He retired too early, he was still a star even when he retired, he only played for like 8 or 9 years, something like that, he was the NFL's all time leading rusher until Walter Payton passed him & then Emmitt Smith passed Payton, who we all know currently holds the rushing record. Jim Brown should have played for like 5 or 6 years more. Do you think Walter Payton would have broken his record if he retired later or what?, tell what you think?
2007-03-14 20:40:05 · 9 answers · asked by introvertedguy06 6 in Sports ➔ Football (American)
You can do ifs and buts, but the reality is, if Jim Brown played in today's NFL he wouldn't have been nearly as sucessful. There's also a matter of durability. You could make a case for many outstanding backs whose careers were cut short or limited by injury that they could have set the record like Gale Sayers or OJ Simpson. Then there's the likes of Barry Sanders wo walked away young too. Maybe there guys cared more about their supreme accomplishments than a record gained by longevity. What's the point of playing when you're not better than half the backs in the league like Emmitt did for the Cardinals? It's selfish in my opinion.
2007-03-14 20:58:20 · answer #1 · answered by imraybarbonifrommiami 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Jim Brown was a highly over rated player in my opinion. His production had more to do with his size than any real skill. Besides, he was bruiser and those types of backs generally don't hold up well long term. Had he not gotten out when he did he could very easily be experiencing numerous medical problems because of it, like so many other ex football players have. If you look at the average yards per year of the top 5 running backs on the all time yardage list Barry Sanders is easily number one. He would have crushed Walter Payton's record and in the process saved us all from watching Emmitt Smith steal Payton's record.
2007-03-15 03:25:33 · answer #2 · answered by tgw3k 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
two different eras two different games... Jim Brown was great in his days but today I don't think he would have been the same.. Not only has the game gotten faster but the linemen are bigger and stronger.. Plus there is more emphasis on the passing game..
On the other hand.. could Walter Peyton have gone up against the idea back in those days that power running was the key?? I don't think he would have been able to be a workhorse type of back that Brown was..
So there simply is no way to compare.. Both were great for the era they played.. As for Emmitt?? He was just a good running back behind a great offensive line. He may have the numbers but he doesn't belong in the same league as those two. Don't get me wrong Emmitt was a good running back but I feel was the most over rated back of all time. His Line was out of this world.
2007-03-15 05:33:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is very hard to make comparisons across eras. When you watch the film, Jim Brown looked like a man among boys on the football field. He was simply amazing. Would he have been that good in today's game? Who knows? If he would have played for 5 or 6 more years 2 things would have happened:
1) His record would have been untouchable by Emmit Smith, Walter Payton, or any one else for that matter.
2) His legend would not be as big.
Number 2 sounds weird but in America, we like potential more than actual accomplishments. We like to discuss what could have happened more than what did happen.
Take Don Hutson for example. He set the receiving records that Jerry Rice finally broke a few years ago. Only Hutson set those records in the 30s and 40s when a pass interference call was only made when the defender knocked you down when the ball was in the air; until then you were fair game. Yet, because he played out his entire career he is forgotten by almost everyone.
2007-03-14 23:53:05 · answer #4 · answered by Yo, Teach! 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First off Jim Brown was physically bigger then anyone of his time. He really wasn’t that fast he was a workhorse. Imagine if you will a 300lb lineman running the ball against 200lb wide receivers. That is what it was like. If he had played longer lets just say another 5 years (the below numbers will all be rounded to an easy number) lets say he still averages 5 yards a carry and say about 250 carries a year that would be about 1250 yards a season now times that by 5 years 6,250 more yards that would have been a career total of 18,562. Since Emmit Smiths, career total is 18,355 I would have to say that Brown would still hold the record, thou I’m sure Emmit would have held on for the 200 + yards he would have needed hell he held on too long in the end anyway.
2007-03-15 01:05:43 · answer #5 · answered by hair_of_a_dog 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they all are great running backs, to retire to early? it's a good ???? mark why not ask him, he holds the answer as for walter payton wow i saw that clip when he rushed two or less than five yards to pass browns record, its been too long correct me if i am wrong i love this game, after that he made more yards for emmitt to pass now someone god willing will make a bigger record to pass goood luck, go raiders!
2007-03-14 21:08:14 · answer #6 · answered by Steven W 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think that Emmitt would not have passed JB's record had Brown played as long as Smith. Barry Sanders might have the record if he would have played longer.
2007-03-14 20:48:50 · answer #7 · answered by superdad3312 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Jim Brown.....?????????? What if Barry Sanders had played longer?
2007-03-16 03:11:52 · answer #8 · answered by goodtimingman30 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was great but would have been injured.
Good call to get out...see Faulk.
2007-03-14 22:29:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