Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 65

Thread: Jim Brown

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,413
    Quote Originally Posted by subroc View Post
    oh...
    Ahh I see what it sounded like..

    Anyways, just showing how impossible it really is comparing across eras with just numbers.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,577
    Quote Originally Posted by slashsnake View Post
    Agree 100% with the thought. Jim Brown is the best ever. Not sure the best way to translate numbers.. Teams ran for a lot then bit it was lots of committees. There were years Jim Brown would double up the next closest back in yard and triple them up in TDS. Seeing that the average #2 today is a 1300-1600 yard back.. doubling that up woild be even more impressive than your number translation shows. I am guessing you are using production by team to compare him against when production vs peers might be another option that would truly show his impact.

    Say Brown runs for 15 tds vs. the league average that year for a team was running for 15 td's. And today the average was 25. Maybe you count him as 25. BUT if the average starter then ran for 5 and the average one today was 20... then he ran for 3 times what the average starter did which is hugely impressive, which today would be like seeing a guy run for 60 (numbers blown up to make easier to see).

    But I agree on your result. The guy was insane. Let's just say he rumored a comeback like 15 years after he retired and it didn't sound as absurd as it does thinking of it today.


    I've said before. Had Jim Brown never played football, we would be talking about Jim Taylor as arguably the best back ever. Instead he was a peer of Brown's and fell so far behind he is usually nowhere to be found on greatest ever lists.
    I didn’t translate the rushing stats, I simply adjusted them to the 16-game season. One of the reasons is because I don’t believe the committee rules over time affected the ability to run the ball to the extent they have affected the ability to pass.

    Let’s talk Jim Brown,

    One argument I’ve heard is that Brown had one of the greatest O-line’s all-time. One reason why some historians make this claim is the presence of 9-time pro-bowler Lou Groza at Left Tackle. Groza, a better FG-Kicker than he was tackle, although excelling at both, was 33 years old in Brown’s rookie season and only started at tackle in Brown’s first three seasons.

    McCormack, the Right Tackle, a 6-time pro bowler, blocked 6 seasons for Brown, elected to the pro bowl 4 of those 6 seasons ( ’57, ’60 – ’62). From all I can tell McCormack was a solid tackle, but Brown achieved two of best rushing seasons after McCormack retired after ’62—Brown’s worst season.

    Schafrath, Morrow, and Hall of Famer Gene Hickerson anchored the O-line following McCormack’s retirement. Schalfrath was a lock in the pro-bowl, from ’63 – ’68 really, all-pro in Brown’s final two seasons as well. Hickerson made the pro bowl once, Brown’s last season and received most of his accolades after Brown retired.

    Brown benefited to some extent from a cycle of great blockers. The Cleveland Browns led the league in Rush Yards, Yards per carry the two seasons directly following Jim Brown’s retirement. The Cleveland Browns were an excellent running team under Paul Brown, dating back a few years to Marion Motley. I’m positive that Jim Brown/Schafrath, Jim Brown/McCormack were mutual beneficiaries of each other’s performance. It’s much like the other greats that have a claim to the title all-time greatest, the typically carry their teammates into greatest with them.

    With Jerry Rice, it’s the obvious in Joe Montana/Steve Young. Peyton Manning is another story… I don’t think anybody in the history of the NFL has been able to take advantage of favorable rule changes to one position … like I said another story. Between Rice, Manning, Brown… I lean Jim Brown. If I had more time I could get into what an underrated threat Brown was in the receiving game under Collier in particular. His usage rate and durability were almost other-worldly.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,413
    Agree there for the most part.. Brown did have a great line and great coaching staff, etc. They were a dominant run team after he retired too.

    As for the numbers though, like I said, it is tough to convey impact over just numbers and you can see the debate there. Sure 16 games is 16 games. But they played differently. It's like the 3 pointer in the NBA. Sure, been around 30+ years. Still just as difficult of a shot. But imagine a guy hitting 200 of them 30 years ago when the leaders were making about 80 a year. Now? that's barely top 5 stuff. Back then though, that's insane.

    Look at the guys who were MVP's at that position before Brown. 540 yards and 3 rushing TD's. 1000 yards and 8 rushing TD's... That was MVP caliber performance.

