whos the best??

[alltimerusherE.Smith]

A lot of pople say that barry sander or jim Brown ar Walter Payton is the best but who is the all time leading rusher and who has the most rushing touchdowns of all time all those other guys re just bitches. Let me make this clear-I AM #1 DAMMIt and dont you forget it

[Fail]

A lot of pople say that barry sander or jim Brown ar Walter Payton is the best but who is the all time leading rusher and who has the most rushing touchdowns of all time all those other guys re just bitches. Let me make this clear-I AM #1 DAMMIt and dont you forget it



Somebody call me?

[dirk4mvp]

makes a little too much sense to be mbarber24

[stretch]

if it werent for the hip injury, Bo Jackson would have been greater than all.

but my vote goes to Barry.

although I think soon LT will take the top spot, only for Adrian Peterson to take it shortly afterwards.

[BradLohaus]

Jim Brown is the only player in NFL history to average over 100 yds rushing per game.

[fishrap]

Jim Brown played during the time when if you ended up on the ground minus contact (slipped, stumbled etc.) you were down and could not continue the run. He might of had more yards and touchdowns. But I would have to go with Gale Sayers. Loved to watch this guy run, except for an early knee injury he would have probably surpassed all the records.

[johnsmith]

if it werent for the hip injury, Bo Jackson would have been greater than all.

but my vote goes to Barry.

although I think soon LT will take the top spot, only for Adrian Peterson to take it shortly afterwards.

I agree on all accounts.

[possessed]

Nobody can touch Tecmo Bowl Bo Jackson.

[stretch]

Nobody can touch Tecmo Bowl Bo Jackson.

:lol

When I was a little kid, i used to play with the Raiders just because of Bo Jackson. Thus, I became a Raiders fan.

[stretch]

Jim Brown played during the time when if you ended up on the ground minus contact (slipped, stumbled etc.) you were down and could not continue the run. He might of had more yards and touchdowns. But I would have to go with Gale Sayers. Loved to watch this guy run, except for an early knee injury he would have probably surpassed all the records.

Bo Jackson > Gale Sayers

[stretch]

I agree on all accounts.

:toast

[DBryant88]

makes a little too much sense to be mbarber24

actually it was me i just wanted to know what you guys would think you can post under the name in you want the password is boobs:rollin

[alltimerusherE.Smith]

mbarber24 is a retarded faggot

[DBryant88]

fuck you

[DBryant88]

i will kill you

[DBryant88]

and the best RB of all time IS emmitt smith

[alltimerusherE.Smith]

fuck you mbarber24

[clambake]

no contest. Jim Brown.

[MajorMike]

*yawn*

Bo knows who would have been the greatest.

Bo also knows who the greatest is, because if you stuck Barry behind the line ES ran behind all those years he would have broken 2k every year.

[stretch]

*yawn*

Bo knows who would have been the greatest.

Bo also knows who the greatest is, because if you stuck Barry behind the line ES ran behind all those years he would have broken 2k every year.

Now that is a hard one to say. Because Emmitt was great at running through holes and following blockers. Who knows if Barry was truly disciplined enough to do that, because there were times that he had open holes but chose to dance around too much instead. And the dancing around is really what made him special. If he was forced to run through the tackles, Barry would not be NEARLY as special as he was.

More than likely, he would have been more successful, but sometimes its kinda hard to just think that he could run a disciplined system the way Emmitt did. Emmitt was perfect for such a system.

[Thunder Dan]

if it werent for the hip injury, Bo Jackson would have been greater than all.

but my vote goes to Barry.

although I think soon LT will take the top spot, only for Adrian Peterson to take it shortly afterwards.

if not for injury Eric Rhett would have been better than Bo Jackson, which by using the same logic would make him the greatest running back ever

[stretch]

if not for injury Eric Rhett would have been better than Bo Jackson, which by using the same logic would make him the greatest running back ever

Bo Jackson > Eric Rhett

Bo was like a mix of Reggie Bush's extreme speed and athleticism, and Marion Barber's fearless running style and ability to run over people. Only better in each way. The dude ran a 4.12 for crying out loud, and could still run over any LB he faced.

[alltimerusherE.Smith]

Tomlinson>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>everyone else and even Bo knows it.

