NFL Network's Top 100 players.

[Complex]

Originally Posted by terribletowel39

?????

By on the field, I mean Jim Brown weighed more than most defensive lineman and played with a hell of an offensive line. And Barry Sanders played with one of the worst offensive lines in the last 20 years.

Like I stated before, which you quoted, don't bring stats up. Look at the entire picture and realize which was the more special.

Yep, someone from the NFL network said that most D-Linemen weighed around 190 pounds and Jim Brown was what 6-2 240 pounds so he was bigger and faster than almost everyone he played. Jim Brown had it easier than Barry Sanders.

[BuddyCHRIST]

Ive always felt like the Jim Brown vs Other great later RB's was such a pointless argument. Its just impossible to compare, the era's were so different. I don't even feel like comparing the era's because then that becomes an argument.

[boknows34]

Originally Posted by wonderbredd24

McCormack, Hickerson, and who?

Lou Groza was still playing OT early in Brown's career.

Brown was 6-2, 232. By comparison Groza was 6-4, 230.

When Brown led the NFL in rushing 8 times he led the league in attempts every one of those years too - often by a huge margin. The season he finished 4th in yards he was also 4th in attempts.

When Barry led the NFL in rushing there was far more competiton among his peers. In fact Sanders was only 6th, 4th, 8th and 4th in attempts when he led the NFL in rushing. He passed on another rushing title during his rookie season when he was 10 yds short of Okoye but wanted the backups to get some game experience during the 4th qtr of a Week 16 blowout. Okoye had 90 more attempts for those 10 extra yards and Barry was 7th in the NFL overall for attempts. In the 3 seasons Barry was 2nd in rushing he was 7th, 2nd and 7th in attempts. In 1991 Barry finished 15 yds short of Emmitt but played one less game. He could easily have have had 2 more rushing titles to the 4 he achieved.

Sanders was 1st 4 times, 2nd 3 times 4th twice and 5th once when it came to rushing yards each season. In fact the year he was 5th, Barry missed 5 games with injury and was on pace for another 1,600 yd season.

Its also worth noting that of all RBs in NFL history with at least 1,000 carries, or the 72 RBs in history with over 6,000 career rushing yds, Brown and Sanders are 1st and 2nd in rushing yards per game and per carry. I just think Barry's era was better overall and in more more difficult circumstances (playing for the Lions) than Brown.

[FUNBUNCHER]

Originally Posted by Complex

Yep, someone from the NFL network said that most D-Linemen weighed around 190 pounds and Jim Brown was what 6-2 240 pounds so he was bigger and faster than almost everyone he played. Jim Brown had it easier than Barry Sanders.

Simply not true.

Yes, there were lineman that Brown was equal to in size if not bigger than, but the 'average' Dlineman in the '50s wasn't 190#. Maybe in the 1930s, but not the mid-1950s, early '60s.

To extrapolate the physical advantage Jim Brown had during his era, it would be like, roughly, having a RB in the current game who was 6'4, 270#, was elusive and ran a 4.4.

[boknows34]

Originally Posted by terribletowel39

Yeah, it was the Oline that gave him time to get Moore the ball. Not the 9 people in the box selling out almost every play to try and stop Barry. That line was crappy to slightly above crappy.

Exactly. Barry had 2 Pro Bowl OL during his career but never both in the same season - Lomas Brown and Kevin Glover.

Just a few facts about Lomas Brown.

1. He was more of a pass blocker than run blocker.
2. He never went to the Pro Bowl before Barry arrived. Brown was drafted in 1985 as a Top 10 pick. He only went to one Pro Bowl without Barry - his 1st season in Arizona.
3. The Lions went from worst to first in rushing ypc in Barry's rookie season.
4. When Barry had his best season ever in 1997 with 2,053 yds and 6.1 ypc Brown was no longer a Lion as he signed with Arizona as a free agent in 1996. Sanders led the NFL in rushing in the first two seasons after Brown departed.

[wonderbredd24]

Originally Posted by Complex

Yep, someone from the NFL network said that most D-Linemen weighed around 190 pounds and Jim Brown was what 6-2 240 pounds so he was bigger and faster than almost everyone he played. Jim Brown had it easier than Barry Sanders.