    Then Brown comes along and poof... in his first 4 years he has 3 of the best rushing seasons of all time. I know the league was new, but it was still 40 years old. 4 years in he's the 3rd all time leading rusher already passing recent hall of famers. 9 years after he came into the league he retired with 7 of the 10 best rushing performances ever.

    Imagine a back today having that impact... 7 of the 10 best seasons by a back in the past 40 years all by the same guy. Heck, if he has 7 of the 10 best seasons of the past decade by the same guy, he's a lock to be talked about as the best of all time.

    We can sit here today and say there was no difference, yards are yards, but there was. And how do you weigh that impact in numbers. I don't know where you add weight, and how much you add, but what you do in relation to your peers is important. Like I said..

    Justin Houston's sack total last year was huge. If every team still averages 38 sacks but instead of Watt being 2nd with 20.5, he is 2nd with 10, and teams are rotating their D line more, his number would translate 50 years ahead the same. Houston still has 22 sacks in 16 games with a league average of 38 sacks per team per season. Nothing changes. He has the same per game, he still has 22 of the leagues 1200 sacks. It is still just as hard for a player to get a sack.

    But wouldn't his actual impact would be much bigger now? The ability to get to the QB is the same, just by committee now. But he's doing the work of two of the best players of his era... instead of slightly better than 1 of the best of his era.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,577
    Quote Originally Posted by slashsnake View Post
    Agree there for the most part.. Brown did have a great line and great coaching staff, etc. They were a dominant run team after he retired too.

    As for the numbers though, like I said, it is tough to convey impact over just numbers and you can see the debate there. Sure 16 games is 16 games. But they played differently. It's like the 3 pointer in the NBA. Sure, been around 30+ years. Still just as difficult of a shot. But imagine a guy hitting 200 of them 30 years ago when the leaders were making about 80 a year. Now? that's barely top 5 stuff. Back then though, that's insane.

    Look at the guys who were MVP's at that position before Brown. 540 yards and 3 rushing TD's. 1000 yards and 8 rushing TD's... That was MVP caliber performance.

    Then Brown comes along and poof... in his first 4 years he has 3 of the best rushing seasons of all time. I know the league was new, but it was still 40 years old. 4 years in he's the 3rd all time leading rusher already passing recent hall of famers. 9 years after he came into the league he retired with 7 of the 10 best rushing performances ever.

    Imagine a back today having that impact... 7 of the 10 best seasons by a back in the past 40 years all by the same guy. Heck, if he has 7 of the 10 best seasons of the past decade by the same guy, he's a lock to be talked about as the best of all time.

    We can sit here today and say there was no difference, yards are yards, but there was. And how do you weigh that impact in numbers. I don't know where you add weight, and how much you add, but what you do in relation to your peers is important. Like I said..

    Justin Houston's sack total last year was huge. If every team still averages 38 sacks but instead of Watt being 2nd with 20.5, he is 2nd with 10, and teams are rotating their D line more, his number would translate 50 years ahead the same. Houston still has 22 sacks in 16 games with a league average of 38 sacks per team per season. Nothing changes. He has the same per game, he still has 22 of the leagues 1200 sacks. It is still just as hard for a player to get a sack.

    But wouldn't his actual impact would be much bigger now? The ability to get to the QB is the same, just by committee now. But he's doing the work of two of the best players of his era... instead of slightly better than 1 of the best of his era.
    (Sidenote: I had to edit some of the numbers in the OP)

    Well, if I'm being completely honest and fair to today's players, if Brown were in playing today, in such a pass heavy-era, I expect his opportunities in the run game to decrease. In the late 50s, early-mid 60s, teams were more dependent on the run.

    Typically, teams ran the ball 31-32 times per game, compared to today, the league average is 27 times per game. Backs today, in all likelihood are seeing a 15 - 20% decline in productivity compared to Brown/Taylor, and about 20 - 25% compared to Simpson's era (pre - 1978).

