SI.com: Joe Posanski's 32 Greatest RBs of All-Time

[pjfootballer]

I was hoping J. Lew might be there.

At least one Raven made it.

Jamal Lewis has faded.

Preist Holmes is better know for his days in KC than Baltimore.

[JustAfan47]

Haven't really followed RBs a lot, but it's WAY too early to put Chris Johnson up there.

I'm with you on that... I mean really?

[Dan T.]

I'm with you on that... I mean really?

He needed to put Chris Johnson through the "Freebird" test:

"If I leave here tomorrow, will you still remember me?"

With Chris Johnson, the answer is no.

[GreenRiggins]

He was at a memorabilia show selling autographs for 100 bucks a pop. Oh wait, did you mean where was the Diesel during the HoF ceremonies?

Your sarcastic but true remark is dearly noted my friend.

Needless to say if you speak ill of the Diesel don't expect any Xmas card from me this year.

[Jacoby6644]

When guys like Edgerin James make the list over HoFs Riggins, Little, Csonka.... you know the guy writing the list doesn't really get it.

[Bang]

This is going to be controversial, but I think Jim Brown is the most overrated player ever. In today's NFL, he is just a guy. Imagine the running backs of today in yesterday's NFL. In Brown's day, the freaking defensive tackles were as heavy as today's linebackers. That era of football just sucked compared to today's. I think the 80's and very early 90s were the bestest of times.

As more and more time passes, memories of legends past grow into even taller tales. Next thing you know Jim Brown will have been 10 feet tall shooting lightning out of his ass.

For his time, he was the man, but since I wasn't born, I couldn't care less.

Respect for history lends wisdom to the present. Ignorance of history does the exact opposite.

In this presumption you're straight up wrong, because you have failed to grasp what an actual comparison from era to era would be. In your comparison, Jim Brown in today's NFL would be geared toward playing against 180 lb 5.6 speed linebackers instead of 260 4.4 speed linebackers. In other words, the rest of the league would be better, but he would still be in the same shape and playing ability of 50 years ago.

Why are today's players bigger and faster? Is it because genetically humans are more powerful, or is it because we've advanced knowledge of training to the point where these players can be this big and fast?

In today's NFL a young Jim Brown has the same access to modern training, nutrition and sports science. The same access to offseason development, modern blocking schemes, everything that has sped up today's game would also apply to him.

And since he dominated everyone in the days when they had none of that, it only stands to reason that given the same advantages, he'd be that much better. In fact, I'd say that given all of the advantages of modern athletes, he'd be just as dominant as then, if not more.

~Bang

[ZRagone]

Its ridiculous to put Emmitt over Barry in terms of greatest RUNNING BACKS. Worthy of the Hall, maybe since championships matter, but the better RB?

10 years in Barry had over 1200 more yards than Emmitt did at the same time, indeed it took Emmitt 11 years to come within 25 yards of Sanders. Barry has a higher yards per carry than Emmitt both at the end of their careers and at the ten year mark (5.0 ypc compared to 4.3). To Emmitts credit he doest beat out Sander's on TD's.

You then have to look at the surrounding cast. Emmitt had an offensive line filled with continual probowlers, a massive fullback that's considered one of the best of his era, a passing attack consisting of a hall of fame QB and reciever, and a scheme that most people and fellow running backs said was suited to his strengths. Barry had a questionable at best, horrible at worst, offensive line. While Herman Moore was a good player, his QB play and general passing attack was mediocre to average. Most people who study the game or his fellow running backs acknowledge the Lions scheme generally wasn't suited to his best strengths.

The individual achievements give the nod to Barry, the stats when comparing the two failrly give the nod to Barry, the situation gives the nod to Barry. The ONLY way one can legitimately suggest Emmitt is a better running back than Barry is if you place the utmost importance on being a "Complete" back rather than a pure runner. And even that would be a difficult argument to make that Emmitt based on that is still a better "running back" than Barry was.

The fact he left early does not change how good he was of a running back. Unlike a Bo Jackson there is plenty of tape and evidence of Barry's skill and ability. This is not a talk of untapped potential but of unquestionable ability.

There's issues with other parts of the list, but I can't get past that one.

[Dan T.]

Respect for history lends wisdom to the present. Ignorance of history does the exact opposite.

In this presumption you're straight up wrong, because you have failed to grasp what an actual comparison from era to era would be.

{More of a really cogent argument snipped out}

~Bang

Very well said, Bang. Comparing athletes across eras really is a fool's errand, and you've stated why as well as anything I've seen.