[possessed]

if not for injury Eric Rhett would have been better than Bo Jackson, which by using the same logic would make him the greatest running back ever
You must be joking. :lol

[Thunder Dan]

Bo was like a mix of Reggie Bush's extreme speed and athleticism, and Marion Barber's fearless running style and ability to run over people. Only better in each way. The dude ran a 4.12 for crying out loud, and could still run over any LB he faced.

People didn't even have other running backs to compare Eric Rhett to. Eric Rhett ran a 4.10 without shoes- true story.

[monosylab1k]

People didn't even have other running backs to compare Eric Rhett to. Eric Rhett ran a 4.10 without shoes- true story.

Eric Rhett didn't do shit because he doesn't exist.

Errict Rhett sucked ass.

[Thunder Dan]

Eric Rhett didn't do shit because he doesn't exist.

Errict Rhett sucked ass.

he had 4,143 yards in 6 years, that isn't exactly sucking. He would have broken all the records if not for the injury in 2000 when he was coming into his prime. You figure that he was only about 14k yards away from the record and that it took Emmit Smith 14 years to get the record. If Rhett had 8 more years in the league he would easily have that.

They both went to Florida, but other than that there is no comparison between Rhett and Smith. It's Rhett all day long

[stretch]

People didn't even have other running backs to compare Eric Rhett to. Eric Rhett ran a 4.10 without shoes- true story.

he also had a career average of 3.5 yards a carry and only one season of 4 or more. impressive use of that "speed" you talk about. i've never heard a thing about the 4.10 story...

[stretch]

he had 4,143 yards in 6 years, that isn't exactly sucking. He would have broken all the records if not for the injury in 2000 when he was coming into his prime. You figure that he was only about 14k yards away from the record and that it took Emmit Smith 14 years to get the record. If Rhett had 8 more years in the league he would easily have that.

They both went to Florida, but other than that there is no comparison between Rhett and Smith. It's Rhett all day long

You MUST be kidding. First off, it was 7 years. that is not very impressive at all when talking about all time greats. LT broke 4,143 during his 3rd year.

and your memory must be bullshitting you. please tell me you are really just trying to fuck with us, as normally you are one of my favorite posters, and usually make sense in your debates. check these stats out, and tell me how the hell he looked like he was going into his prime in 2000 and was on pace to break any records...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/stats?playerId=650

EDIT: the more and more i look at how ridiculous your posts are, im really thinking you are just trying to fuck with us. lol

[dickface]

It would have been funnier if Dan said Earnest Byner and his superglue-sure hands.

[Thunder Dan]

EDIT: the more and more i look at how ridiculous your posts are, im really thinking you are just trying to fuck with us. lol

:lmao and you took the time to write a couple paragraphs to refute me. I don't even think he was injured- I think he was just cut and vanished from the NFL for being so mediocre.


i've never heard a thing about the 4.10 story...

who in their right mind would run their 40 without shoes?



It would have been funnier if Dan said Earnest Byner and his superglue-sure hands.

Byner was actually decent. I was looking for the most mediocre running back I could think of at which case Rhett came to mind. I think Byner made a Pro Bowl

[clambake]

the BEST retired after the 1965 season. no contest.

[Thunder Dan]

the BEST retired after the 1965 season. no contest.
Tom Matte?

[clambake]

Tom Matte?

was he in "The Dirty Dozen" too?

[Thunder Dan]

I've had dinner with Jim Brown not once but twice. True story no bullshit

[clambake]

I've had dinner with Jim Brown not once but twice. True story no bullshit

cool. he's the best EVER.

[Thunder Dan]

cool. he's the best EVER.

yeah I've never seen him play but his stats are crazy. I think it's either him of Barry Sanders. Barry always played on crap teams with bad lines and still managed to do well.

[peewee's lovechild]

I've had dinner with Jim Brown not once but twice. True story no bullshit

Did he force himself on you?

Is that why you remember it so fondly?

[peewee's lovechild]

Emmitt Smith is #1 until somebody rushes for more yards than him.

Everything else is shoulda, woulda, coulda . . . . it amounts to nothing.

[monosylab1k]

Okay, I know that Emmitt's O-line was way better than Barry's, but I think it's definitely revisionist history and romanticizing of Barry when I hear about how godawful the Lions' O-line was back then.

