And No, Brown DID NOT rush for over 1,000 yards each season but Sanders did.

 

True, in 57 and 62 he was in the 900s.

That's fine. Does not mean he is the better RB.

 

And No, Brown DID NOT rush for over 1,000 yards each season but Sanders did. :thumb:

 

"BROWN AVERAGED 5.2 and 104"....By .2 whole yards and by a whole 4 yards...

 

Ok, caught me on that one. But the point that Brown's stats more than favorably compare to Sander's is still valid. Again, I'm going to guess that most younger sports fans (assuming, perhaps wrong, that you are one) are so far removed time-wise from Brown's era as to make his utterly impressive accomplishments seem relatively blase. If he'd have done what he did in the 80's or 90's, he'd be getting a ton more props in this thread. :thumb:

Ok, caught me on that one. But the point that Brown's stats more than favorably compare to Sander's is still valid. Again, I'm going to guess that most younger sports fans (assuming, perhaps wrong, that you are one) are so far removed time-wise from Brown's era as to make his utterly impressive accomplishments seem relatively blase. If he'd have done what he did in the 80's or 90's, he'd be getting a ton more props in this thread. :thumb:

 

Yep. I'm 22. BTW, I know and understand Brown was a GREAT RB. That's why I have him in my top 3 all time behind Sanders & Payton.

True, in 57 and 62 he was in the 900s.

 

Missed by 4 yards in 1962.

 

And keep in mind that he played only 12 games in 1957 and 14 games in 1962. Pretty safe to assume he'd have easily hit that mark had he played a 16-game schedule (or even a 14-game schedule in 1957).

Yep. I'm 22. BTW, I know and understand Brown was a GREAT RB. That's why I have him in my top 3 all time behind Sanders & Payton.

 

Youth is wasted on the young. :lol: (famous quote, BTW. I can't take credit for it.)

Don't disagree, but it is interesting to note that Sanders had 700 more carries than Brown in his career. When people think of Sanders, the thing that comes to mind (at least to me) is those crazy, reverse-the-field long runs that he had. Yet Jim Brown retired with a higher Yards per Carry average than Sanders. Brown was simply more consistent from the scrimmage line, as Sanders would frequently have rushes where he would lose large chunks of yardage.

 

My guess is that Brown doesn't get the same respect as Sanders or even some others because many younger fans - of which there are quite a few here on BGP - aren't as familiar with his exploits.QUOTE]

 

 

Agree with your point about younger fans. Unfortunately, he lost respect with some "older" fans long after he retired. His ranting to the media and constant insults of players he feared would break his record, earned him as much disrespect as his playing did otherwise.

I would have voted Jim Brown if the question were who was the number one woman beating running back.

Ok, caught me on that one. But the point that Brown's stats more than favorably compare to Sander's is still valid. Again, I'm going to guess that most younger sports fans (assuming, perhaps wrong, that you are one) are so far removed time-wise from Brown's era as to make his utterly impressive accomplishments seem relatively blase. If he'd have done what he did in the 80's or 90's, he'd be getting a ton more props in this thread. :thumb:

 

There are some other things that need to be figured into the equation. Brown played at a time when more emphasis was placed on the running game. In his 10 seasons he never played with a quarterback that threw for more than 2500 yards in a season. He also had the benefit of having another back or two in the backfield as well as a couple of tight ends to aid in blocking. Due to the offense that the Lions played for much of Sanders career he usually had no fullback or tightend--which is the main reason that he has the record for carries for negative yards. Also Brown played for much better teams while he played. Lots of times Sanders is ALL the Lions had. Either one would be great but I'd take Sanders by a nose.

Don't disagree, but it is interesting to note that Sanders had 700 more carries than Brown in his career. When people think of Sanders, the thing that comes to mind (at least to me) is those crazy, reverse-the-field long runs that he had. Yet Jim Brown retired with a higher Yards per Carry average than Sanders. Brown was simply more consistent from the scrimmage line, as Sanders would frequently have rushes where he would lose large chunks of yardage.

 

My guess is that Brown doesn't get the same respect as Sanders or even some others because many younger fans - of which there are quite a few here on BGP - aren't as familiar with his exploits.QUOTE]

 

 

Agree with your point about younger fans. Unfortunately, he lost respect with some "older" fans long after he retired. His ranting to the media and constant insults of players he feared would break his record, earned him as much disrespect as his playing did otherwise.

 

Don't disagree at all. Never really liked the guy. But as far as what he did on the playing field, it speaks for itself.

There are some other things that need to be figured into the equation. Brown played at a time when more emphasis was placed on the running game. In his 10 seasons he never played with a quarterback that threw for more than 2500 yards in a season. He also had the benefit of having another back or two in the backfield as well as a couple of tight ends to aid in blocking. Due to the offense that the Lions played for much of Sanders career he usually had no fullback or tightend--which is the main reason that he has the record for carries for negative yards. Also Brown played for much better teams while he played. Lots of times Sanders is ALL the Lions had. Either one would be great but I'd take Sanders by a nose.

 

So you're also making the point then that the defenses that Brown played against in that era knew he was going to get the ball and would stack the line to stop the run? Kind of works both ways. And while it may be fair to imply that Sanders accomplished things that Brown could not have done, I am pretty confident it's also accurate to say that Sanders - due to his size - would not have been able to accomplish some of the things Brown did. Namely, score TD's at the goal line.

