Who's the strongest power RB of all time?

[Jakuvious]

2 hours ago, mcmurtry86 said:

Centers is a weird guy to pine for when thinking of the days of the fullback

Terrific player but not really the prototype. Neither was Alstott really.

 

Yeah. Really the true set of FBs to miss in that sense would be Lorenzo Neal, Mack Strong, and Tony Richardson. Those guys were the proper FBs in the way that people remember the position.

[BroncoBruin]

On 9/27/2017 at 11:07 AM, Rod Johnson said:

Earl Campbell, he had tree trunks for legs.

Shout-out that one year for Peyton Hillis though.  Having him and Lawrence Vickers beat the snot out of defenses was legendary (although probably has no place in this discussion).

That Pats blowout was as stunned as I've been watching a regular season game. Man Hillis was fun.

And it never happens if Hillis doesn't try to bang Josh McDaniels' wife in Denver. Legend.

[Calvert28]

On 9/28/2017 at 11:40 PM, Iamcanadian said:

I would have to go with Jimmy Brown, he weighed 240lbs. and still ran a 4.30 back when the biggest DT's only weighed 250lbs. It often took 5 guys to tackle him and even then, it was not uncommon for him to break free. The Browns ran the ball about 85% of the time, so defenses knew he was going to get the ball practically on every play and they still could not stop him. Earl Campbell and Riggins deserve honourable mention for sure and Jimmy Talyor of the Packers and Czonka of undefeated Miami weren't too shabby either. Not sure I got all the spelling of names correct.

Hand timed and stopped early? I've seen video of him. No way he ran a 4.3 I doubt even 4.4.

[Iamcanadian]

2 hours ago, Calvert28 said:

Hand timed and stopped early? I've seen video of him. No way he ran a 4.3 I doubt even 4.4.

You do know that GM's, HC's and scouts only use hand timing when judging a prospect. They really do not give a damn about official times, that is only for viewers, to keep them interested in watching the Combine.

They have to compare today's prospects to previous prospects who ran at the Combine, before there was any official timing done. Through that, they established a time range for judging prospects at every position, to see who stood the best chance of playing in the NFL and that is why they continue to hand time every runner today. The GM's, HC's and scouts sit up in the stands and hand time every prospect. If they believed in official times, do you really think they would bother hand timing them today. My memory may be a little foggy these days, but I do not think there was a Combine held when Brown was a rookie. I would also note, that you cannot judge speed on film, that's why they run the 40 at the combine.

I am 74 and saw every game he every played as a pro and it was consistently pointed out that he ran around a 4.30 and since I never saw him run down from behind, I will assume, it was pretty close to the truth.

[Calvert28]

9 hours ago, Iamcanadian said:

You do know that GM's, HC's and scouts only use hand timing when judging a prospect. They really do not give a damn about official times, that is only for viewers, to keep them interested in watching the Combine.

They have to compare today's prospects to previous prospects who ran at the Combine, before there was any official timing done. Through that, they established a time range for judging prospects at every position, to see who stood the best chance of playing in the NFL and that is why they continue to hand time every runner today. The GM's, HC's and scouts sit up in the stands and hand time every prospect. If they believed in official times, do you really think they would bother hand timing them today. My memory may be a little foggy these days, but I do not think there was a Combine held when Brown was a rookie. I would also note, that you cannot judge speed on film, that's why they run the 40 at the combine.

I am 74 and saw every game he every played as a pro and it was consistently pointed out that he ran around a 4.30 and since I never saw him run down from behind, I will assume, it was pretty close to the truth.

And still probably embellished to promote the legacy.

I have no doubt he was talented. But everytime we hear a story about about one of the greats before electronic times they are putting up numbers that we still don't even see today. Why is that? Considering LB's, DL's, CB's, etc and so forth have gotten bigger and faster since the 60's, and yet RB's have for some reason roughly stayed the same. You would think we would see speciman's putting up Brown like numbers every year even if they aren't great football players just because the way athletes are trained now which is light years ahead of what went on back then. And yet when is the last time you've heard someone 240 pounds basically run a 4.3 flat? And hell even back then the 3 point stance I don't think was even used back then with football players and that gives athletes a huge advantage in the sprint. And yet he ran a 4.3, Bo Jackson ran a 4.1, I've heard Gale Sayers run a 4.2. 