That O-line was good enough to make Erik Kramer & Scott Mitchell look like halfway competent passers. I know having Herman Moore & Brett Perriman helps any QB, but you've still gotta have time to throw the football.

I'm not saying Detroit had a great, or even a good line. But the revisionist history of "Barry did all that with the worst line in NFL History, he'd probably get 3000 yards a season with Emmitt's line" is just not true.

Barry didn't have the discipline to follow his assignment or the vision to know where holes would open up. He made up for it with superhuman agility. He is absolutely one of the greatest of all time, and definitely the most exciting player in NFL history, but I would put Emmitt right at his level as far as "greatness" goes.

[Thunder Dan]

Did he force himself on you?

Is that why you remember it so fondly?

I don't remember it fondly because all in all I think a total of 3 words were exchanged between me and him, plus I was like 11 and 13 and had no idea who the hell Jim Brown was

[Thunder Dan]

Okay, I know that Emmitt's O-line was way better than Barry's, but I think it's definitely revisionist history and romanticizing of Barry when I hear about how godawful the Lions' O-line was back then.

That O-line was good enough to make Erik Kramer & Scott Mitchell look like halfway competent passers. I know having Herman Moore & Brett Perriman helps any QB, but you've still gotta have time to throw the football.

I'm not saying Detroit had a great, or even a good line. But the revisionist history of "Barry did all that with the worst line in NFL History, he'd probably get 3000 yards a season with Emmitt's line" is just not true.

Barry didn't have the discipline to follow his assignment or the vision to know where holes would open up. He made up for it with superhuman agility. He is absolutely one of the greatest of all time, and definitely the most exciting player in NFL history, but I would put Emmitt right at his level as far as "greatness" goes.
couldn't this arguement be totally reversed by saying that the Lions' passing game (which wasn't much) exsisted only because of the threat of Barry Sanders. Also, couldn't someone argue that having a bad QB like the Lions had those years only adds to Barry Sanders' legacy... Think about it, Barry Sanders managed to be a great running back while being the only real offensive threat the opposing defense had to prepare for. They didn't have to worry about being picked apart by a capable QB or speedy recievers, all they had to worry about was Barry Sanders running behind a line that was full of a bunch of nobodys (except for Lomas Brown)

Now Emmit was the complete opposite. Defenses had to worry about Troy Aikmen throwing to Michael Irvin, Alvin Harper and Jay Novacheck or whatever his name was. Defenses were on their heels because Dallas had a all around game. That is why I don't consider Emmit Smith better than Barry. Emmit was fortunate to be in a good situation in Dallas- much like Terrell Davis
in Denver- who despite my jokes of Rhett, could have indeed broken Smith's records if he were not injured and were able to play 14 seasons like Smith. I bring him up only to say that it's really not that big of a deal that Smith has the rushing record. When you are decent for 14 years you are going to get the record. If Barry Sanders played for the Cowboys in the 90's he could have easily retired with 17-18k total yards in only 9 seasons.

[clambake]

all very compelling arguments until you insert JIM BROWN!!!

[monosylab1k]

couldn't this arguement be totally reversed by saying that the Lions' passing game (which wasn't much) exsisted only because of the threat of Barry Sanders. Also, couldn't someone argue that having a bad QB like the Lions had those years only adds to Barry Sanders' legacy... Think about it, Barry Sanders managed to be a great running back while being the only real offensive threat the opposing defense had to prepare for. They didn't have to worry about being picked apart by a capable QB or speedy recievers, all they had to worry about was Barry Sanders running behind a line that was full of a bunch of nobodys (except for Lomas Brown)

Now Emmit was the complete opposite. Defenses had to worry about Troy Aikmen throwing to Michael Irvin, Alvin Harper and Jay Novacheck or whatever his name was. Defenses were on their heels because Dallas had a all around game. That is why I don't consider Emmit Smith better than Barry. Emmit was fortunate to be in a good situation in Dallas- much like Terrell Davis
in Denver- who despite my jokes of Rhett, could have indeed broken Smith's records if he were not injured and were able to play 14 seasons like Smith. I bring him up only to say that it's really not that big of a deal that Smith has the rushing record. When you are decent for 14 years you are going to get the record. If Barry Sanders played for the Cowboys in the 90's he could have easily retired with 17-18k total yards in only 9 seasons.