Sweet tap dancing christ, the 60's were not THAT long ago.

[Complex]

Originally Posted by FUNBUNCHER

Simply not true.

Yes, there were lineman that Brown was equal to in size if not bigger than, but the 'average' Dlineman in the '50s wasn't 190#. Maybe in the 1930s, but not the mid-1950s, early '60s.

To extrapolate the physical advantage Jim Brown had during his era, it would be like, roughly, having a RB in the current game who was 6'4, 270#, was elusive and ran a 4.4.

yeah, I think your right I was looking it up linemen weights from the 60s-70s on google but I found nothing besides there being only 1 linemen that weighed 300+ pounds in the 70s.

[Complex]

Originally Posted by wonderbredd24

Sweet tap dancing christ, the 60's were not THAT long ago.

50 years ago is a long time ago but yeah i think I heard wrong

[Complex]

After doing some research most D-linemen weighed around 250 pounds according to this http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0...is-better.html and a couple other sites and Jim brown was like 230-240 so 10 to 20 pounds less.

[boknows34]

When looking at dominance of era I like this stat. Give each RB 10 points for every season they ranked #1 in rushing, 9 points for every season they ranked #2, 8 points for ranking as the third best RB, etc. How would that list look?

From 1957 onwards (Brown's rookie season).

1. Jim Brown - 87 in 9 seasons
2. Barry Sanders - 84 in 10 seasons
3. Walter Payton - 69 in 13 seasons
4. Emmitt Smith - 61 in 15 seasons

[FUNBUNCHER]

I thought the Lions not re-signing Lomas Brown was the incident that caused Barry Sanders to decide to retire, because he felt the organization was not committed to winning football games???

[xxxxxxxx]

You can't argue old players aren't as good because of advances in science, technology, and training techniques.

[tuan33]

Originally Posted by CDCB14

You can't argue old players aren't as good because of advances in science, technology, and training techniques.

But you could argue that with the new players, the level of competition is going to be higher because of the increased pool of talent to select from. Football wasn't a glamorous job in the 50's and 60's that it is now. You wouldn't get the best athletes going for football like you had for baseball at that time period.

The advancement in technology argument could be used both ways. The 14 game schedule is easier than a 16 game schedule, the wear and tear of the season is less. There is no way Jim Brown could be bigger than he was with the advancement in training and food science. What is he going to be? 6'4'' 280 lbs and runs a 4.3. If Jim Brown were to be in the modern game, he'd be Earl Campbell reincarnated.

[wonderbredd24]

Originally Posted by tuan33

But you could argue that with the new players, the level of competition is going to be higher because of the increased pool of talent to select from. Football wasn't a glamorous job in the 50's and 60's that it is now. You wouldn't get the best athletes going for football like you had for baseball at that time period.

The advancement in technology argument could be used both ways. The 14 game schedule is easier than a 16 game schedule, the wear and tear of the season is less. There is no way Jim Brown could be bigger than he was with the advancement in training and food science. What is he going to be? 6'4'' 280 lbs and runs a 4.3. If Jim Brown were to be in the modern game, he'd be Earl Campbell reincarnated.

That argument goes both ways.

There are 32 teams now. When Vince Lombardi was hired as the Packers head coach, there were 12. The talent pool thins with 20 more teams.

And there's no way Jim Brown could be bigger or stronger now? With guys like Calvin Johnson, Vernon Davis, etc. you really want to say that? Brown didn't really lift weights and considering the advances in exercise physiology and nutrition, who knows what he could have become?

[Bob Sanders Dreadlock]

Originally Posted by wonderbredd24

That argument goes both ways.

There are 32 teams now. When Vince Lombardi was hired as the Packers head coach, there were 12. The talent pool thins with 20 more teams.

And there's no way Jim Brown could be bigger or stronger now? With guys like Calvin Johnson, Vernon Davis, etc. you really want to say that? Brown didn't really lift weights and considering the advances in exercise physiology and nutrition, who knows what he could have become?

The talent pool has increased if anything. There are more kids playing football and getting exposure from all the various media outlets.

