you're right, the stats are much closer than i thought in my original post. while brown's stats are not demonstrably better, they are a little better, but he does not have the receiving yards sanders does.

i guess i fall back on the position that brown was the first of a kind -- the legendary combination of size, power, and speed -- and who re-wrote the record book by leaps and bounds. a man amongst boys for the most part.

the dude has been retired for 45 years, and he's still #9 on the all-time rushing list.

i think part of sanders problem is that he retired and basically disappeared, while brown has remained a public figure (sometimes for all the wrong reasons) since leaving the game, so it's hard to forget him.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by dukke v

PLUTO

Member since Jul 2006

215984 posts

Posted on 7/9/10 at 9:29 pm to oilfieldtiger

quote:
i guess i fall back on the position that brown was the first of a kind -- the legendary combination of size, power, and speed -- and who re-wrote the record book by leaps and bounds. a man amongst boys for the most part.

This is SO true!!!

quote:
the dude has been retired for 45 years, and he's still #9 on the all-time rushing list.

THINK ABOUT THIS!!!!!!!!!! VERY IMPORTANT TO THREAD.

quote:
i think part of sanders problem is that he retired and basically disappeared

And whats wrong with that??? BARRY!!!!!

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Bullethead88

Half way between LSU and Tulane

Member since Dec 2009

4202 posts

Posted on 7/9/10 at 9:30 pm to Tactical1

quote:
The batter was given credit for a home run in the last of the ninth inning if the winning run was on base when the ball was hit out of the field.

Actually it was sort of the opposite. Before 1920 you couldn't win by more than one run. So if the score was tied and a batter hit a home run with a man on third to win the game, he was only credited with a single, because when the runner crossed home, the game was over.

So it didn't add to home runs, it took home runs away.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by H-Town Tiger

Member since Nov 2003

60673 posts

Posted on 7/9/10 at 10:22 pm to Tactical1

quote:

h yeah he has got great numbers that rank him as one of the greats but when considering less competition, pitching is nothing like then what it is now,

like I said you can use those arguments,

Where you are wrong and blinded by your own bias is you act like no one could pitch. That's wrong, they had guys that could get into the 90's then, just like now. The difference is depth, now there are more guys that can do what a handful of greats in the past could do. Of course Ruth would not hit twice as many home runs as players today, but to assume if he grew up now and had the same access to the technology and training information we have now that he could play is silly.

quote:
The Sultan of swat couldn't homer off of John Rocker

and why is that? Do you think they were all throwing underhand or 65 mph back then? I do smell a new sig quote though.

quote:
but if you think for a second the babe could compete in todays game makes me question your credibility.

You questioning someone's credibility is freaking laughable, you are either a troll or a flaming moron. Saying so an so could not compete in today's game is unprovable and not the argument anyway.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by F machine

Member since Jun 2009

11886 posts

Posted on 7/9/10 at 10:44 pm to H-Town Tiger

I know it isn't his fault, but brown did play against much slower and smaller defenses. to me this gives Barry an edge since they were so close statistically.

And whoever said Barry killed teams he was on is an idiot. It isn't his fault he was only on three winning teams. That's the fault of management and coaching. They simply didn't get the players needed to win. You simply can't place wins and losses on one player, especially in football.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by H-Town Tiger

Member since Nov 2003

60673 posts

Posted on 7/9/10 at 11:15 pm to F machine

quote:
brown did play against much slower and smaller defenses

you also have to consider he played with lesser talent. Its not like the guys he played against were 5'6" 125. The didn't weigh as much in part because they didn't know as much about weight lifting and nutrition. The guys he played against were the biggest, fastest guys of the time.

Another think in Browns favor, the rules have changed, the passing game was much more open when Sanders played. There is no doubt Jim Brown could play today. Sanders might not even be the best RB of his generation.

This post was edited on 7/9/10 at 11:16 pm

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by Raptordawg

Youngsville, La.

Member since Nov 2005

561 posts

Posted on 7/10/10 at 1:08 am to H-Town Tiger

I love how no one ever questions the validity of Jim Brown's stats? Was he all-world and the greatest ever or was he in an era with a great running team?