    A fair translation into today of Jim Brown's 1959 season would look more like:

    Rush Att = 245
    Rush Yards = 1126
    Rush TDs = 12

    per 16-game season:

    Rush Att = 326
    Rush Yards = 1501
    Rush TDs = 16

    Still a top-3 season, Browns' 1959 season would translate him into the best running back in the league in 2013. Where I did translate, was Brown's yards from scrimmage in the receiving game. I think Brown's involvement in the Cleveland passing game gets overlooked. After adjusting Brown's numbers into 2010 - 2014 levels, his career numbers are modified to 504 receptions, 4790 yards, 40 TDs... in 9 seasons. So that's 162 total TD's (if adjusted 2010 - 2014 rushing levels). But because I don't believe rushing efficiency per game has been nearly as volatile as passing efficiency, I'm only adjusting the receiving stats in Brown's case because it's more appropriate and it also helps to amplify how much of an impact Brown actually had offensively.

    Brown's 16-game, and receiving adjustment numbers total:

    Overall TDs = 172
    Career Yards from Scrimmage = 20,131

    Brown's best year, arguably, 1963, he nets 2605 ydscrm .. the only Back I've adjusted that's totaled more than Brown in '63, is Faulk in '99. Keep in mind, that I total playoff numbers in my calculation. Faulk played in 3 postseason games in 1999. If you subtract out Faulks translated '99 playoff numbers his ydscrm decreases to 2385. In Brown's career, only two teams each year qualified for the playoffs. Brown's '63 team was 10 - 4. Now, at least 12 teams make the playoffs, or 37%. If this percent of eligibility was allocated to 1963, at least the top 4 teams that year should've made the playoffs. My point is in a fair comparison with Faulk's '99 season, theoretically Brown should've played at least one more game. Brown needed 81 ydscrm to break Faulks playoff/reg season ydscrm totals... Browns translated avg. from the 1963 season equaled twice that.

    Jim Brown's 1963 season is likely (by my work) the greatest all-around season for a Back in NFL History. Likely followed by Faulk '99, and Chris Johnson 10 years later. Brown averaged an insane 2236 translated ydscrm per year for his career.

    Jerry Rice and Peyton Manning both (especially since I count postseason production) had careers twice as long as Jim Brown. Yet, Brown's win contribution is right in there range. I think Jim Brown is easily the best player to have played this game.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,413
    I like your points here.. but for fun

    Sure teams pass more now. But before Jim Brown the stud backs ran less even though teams ran more as a whole. 15 carries a game could lead the league in carries before Jim Brown changed how you used a feature back.

    Today the top backs get 20+ a game. So how do you calculate his talents being so above and beyond that the way the game was played changed just for him when talking about the best player to play it? If the leading carry guy today gets 24 a game, do you add another 30+% on that like what happened or do you say he changed the game then but we won't give that any weight today when projecting production? Jim Browns 2nd and 3rd years he was the only back carrying the ball over 15 times a game in either year in the league. We've had 20+ times backs not as good as Brown have done that in the past two years. A massive jump even with the league's size difference.

    So do you go off team running games being 10% less today vs then? Or do you go off the best player ever getting the ball 30% more in today's game like he did then?

    Just showing how you could say yes or no there. Either could be right. Both lines of thought have merit. But you are talking a production swing of 40% or more on his projected numbers based on what someone feels the answer is.

    It makes a seemingly objective number found to be mostly built on subjective reasoning. That is the fallacy I see with projecting numbers across era's. That's just one part of the equation there and half his "today" numbers could go away just depending on how you see it.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,577
    Quote Originally Posted by slashsnake View Post
    I like your points here.. but for fun

    Sure teams pass more now. But before Jim Brown the stud backs ran less even though teams ran more as a whole. 15 carries a game could lead the league in carries before Jim Brown changed how you used a feature back.

    Today the top backs get 20+ a game. So how do you calculate his talents being so above and beyond that the way the game was played changed just for him when talking about the best player to play it? If the leading carry guy today gets 24 a game, do you add another 30+% on that like what happened or do you say he changed the game then but we won't give that any weight today when projecting production? Jim Browns 2nd and 3rd years he was the only back carrying the ball over 15 times a game in either year in the league. We've had 20+ times backs not as good as Brown have done that in the past two years. A massive jump even with the league's size difference.

    So do you go off team running games being 10% less today vs then? Or do you go off the best player ever getting the ball 30% more in today's game like he did then?