You're selling Emmitt ridiculously short here. He wasn't all that fast or athletic, but (despite what his ESPN career might tell you) he was THE smartest guy on the Dallas Cowboys during those years. His success came from never making a mistake, and knowing exactly where the hole would open up, when it would open up, and being able to time things to perfection. Yeah, he had lots of help, but just like Barry he was the heart of that offense.

Ask Derrick Lassic or Sherman Williams or Herschel Walker or Troy Hambrick if any moron could run through those holes in Dallas. In the few times that Emmitt was hurt during their dynasty years, that team went straight into the shitter. They could survive with Jason Garrett or Steve Buerlein, they could survive without Irvin if they had to, but that team was royally fucked every time Emmitt missed a game. During Emmitt's holdout in 93, Charles Haley punched a hole in a wall because he was so pissed about how bad they sucked without him.

Barry didn't have the discipline or incredible vision to do what Emmitt did. Emmitt didn't have the freak of nature athletic ability to do what Barry did. They're both equally great in their own ways.

[J.T.]

Emmitt Smith rookie stats (started 15 games)

937 rushing yards, 228 receiving yards, 1165 yards from scrimmage, 11 TDs, did not make playoffs

Joseph Addai rookie stats (started 0 games)

1081 rushing yards, 325 receiving yards, 1406 yards from scrimmage, 8 TDs, won Super Bowl

Addai > Smith

[monosylab1k]

None of this matters, Laurence Maroney will go down as the GOAT before it's all over. He pretty much already is.

[SpursFan24445]

There really isn't much discussion outside of Walter Payton, Jim Brown, Gale Sayers and Barry Sanders. Emmitt Smith was a product of a great line and team. The other people on the fringe of the top 4 are Eric Dickerson, OJ Simpson and Tony Dorsett, all coming before Emmitt.

[jack sommerset]

Barry Sanders was the most exciting. That makes him my choice.

[possessed]

The only people who believe Emmitt was the best are blind Cowboy honks.

Anybody who wants to talk about numbers can talk about the fact that Jim Brown averaged over 100 yards per game.

[DBryant88]

The only people who believe Emmitt was the best are blind Cowboy honks.

Anybody who wants to talk about numbers can talk about the fact that Jim Brown averaged over 100 yards per game.

fuck you obviously have no clue whatsoever

[monosylab1k]

Anybody who wants to talk about numbers can talk about the fact that Jim Brown averaged over 100 yards per game.

I'm sure it was incredibly tough back in the day for Jim Brown to run over all those 5-10, 190 pound white guy linebackers who ran a 5.7 forty.

[stretch]

I'm sure it was incredibly tough back in the day for Jim Brown to run over all those 5-10, 190 pound white guy linebackers who ran a 5.7 forty.

:lol good point

I think Jim Brown was similar to Wilt Chamberlain. Both players were athletes that were ahead of their time, basically like men amongst boys. Put either of them in the modern day games, where EVERYONE is big, fast, and strong, and I don't see Jim Brown being any better than someone like LT, Brian Westbrook, or Steven Jackson. Just like I don't see Wilt being any better than Duncan, prime Shaq, or Dwight Howard.

[101A]

You're selling Emmitt ridiculously short here. He wasn't all that fast or athletic, but (despite what his ESPN career might tell you) he was THE smartest guy on the Dallas Cowboys during those years. His success came from never making a mistake, and knowing exactly where the hole would open up, when it would open up, and being able to time things to perfection. Yeah, he had lots of help, but just like Barry he was the heart of that offense.

Ask Derrick Lassic or Sherman Williams or Herschel Walker or Troy Hambrick if any moron could run through those holes in Dallas. In the few times that Emmitt was hurt during their dynasty years, that team went straight into the shitter. They could survive with Jason Garrett or Steve Buerlein, they could survive without Irvin if they had to, but that team was royally fucked every time Emmitt missed a game. During Emmitt's holdout in 93, Charles Haley punched a hole in a wall because he was so pissed about how bad they sucked without him.