Something doesn't add up with these legends. And i think it's just embellishment, I've heard people also say that Earl Campbell ran a 4.3 something at almost 250 pounds. And considering how rarely he was ever caught from behind, you would think that were true. But truth is, that while at Texas his reported 40 was something at a 4.7 or high 4.6's. It is possible, to have break away speed considering how quick you are. 

[Iamcanadian]

On 10/2/2017 at 2:24 PM, Calvert28 said:

And still probably embellished to promote the legacy.

I have no doubt he was talented. But everytime we hear a story about about one of the greats before electronic times they are putting up numbers that we still don't even see today. Why is that? Considering LB's, DL's, CB's, etc and so forth have gotten bigger and faster since the 60's, and yet RB's have for some reason roughly stayed the same. You would think we would see speciman's putting up Brown like numbers every year even if they aren't great football players just because the way athletes are trained now which is light years ahead of what went on back then. And yet when is the last time you've heard someone 240 pounds basically run a 4.3 flat? And hell even back then the 3 point stance I don't think was even used back then with football players and that gives athletes a huge advantage in the sprint. And yet he ran a 4.3, Bo Jackson ran a 4.1, I've heard Gale Sayers run a 4.2. 

Something doesn't add up with these legends. And i think it's just embellishment, I've heard people also say that Earl Campbell ran a 4.3 something at almost 250 pounds. And considering how rarely he was ever caught from behind, you would think that were true. But truth is, that while at Texas his reported 40 was something at a 4.7 or high 4.6's. It is possible, to have break away speed considering how quick you are. 

I'd say Brown ran around a 4.30 not necessarily right on. Jackson was also an extremely fast runner, but I think he was a 4.30 type as well, ditto for Sayers.

We say athletes are bigger, that's a proven fact(steroids and pro teams added weight rooms to their facilities in the 60's), but there were plenty of pro who were just as fast as today's stars, just not as many of them.

Players from the past played in a much smaller league, so even though, there are more athletes today who are trained better, the smaller leagues back then meant that only the best could play pro football, while today in the expanded NFL, many of today's athletes would not have been able to play back then.

Those pro sport teams were filled by very tough characters, I don't know if you read my story on Gordie Howe. I coached travel baseball for over 30 years and met an ex Detroit Red Wing defenseman, who told me a story about his first game as a rookie, when he missed a check during the game and when he skated back trying to make up for his mistake, Howe skated past him and elbowed him in his face, knocking out 2 teeth and said to him, "son, in this league you finish your checks".

Henry Aaron who really holds the record for home runs, told a story how as a kid, he learned how to have soft hands when fielding a ball. They were so poor, they could not afford balls, so they practiced with socks, they light them on fire and throw them to one another and believe me, they got rid of them ASAP. Take out steroids and Aaron, Maris and the Babe would still be the home run leaders in the history books, even against all the great hitters of today, so great athletes still existed back then, just a lot fewer than today.

In pro baseball today, once every decade, the MLB FO brings back a supped up ball to give modern players a shot at setting home run records, that's why Stanton got close this year, but it only is allowed for 1 season, then they go back to a different ball which will not permit that many homers in a season.

Players back in the older generations were simply tougher than players today, they had to be, especially in pro football/pro hockey, the rules were such, that only men with a huge amount of guts could play the game. The head shots against receivers and other positions, which caused concussions practically on every play, drove weaker men right out of the league and those that stayed were expected to play through concussions and even broken bones. Practically, nobody ever went on IR. Every pro from those eras, got needles of pain killers before every game, many shot deep into their bodies with huge needles as long as a foot in length.

There were fast players back then, just nowhere near the numbers you see today. As long as I can remember as a draftnik and that goes back 65 years, the standard for success in the 40 for a RB, WR or CB was a minimum a of 4.50, 40. Yes, players who were slower made it as well, but nowhere near in the numbers of those who met the minimum standard and just like today, there were a few like Brown, Jackson and Sayers who ran faster than the minimum level of 4.50.

You also have to remember that linemen back then only weighed around 250 if they were big, so naturally, they likely were pretty fast and quick compared to a lot of 300lbers today.

