There are 119 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Current NFL players Vs. NFL Legends

Originally posted by 49erRider:
Originally posted by denali22:
Basically me and this dude were discussing Jim Brown. We both agreed he was a legend, and will always be one. Then I said if he played in todays NFL, he would be average. This is where it started.

My arguement was basically that current NFL players are stronger, bigger and faster than they have ever been. Jim Brown had a great size and speed combination, and was basically a man among boys in his current generation.

His arguement was that back then in the NFL, players hit harder, were more rough and had less rules, so its easier to play right now then it was back then.

I could see how his arguement could be true, but I still stand by mine. What do you guys think? Doesnt have to be about Jim Brown specifically, but in general.

Your buddy's argument is weak. Athletes these days are far superior to the athletes of even 30 years ago. Jim Brown played 50 years ago. He was a far superior athlete to the other guys of his time and, while football had less rules then, it was also less dynamic. Game plans were nowhere near as advanced as they are now. Put a guy like Barry Sanders in a time with inferior athletes and insufficient defensive game plans and the records he would have set would be insurmountable.

I agree that Jim Brown, in today's NFL, would not be considered one of the best athletes to ever play the game. He wouldn't even be in the discussion for best current RB. He was physically superior to his competition 50 years ago. He wouldn't be bigger, stronger or faster than today's defenders - not even if he trained the way they do, because almost all of today's athletes are "thoroughbreds" - and the game plans of today would shut him down.

Dude,wherever you get that good s**t you smokin,ask em can I please get a qp.lol
Originally posted by VDpwndMjenkins:
Dude,wherever you get that good s**t you smokin,ask em can I please get a qp.lol

lol are you sure you're the one who isnt smoking?

defenders back in the day are the ones who didnt wrap up, not the current players
Originally posted by VDpwndMjenkins:
In Jim's case,guys of today dont wrap up and cant open field tackle to save their lives.(except our #52 and the 1 in Bmore)most go for big hits for the wow factor,ala Goldson.such players would either bounce off of Jim or get trucked.

defenses of today have not seen the combo of speed and power in a back like jim since Sweetness or Earl Campbell.Jim Brown w a good oline would destroy todays defenses.

agreed with the tackling stuff but not the 2nd part. Adrian Peterson and McFadden from oakland instantly come to mind. there are a few big backs with great speed in the game today. s**t stephen jackson used to be pretty damn fast too for a big man. that being said i think willis would hand any RB in the history of RBs an asswhoopin
Originally posted by denali22:
Originally posted by VDpwndMjenkins:
Dude,wherever you get that good s**t you smokin,ask em can I please get a qp.lol

lol are you sure you're the one who isnt smoking?

defenders back in the day are the ones who didnt wrap up, not the current players

my fault doot,hit the wrong quote tab,derp.

Originally posted by 49erRider:
"He wouldn't even be in the discussion for best current RB.the game plans of today would shut him down."

that was what i directed comment towards.
[ Edited by VDpwndMjenkins on Aug 12, 2012 at 1:28 PM ]
Originally posted by denali22:
Basically me and this dude were discussing Jim Brown. We both agreed he was a legend, and will always be one. Then I said if he played in todays NFL, he would be average. This is where it started.

My arguement was basically that current NFL players are stronger, bigger and faster than they have ever been. Jim Brown had a great size and speed combination, and was basically a man among boys in his current generation.

His arguement was that back then in the NFL, players hit harder, were more rough and had less rules, so its easier to play right now then it was back then.

I could see how his arguement could be true, but I still stand by mine. What do you guys think? Doesnt have to be about Jim Brown specifically, but in general.

Jim Brown wouldn't be special for two reasons in todays NFL. There really are no "feature" backs anymore and the NFL is a passing league now.
Jim Brown would be sitting on the bench for most teams, given he refused to block and was a prima donna beyond all belief.