Barry didn't have the discipline or incredible vision to do what Emmitt did. Emmitt didn't have the freak of nature athletic ability to do what Barry did. They're both equally great in their own ways.


Revising the revisionists.

Good Post

[samikeyp]

To me its still Jim Brown although I do think there is merit to what stretch said. Brown was ahead of his time. I do think however, that with his natural ability and the advantages today's football player has along the lines of nutrition, weight training, better travel, etc., Brown could still be at the top of the game.

In the Emmitt v. Barry argument, to me Barry was the better pure runner and Emmitt was the better football player. Barry could run, run and run all day but Emmitt could run and was also a better receiver and blocker than Barry.

[possessed]

I'm sure it was incredibly tough back in the day for Jim Brown to run over all those 5-10, 190 pound white guy linebackers who ran a 5.7 forty.

You can also look at the fact that the size, speed and strength of the offensive linemen that blocked for Brown were vastly different than the guys Emmitt had blocking for him, that is if you didn't try to make a biased argument. :toast

[possessed]

:lol good point

I think Jim Brown was similar to Wilt Chamberlain. Both players were athletes that were ahead of their time, basically like men amongst boys. Put either of them in the modern day games, where EVERYONE is big, fast, and strong, and I don't see Jim Brown being any better than someone like LT, Brian Westbrook, or Steven Jackson. Just like I don't see Wilt being any better than Duncan, prime Shaq, or Dwight Howard.

:lol No, it's actually a bad point. I refuted it above.

Plus, you just admit that Brown and Wilt were ahead of their time. How in the Hell is this an argument against them? This is actually an argument for them. Emmit certainly wasn't a player who was ahead of his time, he was a player who was in the right system at the right time. That is an argument against Emmitt. You folks are hilarious.

[stretch]

Plus, you just admit that Brown and Wilt were ahead of their time. How in the Hell is this an argument against them? This is actually an argument for them. Emmit certainly wasn't a player who was ahead of his time, he was a player who was in the right system at the right time. That is an argument against Emmitt. You folks are hilarious.

You stupid ass. My point was, Brown and Wilt stood out quite a bit in their days. But if you stuck either of them in today's leagues, they wouldn't stand out nearly as much. They would still be quite good, but they wouldn't be looked at as hands down, the class of the league, as they were in their days. Brown and Wilt were men amongst boys back in their days, and were very comparable in their physical conditioning to athletes of today. Generally, players today in each sport are MUCH bigger, faster, stronger, more well coached, and more athletic. And LT is like a man amongst boys in today's league. So LT is dominating a league with much tougher fronts to face putting up very similar stats, and even superior stats to what Brown put up, in a league where generally, players were not NEARLY as big, fast, strong, or athletic.

LT > Jim Brown

[monosylab1k]

You can also look at the fact that the size, speed and strength of the offensive linemen that blocked for Brown were vastly different than the guys Emmitt had blocking for him, that is if you didn't try to make a biased argument. :toast

so small lineman were blocking small linebackers? great point :td they cancel each other out.

I'll use an argument Spur Fan loves.

Emmitt - 3 championships
Jim Brown - zero

3>0

[stretch]

so small lineman were blocking small linebackers? great point :td they cancel each other out.

I'll use an argument Spur Fan loves.

Emmitt - 3 championships
Jim Brown - zero

3>0

:toast

[DBryant88]

emmitt smith=3
jim brown=0
barry sanders=0
L.T.=0 so far

[possessed]

emmitt smith=3
jim brown=0
barry sanders=0
L.T.=0 so far


so small lineman were blocking small linebackers? great point :td they cancel each other out.

I'll use an argument Spur Fan loves.

Emmitt - 3 championships
Jim Brown - zero

3>0

You kids do understand that NFL Championship games predate Superbowls, don't you? :lol

Jim Brown played before the Superbowl era, ladies. He won a Championship in 1964.

Besides, using your logic Franco Harris is the greatest running back of all time.