[skywlker32]

14 hours ago, Iamcanadian said:

I'd say Brown ran around a 4.30 not necessarily right on. Jackson was also an extremely fast runner, but I think he was a 4.30 type as well, ditto for Sayers.

We say athletes are bigger, that's a proven fact(steroids and pro teams added weight rooms to their facilities in the 60's), but there were plenty of pro who were just as fast as today's stars, just not as many of them.

Players from the past played in a much smaller league, so even though, there are more athletes today who are trained better, the smaller leagues back then meant that only the best could play pro football, while today in the expanded NFL, many of today's athletes would not have been able to play back then.

Those pro sport teams were filled by very tough characters, I don't know if you read my story on Gordie Howe. I coached travel baseball for over 30 years and met an ex Detroit Red Wing defenseman, who told me a story about his first game as a rookie, when he missed a check during the game and when he skated back trying to make up for his mistake, Howe skated past him and elbowed him in his face, knocking out 2 teeth and said to him, "son, in this league you finish your checks".

Henry Aaron who really holds the record for home runs, told a story how as a kid, he learned how to have soft hands when fielding a ball. They were so poor, they could not afford balls, so they practiced with socks, they light them on fire and throw them to one another and believe me, they got rid of them ASAP. Take out steroids and Aaron, Maris and the Babe would still be the home run leaders in the history books, even against all the great hitters of today, so great athletes still existed back then, just a lot fewer than today.

In pro baseball today, once every decade, the MLB FO brings back a supped up ball to give modern players a shot at setting home run records, that's why Stanton got close this year, but it only is allowed for 1 season, then they go back to a different ball which will not permit that many homers in a season.

Players back in the older generations were simply tougher than players today, they had to be, especially in pro football/pro hockey, the rules were such, that only men with a huge amount of guts could play the game. The head shots against receivers and other positions, which caused concussions practically on every play, drove weaker men right out of the league and those that stayed were expected to play through concussions and even broken bones. Practically, nobody ever went on IR. Every pro from those eras, got needles of pain killers before every game, many shot deep into their bodies with huge needles as long as a foot in length.

There were fast players back then, just nowhere near the numbers you see today. As long as I can remember as a draftnik and that goes back 65 years, the standard for success in the 40 for a RB, WR or CB was a minimum a of 4.50, 40. Yes, players who were slower made it as well, but nowhere near in the numbers of those who met the minimum standard and just like today, there were a few like Brown, Jackson and Sayers who ran faster than the minimum level of 4.50.

You also have to remember that linemen back then only weighed around 250 if they were big, so naturally, they likely were pretty fast and quick compared to a lot of 300lbers today.

I have no idea where you're getting that Jim Brown would be running a 4.3 40 yard dash. I can't find any mention  of a 40 time for him aside from a 4.5s time that someone claimed they heard. Jim Brown was not known for his elite speed, but more-so his power. I could see Bo Jackson or Gale Sayers (although he claims he would have run around a 4.7, that seems low) being around a 4.3. There are a lot of myths out there about 40 yard dash times, you can't believe them all.

[UniversalAuthor]

Earl Campbell.

[Darkness]

How hasn’t Adrian Peterson been mentioned yet? 

[iothar]

16 hours ago, Iamcanadian said:

I'd say Brown ran around a 4.30 not necessarily right on. Jackson was also an extremely fast runner, but I think he was a 4.30 type as well, ditto for Sayers.

We say athletes are bigger, that's a proven fact(steroids and pro teams added weight rooms to their facilities in the 60's), but there were plenty of pro who were just as fast as today's stars, just not as many of them.

Players from the past played in a much smaller league, so even though, there are more athletes today who are trained better, the smaller leagues back then meant that only the best could play pro football, while today in the expanded NFL, many of today's athletes would not have been able to play back then.

Those pro sport teams were filled by very tough characters, I don't know if you read my story on Gordie Howe. I coached travel baseball for over 30 years and met an ex Detroit Red Wing defenseman, who told me a story about his first game as a rookie, when he missed a check during the game and when he skated back trying to make up for his mistake, Howe skated past him and elbowed him in his face, knocking out 2 teeth and said to him, "son, in this league you finish your checks".