    Just showing how you could say yes or no there. Either could be right. Both lines of thought have merit. But you are talking a production swing of 40% or more on his projected numbers based on what someone feels the answer is.

    It makes a seemingly objective number found to be mostly built on subjective reasoning. That is the fallacy I see with projecting numbers across era's. That's just one part of the equation there and half his "today" numbers could go away just depending on how you see it.
    That's a fair point, I mean Demarco Murray carried the ball 392 times in the regular season, 436 times all-together last season. Murray carried the ball 25% more than LeSean McCoy, the 2nd most rush attempts last season. That's the same differential btw Brown and the Back with the 2nd most carries, Jim Taylor, in 1961.

    But Murray, workload seems more of an aberration in modern times. You'd have to go back to Larry Johnson in '06 to find a back the equaled or eclipsed Murray's total rush attempts in a season.

    In the four years prior to Murray's 2014 season, the rushing attempt leader avg. about 330 attempts in a season, or 20 and 1/2 per game.

    Brown lead the NFL in carries 6/9 seasons in his career: '58, '59, '61, '63, '64, '65. In each of those seasons he exceeded league avg for rush attempt leaders from 2010 - 2013.

    Jim Brown: League Leading Rush Att/G

    1958 - 22 att/G
    1959 - 24 att/G
    1961 - 22 att/G
    1963 - 21 att/G
    1964 - 22 att/G
    1965 - 22 att/G

    NFL Rush Att Leaders' per game avg. since 2010

    2010 - 21 Att/G
    2011 - 21 Att/G
    2012 - 22 Att/G
    2013 - 20 Att/G
    2014 - 25 Att/G *Murray

    When I adjust the seasons Jim Brown lead the league in rush attempts by 15% to reflect more modern times, it comes out to a little over 19 Att/G or 315 carries over a 16-game season. I agree that might be a little low, so a 5 - 10% deduction equals 20 - 21 carries per game seems more realistic for Back as efficient as Brown converted into today's era. But a 5-10% deduction in production isn't really material, which is why I didn't bother to really adjust Brown's rush stats either way. The pass stats however, needed to be adjusted to reflect the significant changes in the passing game over the years.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,413
    Yup its a tough call on how you want to weigh it.. you can say "most years Jim Brown led the league in rushing attempts" and that is massively impressive.. or "most years Jim Brown had more rushing attempts than anyone else in NFL history" and that is insane. He averaged 262 carries a year. Jim Taylor was the aberration. He was the only back during Jim Browns career to do that in a single season. Of course he had 272 carries in a 14 game season. Brown averaged 279 carries in 14 game seasons. So Taylor only breaks browns average because brown played four 12 game seasons. Average carries for brown was more than the most In a single year by anyone else while he was playing.

    So is that Jim Taylor year the same aberration of overuse of a non-Jim Brown running back that DeMarco had last year? Is that the kind of year we say is about Jims Average... maybe a tiny bit more? Actually if we say the same thing..

    Jim Brown over 9 years averaged more than the 2nd most carries in any year by anyone else... Doesn't that translate to a number of carries between Murray's 390 and Larry Johnsons 415? Or more? Wouldn't about 400 carries a year be more the equivalent of what Jim Brown did to the league then? 430 or so if you consider the games added in his career. Not saying go that far... but I'd put that as your upper limit of possibility when looking at numbers... which would be what? 2100 rushing yards a year average? Hmm..yeah. I'd agree there as the upper side. He did things you didn't think we're possible. Think Marino first 4 years.. strike year Jerry Rice and Reggie White. Hester. Hutson.. that was his career from how I hear his peers and stories from that era describe him. A lot better than elite.