[boknows34]

Originally Posted by FUNBUNCHER

I thought the Lions not re-signing Lomas Brown was the incident that caused Barry Sanders to decide to retire, because he felt the organization was not committed to winning football games???

It was Kevin Glover was allowed to leave that Barry mentioned was a big factor in his retirement.

[tuan33]

Originally Posted by wonderbredd24

That argument goes both ways.

There are 32 teams now. When Vince Lombardi was hired as the Packers head coach, there were 12. The talent pool thins with 20 more teams.

And there's no way Jim Brown could be bigger or stronger now? With guys like Calvin Johnson, Vernon Davis, etc. you really want to say that? Brown didn't really lift weights and considering the advances in exercise physiology and nutrition, who knows what he could have become?

I don't understand what you're expecting him to become. Do you think he's going to become Bo Jack extreme version 6'2 260 and breaks a 4.0. I mean he was already an elite athlete back in the 60's. There is a limit to how much a person could gain through nutrition and I feel he's already at the upper limit of human athleticism. I don't think he's going to get much bigger or faster than he was at 6'2 4.4 speed.

[wonderbredd24]

Originally Posted by tuan33

I don't understand what you're expecting him to become. Do you think he's going to become Bo Jack extreme version 6'2 260 and breaks a 4.0. I mean he was already an elite athlete back in the 60's. There is a limit to how much a person could gain through nutrition and I feel he's already at the upper limit of human athleticism. I don't think he's going to get much bigger or faster than he was at 6'2 4.4 speed.

Did anyone think a guy could be 6'5" and run a 4.3?

Brown might have still weighed 230-240lbs, but it might have been a stronger 240lbs when you get into concepts like muscle density and the like.

[boknows34]

Originally Posted by wonderbredd24

And there's no way Jim Brown could be bigger or stronger now? With guys like Calvin Johnson, Vernon Davis, etc. you really want to say that? Brown didn't really lift weights and considering the advances in exercise physiology and nutrition, who knows what he could have become?

Bo Jackson never lifted weights in his life either and was virtually the same size as Brown with 4.2 speed. I'll always stand by my belief that the likes of Jim Brown in the NFL and Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell and Oscar Robertson were 30-40 years ahead of their time. They brought a level of size and athleticism that was light years ahead of their competition and would still be elite today.

[boknows34]

#20 Brett Favre-QB
#19 Bronko Nagurski-RB/DL
#18 Ray Lewis-LB
#17 Barry Sanders-RB
#16 Otto Graham-QB
#15 Deacon Jones-DE
#14 Sammy Baugh-QB/DB
#13 Joe Greene-DT
#12 Anthony Munoz-OT
#11 Ronnie Lott-DB

Surprised Lott is that high.


Final 10 will be:

Montana
Unitas
Manning
Brown
Payton
Rice
Hutson
Reggie White
Taylor
Butkus

[wonderbredd24]

Manning being that high is just absurd. And then Favre... ugh

[njx9]

lol nfln. i have to give y'all props for making people talk about your idiotic list.

[yourfavestoner]

Originally Posted by njx9

lol nfln. i have to give y'all props for making people talk about your idiotic list.

I guess. I can't even bring myself it get involved anymore, it's just the same circular logic over and over and over.

[njx9]

Originally Posted by yourfavestoner

I guess. I can't even bring myself it get involved anymore, it's just the same circular logic over and over and over.

i just think, as far as a marketing gimmick goes? they killed it. list players in a reasonable order, people talk for a week. stick peyton in the top 10? this could've been a 6 month long argument if it were the offseason. it'll still last far longer than it really should.

i'll almost guarantee that the 2000-2010 all-decade team has much less conversation than this list. well. except that it'll include favre. and people will still watch espn. but other than that.

[wordofi]

The notion that the talent pool in the NFL is diluted by having 32 teams is ridiculous. Consider how much the population has increased. Adjusted for inflation, the percentage of good players on a team should be about the same. People forget to account for inflation when they make their arguments about the supposed diluting of talent. If there were only 12 teams today, every team would essentially have a Pro Bowl roster.