Henry Aaron who really holds the record for home runs, told a story how as a kid, he learned how to have soft hands when fielding a ball. They were so poor, they could not afford balls, so they practiced with socks, they light them on fire and throw them to one another and believe me, they got rid of them ASAP. Take out steroids and Aaron, Maris and the Babe would still be the home run leaders in the history books, even against all the great hitters of today, so great athletes still existed back then, just a lot fewer than today.

In pro baseball today, once every decade, the MLB FO brings back a supped up ball to give modern players a shot at setting home run records, that's why Stanton got close this year, but it only is allowed for 1 season, then they go back to a different ball which will not permit that many homers in a season.

Players back in the older generations were simply tougher than players today, they had to be, especially in pro football/pro hockey, the rules were such, that only men with a huge amount of guts could play the game. The head shots against receivers and other positions, which caused concussions practically on every play, drove weaker men right out of the league and those that stayed were expected to play through concussions and even broken bones. Practically, nobody ever went on IR. Every pro from those eras, got needles of pain killers before every game, many shot deep into their bodies with huge needles as long as a foot in length.

There were fast players back then, just nowhere near the numbers you see today. As long as I can remember as a draftnik and that goes back 65 years, the standard for success in the 40 for a RB, WR or CB was a minimum a of 4.50, 40. Yes, players who were slower made it as well, but nowhere near in the numbers of those who met the minimum standard and just like today, there were a few like Brown, Jackson and Sayers who ran faster than the minimum level of 4.50.

You also have to remember that linemen back then only weighed around 250 if they were big, so naturally, they likely were pretty fast and quick compared to a lot of 300lbers today.

Steroids were around back then. A lot of people think the 60s and 70s were ripe with steroids and other drugs.

[Iamcanadian]

12 hours ago, iothar said:

Steroids were around back then. A lot of people think the 60s and 70s were ripe with steroids and other drugs.

I do not remember the exact season, but I remember that it took place. The top linemen suddenly went from a maximum weight in the 250's to being 300lbsers and it was clearly caused by 2 factors, one OK and one definitely attributable to steroids. Pro teams started to add weight rooms to their facilities after Randy White, the DT of the Cowboys become famous for his strength after totally committing himself to the weight room while in college. however he never weighed in at 300 lbs., but it was the beginning of weight training for pro and college football players.

Just like the Bond's era in baseball, the main cause in weight gain was easily attributable to steroids and linemen suddenly turned into huge, huge men from previously only weighing in the 250 range. The quantum leap was so sudden, only drugs/steroids could explain it and pro athletes had little choice but to follow suit or get left behind. It was served up by the pro team's trainers by the handful and soon found its way to the colleges/high schools.

All you have to do to discover when steroids took over football at every level, is look up the season when 300lbs. linemen suddenly began appearing on rosters and considering that steroids tend to make you more violent, it was a perfect drug for football.

I have been a draftnik for over 65 years, starting around when I was 9 and believe me, it was a shocking change when it took place and few outside of football understood what was happening.

[Iamcanadian]

15 hours ago, skywlker32 said:

I have no idea where you're getting that Jim Brown would be running a 4.3 40 yard dash. I can't find any mention  of a 40 time for him aside from a 4.5s time that someone claimed they heard. Jim Brown was not known for his elite speed, but more-so his power. I could see Bo Jackson or Gale Sayers (although he claims he would have run around a 4.7, that seems low) being around a 4.3. There are a lot of myths out there about 40 yard dash times, you can't believe them all.

Look, I have been a pro football fan since Jimmy Brown played his first game and the Browns were the only pro team shown on Toronto TV. I saw every game he every played and I never saw him caught from behind and when he broke free, he was gone, there was no catching him. Yes, he was powerful as well, since he only weighed 10 lbs. to 15lbs. less than the top DT's of his day, who weighed in the 250's.

Just like today on TV, people in pro football talked about 40 times and I heard many times, his 40 time given as in the 4.3 range and he was fast. Look, there were only a few fast guys back then and you are right 4.50 was far more common, but Brown, Jackson, O.J. and Dickerson were exceptions, just like we have a few exceptions today. Is it so hard to believe that 4 or 5 guys were much faster than the majority of pro RB's and that's why they stood out.