    It's like the 12 and 14 team argument. I hear "well he was a pro bowler but it was only a 12 team league". OK. If the NFL cut to 12 teams... Geno Smith and Blake Bortles aren't starting though. Peyton, Brady, Rodgers, Brees still are. Guys like Big Ben, Luck, Wilson, Rivers and Eli are now your middle of the pack qb's. That's 9. Add in who? Ryan, Flacco, and Cam? Is Rodgers being the best of the top 12 qbs in the world much worse than him being the best of the top 32? Your backup qb's are now guys like Cutler, Stafford, Tannehill, and Dalton. You have the top 600 players in the nfl instead of the top 1600.
    Last edited by slashsnake; 06-27-2015 at 02:31 PM.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,413
    Touches too when you look at him as an all around back. Taylor's amazing year he had 294 touches in a season. Most by anyone not named jim brown ever by the time he retired. Brown AVERAGED 291 touches over his career. 1% under the league best eversion aND 1% fewer than anyone of his time playing. Well we saw 457 and 449 in the past 9 years. Puts him by comparison in the 450 touch range (452 but easy math here).. 9 seasons that is 4150 touches.

    Of course Taylor hit that 294 touches in a 14 game season and half of Browns were 12 game years. He averaged 316 touches in his 14 game years, or about 8% more than the nfls best season. But we can put him on the low end here even though in reality no one's best was close to his average in their best year. Aka we will put him between Larry Johnson and Murrays top seasons even though there's a good argument for him to be above both.

    450 at 5.8 a touch is a tad over 2600 total yards a season. 23500 career yards from scrimmage... if you want to say 8% more than the most of his peers as he really was you are looking at 480 touches and about 25,500 career yards from scrimmage.

    Now this is pointing to the good side of the comparison here. Not making my own projection of those numbers because i think they are too flawed and you could point to it in other ways and get completely different numbers. But just showing how choosing how you do that is a 100% subjective reason to choose your method to break him down to push his numbers into today. Which brings you back to no more than just saying I think he's the best ever because you are defending a subjective reason for using this method over that one.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,577
    Quote Originally Posted by slashsnake View Post
    Yup its a tough call on how you want to weigh it.. you can say "most years Jim Brown led the league in rushing attempts" and that is massively impressive.. or "most years Jim Brown had more rushing attempts than anyone else in NFL history" and that is insane. He averaged 262 carries a year. Jim Taylor was the aberration. He was the only back during Jim Browns career to do that in a single season. Of course he had 272 carries in a 14 game season. Brown averaged 279 carries in 14 game seasons. So Taylor only breaks browns average because brown played four 12 game seasons. Average carries for brown was more than the most In a single year by anyone else while he was playing.

    So is that Jim Taylor year the same aberration of overuse of a non-Jim Brown running back that DeMarco had last year? Is that the kind of year we say is about Jims Average... maybe a tiny bit more? Actually if we say the same thing..

    Jim Brown over 9 years averaged more than the 2nd most carries in any year by anyone else... Doesn't that translate to a number of carries between Murray's 390 and Larry Johnsons 415? Or more? Wouldn't about 400 carries a year be more the equivalent of what Jim Brown did to the league then? 430 or so if you consider the games added in his career. Not saying go that far... but I'd put that as your upper limit of possibility when looking at numbers... which would be what? 2100 rushing yards a year average? Hmm..yeah. I'd agree there as the upper side. He did things you didn't think we're possible. Think Marino first 4 years.. strike year Jerry Rice and Reggie White. Hester. Hutson.. that was his career from how I hear his peers and stories from that era describe him. A lot better than elite.


    It's like the 12 and 14 team argument. I hear "well he was a pro bowler but it was only a 12 team league". OK. If the NFL cut to 12 teams... Geno Smith and Blake Bortles aren't starting though. Peyton, Brady, Rodgers, Brees still are. Guys like Big Ben, Luck, Wilson, Rivers and Eli are now your middle of the pack qb's. That's 9. Add in who? Ryan, Flacco, and Cam? Is Rodgers being the best of the top 12 qbs in the world much worse than him being the best of the top 32? Your backup qb's are now guys like Cutler, Stafford, Tannehill, and Dalton. You have the top 600 players in the nfl instead of the top 1600.
    Yeah, you could go with either approach. I tend to lean the more conservative estimate, which is to adjust Jim Browns stats by the modern league averages... but only in the passing game. I don't see as much significant variation in run production over the years ... the exception being that during the early/mid 70s Backs typically received 6 to 7 more carries.