Franco - 4

:lmao
Emmitt - 3

[possessed]

You stupid ass. My point was, Brown and Wilt stood out quite a bit in their days. But if you stuck either of them in today's leagues, they wouldn't stand out nearly as much. They would still be quite good, but they wouldn't be looked at as hands down, the class of the league, as they were in their days. Brown and Wilt were men amongst boys back in their days, and were very comparable in their physical conditioning to athletes of today. Generally, players today in each sport are MUCH bigger, faster, stronger, more well coached, and more athletic. And LT is like a man amongst boys in today's league. So LT is dominating a league with much tougher fronts to face putting up very similar stats, and even superior stats to what Brown put up, in a league where generally, players were not NEARLY as big, fast, strong, or athletic.

LT > Jim Brown
Who is a stupid ass? You made the same senseless argument you already made. Stating the fact that a player is head and shoulders above everyone else of the era and using it as an argument against them is ridiculous. You then speculate on how said players game would transition to the modern era if somehow they played today, which is even more ridiculous as it's based on nothing more than your own brain-dead speculation.

Let's see... Jim Browns training regimen from the 50's and 60's wouldn't translate to a game that has evolved tenfold since he retired... No kidding dumbshit. How is that even the argument?

Seriously, everyone who read your nonsensical observation should kick your ass for making them more stupid today.

[monosylab1k]

Now I'm convinced. One giant black man running over white guys with athletic ability equivalent to the cast of The Waterboy means he's the greatest.

This is the same kind of dumb shit logic that convinces people that Bill Russell is the greatest basketball player ever.

[monosylab1k]

You kids do understand that NFL Championship games predate Superbowls, don't you? :lol

my mistake, he has one from 1964, the greatest era in NFL history :jack Where even T Park is athletic enough to play wide receiver.

[possessed]

my mistake, he has one from 1964, the greatest era in NFL history :jack Where even T Park is athletic enough to play wide receiver.

And you'd still be nonathletic enough to criticize those who compete from the comfort of your couch.

Seems some things wouldn't change.

BTW... Get over this problem you have with white athletes.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

If Barry Sanders played for the Cowboys in the 90's he could have easily retired with 17-18k total yards in only 9 seasons.

He didn't need to play for the Cowboys to hit that mark, IMO. He just needed the same amount of carries as ES had. Emmitt carried the ball 538 times more in his first 10 years in the league than Barry did. And he still trailed Barry by over 1700 yards.

Even if Barry averages a pedestrian 4 YPC (which he never came close to in his career) with those extra carries, he's right at 17 1/2 K playing for the Lions.

No doubt in my mind Barry's well over 20k if he would of played a few more seasons and stayed healthy. He was getting better with age.

Barry could have done the same with any franchise. I don't think you can say the same about Emmitt.

[DBryant88]

You kids do understand that NFL Championship games predate Superbowls, don't you? :lol

Jim Brown played before the Superbowl era, ladies. He won a Championship in 1964.

Besides, using your logic Franco Harris is the greatest running back of all time.

Franco - 4

:lmao
Emmitt - 3

who has the most rushing yards and touchdowns of all time?? Harris isn't even in the top 5

[DBryant88]

He didn't need to play for the Cowboys to hit that mark, IMO. He just needed the same amount of carries as ES had. Emmitt carried the ball 538 times more in his first 10 years in the league than Barry did. And he still trailed Barry by over 1700 yards.

Even if Barry averages a pedestrian 4 YPC (which he never came close to in his career) with those extra carries, he's right at 17 1/2 K playing for the Lions.

No doubt in my mind Barry's well over 20k if he would of played a few more seasons and stayed healthy. He was getting better with age.

Barry could have done the same with any franchise. I don't think you can say the same about Emmitt.

Emmitt could have easily multiplied barry numbers if he was the only playmaker on the cowboys. but he wasn't they had aikman,irvin,novak,johnston and other numerous pleyers to make big plays so emmitt didn't need to make a play every time hae wasn't always counted on but barry was because he was the only playmaker the lowly lions had

[monosylab1k]

And you'd still be nonathletic enough to criticize those who compete from the comfort of your couch.

Yeah what NFL team do you play for?

[monosylab1k]

Barry could have done the same with any franchise.

Are you sure about that? Did Barry have the discipline to play in a Jimmy Johnson system? Getting the occasional 4 yard loss by trying to make something out of nothing was completely unacceptable to Jimmy and I'm pretty sure Barry would find his way to the bench if he was ever coached by Jimmy.

I agree that there's no way Emmitt would have racked up those type of yards playing for the Lions, but I think his football IQ and discipline was strong enough that he would have been a great player for any franchise.

