FUBAR
Footballguy
Brown has simply gone to mythical status. Very few of us have seen him play, we all like to think we know how good he was.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Jerry Rice or Jim Brown.... in their prime (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Raider Nation
- Start date
Brown has simply gone to mythical status. Very few of us have seen him play, we all like to think we know how good he was.
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
I was actually thisclose to adding Taylor to the poll to make it a 3-way battle, but decided to keep it between Rice and Brown.
FUBAR
Footballguy
:( It shouldn't have been a 3-way battle if LT was included except those who won't want a "bad guy" on their team.
Never said it was so easy. I just believe it's easier (though it's all relative). As another poster said, I believe the difference between Brown vs. other rb's is not as big as the difference between Rice and other wr's.As yet another poster said, if I can get the guaranteed production of their best 8 years, I'll with Brown every time. But that's not what the OP said...and so I really don't know how Rice isn't the pick here.Though it's not like anyone would be heartbroken if they 'got stuck' with either one.Fun question though...so to make it more fun, let's try to think up a lousy NFL team with a weak running game and poor wr's. Dolphins? Which player would make a bigger impact? Rice or Brown?
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Kind of curious why you listed QB for the '01 Pats but not for the '04 version.Anyway, I agree that a dominant defensive player is probably (slightly) ahead of a dominant RB or WR. But a dominant QB still tops the list. There's no consensus at QB for GOAT, so it's a bit harder to make that into a poll (is it Otto Graham? Bart Starr? Unitas? Montana? Marino? Manning?)
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Another note: Rice was an absolutely dominant post-season player. Brown was a very disappointing post-season player, and outside of one game (and really one play in that game), was a post-season bust.
People love using the post-season to compare players of the same position, so it only seems fair to apply it here, too.
People love using the post-season to compare players of the same position, so it only seems fair to apply it here, too.
Adebisi
Footballguy
The Patriots and Colts inarguably have relied on their respective QBs, and if you listen to Steelers fans, Ben Roethlisberger is the only QB in the universe who could win Super Bowls for their team. That accounts for 6 of the past 8 champions.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
"Relied" is a super vague word, and it's also unclear as to whether you mean relied on them in the regular season, playoffs, or Super Bowl. Very few QBs are great in all three in any given season (Manning was great in the regular season, bad in the playoffs; Jim Plunkett was bad in the regular season, great in the playoffs; Roethlisberer was great in the playoffs, terrible in the Super Bowl.) To the same end, very few players at any position are great in the regular season, playoffs and Super Bowl. It makes sense that if you're looking at only SB winners, you'd have to look at all three phases (otherwise, someone like Dan Marino would be a SB champ, as he was amazing in the regular season in '84 and amazing in those playoffs).Although no matter how you slice it, the Pats didn't "rely" on Brady in 2001.
Adebisi
Footballguy
I don't know how you want to define "rely" in terms of how much these teams "relied" on their QBs from Week 1 through the Super Bowl, but I'm pretty sure that it's a safe word to use for the Colts championship team and at least 2 of the 3 Patriots championship teams. To say otherwise would be such a ridiculous argument that I won't even be a part of it.The change from Bledsoe to Brady in 2001 was dramatic to say the least. With all due respect, I wouldn't expect a stat guy such as yourself to pick up on that, but it doesn't make it any less true for those who followed that team during the 2001 season and in the years leading up to the 2001 season. Sometimes the box scores don't tell you the whole story.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
How much of the story does watching the games tell you? Because I watched all those games and never thought the Pats relied on Brady.But really, let's not sidetrack this into a Brady debate, since this thread isn't about him. I agree with you that a dominant QB is still the best way to win a Super Bowl, assuming you can only have one dominant player.
Last edited by a moderator:
Adebisi
Footballguy
You've been a bit more feisty than usual the past few days, Chase...
But seriously, we'll agree to disagree on this one, so as not to sidetrack the thread. I guess the more important point here is that we agree that a dominant QB is still the way to go.
Matt Waldman
Footballguy
Jim Brown, and it's not even close 
That doesn't diminish Rice as a player. He'd be in my top five. However, you simply need more good players for Rice's talent to be maximized than you would with Brown. You don't need as strong of a QB with Brown. You do to make Rice the weapon he was. Brown played in the toughest era of football and I don't think he ever missed a game.
That doesn't diminish Rice as a player. He'd be in my top five. However, you simply need more good players for Rice's talent to be maximized than you would with Brown. You don't need as strong of a QB with Brown. You do to make Rice the weapon he was. Brown played in the toughest era of football and I don't think he ever missed a game.
Multiple Scores
Footballguy
Pretty hard to say when most if not all of us didn't follow Jim Browns career while it was in motion. I am old enough to have seen Rice and he's the best football player so far in my lifetime, I can't go against the best player in my lifetime by going off of a highlight reel and the legend of Jim Brown, but really can't vote either way since I was not alive while Jim Brown was playing ball.
