What makes Prime Barry Sanders better than Prime Jim Brown?

[Jotun_Fan]

By all accounts Jim Brown retired at his absolute peak, and missed 0 games.  I'd imagine he'd be pretty durable today.  

User sn0mm1s made a great post making a case for Barry.  

 

[mdonnelly21]

On 6/10/2020 at 6:25 PM, Mr Bad Example said:

I feel like that's a woulda/coulda/shoulda. What sort of beast would Brown be if he'd been training to max out his enormous physical ability? 

 

Bottom line is you can't really deal in that sort of hypothetical; Brown was significantly outgaining the #2 rusher almost every season he played. It wasn't quite the Hutsonian double/triple up on the #2 guy, but that sort of dominance speaks for itself. 

 

And I say this as someone who, in 30+ yrs of watching the NFL, thinks Sanders is the most talented back I've ever seen. 

So you do think Barry Sanders was more talented then JB? 

[iknowcool]

It's hard to compare any two players cross-eras, but even more-so when one of those players is from the 50s and 60s.  

Obviously Jim Brown was great, but I think anyone consistently putting up far and away superior numbers than the next best player calls for some pause.  

Statistically, Brown's best season is 1963.  That year, only one other RB averaged 70 YPG.  In '97, Barry's best season (statistically), that number jumps to 13.  

The easy answer is that Brown was simply that much more dominant than any other player in NFL history.  There wasn't even that big of a gap between Rice and his peers.  But the answer I find to be more likely is that Brown played in a time period where the talent pool was that much weaker, where players on average were simply not as physically developed as they would become in the 80s and 90s.

Either way, I don't really get how people can choose between the two.  Too many unknowns.  I don't think it is fair to Sanders when he likely played (on average) stronger and more balanced league-wide competition, and it isn't fair to Brown to hold it against him for being that much better than the pack.  It's one of those times where the best answer is "I don't know."

[Uncle Buck]

One thing that would have been REALLY cool is if Barry had been able to play Jim Brown's role in the Dirty Dozen.  I'd love to see Barry doing that scene where he runs along the top of the roof of that chateau, throwing grenades in all of the chimneys as he passed them.  Jim Brown was good, but I think Barry would have been AMAZING in that scene for some reason!

[Heinz D.]

16 hours ago, Uncle Buck said:

One thing that would have been REALLY cool is if Barry had been able to play Jim Brown's role in the Dirty Dozen.  I'd love to see Barry doing that scene where he runs along the top of the roof of that chateau, throwing grenades in all of the chimneys as he passed them.  Jim Brown was good, but I think Barry would have been AMAZING in that scene for some reason!

That's a...rather strange observation there, Uncle Buck...

[Mr Bad Example]

On 6/12/2020 at 10:40 PM, mdonnelly21 said:

So you do think Barry Sanders was more talented then JB? 

That is tough for me to answer. I feel like it's easy to THINK that smaller, more elusive RBs are "more talented" because they look more spectacular and seem to really be wringing every ounce of ability out of themselves, whereas a player like Brown seems to dominate due to his size/strength, which somehow falls more under "physical attribute" than "talent." 

I guess I'll punt and say Sanders' highlight reel makes him LOOK more talented; I don't know that means he is. 

[Mr Bad Example]

On 6/13/2020 at 10:01 AM, iknowcool said:

It's hard to compare any two players cross-eras, but even more-so when one of those players is from the 50s and 60s.  

Obviously Jim Brown was great, but I think anyone consistently putting up far and away superior numbers than the next best player calls for some pause.  

The easy answer is that Brown was simply that much more dominant than any other player in NFL history.  There wasn't even that big of a gap between Rice and his peers.  But the answer I find to be more likely is that Brown played in a time period where the talent pool was that much weaker, where players on average were simply not as physically developed as they would become in the 80s and 90s.

Brown was probably the most dominant RB, but Don Hutson was the most dominant player in NFL history. And I don't think the talent pool was that much weaker in the 50s/60s; it was weaker in the 40s, when there were tons of able-bodied men off fighting the war, and the game hadn't been integrated. I think there is some merit to the view that Brown was an absolute beast in his time, but would've been one among many prospects in a later era; even in his era, players like Cookie Gilchrist and Marion Motley demolished defenses. 

And it's fair to point out that players weren't as physically developed; that does, however, cut both ways - other players weren't as strong or as fast as they might've been....but neither was Brown. 

[Uncle Buck]

7 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

That's a...rather strange observation there, Uncle Buck...

Well, there aren't a lot of highlight films of Jim Brown out there and I wasn't lucky enough to see him play.  That scene from the Dirty Dozen was pretty cool, primarily because it was Jim Brown doing it.  If it had just been another actor, like say, Charles Bronson, it wouldn't have been the same.  It was cool knowing that the American guy who was destroying all the Nazi officers was a Hall of Fame player from my favorite sport.  It probably would have been even more fun seeing a player who is from our era doing it, and this thread put the image in my mind I guess. 

[Matts4313]

On 6/7/2020 at 8:58 PM, Jotun_Fan said:

 don't think I can knock anything from Jim Brown

Nothing? Like not even the fact that he is a known racist and a woman beater?

[lancerman]

Put it this way, nobody was ever more dominant at their position than Jim Brown. He was a peak Moss/Gronk type player at running back when running back was the top position and unlike those guys he did it his entire career consistently. There was an entire era where not a single person doubted who the best player in football was regardless of the position. There’s a reason the entire Hall of Fame treats Brown differently from everyone else. There’s a reason Jim Brown was the player that led the NFL 100 year team. There’s a reason almost all people over a certain age don’t flinch when asked who the best player ever is. 
 

I think it’s very difficult to justify taking the crown from him 

[tyler735]

Don't get me wrong, Jim Brown was one of the best ever at RB, but come on, I've seen him labeled as being as fast as Ted Ginn and Chris Johnson in this thread. Lets take it easy on the hyperbole. Anyways the answer is Barry Sanders. He is the GOAT at RB.

[BleedTheClock]

On 6/7/2020 at 8:43 PM, Superduperman said:

I didn't see JB live.

This is the answer for 90% of people.

Jim Brown highlights are tough to watch on YouTube.

 

Jim Brown was a freaking animal. He was Adrian Peterson playing in a time when players were nowhere near that level athletically. Gotta watch some documentaries on Jim Brown to really understand how dominant he was.

[vikes635]

1. Sweetness

2. Barry

3. Brown 

------------------Next tier------------------

4. AP

5. LT

6. M. Faulk

------------------------ Next Tier---------------------

7. E. Smith

8. E. Dickerson

9. E. Campbell

10. C. Martin

[BullsandBroncos]

Jim Brown wasn't dumped for a loss 339 times for 997 yards in his career. I'll take Jim Brown.

Edited June 20, 2020 by BullsandBroncos

[Heinz D.]

On 6/16/2020 at 11:16 AM, tyler735 said:

Don't get me wrong, Jim Brown was one of the best ever at RB, but come on, I've seen him labeled as being as fast as Ted Ginn and Chris Johnson in this thread. Lets take it easy on the hyperbole. 

You do understand they had stopwatches back then, right? 

Edited June 21, 2020 by Heinz D.