Ummm, maybe because he wasn't!!
No disrespect here either, but Jim Brown was the greatest of all time......particularly when you consider his stats are from a career much shorter than some more recent backs (Sanders,Emmitt, et al..) because he choose to leave the game while still relatively young.
He also played in a different era, when most players had to work during the off season to support their families (million dollar contracts were undreamed of), making it that much harder to stay in top condition. In addition the line he had was not composed of 300 pound behemoths, guys weren't as pumped up then, and his equipment, nutritional resources, and general field conditions were not of the caliber todays athlete enjoys.
2006-12-29 23:59:26
·
answer #1
·
answered by SantaBud 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
The fact that he retired early hurt him as well as playing for a weak team like the Lions, but I think that only him and Jim Brown are the best running backs ever. Even though Emmitt was a good running back I think that if Sanders would of had the offensive line that he had there is no telling how many yards he would of ended up with. I also think that if he doesn't get injured L.T. could become the greatest ever.
2006-12-30 03:11:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by Rey817 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Neither player was great by himself. Jerry Rice had Joe Montana, Emmitt Smith had the passing threat of Troy Aikman working for him. Both players were still good on other teams. Rice played well with Rich Cannon and Smith still gained yards with Arizona but had their careers been mostly on those teams their numbers and success wouldn't be near what it ended up being. An arguement can be made that each is the best ever at their respective positions but I don't believe either can claim the greatest player of all time.
2016-03-29 00:48:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Who says he isn't? To some he is, maybe you. To me, I like Walter Peyton over the long haul and lack of talent around him. Barry didn't have much talent around him either. Pure BEAST would be Earl Campbell. Talk about POWER, that guy had it, plus the speed. But longevity wasn't because of the style. Walter was power and finesse with longevity. Barry was strictly elusiveness and a quiter for walking away from the game, which may affect people view of him.
2006-12-30 01:47:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by Isabel F 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
He simply left the game before he could run up his stats (see Emmitt Smith), that's why. His health is good, he made enough money to retire on, he can play golf whenever he wants (not very well! but then golf is like sex ... you don't have to be good at it to enjoy it!) and he doesn't have to put up with the likes of Bobby Ross (who I believe was the straw that broke this camel's back).
Not as famous as he could have been but I never got the impression that was what was most important to him.
2006-12-30 00:32:50
·
answer #5
·
answered by greenglass d 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
EXACTLY. I think he simply left too early. I can't remember all the details surrounding how or why he left, but I wish he would've been traded or something. He still had another 10 or 15 seasons left in him, I think. Powerful and agile at the same time.
2006-12-29 23:49:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by gabound75 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
there are a few reasons
1.he retired 2 early
2.he has the most lost yards by a sinle player
i conider him as one of the best along with walter payton,emmit smith,jim brown. but i think the greatest runningback will end up being ladainian tomlinson in a few years.
2006-12-30 01:06:42
·
answer #7
·
answered by pimp85501 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
1. retired too early
2. he was on the DETROIT LIONS.
3. no player on the Detroit lions will ever be the best in anything in NFL history
2006-12-29 23:51:34
·
answer #8
·
answered by rancid831 1
·
0⤊
2⤋
He was a great RB but not the best
2006-12-30 04:45:11
·
answer #9
·
answered by CareBear 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Most likely because he quit the game early.
2006-12-30 01:36:54
·
answer #10
·
answered by mJc 7
·
2⤊
0⤋