Suffice it to say that Jim Brown dominated football as a running back in his era as no other player has before or since. Just as Babe Ruth did in baseball, Wilt did in basketball, and Gretsky did in hockey. The only fair way to judge them is in the context of the time in which they played.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

You just basically proved my point. My point is if you want to consider careers for Hall of Fame then you must consider the careers against there peers.

Faulk was HOF worthy for 4 years out of a 13 year career. Nothing more or less and that is the problem. He was basically non existant for the last 6 years of his career and his first team traded him away. The question to me is do you think that playing some of the best football 4 our of 12 years is enough to let a guy get in the Hall of Fame? I don't. Sorry. To me you have to produce ever year your in the game. It's the same reason I wouldn't vote for Kurt Warner for the HOF either. To me I can't forget his years in NY where he looked like a washed up piece of crap. How can you vote in a guy who was good/great for a small portion of his career? You can't go off of stats, you need to look at the entire career

So by your criteria John Riggins and Art Monk aren't HOFers.

[Beans]

Respect for history lends wisdom to the present. Ignorance of history does the exact opposite.

In this presumption you're straight up wrong, because you have failed to grasp what an actual comparison from era to era would be. In your comparison, Jim Brown in today's NFL would be geared toward playing against 180 lb 5.6 speed linebackers instead of 260 4.4 speed linebackers. In other words, the rest of the league would be better, but he would still be in the same shape and playing ability of 50 years ago.

Why are today's players bigger and faster? Is it because genetically humans are more powerful, or is it because we've advanced knowledge of training to the point where these players can be this big and fast?

Edit: If you were GM of a team that could select players from any time in history, would you take Brown as your back? Or would you take a guy like Barry Sanders?

Edit: If you were GM of a team that could select guys from any time in history while in their prime, would you select Brown? Or, a guy like Barry Sanders

Edit: Ask yourself this question. If you were GM of a team that could pick his players from any time in history while still in their prime, would Brown be your first pick for RB? Or would it be a guy like Barry Sanders?

In today's NFL a young Jim Brown has the same access to modern training, nutrition and sports science. The same access to offseason development, modern blocking schemes, everything that has sped up today's game would also apply to him.

And since he dominated everyone in the days when they had none of that, it only stands to reason that given the same advantages, he'd be that much better. In fact, I'd say that given all of the advantages of modern athletes, he'd be just as dominant as then, if not more.

~Bang

That's cute and all, but logic and reality are the damnedest of things. I haven't failed to grasp anything. Your version is overly simplistic and all too common.

There isn't some universal sliding scale for every position, that as the game, technology, and training techniques improve, the improvement for all athletes at every position is equal. Also have to think of the diminishing returns. Brown was in great shape. He was more than likely at his peak or very close.

Have to remember, he was probably the first football mega superstar. He could play football for a living. The defenders he played against worked on beer trucks and milk routes in the off season.

This is all conjecture on my part, but that's how I feel about the legendary Jim Brown...in today's NFL, he is more than likely just a guy. He ran too upright. His bruising style of running would not work.

[Dan T.]

That's cute and all, but logic and reality are the damnedest of things. I haven't failed to grasp anything. Your version is overly simplistic and all too common.

And I repeat - it's a fool's errand to project how someone from the past would perform today as a way of measuring greatness. And it's an unfair, bogus exercise.

[Bang]

That's cute and all, but logic and reality are the damnedest of things. I haven't failed to grasp anything. Your version is overly simplistic and all too common.

There isn't some universal sliding scale for every position, that as the game, technology, and training techniques improve, the improvement for all athletes at every position is equal. Also have to think of the diminishing returns. Brown was in great shape. He was more than likely at his peak or very close.

Have to remember, he was probably the first football mega superstar. He could play football for a living. The defenders he played against worked on beer trucks and milk routes in the off season.

This is all conjecture on my part, but that's how I feel about the legendary Jim Brown...in today's NFL, he is more than likely just a guy. He ran too upright. His bruising style of running would not work.

I'm sorry, but anyone who argues that Jim Brown can't keep up with today's totally specialized football player without giving any of the same consideration to him is indeed oversimplifying things.

Carry on.

Bottom line, practically everyone who has ever known anything about football places him at #1,2 or at worst 3rd greatest football player of all time.

But I guess I'll take your word for it that they're all wrong.

Again, i repeat:

~Bang

[darklight1216]

Jamal Lewis has faded.

But Jim Brown is still going strong.

Preist Holmes is better know for his days in KC than Baltimore.