As far as pure talent goes, he'd probably still be pretty good and maybe even great as a pure runner, but he wouldn't be held at the same level. His refusal to block, which he was quite public about, would I'm sure make a lot of fans scoff at him and he wasn't exactly known for his pass catching (although it would be interesting to see how that would change in todays game). The talent pool was not near as large then as it is now.

My best projection is he'd be about 15-20lbs heavier, similarly fast, but not as elusive. He'd be a more situational (2 down short yardage) guy unless his attitude was a lot different, kind of like LeGarrette Blount. And usually people don't change so easily.
[ Edited by Evilgenius on Aug 12, 2012 at 5:31 PM ]
Originally posted by VDpwndMjenkins:
Originally posted by ChazBoner:
Originally posted by Chief:
Barry Sanders would and still is the best pure runner ever. No matter the era, you can watch the tape and see that s**t.

that. best there ever was. I'd watch lions games just to see him carry the ball.

since the subject of film has come up,Sanders's predesesor,Gayle Sayers was better.plus he was a great returner.

you can also see ALL 11 defenders touch Jim before he got to the endzone.he either outran,bulldozed or carried em on his way.plus they got their #'s in shorter seasons.

Barry loss plenty of yards consistently wit all that dancin.not sure if Jim EVER went backwards.

No chance in hell Gayle Sayers was a better player than Sanders.
  • BobS
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 8,289
When Jim Brown played hardly anyone lifted weights. Most players didn't earn enough from football to survive and had off season jobs. Two reasons why they were slower and smaller than today's players. The average defensive lineman weighed 200-220 pounds. Brown was like 230. If you put 1960 Jim Brown in today's NFL, he would be an average back.
Anyone who says Jim Brown would be average today is just a damn fool. At the very least he would be Adrian Peterson except a far better reciever. He played in 12 game seasons for only 9 years, imagine what he would have done to the record books had he played a 16 game season. Barry Sanders father has been quoted as saying Jim Brown was the best he had ever seen, and it can be argued that Gale Sayers was better than Barry Sanders, not saying he is but it can be argued. Some people have no respect for the legends, so Wilt Chamberlain would be average in today's NBA because other players are bigger than they were back then?
patrick willis vs anyone. anyone dies. every time.
Think Branden Jacobs with Chris Johnson speed.

At any point in time, you can only compare a player with the players they played against. In this case, Brown was a man among boys. If he had been playing in today's game with the same access to nutritional information and training facilities, he would be just as dominant as he was back then.

Today's athletes are not better because of DNA. They are better because of advances in all areas of nutrition and training.
Originally posted by Janitor:
No chance in hell Gayle Sayers was a better player than Sanders.

Not a chance
if you throw size out of it. i would say the players of old would win defense and players of now would win on offense.

now because of the evolution and schemes involved.
older players because of BALLS not the old balls but because back then they had balls
were tough as nails and wouldnt hesitate to clothesline a MF
Originally posted by MCrabs15:
Anyone who says Jim Brown would be average today is just a damn fool. At the very least he would be Adrian Peterson except a far better reciever. He played in 12 game seasons for only 9 years, imagine what he would have done to the record books had he played a 16 game season. Barry Sanders father has been quoted as saying Jim Brown was the best he had ever seen, and it can be argued that Gale Sayers was better than Barry Sanders, not saying he is but it can be argued. Some people have no respect for the legends, so Wilt Chamberlain would be average in today's NBA because other players are bigger than they were back then?

Thank you,finally somebody else wit some sanity in this thread.was startin to think I was all alone up in here,lol
Originally posted by dj43:
Think Branden Jacobs with Chris Johnson speed.

At any point in time, you can only compare a player with the players they played against. In this case, Brown was a man among boys. If he had been playing in today's game with the same access to nutritional information and training facilities, he would be just as dominant as he was back then.

Today's athletes are not better because of DNA. They are better because of advances in all areas of nutrition and training.

Good points,especially bout if he had the same access to todays tech.but Jim was flat out a beast w/o all that.
...