Have any of you Jim Brown lovers' ever heard of Leroy Kelly? Or how about LSU's own and former Green Bay Packer Jim Taylor?

Jim Taylor put up just as good of numbers as Brown during a few of the years that everyone annoints him the greatest ever and he was a slow arse whiteboy fullback.

And what does Leroy Kelly have to do with the conversation? Well just look at the numbers that Jim Brown's replacement put up after the greatest ever left the team. Hall of Fame numbers..... Hmmmmmm was it Jim Brown's dominance or was it Cleveland's.

I'm not trying to take away too much from Jim Brown's accomplishments, but come on. He played in an era where the lineman were smaller than most safety's these days. And let's not even start on the speed and strength issues.

Jim Taylor stats

Leroy Kelly's stats

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by H-Town Tiger

Member since Nov 2003

60673 posts

Posted on 7/10/10 at 1:22 am to Raptordawg

quote:
Have any of you Jim Brown lovers' ever heard of Leroy Kelly? Or how about LSU's own and former Green Bay Packer Jim Taylor?

Yes, good players. not in Browns class:

Taylor: 132 games played, 8597 yds = 65.1 ypg. 4.4 ypc 93 total TDS

Kelly: 136 games played 7274 yds = 53.5 ypg 4.2 ypc 87 tt TDs

Brown 118 games 12,312 yds 104.3 ypg 5.2 ypc 126 TDs.

You will note Brown played 18 FEWER games than Kelly but had 5034 MORE yds and 39 MORE TDs.

He played 14 FEWER games than Taylor yet had 3715 MORE yds and 33 more TDs.

Brown played fewer games yet was substantially better in the cumulative stats and much, much better in the averages.

Its No Contest.

Jim Brown >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JT/LK

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Raptordawg

Youngsville, La.

Member since Nov 2005

561 posts

Posted on 7/10/10 at 1:40 am to H-Town Tiger

Why are you taking career numbers and comparing them? Look at the years pertaining to and immediately following Jim Brown's. Do you see anything in common? Let me help you...

1966 24 CLE NFL 14 209 1141 5.5 15
1967 25 CLE NFL 14 235 1205 5.1 11
1968 26 CLE NFL 14 248 1239 5.0 16

Do you see anything in those stats that make you go HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM... I sure the hell do.

5.5
5.1
5.0

YPG for his backup running back. Leroy Kelly was a nothing before Jim Brown leaves and all of a sudden becomes all world putting up the same stats. Now look what happened to Kelly's numbers when the NFL and AFL merged creating better competition.

1970 28 CLE NFL 13 206 656 3.2 6
1971 29 CLE NFL 14 234 865 3.7 10

Now don't let the facts skew your opinion here now.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by magiLSU

Prairieville

Member since Jan 2004

2388 posts

Posted on 7/10/10 at 2:00 am to H-Town Tiger

quote:
Sanders might not even be the best RB of his generation.

So wrong--even Emmitt admitted that Barry would be the all-time leading rusher had he not retired early.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by H-Town Tiger

Member since Nov 2003

60673 posts

Posted on 7/10/10 at 9:38 am to Raptordawg

quote:
Why are you taking career numbers and comparing them?

Because we are talking about the best ever, that means for a career. It does not mean best at every single point in time or that others did not have season as good as better.

quote:
Leroy Kelly was a nothing before Jim Brown leaves and all of a sudden becomes all world putting up the same stats

Lets think about this statement for a second shall we? The back up didn't anything until he got to start. I wonder, just wonder if maybe that's because usually back-up don't get as much playing time as starters?

quote:
Do you see anything in those stats that make you go HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Yes I wondering if you are another troll or just stupid.

You are basing your comparison on ypc?

Jim Browns last 3 years:

291 1863 12 6.4
280 1446 7 5.2
289 1544 17 5.3

Kelly

209 1141 15 5.5
235 1205 11 5.1
248 1239 16 5.0

Brown had more carries ( I wonder if maybe that's because the coaches thought he was better?) but 2 of his last 3 year his ypc was better, oh and his 1863 in 14 games translates into 2129 over 16 games. The record is 2105 by Eric Dickerson. OLs 2003 was in 14 games, that's the only season better than Browns 63 season.

quote:
Now look what happened to Kelly's numbers when the NFL and AFL merged creating better competition.

