have idea why you guys want to play that hypothetical, it should just be enough that he was the most dominating player of his era.

Him being the most dominant in his era is enough for me. My whole post was more in response to things like "if he played today, he'd be TJ Duckett." Things like that make no sense to me when what we know about his size and speed compares favorably with backs playing the game right now.

 

[nwfisch]

ARMANDO ALLEN :learnvsn:

 

[Aso]

Well who does VSN think was more impressive physically. Bo Jackson or Jim Brown?

 

[Shayn•Da•Pain]

"Barry Sanders is an obvious choice. But then when you look at true running. You talk about Riggins in his last couple of years, last 3 years, that's true running. Because true running means you can control the drive, and you can control the clock. And you get the hard yards, when you get to the sideline you turn the shoulder and pick up 2 more yards." - Jim Brown

"A great offensive line do not make a great runner, a great runner makes an offensive line. Challenge me." - Jim Brown

"Everywhere you find a great back, you find a good line developing." - Jim Brown

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGh_FJ-cFzI&feature=related"]Jim Brown on Running Backs - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Aso]

Jim Browns statements aren't 100% true but you still gotta love him.

 

[Shayn•Da•Pain]

Jim Browns statements aren't 100% true but you still gotta love him.

Oh, I think they're closer to 100% then they are to bullshit. And I think he was closer to the truth then many Barry Sanders lovers are in here.

I think from his perspective, the RB was important to control the game. You could tell that from his perspective that he thought the same way I do. That instead of hitting the gap and delivering a shot to the LB for a short gain, controlling the drive, Barry Sanders would shake and bake, run around to the outside and either lose 5 or gain 10. That was Barry. That's not what Brown was saying a RB needs to do to win games.

Brown also mentioned coaching, and how coaches can take great players and use them the right way to win games. I just think Barry was too good, and there wasn't a coach in Detroit with enough balls to force Barry to play right. Instead all the coaches would run the spread and let Barry do what he wanted, because that's what the Lions fans, and ownership wanted. Barry made for exciting football to watch, but he was IMHO a loser, and therefor was not good enough to be considered the top RB of all time, among other reasons.

 

[Aso]

I think it's true in some cases. I'm not saying it's bullshit at all but I don't think everything is that clear cut black and white.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

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.

Sorry bruh, you are so off base, its silly.

Jim Brown was as big, sometimes bigger than the defensive lines he was going against, much bigger than linebackers.

Such different eras of football, cross comparisons are futile and mental masturbation at best.

 

[Shayn•Da•Pain]

I think it's true in some cases. I'm not saying it's bullshit at all but I don't think everything is that clear cut black and white.

Please, elaborate.

 

[Aso]

Please, elaborate.

Well I think for example you have the old Broncos running system with Shanny and Kubiak and company. I think in that case you have to say more often than not the offensive line made the RB for guys like Olandis Gary etc. I think there are much more examples that support what Jim Brown says but I think it can go both ways.

 

[Shayn•Da•Pain]

Well I think for example you have the old Broncos running system with Shanny and Kubiak and company. I think in that case you have to say more often than not the offensive line made the RB for guys like Olandis Gary etc. I think there are much more examples that support what Jim Brown says but I think it can go both ways.

Are you saying TD wasn't a great RB?

 

[RosettaStoned]

I love how on one hand Barry was a loser, but on the other hand he didn't play on shitty teams because he helped a team with virtually no pro bowlers get to the playoffs half of the years he played...

 

[Aso]

Are you saying TD wasn't a great RB?

No I said more often than not the RB in that system was made by the system and the line. Obviously you missed the more often than not part. Clinton Portis and Terrell Davis would be the exception. But then there are guys like Olandis Gary, Reuben Droughns, Mike Anderson, Tatum Bell who have shown that they aren't anything special.

 

[nflman2033]

That's not the most accurate statement, Blacks and Hispanics played football in this era too. You make it seem like 100% of the guys he faced were slow and white.



Agreed. #1: If there were more 6'2" 232 lbs RB's with sprinter speed, they'd have played RB, but this happens to be a rare athlete in any era, obviously. #2: The year before Brown entered the league, Rick Casares 6'2" 226 lbs (6 lbs lighter than Brown) lead the league in rushing with 1,146 yards, which was the 3rd best season ever, at that time. #3: Marion Motley who played just a few years before Brown, was 6'1" 232 lbs. He wasn't the only big back, but he was the only big back that could run like a horse.

didn't say it was 100% slow white guys, but there were a shit load more slow white guys in the league than there is now.

 

[Aso]

In some instances Jim Brown was the same size as the opposing DT's. I definitely think that plays a part in his success. Walter Payton is #1.

 

[DJ Rhude]

Yeah some of y'all are selling Brown short judging his feats soley based on his size...if size was the only thing that mattered Brandon Jacobs would be the best back in the NFL....he afterall like Brown, is bigger than anybody else and certainily the biggest back the NFL has ever seen.....no, talent, heart and a whole bunch of other intangibles are also what makes up a great back

Was Wilt Chamberlain any less great because he towered over everyone?

Also we're all going off clips and lore nobody here besides Jeffx has seen Brown play in person lol

 

[Shayn•Da•Pain]

In some instances Jim Brown was the same size as the opposing DT's. I definitely think that plays a part in his success. Walter Payton is #1.

A) There were RB's his size when he played.

B) Browns first game was vs the Eagles. The starting DT's were Jess Richardson 6'2 261 lbs, Ed Khayat 6'3 240 lbs.

C) Jim Browns starting o-line was Dick Schafrath 253 lbs, Jim Ray Smith 241 lbs, John Morrow 244 lbs, Gene Hickerson 248 lbs, Mike McCormack 246 lbs.

D) Jim Brown was 6'2 232 lbs, he wasn't as gigantic as others would make him out to be.

E) Vs. his contemporaries, Jim Brown was head and shoulders above all that came before him, and all that played in his day.

F) Walter Payton did not play head and shoulders above the rest of the league, he only lead the NFL in carries once out of 13 years, despite leading the NFL in carries 4 times.

G) Earl Campbell/Eric Dickerson collectively dominated as the league leaders in rushing most of the decade, over Walter. Walter lasted longer, which in it of itself I don't think makes him better. But vs his contemporaries, Walter was not the best RB year-after-year.