Jim Brown


Forum devoted to track & field items of an historical nature.

Re: Jim Brown

Postby bijanc » Fri Dec 14, 2012 4:47 pm

Their respective builds always threw me off, Shell was bulit more compactly, like a G, and Upshaw tall like a traditional T. Make my all-time tackles Shell and Munoz.
bijanc
 
Posts: 1416
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Jim Brown

Postby nunusguy » Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:35 pm

I'd take 'Bama or LSU, one of the top SEC teams today, and knock the snot out of Jim Brown and his Cleveland Browns or Butkus and his Bears of that era, NP.
nunusguy
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:29 am
Location: Houston

Re: Jim Brown

Postby Marlow » Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:00 pm

nunusguy wrote:I'd take 'Bama or LSU, one of the top SEC teams today, and knock the snot out of Jim Brown and his Cleveland Browns or Butkus and his Bears of that era, NP.

It is entirely possible that 2012 Bama could beat any 50s or early 60s teams, but by 1966, the Super Bowl era, not so much, at least not playoff teams. And even Monti Te'o would have more than his hands full with a mature Jim Brown.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6cCXNBeVfc
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Jim Brown

Postby nunusguy » Sat Dec 15, 2012 7:04 am

Marlow wrote:
nunusguy wrote:I'd take 'Bama or LSU, one of the top SEC teams today, and knock the snot out of Jim Brown and his Cleveland Browns or Butkus and his Bears of that era, NP.

It is entirely possible that 2012 Bama could beat any 50s or early 60s teams, but by 1966, the Super Bowl era, not so much, at least not playoff teams. And even Monti Te'o would have more than his hands full with a mature Jim Brown.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6cCXNBeVfc

Since Jim Brown's NFL career spanned 1957-65, thanks for helping me make my point Marlow.
nunusguy
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:29 am
Location: Houston

Re: Jim Brown

Postby Marlow » Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:33 am

nunusguy wrote:Since Jim Brown's NFL career spanned 1957-65, thanks for helping me make my point Marlow.

If your point is that the pre-66 NFL was inferior to today's and that Bama could be competitive in it, then I've always felt that way. But . . . the Jim Brown of 1963 (1863 yds in 14 games), given today's training, etc., would still be the pre-eminent running back in football today. His blocking would be better, the offensive game plan would be better, the pass game of today would take pressure off him to run the ball (which opponents knew was coming); plus he'd be 'smarter' and in better shape, stronger, etc.. I can only imagine him in the Patriots backfield . . .
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Jim Brown

Postby bijanc » Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:18 am

College kids of today wouldn't defeat '65 Browns or '69 Chiefs, for same reason '68 Raiders were routed by Pack in SB II. Pros are more physically mature than boys, and more experienced players. In first SB's, oldheads such as Carroll Dale, slow Max McGee, and gangling Boyd Dowler were wide open on routes vs. AFL DB's. Lamonica was much younger than Starr, Biletnikoff than Adderley, Upshaw than Henry Jordan, et al. UND and 'bama players wouldn't fare well against men, who physically mature late (some say peak physical performance is circa age 26-27).
bijanc
 
Posts: 1416
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Jim Brown

Postby user4 » Sat Dec 15, 2012 11:06 am

bijanc wrote:College kids of today wouldn't defeat '65 Browns or '69 Chiefs, for same reason '68 Raiders were routed by Pack in SB II. Pros are more physically mature than boys, and more experienced players. In first SB's, oldheads such as Carroll Dale, slow Max McGee, and gangling Boyd Dowler were wide open on routes vs. AFL DB's. Lamonica was much younger than Starr, Biletnikoff than Adderley, Upshaw than Henry Jordan, et al. UND and 'bama players wouldn't fare well against men, who physically mature late (some say peak physical performance is circa age 26-27).


First lets put the history in perspective, what are the key differences,

1) The college game of 2012 is not the college game of 1960. There are so many advantages in terms of training and facilities and coaching in 2012 that were not there in 1960. In fact one could argue that in 1960 athletes were given more mis-information about what to do than good information. The money advantages that the college game has today over 1960 makes any comparisons so unfair as to make the one comparing seem to have another agenda altogether.

2) This all goes just as well for the pro-game, the innumerable advantages in training, coaching supplements, health etc. etc. between the NFL1960 and the NFL2012 are too long to list.

If I had to guess I would say that UND or Bama could beat many NFL teams from the 1960s but it would be due mostly to the superior advantages of that 2012 enjoys over 1960 and not the quality of the athletes.

To find an analogy, who is a better heart surgeon, the 12th best surgeon in Boston in the 2012 phone book or the worlds best heart surgeon of 1960. Which one do you want to perform your triple bypass?.. did you make that decision because the 1960s surgeon was just dumber?
user4
 
Posts: 1440
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: Jim Brown

Postby bijanc » Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:47 pm

This 'bama team isn't dominant. A frosh QB beat them- Bart Starr, Jurgy, Dawson or Unitas would pick them apart. Boys can't hang w/ men, 2012 training methods or not. They don't have Mark Ingram or even a Trent Richardson, no wideout like Julio Jones, et al. Dominant teams were bowl-ineligible undefeated Switzer Oklahoma team in mid-'70's, Oklahoma's winning streak team under Wilkinson, some Miami teams under Jimmy Johnson. Packers won six world titles between '61 and '68 playing people their age, and first two games vs. AFL's best, fastest, and largest, were romps.