    Another thing I'd like to point out as far as the 12/14 team league argument, is that although the League has added 18 more teams since the early 60s, the US population was only around 190 million in 1960, compared to 320 million today.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,413
    Quote Originally Posted by Lionel20 View Post
    Yeah, you could go with either approach. I tend to lean the more conservative estimate, which is to adjust Jim Browns stats by the modern league averages... but only in the passing game. I don't see as much significant variation in run production over the years
    You mean out side of those jim brown performances. Like you say.. early 70s back workloads increased by about 50% and it wasn't till oj in 1975 we finally had a back with more carries than Brown. Jim Brown was an outlier his entire career.. he changed that in the nfl.. look today.. I bet if you looked at 20 carry or 20 touch games you have a muddled group today.. Back then you did too... then way up there in unbelievable world was jim brown who had more than the next two best backs.. hall of fame rbs in their primes... Combined. That is an insane run production difference.

    Good point on the population.. but just because Kenya has smaller populations doesn't mean other countries have the edge in running sports. Do we put an asterisk next to Aaron Rodgers name because football at the youth and high school level has been on the decline the past decade and he isn't facing the best new athletes now? What about the media part. Athletics provide more fame now and you hear the elite players choosing other sports because the masses don't recognize what an nfl player looks like since he's under a helmet during games. Peyton Manning has to wear his jersey in commercials... ever wonder why he does that and Lebron doesn't? The NFL is the witness protection of pro sports. Now that sports is a huge income maker how many are looking at that 2.5 year average career and saying let's look at baseball?

    I personally don't worry about that though.. I can't prove that just because the US has more money and hundreds of millions more people that we have more elite 100 meter sprinters than Jamaica. So more population doesn't necessarily mean more talent.

    It's a fine reason that you want to use your numbers your way. I showed the aggressive numbers, you have the conservative... the rest though is all subjectivity. And that is quite a chasm there based on "I feel" which then is opinion.

    Numbers are tricky. When I was flying in the navy I had a CAG who told us a story. In WWII engineers were trying to increase the survival rate of pilots and crews over Europe. Spent piles of money and time and found out that of the planes returning from combat missions they took a LOT of fire to the fuselages... so to increase their survivability they armored up a lot of planes fuselages at the cost of speed even. Sounds like a great idea to get pilots home right? But what's wrong with that?

    They forgot that 100% of the planes they looked at were the ones that survived. The ones shot down tended to take heavy fire to their wings and engines and weren't coming back to be inspected. Luckily pilots coming back from occupied France and Germany helped correct this quickly. Something right there but we all miss it because the answer seems obvious. So sure 320 mil people sounds like an advantage... but is that all there is to it?

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,413
    Way off topic now. I agree with your end findings. Brown was the best. But projecting is just a subjective guess and can be way off too.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,577
    Quote Originally Posted by slashsnake View Post
    You mean out side of those jim brown performances. Like you say.. early 70s back workloads increased by about 50% and it wasn't till oj in 1975 we finally had a back with more carries than Brown. Jim Brown was an outlier his entire career.. he changed that in the nfl.. look today.. I bet if you looked at 20 carry or 20 touch games you have a muddled group today.. Back then you did too... then way up there in unbelievable world was jim brown who had more than the next two best backs.. hall of fame rbs in their primes... Combined. That is an insane run production difference.

    Good point on the population.. but just because Kenya has smaller populations doesn't mean other countries have the edge in running sports. Do we put an asterisk next to Aaron Rodgers name because football at the youth and high school level has been on the decline the past decade and he isn't facing the best new athletes now? What about the media part. Athletics provide more fame now and you hear the elite players choosing other sports because the masses don't recognize what an nfl player looks like since he's under a helmet during games. Peyton Manning has to wear his jersey in commercials... ever wonder why he does that and Lebron doesn't? The NFL is the witness protection of pro sports. Now that sports is a huge income maker how many are looking at that 2.5 year average career and saying let's look at baseball?

    I personally don't worry about that though.. I can't prove that just because the US has more money and hundreds of millions more people that we have more elite 100 meter sprinters than Jamaica. So more population doesn't necessarily mean more talent.

    It's a fine reason that you want to use your numbers your way. I showed the aggressive numbers, you have the conservative... the rest though is all subjectivity. And that is quite a chasm there based on "I feel" which then is opinion.

