Could Jim Brown Play in Today's Game? (1 Viewer)

[dparker713]

1. Bigger than most feature backs today

2. Faster than most feature backs today

3. Played in a tougher era:

a. Less penalties that protected offensive players

b. More primitive medical treaments for injuries

c. Lower quality equipment to protect players

4. Never missed a game

5. Faced defenses that were set up to stop the run and had rules advantages to stop the pass.

6. Has stats that are impressive even by a 16-game standard.

How the @#$! do you say no? Seriously? How do you say he wouldn't be as good? :(

(Of course, where I grew up Jim Brown was revered as a football player)

Im in the yes category, but I find the bolded statement inaccurate. Higher quality protective equipment is part of the reason that concussions are a more serious problem in today's game. When you put on those hard plastic shells and the rest of the attendent body armor, you feel fairly invincible. You're willing to fly as fast as you can headlong into another onrushing person. Take a look at game tap from the 50s-60s and earlier. People weren't nearly as reckless because they knew they were going to get injured if they were. So, if Brown played today, the increased protective equipment would likely make him more prone to serious injury than when everyone was afraid to tackle him.

 

[Despyzer]

2. Faster than most feature backs today

I keep seeing statements similar to this. Do we really have any hard evidence? I realize Brown looks amazingly fast on the old film, but that only means he was fast compared to other payers of his time. It's already been noted that players in the 50s and 60s weren't nearly on par with today's athletes.

 

[Wildman]

(Of course, where I grew up Jim Brown was revered as a football player)

Im in the yes category, but I find the bolded statement inaccurate. Higher quality protective equipment is part of the reason that concussions are a more serious problem in today's game. When you put on those hard plastic shells and the rest of the attendent body armor, you feel fairly invincible. You're willing to fly as fast as you can headlong into another onrushing person. Take a look at game tap from the 50s-60s and earlier. People weren't nearly as reckless because they knew they were going to get injured if they were. So, if Brown played today, the increased protective equipment would likely make him more prone to serious injury than when everyone was afraid to tackle him.

Actually, I'd still argue with your view of the reasoning for concussions. That's actually speculation by the media when they do these investigative pieces. While my argument is as speculative, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that players in Brown's era suffered far more concussions than they reported to their trainer or coach. There was much less awareness of the issue of concussions and how to handle them in that era of football.

I also wonder how you can say players are afraid to hit others now? If you're playing football at this high of a level, you can't be afraid to hit someone in the manner you suggest. They veer away from these hits only due to the fear of getting a significant fine--not the equipment.

 

[Wildman]

It's already been noted that players in the 50s and 60s weren't nearly on par with today's athletes.

Noted, but not proven. I know the whole stronger, faster argument but how do you conclude that the best of yesterday wouldn't be the best today if they had the same environment as today's players when they grew up?

Would it mean that Albert Einstein wasn't as intelligent as the average physicist today because he didn't have the higher quality of education he could get somewhere today or that scientists are going beyond his work now?

There's something to be noted about being the first to accomplish what Brown did, but to say he wouldn't be as good now also implies the rest of the players in the NFL were simply not very good athletes.

 

[Tau837]

1. Bigger than most feature backs today2. Faster than most feature backs today3. Played in a tougher era: a. Less penalties that protected offensive players b. More primitive medical treaments for injuries c. Lower quality equipment to protect players4. Never missed a game5. Faced defenses that were set up to stop the run and had rules advantages to stop the pass. 6. Has stats that are impressive even by a 16-game standard. How the @#$! do you say no? Seriously? How do you say he wouldn't be as good?(Of course, where I grew up Jim Brown was revered as a football player)

Your #4 above renders #3 above irrelevant. Brown never missed time, so I'd expect that to carry over. I don't think his toughness or likelihood to get injured is being questioned.Your #5 is offset by something I can't confirm myself but have read - that better athletes in Brown's day played offense, not defense. And it is also offset by the lesser understanding of defensive schemes and pursuit angles.Like Despyzer, I'm not convinced of your #2.And one thing not mentioned on your list that would be a downgrade for him is that he played for a stacked team, which wouldn't be as possible today due to the salary cap and the larger number of teams.So if he played today, it comes down to two things from your list IMO - he was physically superior in his era and his performance (as can be shown by his statistics, for example) was elite. His physical superiority would be reduced IMO, as physically all athletes in the NFL are at a higher level now, and thus it would be harder for Brown to have such a gap over others. But I think his elite level of performance (ypc, etc.) is pretty compelling.

 

[Thorpe]

If you say Jim Brown wouldn't be good today, don't you also have to say that Muhammed Ali would have been beaten by Evander Holyfield? And that Wilt and Russell wouldn't be stars in the NBA?

 

[Tau837]

If you say Jim Brown wouldn't be good today, don't you also have to say that Muhammed Ali would have been beaten by Evander Holyfield? And that Wilt and Russell wouldn't be stars in the NBA?

Apples and oranges IMO. IMO the fitness levels for heavyweight contenders have not changed significantly since Ali's day, nor has boxing strategy, equipment, rules, etc. Wilt and Russell would still be physically superior to the centers in today's NBA due to their height, quickness, leaping ability, etc. Just look at how few dominant centers there are today.Football has changed much more in terms of rules, equipment, strategy, and possibly influx of talent in comparison to all other major sports.

 

[Despyzer]

Noted, but not proven. I know the whole stronger, faster argument but how do you conclude that the best of yesterday wouldn't be the best today if they had the same environment as today's players when they grew up?

You'd like someone to prove to you that the players in the 50s and 60s didn't grow up in the athletic landscape of today? Wow, that's gonna be a toughie.All I can tell you is that the athletic ability was probably essentially the same back then, but was not as well harnessed as it is today. Stronger and faster is largely a by-product of that.

 

[Despyzer]

If you say Jim Brown wouldn't be good today, don't you also have to say that Muhammed Ali would have been beaten by Evander Holyfield? And that Wilt and Russell wouldn't be stars in the NBA?

To say "would have" is just as ridiculous as to say "couldn't have." Honestly, all we can do is speculate. It's fun to do while we don't have anything football-related to occupy our thoughts, but to assume it's anything more than that is pretty foolish.

 

[Footballhead]

Give Jim Brown modern workout techniques and training and the sky is the limit.

Not without steriods ...

 

[Christo]

Give Jim Brown modern workout techniques and training and the sky is the limit.

Not without steriods ...

I thought he said "modern workout techniques and training."

 

[Yitbos69]

There is no way Jim Brown could put up the same numbers he did back in the 50's and 60's in today's game. The defensive side of the ball is so much more complex than it was back then. The defenders are much better athletes(Bigger/faster/stronger) than they were in the 50's and 60's. The game is so different today you cannot compare one to the other.

Jim Brown was the best athlete in the NFL in his time. He would not be the best athlete in today's game no matter how he trained.

Jim Brown would be a very good RB in today's league......but he is no Michael Turner now is he!

 

[MarshallRob]

There's actually a very simple reason why Jim Brown couldn't dominate today the way he did in his own time. Brown was the first running back to regularly carry the ball 250 times in a season. Part of the reason he rushed for so many more yards than his contemporaries was his much bigger workload (the other reason was his 5.2 YPC). The man who owned the career rushing mark before Brown, Joe "The Jet" Perry, never had a 200-carry season.

Today, Brown's numbers couldn't dwarf everyone else's but I don't see why he couldn't still be the best back in football. A great athlete is a great athlete.