Barry also gets the benefit of retiring before his skills deteriorated. Everyone got to see Emmitt look like a pathetic old man in Arizona. Even still, this shows that Emmitt had a love & passion for the game that Barry simply did not.

[stretch]

Who is a stupid ass? You made the same senseless argument you already made. Stating the fact that a player is head and shoulders above everyone else of the era and using it as an argument against them is ridiculous. You then speculate on how said players game would transition to the modern era if somehow they played today, which is even more ridiculous as it's based on nothing more than your own brain-dead speculation.

Grasp your ears firmly and pull your head out of your ass. How is it ridiculous? Jim Brown was head and shoulders a superior athlete to the average athlete of his era. Athletes are far superior in today's era, thus balancing out the advantage that Jim Brown had athletically over the players of his era. The difference between Brown and LT is that Brown dominated due to advanced athleticism that no one had really seen previously. LT is dominating with smarts, moves, and strategy, as there are other other RBs in the league that are actually superior athletes to him, yet he still outperforms the others.


Let's see... Jim Browns training regimen from the 50's and 60's wouldn't translate to a game that has evolved tenfold since he retired... No kidding dumbshit. How is that even the argument?

Obviously he didn't follow the typical regimen that most athletes followed in the 50s and 60s, did he? considering he was bigger, stronger, and more athletic than any typical RB in the league back then, and in a very comparable shape that athletes today are in. if everyone did the same workout regimen that Brown did, then why was he so superior? because they didn't.

now dont get me wrong, im not taking away from his greatness by any means. i think you might be misunderstanding what my point is. if it wasnt for jim brown, RB's would not have had a model to learn from, and expand upon. but sometime people dont realize that over time, people will be able to learn from models of the past, and expand upon them. how do you explain the constant advancement of techonology over time? for instance, many things started with Einstein and his discoveries, but over time, scientists were able to expand on his discoveries. i dont see why it is so hard to accept that newer players in sports will be able to replicate and expand on previous stars of the sport? im sure in about 10-20 years people will dwarf things that LT and Adrian Peterson will accomplish. Lebron James will probably be considered the GOAT, while several sets of newer guys will come into the NBA being compared to Lebron, much like Lebron, Kobe, and many others were compared to Jordan. It's inevitable.


Seriously, everyone who read your nonsensical observation should kick your ass for making them more stupid today.

Yes. I need an ass kicking for an opinion that you disagree with on an internet forum. :rolleyes

[peewee's lovechild]

All Jim Brown was good for was beating the shit out of his wife.

That was the best competition he ever faced.

Jim Brown running down guys that were a foot shorter than him and weighed 50 lbs less isn't that much of an accomplishment.

[Thunder Dan]

I'm sure it was incredibly tough back in the day for Jim Brown to run over all those 5-10, 190 pound white guy linebackers who ran a 5.7 forty.

ok, so if that point is valid for Jim Brown, then it should also hold validity for Barry Sanders who was much smaller in caparison to the defenders he went against, and much smaller than Emmit Smith. You can't say that Jim Brown wasn't any good because he was bigger than the guys he went up against, then also make arguments as to why a guy that is 5'9 isn't the best and is 2nd to a guy who has similar numbers to him but stands taller and weights more. Emmitt Smith is bigger than Sanders was, had more of a line, had more of a team around him, and played longer than Sanders- who otherwise would have won the rushing record thus ending this whole argument. If Barry Sanders played 14 years there would be no discussion of any of this between Emmitt and Barry- the only argument would be between Sanders and Brown and it would just be how do RBs of yesterday compare to today. It's the same argument people make when they ask who the best basketball player is, everyone says Jordan, but there is a handful of people that will say it was Robertson or Chamberlin- the truth is, nobody is right. Nobody can compare the basketball players of the 60s to guys in the 90s correctly. Nobody knows, it's all opinion.

[monosylab1k]

Barry Sanders who was much smaller in caparison to the defenders he went against, and much smaller than Emmit Smith.

Barry was 5'8", 203 lbs

Emmitt was 5'9", 212 lbs

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Are you sure about that? Did Barry have the discipline to play in a Jimmy Johnson system? Getting the occasional 4 yard loss by trying to make something out of nothing was completely unacceptable to Jimmy and I'm pretty sure Barry would find his way to the bench if he was ever coached by Jimmy.


