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.
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.
Revising the revisionists.
Good Post
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.
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.
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.
Plus, you just admit that Brown and Wilt were ahead of their time. How in the 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
so small lineman were blocking small linebackers? great pointYou 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.they cancel each other out.
I'll use an argument Spur Fan loves.
Emmitt - 3 championships
Jim Brown - zero
3>0
so small lineman were blocking small linebackers? great point
I'll use an argument Spur Fan loves.
Emmitt - 3 championships
Jim Brown - zero
3>0
emmitt smith=3
jim brown=0
barry sanders=0
L.T.=0 so far
You kids do understand that NFL Championship games predate Superbowls, don't you?so small lineman were blocking small linebackers? great point
I'll use an argument Spur Fan loves.
Emmitt - 3 championships
Jim Brown - zero
3>0
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
Emmitt - 3
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 dumb . How is that even the argument?
Seriously, everyone who read your nonsensical observation should kick your ass for making them more stupid today.
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 logic that convinces people that Bill Russell is the greatest basketball player ever.
my mistake, he has one from 1964, the greatest era in NFL historyYou kids do understand that NFL Championship games predate Superbowls, don't you?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.my mistake, he has one from 1964, the greatest era in NFL history
Seems some things wouldn't change.
BTW... Get over this problem you have with white athletes.
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.
Last edited by DisgruntledLionFan#54,927; 06-04-2008 at 02:27 AM.
who has the most rushing yards and touchdowns of all time?? Harris isn't even in the top 5You kids do understand that NFL Championship games predate Superbowls, don't you?
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
Emmitt - 3
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
Yeah what NFL team do you play for?
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.
Last edited by monosylab1k; 06-04-2008 at 08:31 AM.
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.
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.
Yes. I need an ass kicking for an opinion that you disagree with on an internet forum.
All Jim Brown was good for was beating the out of his wife.
That was the best compe ion 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.
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.
Last edited by Thunder Dan; 06-04-2008 at 09:05 AM.
Barry was 5'8", 203 lbs
Emmitt was 5'9", 212 lbs
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
