What makes Prime Barry Sanders better than Prime Jim Brown?

[tyler735]

15 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

You do understand they had stopwatches back then, right? 

You do understand we have electronic timing now, right? Enlighten me what was Jim Brown's best (verified)100m time or 40 time then?

[Heinz D.]

On 6/21/2020 at 1:02 PM, tyler735 said:

You do understand we have electronic timing now, right? Enlighten me what was Jim Brown's best (verified)100m time or 40 time then?

Brown was slow then, right? 

Gotcha. 

Have a nice thread. 

[El Ramster]

Superior competition. 

[tyler735]

14 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

Brown was slow then, right? 

Gotcha. 

Have a nice thread. 

Yikes, just a bad reply.

Let's go through this again:

I said: it's hyperbole to say that Jim Brown is as fast as guys like Ted Ginn and Chris Johnson.

You come in and say: they had stopwatches back then.

I mention that: we now have much more accurate timing systems (electronic) then we did in Brown's era, but still ask for any verifiable time that puts him anywhere near 2 players that are probably in the 99th percentile in NFL history in terms of speed in Chris Johnson and Ted Ginn.

You then come back with: Brown was slow then, right? Gotcha. Have a nice thread.

You had a bad take. Own it and move on. Unless you can provide any sort of verifiable time that puts Jim Brown anywhere close to those guys. For the record, I never said Jim Brown was slow. I said he was nowhere near as fast as Chris Johnson and Ted Ginn. For example, guys like Christian McCaffrey, Alvin Kamara, and Saquon Barkley are nowhere near as fast as Chris Johnson or Ted Ginn, but they are still fast players.  

 

 

Edited June 23, 2020 by tyler735

[Heinz D.]

19 hours ago, tyler735 said:

Yikes, just a bad reply.

Let's go through this again:

I said: it's hyperbole to say that Jim Brown is as fast as guys like Ted Ginn and Chris Johnson.

You come in and say: they had stopwatches back then.

I mention that: we now have much more accurate timing systems (electronic) then we did in Brown's era, but still ask for any verifiable time that puts him anywhere near 2 players that are probably in the 99th percentile in NFL history in terms of speed in Chris Johnson and Ted Ginn.

You then come back with: Brown was slow then, right? Gotcha. Have a nice thread.

You had a bad take. Own it and move on. Unless you can provide any sort of verifiable time that puts Jim Brown anywhere close to those guys. For the record, I never said Jim Brown was slow. I said he was nowhere near as fast as Chris Johnson and Ted Ginn. For example, guys like Christian McCaffrey, Alvin Kamara, and Saquon Barkley are nowhere near as fast as Chris Johnson or Ted Ginn, but they are still fast players.  

If you can explain what this post actually means, I'll consider responding. 

[tyler735]

14 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

If you can explain what this post actually means, I'll consider responding. 

Easy enough, it's really not that difficult to understand. My previous post was a quick rundown of how strange your responses were to what I was saying in this thread in regards to Jim Brown being compared by other posters as being as fast as guys like Ted Ginn and Chris Johnson. Here is a transcript of our conversation:

 

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. Anyways the answer is Barry Sanders. He is the GOAT at RB.

On 6/20/2020 at 9:46 PM, Heinz D. said:

You do understand they had stopwatches back then, right? 

On 6/21/2020 at 1:02 PM, tyler735 said:

You do understand we have electronic timing now, right? Enlighten me what was Jim Brown's best (verified)100m time or 40 time then?

On 6/22/2020 at 4:38 PM, Heinz D. said:

Brown was slow then, right? 

Gotcha. 

Have a nice thread. 

On 6/22/2020 at 10:07 PM, tyler735 said:

Yikes, just a bad reply.

Let's go through this again:

I said: it's hyperbole to say that Jim Brown is as fast as guys like Ted Ginn and Chris Johnson.

You come in and say: they had stopwatches back then.

I mention that: we now have much more accurate timing systems (electronic) then we did in Brown's era, but still ask for any verifiable time that puts him anywhere near 2 players that are probably in the 99th percentile in NFL history in terms of speed in Chris Johnson and Ted Ginn.

You then come back with: Brown was slow then, right? Gotcha. Have a nice thread.

You had a bad take. Own it and move on. Unless you can provide any sort of verifiable time that puts Jim Brown anywhere close to those guys. For the record, I never said Jim Brown was slow. I said he was nowhere near as fast as Chris Johnson and Ted Ginn. For example, guys like Christian McCaffrey, Alvin Kamara, and Saquon Barkley are nowhere near as fast as Chris Johnson or Ted Ginn, but they are still fast players.  

 

 

As you can see, you decided to move goal posts and claim that I said Jim Brown was slow, when I never said that. I stated Jim Brown was nowhere near as fast as guys like Chris Johnson and Ted Ginn, who are among the fastest football players to ever play the game, and asked you to provide any actual verified times (40 yard, 100 meter) that would put him even in the same ballpark as the aforementioned players. You then decided to take your ball and go home saying "have a nice thread", likely because you realized that there are no verifiable times out there that place Jim Brown anywhere near Ted Ginn or Chris Johnson.

14 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

If you can explain what this post actually means, I'll consider responding. 

So either provide me with a legit time (40 yard/100 meter) of Jim Brown's that shows him being as fast as guys like Ted Ginn and Chris Johnson or take the loss on this one.

Edited June 24, 2020 by tyler735

[Matts4313]

On 6/20/2020 at 9:46 PM, Heinz D. said:

You do understand they had stopwatches back then, right? 

Which should explain how we know he wasnt as fast as them. Hand timed is never accurate. 

[Matts4313]

On 6/22/2020 at 4:38 PM, Heinz D. said:

Brown was slow then, right? 

Gotcha. 

Have a nice thread. 

 

14 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

If you can explain what this post actually means, I'll consider responding. 

lmao - what a poor response. 

[dll2000]

Brown was better in his era than anyone else has ever been in theirs including Sanders.

Sanders was most fun to watch ever.  The entire defense was designed to stop him and people changed the way they tackled and pursued specially for him. It would have been really interesting to see Sanders in modern spread schemes.  

"Run and Shoot", which is precursor to modern spread offenses was a trial balloon and experimentation in Sanders time.  They didn't know how to solve a lot of problems or run out of a single back set like they do now.

It was basically here is ball Barry, juke the whole defense and get what you can and he often did.

 

 

 

 

 

[Mr Bad Example]

One thing to think about with Sanders, though, is he doesn't LOOK that dominant, because he was neck-and-neck with Emmitt Smith (who isn't as transcendant, but even as a non-Emmitt fan, I can't put him outside the top 10), and the two of them....well, let's just look: 

 

1	Barry Sanders *	1989	1998	1-3	DET	NFL	153	151	3062	15269	4.99	99	99.8
2	Emmitt Smith*	1990	2000	1-17	DAL	NFL	171	169	3537	15166	4.29	145	88.7
3	Thurman Thomas*	1989	2000	2-40	TOT	NFL	167	145	2670	11193	4.19	63	67.0
4	Ricky Watters	1992	2000	2-45	TOT	NFL	139	138	2550	10325	4.05	77	74.

 

If there had been an Emmit OR Barry, vs and Emmitt AND Barry, either one would've been putting up dominant #s (and this is over an 11-season stretch, so anyone on this list in '89 had a season on Smith, and anyone on it in 00 had a season on Sanders). Sanders was 27 yds from starting his career off with 3 straight rushing titles (lost by 11 yds to Christian Okoye in '89, and lost by 15 yds to Smith in '91). Sanders won 4 rushing titles, was that close to 2 more, and if we run with my "if only there had been no Emmitt..." he would've had yet another. 

 

I think Emmitt Smith's presence obscures the issue - in this argument, it's "well, Sanders didn't stand above the crowd the way Brown did"; he DID, it's just that Smith was equally above the pack. 


(in the interest of equal time, I took a look at Emmitt w/o Barry, and Emmitt has about the same plaudits - he never directly came in right behind Sanders for a rushing title, though he was behind Sanders in yds/game twice). 

[Jotun_Fan]

Immediately before Jim Brown the Browns were a good team and good running the ball. Immediately after his departure they were a good team and good running the ball. He played with three hall of fame players on his offensive line.

The Lions were a bad team immediately before Barry. They were average to above average with Barry, and for two seasons after. Then they were bad, real bad. They were dead last in rushing yds/attempt before Barry, and were often 1st with Barry and at worst 8th (out of 28 or 30 teams.) From 85 to 88 both Glover and Lomas Brown were on the Lions and they were awful running the ball. Maybe you could say "well they had no talent in the backfield it's easy to improve on those numbers." We have kind of the opposite situation for Barry at OK state, replacing a future Hof running back who had a great season, and all he did was shatter records.

When you think of what a team needs to win a championship, the Lions pretty much had none of those things when Barry was there. Great coach? Great quarterback? Great line? Great defense? Jim Brown at least had a line and one great coach and one really good coach. He lead the league in rushing more often but there were also only between 12 and 16 teams in the league when he played.

[AkronsWitness]

On 6/8/2020 at 12:32 PM, Jotun_Fan said:

How much is Jim Brown's legacy enhanced by the fact that he played for a team that won a championship and competed for others? He played with multiple hall of famers on offense, multiple lineman who were hall of famers, and maybe the greatest coach of all time.

How would his career be perceived if he had played for the Steelers? Or Cardinals? What if Barry played for the 49ers? What if OJ had won a championship (and not allegedly murdered people?)

I also wonder how long it would have taken for lacrosse to change their rules had Jim Brown not played.

I'll take this as an opportunity to point out that Otto Graham played in the championship game every year of his 10 year career and won 7 Championships

Talk about a guy who needs more recognition although he is almost never brought up in top QBs of all time conversations. The vast majority of All-Time QB lists people make don't even mention him in the top 10.

Otto Graham is the Bill Russell of the NFL

Edited June 28, 2020 by AkronsWitness