No, I'm not 100% sure about it. Just like it's not a sure thing that Barry wouldn't have excelled playing under JJ.

It would have been fun to watch a unique talent like him play on a team that good, though.

[O-Factor]

Im of the school of thought that all the above mentioned kicked ass.

There will never be a clear cut #1 guy................ unless that freak of nature Adrian Peterson(who's had the most impressive rookie season for a RB that I can recall) can stay healthy for 12 years and improve his numbers year to year, break 2000 yards a couple of times, all while winning a couple of Super Bowls.............I'd give him #1 status then.

[monosylab1k]

There will never be a clear cut #1 guy................ unless that freak of nature Adrian Peterson(who's had the most impressive rookie season for a RB that I can recall) can stay healthy for 12 years and improve his numbers year to year, break 2000 yards a couple of times, all while winning a couple of Super Bowls.............I'd give him #1 status then.

I agree completely but I seriously doubt Peterson lasts more than 6 or 7 years in this league with his running style.

[stretch]

I agree completely but I seriously doubt Peterson lasts more than 6 or 7 years in this league with his running style.

I don't know about that after the way he ran this year. The way he breaks free so easily for large gains is amazing. I don't see him take hard hits very often at all because he is such an elusive runner. In some ways, he seems like what Reggie Bush could be doing if he learned how to not be a pussy and just run through the tackles. His speed and moves are so impressive that even though he would take hits from time to time, he wont take nearly as many as most other backs would because of his elusive running ability.

[bresilhac]

There really isn't much discussion outside of Walter Payton, Jim Brown, Gale Sayers and Barry Sanders. Emmitt Smith was a product of a great line and team. The other people on the fringe of the top 4 are Eric Dickerson, OJ Simpson and Tony Dorsett, all coming before Emmitt.

Except you leave out one very special player who in my time of watching football was one of the best. And certainly should be in the GOAT conversations. Earl Campbell ran with reckless abandon and would absolutely destroy defenders of all sizes on his way down the field. Yet I didn't see one mention of Campbell in this entire thread. And that's a shame. Campbell's style was that of a true north/south runner. Never one to pass up a hole that was opening the Tyler Rose often made his own openings and pity the poor defenders that happen to be in his way. As far as numbers, they are quite impressive. 9107 yards in eight seasons with an average per carry of 4.3.

Much is made of the fact that Brown averaged over a hundred ypg during his tenure which is very impressive. But Campbell also had incredibly impressive feats. For instance in 1980 while playing for the then Houston Oilers, Campbell ran for a whopping 1934 yards in only 15 games while averaging 5.2 ypc for a per game average of 128.9. By any era's standard this is an awesome accomplishment. And to my knowledge has not been duplicated by anyone since then. Numbers aside however, Campbell was probably the toughest, most physically dominant player I ever saw play the position. While rarely considered among the best in league history Campbell certainly was one of the best if not the best runner of his generation imo.

[stretch]

Numbers aside however, Campbell was probably the toughest, most physically dominant player I ever saw play the position.

... aside from Bo of course. Unfortunately he didnt last long enough cuz of a fluke injury. :)

but really though, Campbell was an amazing runner. very often overlooked.

[N.Y. Johnny]

Earl Campbell was an awesome running back, pure power. There hasn't been anyone to run like that in a while, a real tough son of a bitch and he was fast too. I know some folks differ with me at times but those Houston Oiler teams probably would've won a super bowl had they not run into the Steelers dynasties.

The Oilers did it with Earl. Pastorini wasn't that good of a QB so it all fell on Campbell. Thats why alot of people say Bum Phillips used him up in a short time, but man what he did when he played. I'd put him top 5 in my list.

You have the best here

Gayle Sayers
Barry Sanders
Jim Brown
Eric Dickerson
Emmitt Smith
Earl Campbell
O.J. Simpson (yes Orenthal)

How they're ranked as great is always debate. Rushing stats and just ability?

[dirk4mvp]

Fred Taylor

[Fillmoe]

Frank Gore

[N.Y. Johnny]

Blair Thomas then.