What would jim brown be worth today?

[Deep_Freeze]

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.

I don't see how this post could be seen as over the top, lol, I was thinking the same thing til I read it, lol. Like I typed it myself, lol.

You just can't plug in Brown's playing size and such, and throw him in the game now and say, "wonder how much he is worth". Like said above, you have to compare his impact on the game with who he played against.

For instance, Jim Brown was the biggest, fastest, most talented player on the field. Now, in that respect with his running style, the only way to throw him on the field and have any idea of his true impact now, he would have be the biggest, fastest, most talented player on the field (meaning he would be bigger and faster than his measurements were back then to achieve this).

The Babe hit more homeruns in one season than whole teams did. Now, put this into the current times and numbers and you just begin to understand how much he would be worth. Easy to say, well Wilt wouldn't have done that in today's NBA cause they are bigger and stronger.....put him in today's NBA with respect to how much better he was than everyone else he played against.

These guys were freaks of nature, like they were sent back in time from the future. And really we don't have any in any sport that truly compares to what these guys were to their sports, with the exception of Tiger Woods. There is no Babe Ruth in baseball, and no Jim Brown in football.

 

[Stautner]

I don't see how this post could be seen as over the top, lol, I was thinking the same thing til I read it, lol. Like I typed it myself, lol.

You just can't plug in Brown's playing size and such, and throw him in the game now and say, "wonder how much he is worth". Like said above, you have to compare his impact on the game with who he played against.

For instance, Jim Brown was the biggest, fastest, most talented player on the field. Now, in that respect with his running style, the only way to throw him on the field and have any idea of his true impact now, he would have be the biggest, fastest, most talented player on the field (meaning he would be bigger and faster than his measurements were back then to achieve this).

The Babe hit more homeruns in one season than whole teams did. Now, put this into the current times and numbers and you just begin to understand how much he would be worth. Easy to say, well Wilt wouldn't have done that in today's NBA cause they are bigger and stronger.....put him in today's NBA with respect to how much better he was than everyone else he played against.

These guys were freaks of nature, like they were sent back in time from the future. And really we don't have any in any sport that truly compares to what these guys were to their sports, with the exception of Tiger Woods. There is no Babe Ruth in baseball, and no Jim Brown in football.

Well put - much better than I put it.

 

[Deep_Freeze]

Well put - much better than I put it.

I tried, lol.

 

[ThreeSportStar80]

Jim Brown would command a contract in the area of $80 with $30 million guaranteed for 5 or 6 years. He's the greatest runningback of all time!

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

That depends. Is he running in a Bill Parcells Offense? :

 

[StoneyBurk]

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.

A smaller (5'9 210lb) and slower (4.69) Emmitt Smith dominated this league for 10 years. Brown would dominate now as then with no problem.

 

[Stautner]

A smaller (5'9 210lb) and slower (4.69) Emmitt Smith dominated this league for 10 years. Brown would dominate now as then with no problem.

This logic fails in that you aren't considering that, just like Brown, Emmitt's effectiveness would be different in the two eras, BOTH would be better in Brown's era than in this one.

At 5'9" and 210 would have been even better in Jim Brown's day because not only would he have the strength, instincts, vision and balance he is known for today, D-linemen and LB's would have had even more difficulty bring him down because he would be very nearly as big as they were, and probably as strong.

If you were amazed at his ability to break through the tackle of a 250 lb. MLB who bench presses 400 lbs., how do you think he would fare against 210 lb. LB's who bench pressed 250?

You see, with Brown I am considering how effective he would be now and as compared to his era, whereas with Emmitt you are only considering now.

 

[YosemiteSam]

A smaller (5'9 210lb) and slower (4.69) Emmitt Smith dominated this league for 10 years. Brown would dominate now as then with no problem.