Look-I respect superior training, playing conditions, nutrition and strategical evolution as much as anyone, but post-HIV diagnosis Magic Johnson dominated UCLA'ers and younger ex-collegians and pros w/ overseas experience in pickup games on UCLA's campus for several years after 1991 retirement, Nolan Ryan consistently struck out and got out college batters on his son's teams, and in Sonics' practices in early '70's, Coach Bill Russell's big men couldn't score on him during scrimmages (Russ was born in '34). Imagine how much better they were at age 26. Superior talent such as Hall of Fame stacked Packer squad, Browns w/ Brown, Warfield, Schafrath, Hickerson, McNeil, Glass, Parrish, Collins, Dr. Ryan, Costello, and Colts w/ Shinnick, Moore, Spinney, Berry, Lyles, Mackey, Unitas, would be a team of 21st century 20-year old from Oregon, Alabama, Boise State or USC. Superior genetics trumps evolved training methods- Jesse Owens' LJ mark stood 25 years.
bijanc
 
Posts: 1416
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Jim Brown

Postby Marlow » Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:20 pm

bijanc wrote:This 'bama team isn't dominant. A frosh QB beat them

Nice!
(Of course that freshman was just named the BEST player in all of college football and broke Cam Newton's SEC Total Offense record. Other than that, just a college freshman . . . )
:D
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Jim Brown

Postby user4 » Thu Dec 20, 2012 6:39 pm

bijanc wrote:.........
Look-I respect superior training, playing conditions, nutrition and strategical evolution as much as anyone, but post-HIV diagnosis Magic Johnson dominated UCLA'ers and younger ex-collegians and pros w/ overseas experience in pickup games on UCLA's campus for several years after 1991 retirement, ......


High level thinking, I suspect you are referring to the advanced game theory of strategery, That is very serious stuff and as for the HIV, that aint no pick up game.
user4
 
Posts: 1440
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: Jim Brown

Postby gh » Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:01 pm

Put me down as one who believes that a Bama of today may well beat a Jim Brown team or any other of the late '50s and early '60s, but by the time you get to the the '70s Chiefs and their handling of Minnesota, I think the slow-white-guys gap has been covered (where the AFL really beat up on the NFL), and the collegians wouldn't have a chance. As Bijan says, still talking boys vs. men.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Jim Brown

Postby Dutra5 » Fri Dec 21, 2012 11:48 am

user4 wrote:
Marlow wrote:
nunusguy wrote:There is a contemporary version of Jim Brown and his name is Steven Jackson, Now Jackson surely has had an outstanding career in St Louis, however he's never rated among the NFLs all-time greats.

??!!
To rephrase Lloyd Bentsen - I knew Jim Brown. Steven Jackson is no Jim Brown.


Marlow is right. Jim Brown was a beast and if he were playing in the NFL today he would be 20lbs heavier .


...and maybe playing a different position.
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: Jim Brown

Postby user4 » Sat Dec 22, 2012 10:26 am

Dutra5 wrote:
user4 wrote:
Marlow wrote:
nunusguy wrote:There is a contemporary version of Jim Brown and his name is Steven Jackson, Now Jackson surely has had an outstanding career in St Louis, however he's never rated among the NFLs all-time greats.

??!!
To rephrase Lloyd Bentsen - I knew Jim Brown. Steven Jackson is no Jim Brown.


Marlow is right. Jim Brown was a beast and if he were playing in the NFL today he would be 20lbs heavier .


...and maybe playing a different position.


Great point that brings us full circle, Jim Brown, despite having to carry his massive ego, could excel today at any number of positions. Brown was simply a superb athlete. He was big and strong and quick and fast, were there faster backs, well of course there were. There were much faster backs. But were there backs that combined all of the features of size, strength, awareness and speed as Brown. There was not. Face it we dont call him Jim Brown for nothing! He was an original, one of a kind. He is to the RB position what Dick Butkus is to the LB position. The model. He was perfect, a one of a kind phenomena. He was a Milt Campbell on the football field only bigger and burlier.

My strategery for today: Jim Brown at QB or HB... which brings us back to how the game has changed and rechanged again. There was a time in the far distant past when the QB position was largely a running and movement position. It evolved, due to the value of all 6 skill players, into a passing position. Recall just 3 decades ago when the elite thinkers in the game swore by the big tall pocket passer with tremendous arm strength. The Drew Bledsoe model came into vogue ... the NFL is still dominated by great QBs of this type (Mannings/Brady..etc) largely because they can get the ball to any of the 6 skill players quickly on any given play and it allows a single QB to make adjustments and command the offense, all net positives.
That era has not ended but the running capacity of the QB is now being revisited and it is an exciting time for football because of it, RG3, the quintessential dual threat QB.
Adding a running dimension to this critical position has its costs and if you lose the security and play calling ability because you are placing your offensive brain trust in harms way of LBers it is not the advantage may seem on paper.

It is possible that we could eventually, 3 decades from now, see offenses with essentially 2 or 3 dual threat QBs on the field at the same time. This allows the maximal advantage of surprise while diminishing the damage your QB is going to take by being the singular focus of a defense. Again with 6 skill players on the field the desire for maximal uncertainty, to confound the defense, would seem to push the game in this direction.
user4
 
Posts: 1440
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests