Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Jim Brown, is he the greatest or overrated? « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 7

ABuccs Fan

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 0
Offline
#30 : April 05, 2008, 02:18:27 PM

I'd like someone that is knowledgable on the subject to tell me what the avg size of the d-lineman and backers were during Brown's era. To my recollection, there were no 300+ Warren Sapps will cat like quickness playing back then. There were no Ray Lewis's..... 250+ that covered sideline to sideline.

I read somewhere that Jack Lambert, in his prime, was about 220 lbs. He wouldn't even make an NFL roster today at that weight..... maybe at safety.
This argument can be made in every sport. Baseball pitchers used to pitch 9 innings, and sometimes 2 or 3 times a week. There is only 1 record in all of sports that will never be broken, and that is Cy Youngs total wins. Era's are different in all sports. Players and the dynamics of the game are different. How many WR in the old days would have much bigger numbers with todays rules. CB are flagged for mentioning a WR's name.



Guest
#31 : April 05, 2008, 02:20:03 PM

from just looking at the highlight films from the 50's and early 60's, those guys all looked like they were anywhere from 160lbs to maybe 220lbs at the most.

NotDeadYet

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 6779
Offline
#32 : April 05, 2008, 03:24:56 PM

     Sure -
     Pro-Bowler OT Forrest Gregg of the Packers was 245-250 lbs. Center Ken Bowman on the Packers' Super Bowl championship team was 235 lbs. Packers' Pro-Bowl G Jerry Kramer was 245 lbs.
     D'linemen were also typically lighter; DT Pro-Bowlers Henry Jordan and Alex Karras were both 245 lbs. if that. There were some big boys in the 300 lb. range, though; Baltimore Colts had Bubba Smith, Rams had Roosevelt Grier, and Detroit Lions had Roger Brown. And the Rams' DT Merlin Olsen was 275. The Rams' DE's Deacon Jones went 245-250, Lamar Lundy 260. Pro-Bowler Willie Davis of the Packers was 245.
     There were some big linebackers, but they were exceptions. MLB **CENSORED** Butkus was 250 lbs. and could run, the Packers' Lee Roy Caffey went 260 lbs. The Giants' Sam Huff and the Packers' Ray Nitchske were about 235.
     Jim Brown went about 230 lbs, huge for a RB in those days, and he could outrun most defenders. Incredibly athletic for a big man in his time. Fullback Jim Taylor of the Packers was smaller and slower at 210-215 lbs, but preferred running into and over defenders anyway. A much smaller version of Mike Alstott; wasn't going down without a fight. Incredibly strong in all parts of his body. Someone described tackling him once to be like tackling a Brahma bull...
 
     

cheveliar

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 19366
Offline
#33 : April 05, 2008, 03:53:37 PM

it's not an embarrassment but rather an observation from watching many many highlights of his, and unless you are old as dirt you probably never watched him play live yourself to be so sure about it.

I wouldn't call my boy old as dirt, but respectfully old enough to have watched him play.  I wasn't as fortunate.  But If there is anyone who was his equal it would have been another player you may not have seen which was Gayle Sayers.  Brown was pure power with speed.  Sayers had world class speed and moved like poetry in motion.  Barry Sanders is the closest comparrison, but I have to say with as good as Barry was, Gayle IMO was the smoothest runner I've EVER seen...

Without Carl Nix it feels like our running game just took a death blow to the face!


cheveliar

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 19366
Offline
#34 : April 05, 2008, 03:56:15 PM

This argument always is heard in just about every sport. "greatest" means so many different things to different people. Athletes continue to get better as the years go by. Based on the competition he played against, Jim Brown was the best RB in history.

How he would do vs. today's competition is almost irrelevant.

All things considered, I don't think he'd be as dominant today.  But he'd be a top ten back and we'd still be talking about him.  Dude was that good...

Without Carl Nix it feels like our running game just took a death blow to the face!


jerseybucsfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 13588
Offline
#35 : April 05, 2008, 03:59:26 PM

He was big, quick, tough and durable. He must be considered within the context of his times, not this one. If you put bigger linemen against him, you must also put bigger linemen for him, more sophistication in offensive schemes and most importantly the opportunity to be even stronger given better nutrition and knowledge.
He went over 1,000 yards rushing in seven of nine years (942 and 996) and never missed a game. At 104 YPG, he would have averaged 1,684 yards rushing per season if he was able to hold up that long (which there's no evidence he would not have). Five times over 5.0 YPC and yet never really got the ball that often (20.0 CPG, which is equal to Sanders and far less than Tomlinson's 21.3; it's more than Smith's 19.5, which is deceivingly driven down by his numbers over his last six years).
So Brown, if he isn't the best ever, is on a short list. But I'd rank him No. 1.

In Verner We Trust

Lamond

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 6512
Offline
#36 : April 05, 2008, 05:05:59 PM

To put him in perspective vs today, try to imagine a 6'6 320 lb RB who runs a 4.4 40.

Come get some boys.


bradentonian

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27605
Online
#37 : April 05, 2008, 06:27:10 PM

He was big, quick, tough and durable. He must be considered within the context of his times, not this one. If you put bigger linemen against him, you must also put bigger linemen for him, more sophistication in offensive schemes and most importantly the opportunity to be even stronger given better nutrition and knowledge.
He went over 1,000 yards rushing in seven of nine years (942 and 996) and never missed a game. At 104 YPG, he would have averaged 1,684 yards rushing per season if he was able to hold up that long (which there's no evidence he would not have). Five times over 5.0 YPC and yet never really got the ball that often (20.0 CPG, which is equal to Sanders and far less than Tomlinson's 21.3; it's more than Smith's 19.5, which is deceivingly driven down by his numbers over his last six years).
So Brown, if he isn't the best ever, is on a short list. But I'd rank him No. 1.


Great post


Badabing

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 7076
Offline
#38 : April 05, 2008, 06:30:51 PM

sports have just gotten better over time...


With training, enhancing drugs, and just knowledge; sports are much better now than they were back then.....

at least in my opinion...it seems like the defenses are terrible back then, and in baseball it seemed like the pitchers threw 60 mph tops....


anyway, Jim Brown was great, but I definetly think players are better now adays

ktownbuc47

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1519
Offline
#39 : April 05, 2008, 07:26:50 PM

Growing up with a father who was a Browns fan the one thing I remember about Jim Brown was eveytime he touched the ball it was a highlight. To compare todays athletes with the athletes of Browns era is unfair, Football was a part time job for those guys. they had real jobs in the offseason. If Ray Lewis had to put in 8 - 10 hours a day at the plant in the offseason he might not be quite as big and quick as he is now.

Why do you necessarily have to be wrong just because a few million people think you are?

HughC

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1762
Offline
#40 : April 05, 2008, 07:43:11 PM

Sorry, but I don't follow the simplistic logic of "todays players are bigger, faster, stronger, smarter, more athletic" etc., etc. whenever I read one of these "who is the best of all time" debates.  Of course today's athletes are bigger, etc.  And today's players will be smaller than athletes playing twenty years from now, who will be slower than athletes playing twenty years after them, and on and on.

In other words, using that rationale, only the athletes currently playing at any given point in time in any sport can possibly be the greatest of all time?  Huh? And the athletes playing the following year will then be the greatest of all time?  Of course not, that makes no sense.

In this example, let's look at this the other way: if Jim Brown were playing today, he would also have the benefit of better training, health and nutrition that the current athletes have.  In other words, the 2008 Jim Brown would be even bigger, faster and stronger than the 60's version of himself!

Babe Ruth hit as many homers as the next three home run hitters of his era combined.  That is why he is considered to be the greatest home run hitter in baseball history.  If he couldn't do that against today's pitchers does that make him less of a home run great than Sammy Sosa?  Ben Franklin and Thomas Edison would have trouble setting up a wireless network if you plopped them into today's environment; does that eliminate them from one of the top ten minds in the history of technology?

