What would jim brown be worth today?

[Jarv]

OT ........ ?

Off topic...

 

[adamknite]

I guess I assumed a little on your behalf iceberg, but to me that's the only way to look at it.

You really can't compare players of eras so far apart in terms of pure ability - the only way to reach any kind of comparison is in how they fared relative to the competition they faced.

For example, in my mind Babe Ruth would not be a dominant player today - no where near the level of A-Rod for example, because athletes are just bigger and stronger and faster and better trained today.

However to me Ruth is still the best because he was so utterly superior to others who played the game in his era that he elevated the game to a level that no one else ever has. This was a guy who, in an era where 15 home runs a year could win the home run title, set the record at 24 I think the first time and kept raising it up the the 60 that stood for many years.

Brown was the same - so incredibly dominant in his era that no one else can even be mentioned in the same breath.

Ruth broke the all-Time home record at like 115, if that helps your argument

 

[Cajuncowboy]

OT ........ ?

Off Topic

 

[adamknite]

OT ........ ?

off topic?

 

[Stautner]

Nostalgia has clouded your vision old man!

I have to agree with you.

Brown played in an era when D-linemen were 230-240 pounds and LB's were 210-215 lbs.

I consider him the best RB in history because I feel like you can only compare players of such vastly different eras by how they fared against the competition they had, but Brown's strengths, while impressive, and while they would still be impressive today, would not be nearly as pronounced against today's competition.

 

[StanleySpadowski]

Brown wouldn't get paid much today as he'd be lucky to gain a thousand yards against today's defenses. Of course he's gotta be in his late 60s.

Best football player ever. Period.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Something to consider with Jim Brown would be if teams wanted to pay someone that they had a feeling could leave the game early and or with his off the field issues with women.

Back in the day many things were swept under the carpet, not as exposed as today within the league.

 

[Stautner]

Ruth broke the all-Time home record at like 115, if that helps your argument

Clearly it does - I never knew what the mark had been, but it doesn't surprise me.

Thanks.

 

[joseephuss]

I would love to see Tony Dorsett in a Marshall Faulk type role. Dorsett was utilized as a receiver, but not as much as they do in todays game.

Tony was not as good a receiver as Marshall. I remember Tony talking about some depth perception problems he had on passes down field. Didn't seem to bother him as much on screen passes though. Herschel Walker was used very much like Faulk his first two years in Dallas. It surprised everyone he could catch the ball as well as he did.

 

[Stautner]

Tony was not as good a receiver as Marshall. I remember Tony talking about some depth perception problems he had on passes down field. Didn't seem to bother him as much on screen passes though. Herschel Walker was used very much like Faulk his first two years in Dallas. It surprised everyone he could catch the ball as well as he did.

I don't think Tony liked the footsteps he heard when catching a pass downfield.

 

[joseephuss]

Ruth broke the all-Time home record at like 115, if that helps your argument

And the commissioner of baseball did not attend that game. Sorry, seemed appropriate with Bonds limping toward the new record. :laugh1:

 

[Stautner]

And the commissioner of baseball did not attend that game. Sorry, seemed appropriate with Bonds limping toward the new record. :laugh1:

I wonder if a few steroid injections would help Bonds with that limp?

 

[joseephuss]

I wonder if a few steroid injections would help Bonds with that limp?

He could become the best limper in MLB history. He is trying to top Kirk Gibson.

 

[burmafrd]

Jim Brown was not just big but fast as well. His power was tremendous. True- that would not work as well today due to the much bigger players. But then Jim Brown would be stronger too with todays emphasis on weight training.
I do not think he could do what he did back then - but I think he would be considered one of the best backs in football today as well.
Joe Montana is probably a better example- LT as well. Both of them played fairly recently.
take a 28 year old Montana with a couple of rings on his hand already and make him afree agent- his contract would be truly sick.

 

[Doomsday101]

Jim Brown was not just big but fast as well. His power was tremendous. True- that would not work as well today due to the much bigger players. But then Jim Brown would be stronger too with todays emphasis on weight training.
I do not think he could do what he did back then - but I think he would be considered one of the best backs in football today as well.
Joe Montana is probably a better example- LT as well. Both of them played fairly recently.
take a 28 year old Montana with a couple of rings on his hand already and make him afree agent- his contract would be truly sick.

Should be noted though that Brown played at 6'02" 232 and was listed as a FB although back then FB was used different

 

[adamknite]

Ruth broke the all-Time home record at like 115, if that helps your argument

Just correcting myself. It was 138 by Roger Connor. (Who played for 18 years)

Ruth broke that record in 1921, his 8th year in the league and ended up with 162 homers that season.

 

[Stautner]

Should be noted though that Brown played at 6'02" 232 and was listed as a FB although back then FB was used different

I started to mention earlier that I thought he played at 230 or so.

While that is big, it isn't huge the way it was back then. In those days he was as big as many D-lineman, bigger than LB's and a giant to DB's.

We have safeties around that size now.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

Just below Peyton Manning in my opinion.

 

[Doomsday101]

I started to mention earlier that I thought he played at 230 or so.

While that is big, it isn't huge the way it was back then. In those days he was as big as many D-lineman, bigger than LB's and a giant to DB's.

We have safeties around that size now.

It is still a good size for a RB. I think Brown would still be an outstanding player today. I think some guys will strive to be the best I think you see that with all great players. It is not just natural they work to be the best

 

[Stautner]

It is still a good size for a RB. I think Brown would still be an outstanding player today. I think some guys will strive to be the best I think you see that with all great players. It is not just natural they work to be the best

The quote of mine that you cited and responded to already said that it was still a good size, so this is repetative.

My point was that 230 pounds is big in either era, but it's much more imposing and difficult to tackle in an era when D-lineman are 230 pounds than in an era when D-lineman are 300 pounds.

Yes, his desire matters ..... I suspect he would still be a good RB even today.

And as I said before, I consider him the best ever for how he measured up to those he played against.