I agree, there are a lot of myths out there about old 40 times, since the combine results were never released to the public except the odd mention here or there. Gil Brandt, the ex director of scouting for the Cowboys during their dynasty years under Landry, once posted that he hand timed Jerry Rice in the 4.3 range at the combine, Rice says he only ran in the 4.6 range, but you have to ask yourself, why would a pro team draft a WR from Mississippi Valley St, hardly a football factory, who they hand timed at 4.6 and Brandt said, the Cowboys were going to draft him as well. Rice was never caught from behind in his life, so sometimes you had to read through the lines when I started out as a draftnik and common sense tells me, Brandt's 4.3 range sounds far more reasonable to me than Rice's claim, he only ran a 4.60. I would also point out that back then, running the ball dominated pro football and WR was considered a secondary position and rarely drafted high unlike today, so again, why would teams want a player from a school hardly known for producing pros at a position that was considered secondary, if he ran a pedestrian 40. I just have to go with Brandt's claim and if you were a draftnik back in the old days before the internet like me, you either learned to read between the lines or gave up the hobby, because you really had to work at it, studying anything you could lay your hands on and paying attention to every detail you could gleam from any source. Street and Smith was the bible for draftniks back then and you studied it like it was the holy book.

[skywlker32]

7 hours ago, Iamcanadian said:

Look, I have been a pro football fan since Jimmy Brown played his first game and the Browns were the only pro team shown on Toronto TV. I saw every game he every played and I never saw him caught from behind and when he broke free, he was gone, there was no catching him. Yes, he was powerful as well, since he only weighed 10 lbs. to 15lbs. less than the top DT's of his day, who weighed in the 250's.

Just like today on TV, people in pro football talked about 40 times and I heard many times, his 40 time given as in the 4.3 range and he was fast. Look, there were only a few fast guys back then and you are right 4.50 was far more common, but Brown, Jackson, O.J. and Dickerson were exceptions, just like we have a few exceptions today. Is it so hard to believe that 4 or 5 guys were much faster than the majority of pro RB's and that's why they stood out.

I agree, there are a lot of myths out there about old 40 times, since the combine results were never released to the public except the odd mention here or there. Gil Brandt, the ex director of scouting for the Cowboys during their dynasty years under Landry, once posted that he hand timed Jerry Rice in the 4.3 range at the combine, Rice says he only ran in the 4.6 range, but you have to ask yourself, why would a pro team draft a WR from Mississippi Valley St, hardly a football factory, who they hand timed at 4.6 and Brandt said, the Cowboys were going to draft him as well. Rice was never caught from behind in his life, so sometimes you had to read through the lines when I started out as a draftnik and common sense tells me, Brandt's 4.3 range sounds far more reasonable to me than Rice's claim, he only ran a 4.60. I would also point out that back then, running the ball dominated pro football and WR was considered a secondary position and rarely drafted high unlike today, so again, why would teams want a player from a school hardly known for producing pros at a position that was considered secondary, if he ran a pedestrian 40. I just have to go with Brandt's claim and if you were a draftnik back in the old days before the internet like me, you either learned to read between the lines or gave up the hobby, because you really had to work at it, studying anything you could lay your hands on and paying attention to every detail you could gleam from any source. Street and Smith was the bible for draftniks back then and you studied it like it was the holy book.

Since the rest of your post is just rambling on about more hearsay, I will just address the bolded.

Just because Brown wasn't caught from behind at that time (not entirely convinced that was true anyways, but that's another issue) doesn't mean that he ran a 4.3 40. Yes, there were fast athletes at the time, but they were fewer, so running a mid 4.4 to low 4.5 would likely be enough to pull away from the rest of the guys on the field.

Your only proof of your claim is that you heard from other people that Brown ran a 4.3 and you trust that, but people also claim that Bo ran as fast as a 4.12 (not even close to true I'm sure). You go on to talk about Rice and that there were rumors that he ran 4.6 or so (actually the claim is usually 4.71, also Bill Walsh claims Rice ran a 4.59 and Brandt did not claim 4.3 from what I'm seeing, but a 4.55), but you don't trust that. Basically, don't believe everything you hear.

People can claim any time they like to fit their narrative, but 4.3 times are elite speedsters (likely could have been track stars) and are not nearly as common as people seem to think.

[Non-Issue]

The Tyler Rose is the only answer for me.

 

[Non-Issue]

Mike Alstott was a ton of fun to watch though.