 

I agree, they are both great. But, I would take Brown by a nose.

There are some other things that need to be figured into the equation. Brown played at a time when more emphasis was placed on the running game. In his 10 seasons he never played with a quarterback that threw for more than 2500 yards in a season. He also had the benefit of having another back or two in the backfield as well as a couple of tight ends to aid in blocking. Due to the offense that the Lions played for much of Sanders career he usually had no fullback or tightend--which is the main reason that he has the record for carries for negative yards. Also Brown played for much better teams while he played. Lots of times Sanders is ALL the Lions had. Either one would be great but I'd take Sanders by a nose.

 

:thumb:

So you're also making the point then that the defenses that Brown played against in that era knew he was going to get the ball and would stack the line to stop the run? Kind of works both ways. And while it may be fair to imply that Sanders accomplished things that Brown could not have done, I am pretty confident it's also accurate to say that Sanders - due to his size - would not have been able to accomplish some of the things Brown did. Namely, score TD's at the goal line.

 

I agree, they are both great. But, I would take Brown by a nose.

:thumb: I agree. Brown's stats are amazing considering the shorter seasons that he played.

 

I was too young to remember watching Brown play but the toughest RB that I have seen play was Earl Campbell at his peak. Unfortunately, Campbell only had a two or three seasons in which he was able to play at that level. Campbell seemed to go out of his way to run over defenders. Running over NFL players took its toll on Campbell.

So you're also making the point then that the defenses that Brown played against in that era knew he was going to get the ball and would stack the line to stop the run? Kind of works both ways. And while it may be fair to imply that Sanders accomplished things that Brown could not have done, I am pretty confident it's also accurate to say that Sanders - due to his size - would not have been able to accomplish some of the things Brown did. Namely, score TD's at the goal line.

 

I agree, they are both great. But, I would take Brown by a nose.

 

Not entirely true for 2 reasons: 1) Since Sanders played without a fullback most of the time (the one season that they used one regularly he had a 2000 yard season) and without a tightend defenses could effectively play a dime defense all the time and still have 6 in the box against his 5 blockers. With an I formation, and 2 tightends the Browns had 8 to block 8. Big advantage there.

 

2) Jim Brown was not the only running threat in his backfield. Here's a list of the other signifigant contributors for each season he played:

1957 Hanulak 375 yards, Carpenter 315 yards

1958 Carpenter 308 yards, Mitchell 500 yards

1959 Mitchell 743 yards

1960 Mitchell 506 yards

1961 Mitchell 548 yards, Watkins 209 yards

1962 Scales 239 yards, Ryan 242 yards

1963 Green 526 yards, Ryan 224 yards

1964 Green 491 yards, Ryan 217 yards

1965 Green 436 yards

 

Barry Sanders had no help:

1989 Peete 192 yards

1990 Peete 363 yards

1991 Peete 125 yards

1992 Ware 124 yards

1993 Moore 405 yards, Lynch 207 yards but Sanders only played 11 games so the yards were gained with him out.

1994 Perriman 86 yards

1995 Mitchell 104 yards

1996 Rivers 86 yards

1997 Vardell 166 yards

1998 Batch 229 yards

 

So in Barry Sanders 10 seasons his second leading rusher was his quarterback 6 times. No other running back on his team gained even 200 yards in a season in which he played all the games. Brown had some other guys that the defense had to worry about. With Sanders you could play a dime defense, put a spy on Sanders and still be 5 on 5 with his 5 blockers. :thumb:

Not entirely true for 2 reasons: 1) Since Sanders played without a fullback most of the time (the one season that they used one regularly he had a 2000 yard season) and without a tightend defenses could effectively play a dime defense all the time and still have 6 in the box against his 5 blockers. With an I formation, and 2 tightends the Browns had 8 to block 8. Big advantage there.

 

2) Jim Brown was not the only running threat in his backfield. Here's a list of the other signifigant contributors for each season he played:

1957 Hanulak 375 yards, Carpenter 315 yards

1958 Carpenter 308 yards, Mitchell 500 yards

1959 Mitchell 743 yards

1960 Mitchell 506 yards

1961 Mitchell 548 yards, Watkins 209 yards

1962 Scales 239 yards, Ryan 242 yards

1963 Green 526 yards, Ryan 224 yards

1964 Green 491 yards, Ryan 217 yards

1965 Green 436 yards

 

Barry Sanders had no help:

1989 Peete 192 yards

1990 Peete 363 yards

1991 Peete 125 yards

1992 Ware 124 yards

1993 Moore 405 yards, Lynch 207 yards but Sanders only played 11 games so the yards were gained with him out.

1994 Perriman 86 yards

1995 Mitchell 104 yards

1996 Rivers 86 yards

1997 Vardell 166 yards

1998 Batch 229 yards

 

So in Barry Sanders 10 seasons his second leading rusher was his quarterback 6 times. No other running back on his team gained even 200 yards in a season in which he played all the games. Brown had some other guys that the defense had to worry about. With Sanders you could play a dime defense, put a spy on Sanders and still be 5 on 5 with his 5 blockers. :thumb:

 

Game over Coop. AJG wins.

Game over Coop. AJG wins.

 

:laugh: So says the young crowd.