What does small have to do with it? Today, bigger backs are less effective because the defense is also bigger. Like they say to pun on Michael Vick. It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog. The last really big back that had any real effectiveness was Christian "The Nigerian Nightmare" Okoye, (6'1 254lbs) but if you look at his stats throughout his career. His effectiveness was short lived. Basically he had (1) very productive year 1989 he had 1,480 yards, beyond that he only had one other 1,000+ yard season and he barely had 1,000+ yards then. (Like Julius Jones last year)

 

[Stautner]

What does small have to do with it? Today, bigger backs are less effective because the defense is also bigger. Like they say to pun on Michael Vick. It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog. The last really big back that had any real effectiveness was Christian "The Nigerian Nightmare" Okoye, (6'1 254lbs) but if you look at his stats throughout his career. His effectiveness was short lived. Basically he had (1) very productive year 1989 he had 1,480 yards, beyond that he only had one other 1,000+ yard season and he barely had 1,000+ yards then. (Like Julius Jones last year)

For the most part I agree with your point, but you are forgetting Jerome Bettis.

 

[Doomsday101]

I would consider Johnson at 6'1" 230 a good size back as well as Steven Jackson at 6-2 231 and both seem very effective

 

[Stautner]

I would consider Johnson at 6'1" 230 a good size back as well as Steven Jackson at 6-2 231 and both seem very effective

There have been many very good RB's that are considerably larger than Emmitt that have ben very effective over the years.

The bottom line is that size can help a RB, but that kind of size isn't necessary - they come in a viariety of differnt sizes.

 

[Doomsday101]

There have been many very good RB's that are considerably larger than Emmitt that have ben very effective over the years.

The bottom line is that size can help a RB, but that kind of size isn't necessary - they come in a viariety of differnt sizes.

I agree. How the player uses his talent is more important than his size. I have seen both smaller backs as well as bigger backs have great success in this league.

 

[YosemiteSam]

For the most part I agree with your point, but you are forgetting Jerome Bettis.

Ah yes, Bettis. I forgot about him. He was 250ish also, but he was more of a work horse. He never really ran for average. He only twice in 12 years ran for greater than 4.5 yards per carry and never ran for 5. His career ypc was only 3.9. 9 of his 13 season he had a ypc of less than 4 ypc.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I would consider Johnson at 6'1" 230 a good size back as well as Steven Jackson at 6-2 231 and both seem very effective

While Jim Brown was also 232lbs also, 232lbs back then was like 250lbs today. Jim Brown today would be in Okoye or Bettis' class rather than Steven Jackson. Jackson is only 15ish pounds heavier than Emmitt's playing weight. While it's not a drop in the bucket, it's also not 30+ pounds heavier as Brown generally was.

 

[Stautner]

While Jim Brown was also 232lbs also, 232lbs back then was like 250lbs today. Jim Brown today would be in Okoye or Bettis' class rather than Steven Jackson. Jackson is only 15ish pounds heavier than Emmitt's playing weight. While it's not a drop in the bucket, it's also not 30+ pounds heavier as Brown generally was.

Brown would be more like a 275 pounder running a 4.2 40.

D-linemen average at least 285 or better today, and Brown was almost as big as D-linemen in his day, plus he ran faster than the DB's.

 

[Doomsday101]

While Jim Brown was also 232lbs also, 232lbs back then was like 250lbs today. Jim Brown today would be in Okoye or Bettis' class rather than Steven Jackson. Jackson is only 15ish pounds heavier than Emmitt's playing weight. While it's not a drop in the bucket, it's also not 30+ pounds heavier as Brown generally was.

Saying he would still be an elite back or not is really a guessing game by all sides. There is no way to prove it

 

[iceberg]

Saying he would still be an elite back or not is really a guessing game by all sides. There is no way to prove it

no real way to prove much of anything we talk about but it's still fun. : )

 

[YosemiteSam]

no real way to prove much of anything we talk about but it's still fun. : )

Can you prove that? :laugh2:

 

[jimmy40]

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

Must have been lots of fun for those college lacross guys to see him running at them with a stick in his hands.

 

[Doomsday101]

I think the amazing thing about Brown is he left the game while still in his prime and was able to put up the numbers he did in those few years playing fewer games within a season.