To me, the best way to compare players from different eras is to look at how that player compared to his peers.  Nobody was remotely close to Jim Brown in his era; he led the league in rushing in 8 of the 9 years he played.  By comparison, Walter Payton led the league in rushing just once in his 13 seasons.  Payton may have ended his career with more yardage, but he wasn't close to being as good as Jim Brown.

Celebrate these players for what they all are - great athletes.  There are players from the past that are just as good, if not better than present day players - even if they weren't as tall or as heavy or as fast.  And there are also present day players who could tough it out in the days of two-way football, even if the old-timers don't want to admit it.




SON-OF-ZELL

****
Starter

Posts : 958
Offline
#41 : April 05, 2008, 07:51:12 PM

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/7903131/site/21683474/

Serious about the Lacrosse


dbtb135

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 0
Offline
#42 : April 05, 2008, 09:29:03 PM

He was big, quick, tough and durable. He must be considered within the context of his times, not this one. If you put bigger linemen against him, you must also put bigger linemen for him, more sophistication in offensive schemes and most importantly the opportunity to be even stronger given better nutrition and knowledge.
He went over 1,000 yards rushing in seven of nine years (942 and 996) and never missed a game. At 104 YPG, he would have averaged 1,684 yards rushing per season if he was able to hold up that long (which there's no evidence he would not have). Five times over 5.0 YPC and yet never really got the ball that often (20.0 CPG, which is equal to Sanders and far less than Tomlinson's 21.3; it's more than Smith's 19.5, which is deceivingly driven down by his numbers over his last six years).
So Brown, if he isn't the best ever, is on a short list. But I'd rank him No. 1.

Really, could you imagine giving Jim Brown a 4,000 yard passer? Or a dominant run blocker like Jon Ogden? Going up against Bengals, Browns, Saints, Rams, Raiders, Dolphins, Lions and the like? I think to say that he wouldn't be successful in this era is very short sighted. As mentioned, there are weight training and serious off-season programs, but there is no substitute for the type of talent, physical skill, and demeanor that Jim Brown had naturally.

4bucs

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 14164
Offline
#43 : April 05, 2008, 11:46:45 PM

I am 67 years old and saw Jim Browns whole career as he was my favorite Browns player as that was my team ever since Otto Graham...and Brown didn't just run over people he was elusive and fast as hell ...and oh by the way he returned kick offs too.
       Babe Ruth was by far the best baseball player ever and Jim Brown was the best football player ever....I saw all the current players and Brown was better then everybody as Gale Sayers career was cut way short due to 7 knee injuries .

    Babe Ruth was a 20 game winnning pitcher for 4 years before he played every day in the outfield....and still hit 714 homers in way less games and at bats then Aaron and Bonds.....nobody in history ever went from a 20 game winning pitcher to a homerun leader ....Ruth was a man among boys ....as was Jim Brown...you just had to see this guy play and all these stupid comparisons wouldn't even be brought up.

4bucs

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 14164
Offline
#44 : April 06, 2008, 12:49:43 AM

when the Browns played the Giants it was brutal ....Brown took many hard hits and was the man with the target on his back ...often gang tackled....and you wondered how he could get off the ground...in 9 years he played every game and how about comparing the size of his offensive line...there were no big great blockers for him like the RBS  have now ...and they had no face guard on their helmets either...people say he bulldozed the players and ran over them ...thats not true ...yes he broke tackles but he ran away from contact...out in the open he didn't try to run you over he had moves and was one of the fastest on the field...and one of the smartest.
   Barry Sanders father said when people were saying his son was the best RB ever "PLEASE STOP THIS FOOLISH TALK''EVERYBODY KNOWS JIM BROWN WAS THE BEST RB EVER".The only RB in his class was Gale Sayers...because when he was healthy he was extrodinary,unbelievable...you couldn't believe what you were seeing...but he didn't stand the test of time... lots of times he just played half a year until after 7 knee operations he was forced to retire.
     Folks you can take my word for it or don't I really don't care because i've seen him and all the others so have a good perspective ....and if you want to see 2 more amazing football players get some high light reels on **CENSORED** Butkus before all his knee operations....and a player named Doug Atkins...you will be amazed .
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 7
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Jim Brown, is he the greatest or overrated? « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools