2007-06-09 07:21:06 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Football (American)
He was one of the greatest and DOMINATED his era. I think its close though, heres my list for best football players of all time
Jim Brown
Jim Thorpe
Red Grange
Johnny Unitas
Joe Montana
Jerry Rice
Don Hudson
Take your choice, all of those guys dominated and were amaznig, I think Jim Thrope is the best all time though
2007-06-09 10:30:28 · answer #1 · answered by hipo8000 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He played 9 years, not 6. I was old enough to remember his last couple years. ENTIRE DEFENSES WERE GEARED TO STOP HIM< AND HIM ONLY. The result, 5.1 yards per carry.
If Jim Brown were playing today, he would dominate. He would have acces to today's training and nutritional programs, and much better health care than players in the sixties. The "middle schoolers" he played against included: Sam Huff, Dick Butkus, Chuck Bednarik, just to name a few.
'
Football wasn't even his best sport out of college. He was the best Lacrosse player in the NCAA's for the time he was at Syracuse.
Was he a racist? Maybe. But Lawrence Taylor is a Cokehead, he's in the HOF. Ray Lewis, complicit in a murder, will also go into the HOF.
Unlike the wimps that play football in the last 20 years, players like Brown were beaten up after they hit the ground. Bednarik, Huff, and Butkus would be ejected from today's football games based on what they did to Jim Brown "after the whistle."
My greatest of all time: Ali, Jordan, Jim Brown, Jim Thorpe, Jack Nicklaus.
2007-06-09 13:38:43 · answer #2 · answered by jack a 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dude... ever hear of a guy named Minut Bol? (spelling probably wrong). Guy was way taller than anyone else in the NBA...and he still sucked. Just being bigger nad faster, doesn't make one inherently better...it only helps..what made him great was the faact he set the records in a short number of years, and did it during 14 game seasons. Saying just because he was a freak for his time means he wasn't good, is like saying Shaq really sucks on the paint...it's just his size. The reason you are good doesn't matter (unless it is steroids or something), just that you are good. You also overlook the fact that football basically had no verticcal passing game to speak of when he played..he ran against 8 man boxes EVERY down. Is he the greatest of all time. Probably not... but he IS one of if not, the TOP RBs of all time. When you get old enough to drink something besides kool-aid, hopefully you will gain a little perspective on how silly your argument is.
2016-03-13 08:10:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes because of one simple fact: There is no one person that was the "best" player in a team sport. Unlike Basketball where one person can completely take over a game (I.E Michael Jordan and now Kobe Bryant), in football, if the whole team doesnt play well, then no one plays well.
Jim Brown was a unbelievable back during his time and can easily be considered one of, and arguably, the best runningback ever. But as far as the best PLAYER goes, that is not possible because each position requires different assignments and skills, and not one player ever has/will completely perfect every aspect of his game, and once again unless EVERYONE plays well, no one PLAYER will be great.
2007-06-09 16:17:09 · answer #4 · answered by calisurfer941 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think anyone can deny he was good, but" the best of all time"?. Now that's a stretch. Without a dedicated line to back him up, he wouldn't have near the record he now enjoys.
Some years back, in his heydey he made the remark to a reporter, that "he was the Cleveland Browns, and without him the team was nothing", well the following game they gave Jim the ball many times and left him to his own abilities, which of course he ended up with negative yards. He then apologized and again became a team player.
Good, yes, the best, I don't think so.
2007-06-09 07:30:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Most people believe he is and it would be hard to argue it. However, he left the sport early to pursue an acting career that never panned out so I think that's why he doesn't always get top billing. Nonetheless, you'll have trouble finding any true football purest who will say he wasn't the greatest running back to ever play the game.
2007-06-09 07:45:43 · answer #6 · answered by None Profound 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
His average years per carry would say he is. So would the yards he racked up. But those were different times. A back wasn't down until somebody was laying on top of him. No down by contact rules. Passing was more difficult so running backs got the ball a lot more. Teams built there lines to run block. He was a very impressive back but for my money Walter Peyton is the best. He gained almost all his yards on crappy teams not NFL champions.
2007-06-09 08:03:22 · answer #7 · answered by old-bald-one 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because "all-time" doesn't just refer to past events, and because you're not limiting it to pro football. Still, among other great runnig backs like Barry Sanders, Eric Dickerson, Emmitt Smith, Walter Payton, Tony Dorsett, OJ Simpson, his career ended too soon to tell whether he truly deserved that reputation. He might have been the best running back that the NFL has seen to this day, probably was, but you asked for reasons otherwise.
2007-06-09 10:33:10 · answer #8 · answered by I 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes there is. brown played during a time in the NFL were the biggest players were around 210 pounds. brown was a running back that weighed in at around 240. he was the biggest player in the NFL at that time. he was a college ball player running over a bunch of middle schoolers. if he played in today's game he would be another bettis, and no one thinks the bus is the best. do we?
2007-06-09 07:36:51 · answer #9 · answered by da goat 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Jim Brown is a myth. Most people that say he was the best never seen him play. They just repeat what someone else told them. Brown was a terrible blocker. He was not a team player and by his own admission was a racist
2007-06-09 08:15:37 · answer #10 · answered by Tommy 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