You fricking fail at science. Could be the better the merger, could be that Kelly fell off sooner because he wasn;t as good. Kelly numbers tailed off in 69, the year before the merger and D Thomas and J Fuqua avg over 5 ypc in 1970. In 65 3 guys avg 5.0 ypc, but number 10 was 3.9 in 65 vs 4.3 in 1970. It appears there was no big change in overall stats league wide. The evidence points to Jim Brown being better.

quote:
Now don't let the facts skew your opinion here now.

The irony in that statement is epic, thanks!

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by H-Town Tiger

Member since Nov 2003

60673 posts

Posted on 7/10/10 at 9:40 am to magiLSU

quote:
Emmitt admitted that Barry would be the all-time leading rusher had he not retired early.

So? Maybe he would have, maybe he wouldn't. No one knows. I don't judge all time greats based solely on cumulative stats.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by GeauxTigers0107

We Coming

Member since Oct 2009

10643 posts

Posted on 7/10/10 at 10:01 am to Bench McElroy

quote:
The Lions actually had some very good offensive linemen in the mid to late '90s with Lomas Brown, Kevin Glover and Jeff Hartings among others.

at you for not mentioning the starting left guard All Pro from Thibodaux High and LSU, Mr. Eric Andolsek..RIP.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Raptordawg

Youngsville, La.

Member since Nov 2005

561 posts

Posted on 7/10/10 at 11:45 am to H-Town Tiger

quote:

Why are you taking career numbers and comparing them?

Because we are talking about the best ever, that means for a career. It does not mean best at every single point in time or that others did not have season as good as better.

quote:

Leroy Kelly was a nothing before Jim Brown leaves and all of a sudden becomes all world putting up the same stats

Lets think about this statement for a second shall we? The back up didn't anything until he got to start. I wonder, just wonder if maybe that's because usually back-up don't get as much playing time as starters?

quote:

Do you see anything in those stats that make you go HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Yes I wondering if you are another troll or just stupid.

You are basing your comparison on ypc?

Jim Browns last 3 years:

291 1863 12 6.4
280 1446 7 5.2
289 1544 17 5.3

Kelly

209 1141 15 5.5
235 1205 11 5.1
248 1239 16 5.0

Brown had more carries ( I wonder if maybe that's because the coaches thought he was better?) but 2 of his last 3 year his ypc was better, oh and his 1863 in 14 games translates into 2129 over 16 games. The record is 2105 by Eric Dickerson. OLs 2003 was in 14 games, that's the only season better than Browns 63 season.

quote:

Now look what happened to Kelly's numbers when the NFL and AFL merged creating better competition.

You fricking fail at science. Could be the better the merger, could be that Kelly fell off sooner because he wasn;t as good. Kelly numbers tailed off in 69, the year before the merger and D Thomas and J Fuqua avg over 5 ypc in 1970. In 65 3 guys avg 5.0 ypc, but number 10 was 3.9 in 65 vs 4.3 in 1970. It appears there was no big change in overall stats league wide. The evidence points to Jim Brown being better.

quote:

Now don't let the facts skew your opinion here now.

H-Town, Are you an idiot or just retarded? Can you not see the point that I'm making? Yes, Jim Brown is the greatest of his era. No doubt about that.... What you're not comprehending is that his era is nothing compared to today's game.

Yes, Brown was head and shoulders above most players of his time, but when someone's backup comes in and puts up Hall-of-Fame numbers immediately after another person, I've got to question the stats that got them there, i.e. Joe Montana and Steve Young. Was it the players or was it the system?

Seriously, go look at the runningback stats before the AFL-NFL merger. Several backs were putting up great numbers and all of a sudden the averages drop dramatically.

This post was edited on 7/10/10 at 11:50 am

Page 1 2 3 4 5