I posted this in the Bo thread:You forget that if Brown were playing today, his linemen would also be bigger, as would his other teammates. Brown was 6' 2" 232 Lbs, I'd say that is plenty big, and bigger than just about every feature back in the league today. As far as speed I'd say Brown was fast enough to play today, you disagree and admittedly have never seen him play. I'll take my own eyes over your speculation. Not to mention speed is not everything in football, vision and instinct are the biggest thing IMO, just look at Byron Hanspard. Also, most people don't realize Brown was also excellent as a WR out of the backfield. I'd say he compares most to Larry Johnson in today's game, and I don't think if you put Johnson on the Brown's in Jim Brown's day he could have been any more if even as effective as Brown was.I think LJ is a similar RB to JB. Very rugged at the point of attack and similar size.
No [ 6 ] **
these cross generationial comparisions will drive youYes he could play at a high level today. He wouldn't be nearly as dominant as he was during his time however.
Ummm, I didn't vote no. Did you ignore the 1st portion of my post? I know I and many others have been over this several times before. See what Despyzer stated to get a better idea of why I don't think he would be as dominant as he was back then. Not only was the NFL not drawing the best talent in America at the time, tackling tech was utterly pathetic, persuit angles were a joke and the game just seemed to be much more condusive for the few extremly talented players (Brown, Unitis, Jones) to really stand out. There has been so many gaps closed since then I find it hard to believe any of these guys could dominat today as they did then. Football was a 3rd rate sport back then and it showed in the talented the league drew (as a whole) and the cash it both paid to players and brought in. You can harp all you want about how better conditioning and training would aid him in transitioning to todays game. I agree and have no problems acknowledign that it would help. What about the astounding difference in talent though? The bottom line is that back then Pro football was lucky to have 10% of the most talented players in the country. Today it's almost asured they have at least 85% of them. I can't envision any way in which condidtioning and training make up that gap.The poll asked if we think he could play in todays game at a high level and I voted yes. I still think Brown was a special enough talent to play at a high level even today. Do I think he would seperate himself head and shoulders above todays RBs and players as he did back then? No, not at all. I just don't see him being day and night better than guys like LT, LJ, Jackson, Portis, Bush, ect.these cross generationial comparisions will drive youYes he could play at a high level today. He wouldn't be nearly as dominant as he was during his time however.keeping im mind you just don't extract the player as he was then, but place him into a situation 40 years into the future w/training, bigger/better teammates and the like, I don't know how the guy doesn't dominate in a way that Larry Johnson does (similar size/style)
I'm curious why jurb or any of the 7 "no's" think he wouldn't roll today?
career 5.0+/ypc and 1+ TD/gm combined?
these are beyond gaudy and while not matched, I certainly believe he'd post similiar numbers
How many extra yards did he gain during his career due to that rule?IIRC....Brown played in an era when you could get up an keep running after you had been knocked down.....this has inflated his numbers. Huge advantage.
then wouldn't the same apply to all the other RB's @the time?how come they didn't avg 5.0+ YPC and 1+ TD/game for 9 yearsHow many extra yards did he gain during his career due to that rule?IIRC....Brown played in an era when you could get up an keep running after you had been knocked down.....this has inflated his numbers. Huge advantage.
Eleven greatly improved tacklers >>> five greatly improved blockers.Also, Jim Brown was in ridiculous shape for the time. We have no guarantee that today's training regimens would grant him the benefits compared to some of those guys who rolled out of bed on the first day of the season who hadn't worked out since the last game of the previous season.keeping im mind you just don't extract the player as he was then, but place him into a situation 40 years into the future w/training, bigger/better teammates and the like, I don't know how the guy doesn't dominate in a way that Larry Johnson does (similar size/style)
That's news to me. I'd love to see some evidence of that.IIRC....Brown played in an era when you could get up an keep running after you had been knocked down.....this has inflated his numbers. Huge advantage.