Really? I never would have guessed that.

[pjfootballer]

But Jim Brown is still going strong.

Really? I never would have guessed that.

Thanks Ms. Sarcasm. It was hard enough thinking about who you were talking about as the second Baltimore RB.

[Rexx1240]

Chris Johnson 24th? You've GOT to be ****ing kidding me.

He lost all credibility aftr i saw that...:doh:

[heytred]

I've been arguing with a Specialist for the last few days about whether or not Barry Sanders is the greatest of all time. Great running back, exciting, flashy, and carried his team, but not the GOAT. Ironically enough the guy I've been arguing with is named SPC Frank Gifford. Imagine that. =]]

[Bang]

I've been arguing with a Specialist for the last few days about whether or not Barry Sanders is the greatest of all time. Great running back, exciting, flashy, and carried his team, but not the GOAT. Ironically enough the guy I've been arguing with is named SPC Frank Gifford. Imagine that. =]]

Tell him this.

Barry didn't carry his team.

For more than half his career Barry was in a Run and Shoot college offense with 4 and 5 wide receivers running willy nilly all over the field.

Barry was GREAT, but..the fact is he faced a lot of defenses that were trying to stop the constant passing by going out there in dime packages and even seven DBs at times. I saw lots of teams run 3-1-7 sets against them trying to stop that pass.

Half the game there would only be one linebacker on the field. Barry in space against one LB... or the third string DBs that had to be on the field = total mismatch. He's definitely one of the most shifty runners of all time, and he could make guys like that look like monkeys.

They threw the ball all over the place, Herman Moore put up numbers that keep him in the discussion for the Hall of Fame. Brett Perriman put up ridiculous numbers. Even Scott Mitchell, (a bum's bum) put up numbers.

Barry had two pro bowl OL in Lomas Brown and Kevin Glover. Next time you watch one of Barry's highlights, watch his OL. They have no idea where he is.

That is why Barry also lost more yards than any other back in history. It was all or less than nothing with his dancing. He would not just hit the hole. If it was tight, he would not stick his nose in and push for three yards. He would dance outside and take a five yard loss.

When Bobby Ross came to Detroit, Barry hated him because Ross MADE him follow his fullback, follow his blocks. He ran for 2000 yards.

Barry Sanders was one of the greatest, to be sure. But the prevailing notion that he was all by himself out there on an island is ridiculous, as well as this forgotten fact that his gimmick offense meant he faced a lot of gimmick defenses.

The proof? His playoff numbers. When teams like SF, NYG, Wash. focused on him instead of the pass, he went nowhere, and neither did the Lions.

In fact, he only rushed for 100 yards against the Redskins once, and it took a 50 yard run in the 4th quarter to get it.

In my mind this isn't his fault, it's the fact that Wayne Fontes took a look at possibly the best pure runner in the history of the game, and decided to pass the ball 75% of the time.

No doubt Wayne Fontes is one of the biggest idiots in NFL history.

I put Barry as #5 in my little top five in this thread,,, but if the question was "It's a big game with everything on the line, who do you take as your starting RB?" .. there's probably 20 guys I'd take ahead of him.

~Bang

[Dan T.]

I've been arguing with a Specialist for the last few days about whether or not Barry Sanders is the greatest of all time. Great running back, exciting, flashy, and carried his team, but not the GOAT. Ironically enough the guy I've been arguing with is named SPC Frank Gifford. Imagine that. =]]

He's got to be in the discussion. Imagine if he had been on a really good team like Emmitt was. Or if he stayed in the game longer...

[scruffylookin]

Questionable list.

Bo Jackson has always been overrated. It's easy to come in and play half the year all the time. Get back to me when you carry the load for an entire season and then do it again, and again and again.

I will not be making the case that Clinton should be on this list (though he sure as hell beats the crap out of many on it, Chris Johnson? please) at this time but I do know that roughly up to this point in his career (108 games played) only 8 runners in the history of the sport have been more productive than Clinton has been.

Here is the list:

1. Eric Dickerson 11226 105 games

2. Jim Brown 10768 104 games

3. LaDainian Tomlinson 10650 111 games

4. Edgerrin James 10385 112 games

5. Walter Payton 10204 114 games

6. OJ Simpson 10183 112 games

7. Barry Sanders 10172 105 games

8. Emmitt Smith 10160 108 games

9. CLINTON PORTIS 9696 108 games

10. Tony Dorsett 9525 117 games

If he can get a "second wind" to his career, no question Clinton belongs in the top 15 runners who have ever played.