Matt Waldman
Footballguy
LinkBut for all Brown's good deeds and athletic prowess, there appears to be a dark side to him as well. He has been frequently accused of violent crimes, primarily toward women.
An 18-year-old accused Brown of forcing her to have sex after giving her whisky, but a jury found him innocent of assault and battery in the 10-day trial in 1965. He was accused of throwing his girlfriend from a balcony in 1968, but when the 22-year-old woman refused to name Brown as her assailant, the charge of assault with intent to murder was dropped. He was fined $300 for resisting a deputy.
Brown was acquitted of assaulting a man after a traffic accident in 1969. He was fined $500 and spent a day in jail after beating up a golfing partner in 1978. He was charged with rape, sexual battery and assault in 1985, but the charges were dropped when the 33-year-old woman gave inconsistent testimony.
The next year, he was arrested for allegedly beating his fiancée after accusing her of flirting. He spent three hours in jail, but three days later the 21-year-old woman said she didn't want to prosecute.
In October 1999, Brown was convicted in Los Angeles of smashing the window of his 25-year-old wife Monique's car, but was acquitted of making terrorist threats against her. The judge sentenced him to three years' probation, stripped him of his driver's license for a year, fined him $1,700 to be paid to a battered woman's shelter and a domestic abuse fund, and ordered him to attend special counseling for domestic batterers.
When Brown refused counseling, he was given a six-month sentence. He was released from jail in Ventura County (California) in July 2002 after serving less than four months.
With that said, the question is who I would rather have on my football team in their prime. Considering that Jim Brown was never arrested or charged for any of these crimes while playing pro football except in his last year which he woudn't have been suspended, I'd still have to go with Brown over Rice.
So I guess my response Adebisi is knowing what I know, there is no luck needed. Good luck facing Jim Brown in his prime. He'd make Adrian Peterson look like Chester Taylor.
Last edited by a moderator:
Matt Waldman
Footballguy
Another point to those who use the "mythical status" argument against Brown.
The reason Brown achieved mythical status was because the rules of the game were so anti-passing compared to now and there were so fewer rules put into place to protect players from play that would have earned fines and suspensions today, that Browns' achievements deserve more consideration. His records were amazing because his seasons had 4 fewer games per year. He also was a man among boys in terms of his athletic prowess. It was like taking an athlete from 30 years into the future and dropping him into the early 60s. Bo Jackson was like this in many respects. If you watched him play, you'd understand that he literally was the best athlete on the field and dominated more often on plays that no one else could have made in those situations.
If you were old enough to see Bo Jackson then that gives you a hint of what Jim Brown was like in his era. Again, this does not diminish Rice's greatness, but beating one or two players is not as difficult as beating 8-10 and taking the punishment Brown did in the process in my view. Route running is a highly skilled process, but to me it's not just about the stats but the numbers on the field worn by flesh and blood. There were more of them trying to stop Brown on most plays than there were with Rice. There were also fewer that could help Brown (just the line and WRs blocking) as opposed to Rice (the QB is always a major factor for a WR).
The reason Brown achieved mythical status was because the rules of the game were so anti-passing compared to now and there were so fewer rules put into place to protect players from play that would have earned fines and suspensions today, that Browns' achievements deserve more consideration. His records were amazing because his seasons had 4 fewer games per year. He also was a man among boys in terms of his athletic prowess. It was like taking an athlete from 30 years into the future and dropping him into the early 60s. Bo Jackson was like this in many respects. If you watched him play, you'd understand that he literally was the best athlete on the field and dominated more often on plays that no one else could have made in those situations.
If you were old enough to see Bo Jackson then that gives you a hint of what Jim Brown was like in his era. Again, this does not diminish Rice's greatness, but beating one or two players is not as difficult as beating 8-10 and taking the punishment Brown did in the process in my view. Route running is a highly skilled process, but to me it's not just about the stats but the numbers on the field worn by flesh and blood. There were more of them trying to stop Brown on most plays than there were with Rice. There were also fewer that could help Brown (just the line and WRs blocking) as opposed to Rice (the QB is always a major factor for a WR).
If you go back two more years, you add a pair of Terrell Davis superbowls to the list. Also, looking at the SB losers as well as the winners also adds a lot more marquee RBs than WRs.I think if this poll said "would you rather have Marshall Faulk in his prime or Randy Moss in his prime", a strong majority of people would be taking Marshall Faulk right now... but despite the fact that the consensus is that Brown is better than Faulk, and that Moss is at least as talented as Rice is, Rice leads Brown?
I think Rice always has an in-built advantage in these polls because I think his *NAME* has achieved legendary status. If you replaced it with Randy Moss (who most people will agree is as talented, but whose name isn't as mythical because he's kind of a d-bag), I think Brown would be running away with it. Rice's biggest advantage over... pretty much any player ever... was his mind-boggling longevity, but this poll stipulates you're getting 8 healthy years of each, so longevity is no longer an issue.Yeah, it's not like Brown wouldn't need an offensive line to run behind. And did you miss the post Chase made showing how dominant Rice was even when he had crappy qb's?Jim Brown, and it's not even closeThat doesn't diminish Rice as a player. He'd be in my top five. However, you simply need more good players for Rice's talent to be maximized than you would with Brown. You don't need as strong of a QB with Brown. You do to make Rice the weapon he was. Brown played in the toughest era of football and I don't think he ever missed a game.
First off, I would take an in their prime Randy Moss over Faulk, but like this is another option where you can't go wrong with either one.New to math?Jerry Rice [ 38 ] ** [30.65%]Jim Brown [ 79 ] ** [63.71%]Flip a coin... I really cannot decide [ 7 ] ** [5.65%]I think if this poll said "would you rather have Marshall Faulk in his prime or Randy Moss in his prime", a strong majority of people would be taking Marshall Faulk right now... but despite the fact that the consensus is that Brown is better than Faulk, and that Moss is at least as talented as Rice is, Rice leads Brown?I think Rice always has an in-built advantage in these polls because I think his *NAME* has achieved legendary status. If you replaced it with Randy Moss (who most people will agree is as talented, but whose name isn't as mythical because he's kind of a d-bag), I think Brown would be running away with it. Rice's biggest advantage over... pretty much any player ever... was his mind-boggling longevity, but this poll stipulates you're getting 8 healthy years of each, so longevity is no longer an issue.
Heh, I didn't even look at the poll results, I was just reading the thread.
Matt Waldman
Footballguy
I think you misunderstood the context of that statement about the needing help. Of course Brown needed an o-line, but did you miss the fact that Jerry Rice also needs an offensive line to pass block for his QB to throw the ball? Brown needed two guards, 1 center, and two tackles. Rice needed all that and a QB and his receivers to be threats so he wasn't always double or triple covered. Brown had to deal with 7-10 men at the line of scrimmage to "get open." Rice had to deal with generally one, often two, and sometimes three (at worst). Again, I'm not diminishing Rice's dominance - we're splitting atoms when it comes to all the players in the NFL we could distinguish between. Chase is a stats guy and in this case I think comparing dominance in a league that has softened its play a considerable (the NFL is still very tough and physical, but not like it was) amount since Brown played isn't an argument I accept although it's a well-thought out viewpoint.Yeah, it's not like Brown wouldn't need an offensive line to run behind. And did you miss the post Chase made showing how dominant Rice was even when he had crappy qb's?Jim Brown, and it's not even closeThat doesn't diminish Rice as a player. He'd be in my top five. However, you simply need more good players for Rice's talent to be maximized than you would with Brown. You don't need as strong of a QB with Brown. You do to make Rice the weapon he was. Brown played in the toughest era of football and I don't think he ever missed a game.
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
This is why it is so hard to compare eras. My statement was Jim Brown going against todays defenses. I would take Jim Brown is "his" era no doubt. If they both were in the same latter day era I would take Rice. Jim Brown was a man among boys in the 60s, in todays game there would be huge lineman to deal with, there would be LBs that would be as big and as fast as Jim Brown. Brown would not be able to walk through defenses like he did in the 60s. Would Brown still be a great RB..no doubt. Would he be as dominant? Not so sure on that one.If I've disagreed more with a statement since I've been a member of this board, I don't know what it is.
wpdougie2180
Footballguy
I had to go with Rice because for all the dominance and the so called "man against boys" people say Brown did absolutely nothing in the playoffs while Rice dominated in the playoffs. Like so one said earlier how many players dominated in the regular season, playoffs, and Super bowls. We all know at least answer to that question?
Brown played in 3 championship games and had 1 TD and 1 100 yard game (most of it coming on 1 play)
Rice played in 4 Super Bowls and had 8 TDs and 3 100 yard games
I don't have the exact stats but in the playoffs (which most would agree counts for alot) Rice stats all went up while Brown's went down. In most GOAT discussion in any sport postseason play is usually mention whether it be Jordan, Montana, Wilt Chamberlain, Marino, Elway, Graham, or others but never in Brown's case. Why? because he did nothing in the playoffs, when talking about best ever that has to be taken into account.
Brown played in 3 championship games and had 1 TD and 1 100 yard game (most of it coming on 1 play)
Rice played in 4 Super Bowls and had 8 TDs and 3 100 yard games
I don't have the exact stats but in the playoffs (which most would agree counts for alot) Rice stats all went up while Brown's went down. In most GOAT discussion in any sport postseason play is usually mention whether it be Jordan, Montana, Wilt Chamberlain, Marino, Elway, Graham, or others but never in Brown's case. Why? because he did nothing in the playoffs, when talking about best ever that has to be taken into account.
Last edited by a moderator:
trader jake
Footballguy
Jerry Rice
- post season production was superior
- Brown had some off the field issues
PS - Any FBG using "and it's not even close" as part of their argument should be banned for a week.
- post season production was superior
- Brown had some off the field issues
PS - Any FBG using "and it's not even close" as part of their argument should be banned for a week.
