Notice: This is an old thread. The last post was 343 days ago. If your post is not directly related to this discussion please consider making a new thread.
December 31st, 2012 02:40 PM
This was Joe Ferguson's numbers for that year: Cmp:73 Att:164 %:44.5 yds: 939 TDs:4 Int:10
Everyone on the field knew that 32 would get the ball almost every play yet he still managed 14 games, 332 carries, 2003 rushing yards, 6 yards/carry, 143.1 yards/game. That being said I would put Jim Brown above him. I believe that Brown was probably best football player to ever play the game. He could probably have played almost any position on the team and excelled.
December 31st, 2012 03:08 PM
This list is probably about as accurate as one can get. I think we TRY not to put AD too far up the list because he's still playing. I'm not sure that has much to do with anything. MOST of the guys listed only played (if they even did) a couple of years more of EFFECTIVE football. If AD were to rip off an 1800-2000 yard season next year, I'd say he could start making an argument for top 2-3. If he has a 10+ year career, I believe he will go down as AT LEAST #2.
Like someone mentioned, just use the eye test when comparing him to guys with better stats...which BTW, he's one decent season away from catching a few of them in total yards.
December 31st, 2012 03:24 PM
Many of you don't have Jim Brown on your lists. Many have him at the top.
Easy to see who actually saw him play.
December 31st, 2012 05:30 PM
Vision isn't your thing is it?
December 31st, 2012 07:30 PM
Jim Brown is the greatest RB to ever play the game. And arguably the greatest player in NFL history.
AD is moving up the list with a bullet, certainly in the top ten, a little early for top five probably. He is on the path to get there in a year or two. If he plays five more productive years, could be in discussion for all-time...behind Jim Brown.
December 31st, 2012 09:01 PM
I have always thought Sanders was the best because he always played on shitty teams. He was the only offensive weapon. So the other team could tee off on him. But this year AD was the only weapon on the team. Every team put 8 men in the box. He tore it up. If he never plays another down he is top 5-6. If he were to have another 2000 yard year he will be number 1, no question.
January 1st, 2013 01:03 AM
Myth. Especially on his side of the ball.
January 1st, 2013 02:07 AM
So if AD set every record and made every pro bowl, AD "could be" behind Jim Brown? People who refuse to allow someone to pass a legend because the legend destroyed white guys long ago...wake up. I know that isn't what you said, but I am getting tired of the argument that you can't pass an old school guy because he was the greatest "back then". If AD was in the 60s...holy shit.
January 1st, 2013 02:46 AM
Peterson is pretty dang good but he's no Eric Dickerson.
January 1st, 2013 02:54 AM
January 1st, 2013 07:38 AM
I agree. No question AD has an opportunity to be the best ever but he still needs a few more years of success similar to his first six seasons. Today I would rank the all time RB's as follows:
Originally Posted by SoonerLibertarian
It is probable that AD will finish as a consensus top 3 running back with many seeing him as number 1 but that is going to take 5 more 1,000 yard plus seasons.
January 1st, 2013 05:13 PM
Sanders should not be #1 on any list. He could not be trusted in short yardage and was never the goal line back. He would never take a 2 yard hole. And yes that lead to lots of great runs. But it also put his team in second and third and long a ton (death in the NFL)
January 1st, 2013 05:20 PM
Why can't he be better than Jim brown?
January 1st, 2013 06:33 PM
If he pulls out another 2,000 yard year who would be above that? First player to ever do that. Of course he hasn't done it yet.
January 1st, 2013 06:43 PM
Brown looks great against 225 lb lineman and 190 lb linebackers. Wonder how he'd do in today's game?
January 1st, 2013 09:25 PM
Rank the best NFL RB's of all time
January 1st, 2013 10:10 PM
AD with a bullet
January 2nd, 2013 04:55 AM
Naive on your part to attempt to compare eras with different circumstances. All we can do is hypothesize. Given today's training techniques, diet, nutrition who knows what Jim Brown could do for certain he had the size, speed and tenacity of AD. All you can compare is how they did against the best in the game when they played the game. Thus we all only have uninformed opinions that reflect personal bias. No question AD has the opportunity to contend for the best RB that ever played the game but he is not there yet. He still needs a few more years, a good offensive line and good health.
AD needs to rush for 2,000 yards in 2013 and 2014 to move to number 8 on the all time rushing list behind Dickerson and rush for 2000 yards per year for almost five season (9,506 yards) to catch Emmitt Smith's all time record. Presently AD is not in the top 32 in all time career rushing numbers.
Lets allow AD to have those five seasons to confirm he ranks where many of us think he could rank.
January 2nd, 2013 12:07 PM
Just figured, I am a Bengals Fan and you named to RB from the Bengals...one of which was a bust and the other was ****ing annoying with his dumb ass dance
January 2nd, 2013 12:57 PM
1. Barry Sanders
2. Jim Brown
3. Marcus Allen
4. Eric Dickerson
5. Walter Payton
6. Adrian Peterson
7. Curtis Martin
8. Ladanian Tomlinson
9. Thurman Thomas
10. Roger Craig
January 2nd, 2013 01:01 PM
Sanders was the best runner, but not the best running back. He was also a quitter and should be punished for that in relation to other RBs that gutted it out over the years through good times and bad times. Everyone's criteria is different of course.
January 2nd, 2013 02:21 PM
Most people's eyes tell them AD is a top 5 back RIGHT NOW. There are guys on that list that rushed for a ton of yards that couldn't carry AD's jock.
January 2nd, 2013 02:28 PM
Hoping and assuming that this stupid list was a joke, right?
January 2nd, 2013 03:40 PM
These are some of the guys that Brown competed with;
CHUCK BEDNARIK MLB 6-3, 233
DAVID (DEACON) JONES DE 6-5, 272
BOB LILLY DT 6-5, 260
SAM HUFF LB 6-1, 230
RAY NITSCHKE MLB 6-3, 235
Eugene Lipscomb DT 6-6 284
Merlin Olsen DT 6-5 270
Rosey Grier DT 6-5 284
DOUG ATKINS 6-8 257
Herb Adderley CB 6-0 205
LARRY WILSON FS 6-0 190
Many of the players in the NFL of the 1960s were large and formidable athletes. They could perform well in todays NFL if not better than they did in the past. Just think if Dr. James Andrew could have fixed Gale Sayers and or Dick Butkus knees what kind of careers that they could have had. Or if they have simply been able to work out all year long, as most players of that era had to get summer jobs to get by financially.
January 2nd, 2013 04:44 PM
Interesting...wonder what the average playing weights were? I remember in the early 70's the college recruits were a lot smaller than today and there wasn't a 300 pounder to be found.
January 2nd, 2013 05:04 PM
Only reason Jim Brown looked so good is that it was usually one black guy going against 11 white guys.
January 2nd, 2013 05:20 PM
Yeah and Brown didn't have to deal with SEC Speed.
January 2nd, 2013 05:37 PM
Emmit Smith sucked and shouldnt be on anyone's list. There are probably literally 200 running backs I would pick before Smith if I were building a team for 1 season and could pick players from any era in their prime.
January 2nd, 2013 06:03 PM
Hell you are just pissed because Emmit didn't send you an 8 1/2 x 11 photo of himself for christmas like he several of his team mates years ago.
January 2nd, 2013 07:02 PM
This thread just brings out the stupid in people.
January 3rd, 2013 07:59 AM
A lot of the same criticism of Smith could also be made of Payton in a lot of reguards. Small, not particularly fast or athletic, although Payton was fast early on in his career. Payton was more of a one man show. He would even pass the ball once a while. Both were solid receivers out of the back field. Payton is the better back don't get me wrong. But everytime one of these threads come up someone talks about how overrated Smith was.
Fact is if anything he's underrated at this point. Really the only reason Emmitt is said by anyone to suck is because he was on some talented Cowboy teams and people want to say that he was overrated on those teams. But his first 2 seasons in Dallas were on teams that were average. And they won a playoff game with Steve Beuerlein as the QB. The biggest reason why was because of #22. I'm not sure if the Cowboys win a championship if you take out Emmitt and replace him with another back in that era. He fit that style perfectly. Just like Sanders fit the 4 WR look that Detroit had perfectly. Although Sanders fits any offense pretty well.
January 3rd, 2013 09:48 AM
When looking at top 5 running backs most on this thread have not seen or seen much of what is considered the top 5 running backs. Hell most here were only a vision in their mothers eye when Jim Brown was documenting his legitimate claim as the best of all time. Sorry but 6 seasons in the league does not make you a member of the top all time list. 9-10 season of doing the same and the claim has some validity. No question AD has a real opportunity to become a top 3 back of all time.
Differentiating between the top 3 or top 5 backs is just a matter of opinion for which there is no consensus as all our opinions when coupled with a two dollar bill would have problems buying a good cup of coffee. In other words of little value once we consider the source.
January 3rd, 2013 09:59 AM
I would go
January 3rd, 2013 10:29 AM
I realize it's all subjective. There have been quite a few people/pundits who HAVE seen all of those guys play that infer AD is on par with ALL of the top 5ish backs.
One point to be made...MOST of the top backs (not statistical, but widely considered to be "best") aren't overly productive after 8-9 years - at least, not at the level that make them one of the best (ie. 1500ish yards per season). Obviously, AD has to stay healthy and productive for a couple of more years to get himself to their level statistically, but RIGHT NOW, he's comparable. That's really all you can say at this point - he's comparable statistically and has a CHANCE to be the greatest ever. He doesn't have to match them statistically IMO, but he has to continue his excellence for another 2-3 years.
January 3rd, 2013 10:43 AM
If AD had played his final game I would rank it...
I would rank it
Simpson would probably be higher if he weren't a murderer and a thief and overall sleazeball of the worst kind. But his talent and accomplishments on the field can't be ignored no matter how much they should be.