He also played in an era where they defense knew the run was coming, the league was run first, and it was ALWAYS an 8 man box, sometimes 9-10. They knew Brown was getting the ball, and they still couldn't stop him. When you look at the new blocking schemes, passing attacks, training. He was a gifted athlete. Balance. Speed. Power. You put that in any era, with the eras training, and you'll get the most out of it. You can argue the size factor with other players. A top OL from the 40s (240 lbs) would obviously get killed. But Brown was HUGE, by today's standards. You take a 6'2 230 guy and he can play anytime, anywhere, in any era. Not to mention he was probably the best lacrosse player to ever live. He was an elite athlete, end of story.redman said:That's news to me. I'd love to see some evidence of that.IIRC....Brown played in an era when you could get up an keep running after you had been knocked down.....this has inflated his numbers. Huge advantage.
not to take anything away from jim brown but he was playing against like 180 pound linebackersthen wouldn't the same apply to all the other RB's @the time?how come they didn't avg 5.0+ YPC and 1+ TD/game for 9 yearsHow many extra yards did he gain during his career due to that rule?IIRC....Brown played in an era when you could get up an keep running after you had been knocked down.....this has inflated his numbers. Huge advantage.
I'll hangup and listen...
![]()
I think I'm comfortable saying Jim Brown would be a very effective, Pro Bowl caliber running back in today's game. I'm less comfortable postulating whether he would be JIM BROWN, because as many have pointed out, for his time, his size, fitness level and athletic ability were several standard deviations outside the norm. Today he would arguably be among the top conditioned athletes, but I don't see how he wouldn't have been closer to the pack.
But he was also playing behind 260 pound linemen, if that.not to take anything away from jim brown but he was playing against like 180 pound linebackersthen wouldn't the same apply to all the other RB's @the time?how come they didn't avg 5.0+ YPC and 1+ TD/game for 9 yearsHow many extra yards did he gain during his career due to that rule?IIRC....Brown played in an era when you could get up an keep running after you had been knocked down.....this has inflated his numbers. Huge advantage.
I'll hangup and listen...
![]()
That's news to me. I'd love to see some evidence of that.IIRC....Brown played in an era when you could get up an keep running after you had been knocked down.....this has inflated his numbers. Huge advantage.
Thos things they were able to get away with may have lead to more injuried, but even more missed tackles IMO.That's news to me. I'd love to see some evidence of that.IIRC....Brown played in an era when you could get up an keep running after you had been knocked down.....this has inflated his numbers. Huge advantage.I have never heard of that either. I do know defenders were allowed alot more leeway in Jim Brown's era. Clotheslines, forearms to the head...defenders used to be able to get away with alot more things back in the day.Brown would be an absolute stud in today's game.
That's probably a good point.If Thomas Jones can succeed in today's NFL, then Jim Brown would be a lock.
While true, i think that is a point against him, not in favor of him.I think we are contemplating whether the actual Jim Brown from 1960 could play in today's NFL, not a hypothetical Jim Brown who weighs 260 and runs a 4.4 because of steroids.Jim Brown was a absolute beast and I highly doubt he spent the same amount of time training and lifting weights like todays athlete.
Well my dad can beat up your dad!My dad never compared older players to today's players and readily acknowledged how much better the athletes are today. However, he said the one player that could absolutely play and play well was Jim Brown. My dad was not one for hyperbole and he said there was Jim Brown and everyone else.YES
I don't know when the rule was changed from down only when forward momentum is stopped (even if you hit the ground/where on the ground) to forward momentum stopped OR down by contact, but I believe it was before Brown played... like the very early days of football.FWIW, I think Brown would at least be exceptional, if not absolutely dominant. It is likely he would be a chisled 240+ with blazing speed, unreal coordination (as mentioned, best Lax player ever) and utterly instinctive.He would be like LJ, with more skill and more instinct. And that is not a knock on LJ.That's news to me. I'd love to see some evidence of that.IIRC....Brown played in an era when you could get up an keep running after you had been knocked down.....this has inflated his numbers. Huge advantage.I have never heard of that either. I do know defenders were allowed alot more leeway in Jim Brown's era. Clotheslines, forearms to the head...defenders used to be able to get away with alot more things back in the day.Brown would be an absolute stud in today's game.
More difficult travel???You had to be a lot tougher to play football in the 60s and 70s than you do today.Are we assuming he would play on a completely stacked team, as he did in Cleveland?To those who have said that his offensive teammates would be better, and that offsets the fact that the defensive players would be better, I disagree that it offsets. He already played with elite offensive teammates, so the fact that his OL would be bigger is irrelevant. The delta in the quality of the defenses he would face today would be bigger.And then there are the defensive schemes and the pursuit angles.He would also have to deal with longer seasons, more difficult travel, much more intense media coverage, etc.I agree with those who said he would be great, but not one of the few best of all time.
But no one really trained hard back in his era. Most players had other jobs during the off-season and alot of the players smoked cigarettes and ate like crap. That's why it's impossible to compare generations. It's not really fair to assume one way or another what kind of condition Jim Brown would be in.While true, i think that is a point against him, not in favor of him.I think we are contemplating whether the actual Jim Brown from 1960 could play in today's NFL, not a hypothetical Jim Brown who weighs 260 and runs a 4.4 because of steroids.Jim Brown was a absolute beast and I highly doubt he spent the same amount of time training and lifting weights like todays athlete.
If Brown didn't train very much, that would make it harder for him to succeed in today's NFL.
The travel thing really gets me. Hours long bus rides from Cleveland in a still segregated/de facto segregated world vs. charters and first class accomodations plus millions to make that travel all the more, um, comfortable.And longer seasons? Isnt that MORE than offset by the huge medical and rehab advances that save careers that would have been over multiple times back in Brown's day?More difficult travel???You had to be a lot tougher to play football in the 60s and 70s than you do today.Are we assuming he would play on a completely stacked team, as he did in Cleveland?To those who have said that his offensive teammates would be better, and that offsets the fact that the defensive players would be better, I disagree that it offsets. He already played with elite offensive teammates, so the fact that his OL would be bigger is irrelevant. The delta in the quality of the defenses he would face today would be bigger.And then there are the defensive schemes and the pursuit angles.He would also have to deal with longer seasons, more difficult travel, much more intense media coverage, etc.I agree with those who said he would be great, but not one of the few best of all time.
Point taken on travel. Shoot me.On your last point, I'm confused why it is relevant. We're talking about Jim Brown, who did not need his career saved by medical and rehab advances. So why does that offset longer seasons for him in this hypothetical scenario?The travel thing really gets me. Hours long bus rides from Cleveland in a still segregated/de facto segregated world vs. charters and first class accomodations plus millions to make that travel all the more, um, comfortable.And longer seasons? Isnt that MORE than offset by the huge medical and rehab advances that save careers that would have been over multiple times back in Brown's day?More difficult travel???You had to be a lot tougher to play football in the 60s and 70s than you do today.Are we assuming he would play on a completely stacked team, as he did in Cleveland?To those who have said that his offensive teammates would be better, and that offsets the fact that the defensive players would be better, I disagree that it offsets. He already played with elite offensive teammates, so the fact that his OL would be bigger is irrelevant. The delta in the quality of the defenses he would face today would be bigger.And then there are the defensive schemes and the pursuit angles.He would also have to deal with longer seasons, more difficult travel, much more intense media coverage, etc.I agree with those who said he would be great, but not one of the few best of all time.
That's why I don't think we're supposed to assume. I think we're supposed to just take Jim Brown as he existed in 1960 and plop him into the current universe.But no one really trained hard back in his era. Most players had other jobs during the off-season and alot of the players smoked cigarettes and ate like crap. That's why it's impossible to compare generations. It's not really fair to assume one way or another what kind of condition Jim Brown would be in.While true, i think that is a point against him, not in favor of him.I think we are contemplating whether the actual Jim Brown from 1960 could play in today's NFL, not a hypothetical Jim Brown who weighs 260 and runs a 4.4 because of steroids.Jim Brown was a absolute beast and I highly doubt he spent the same amount of time training and lifting weights like todays athlete.
If Brown didn't train very much, that would make it harder for him to succeed in today's NFL.
jim brown... man out of time (he came from the future to dominate the past)