    Numbers are tricky. When I was flying in the navy I had a CAG who told us a story. In WWII engineers were trying to increase the survival rate of pilots and crews over Europe. Spent piles of money and time and found out that of the planes returning from combat missions they took a LOT of fire to the fuselages... so to increase their survivability they armored up a lot of planes fuselages at the cost of speed even. Sounds like a great idea to get pilots home right? But what's wrong with that?

    They forgot that 100% of the planes they looked at were the ones that survived. The ones shot down tended to take heavy fire to their wings and engines and weren't coming back to be inspected. Luckily pilots coming back from occupied France and Germany helped correct this quickly. Something right there but we all miss it because the answer seems obvious. So sure 320 mil people sounds like an advantage... but is that all there is to it?
    Your examples about Kenya and Jamaica in particular, in my opinion, is getting more into evolutionary biology , and less of a statistical argument. What I'm arguing against is this theory that because there were less teams in 1960, the league quality was higher. I'm arguing from a macrolevel, the region, climate, culture is basically the same and over time the male population triples. Well, isn't possible that competition quality remains steady even if the amount of franchises triple? If they in fact, only double, as happens to be the case, isn't it possible that the quality in a 32-team league is actually higher than the quality of a 14-team league if the recruitment pool (college enrollments, athletic scholarships, etc.) of the 32-team league is 3 times as large? I'm not even talking, advancements in technology or scouting, are the attractiveness of higher salaries, or the rise of the popularity of the sport, I'm just talking straight NFL rosters to US Population ratios.
    Last edited by Lionel20; 06-27-2015 at 09:56 PM.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,577
    Quote Originally Posted by slashsnake View Post
    Touches too when you look at him as an all around back. Taylor's amazing year he had 294 touches in a season. Most by anyone not named jim brown ever by the time he retired. Brown AVERAGED 291 touches over his career. 1% under the league best eversion aND 1% fewer than anyone of his time playing. Well we saw 457 and 449 in the past 9 years. Puts him by comparison in the 450 touch range (452 but easy math here).. 9 seasons that is 4150 touches.

    Of course Taylor hit that 294 touches in a 14 game season and half of Browns were 12 game years. He averaged 316 touches in his 14 game years, or about 8% more than the nfls best season. But we can put him on the low end here even though in reality no one's best was close to his average in their best year. Aka we will put him between Larry Johnson and Murrays top seasons even though there's a good argument for him to be above both.

    450 at 5.8 a touch is a tad over 2600 total yards a season. 23500 career yards from scrimmage... if you want to say 8% more than the most of his peers as he really was you are looking at 480 touches and about 25,500 career yards from scrimmage.

    Now this is pointing to the good side of the comparison here. Not making my own projection of those numbers because i think they are too flawed and you could point to it in other ways and get completely different numbers. But just showing how choosing how you do that is a 100% subjective reason to choose your method to break him down to push his numbers into today. Which brings you back to no more than just saying I think he's the best ever because you are defending a subjective reason for using this method over that one.
    Point taken.. I "would" feel more comfortable with the conservative estimates for a variety of reasons. It still places Brown in a position to be favored as the greatest of all-time. But in my evaluations, I didn't even adjust the rushing stats. The differences over time, with the exception of the 70s, among rushing efficiency has been marginal at best.

    But anyone failing to adjust passing/receiving numbers, on both sides of the field, is not being realistic. For instance, in my opinion, what Darrelle Revis did in 2009 is more impressive than what Mel Blount did in 1975. I can't just look at any raw numbers without accounting for the way the rules facilitate the passing game in 2009.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,413
    Agreed.. which is why I questioned the warren moon numbers you had if he had not played in the CFL. Today they don't look like a bad projection but for then it would have assumed the best start for a qb ever.

    Part of me thinks brown would have translated into insane, borderline what we think of as impossible to achieve numbers if he had his numbers brought to today.. but that's just my opinion here too. I am big on him though from what ive read on him and how those in the game think of him. I think the biggest selling point outside of that to me is after he had been retired for a decade and his record was broken it seemed somewhat feasable he could return. And of course dominating his peers. Like i said i put Jim Taylor in high regard and think he gets overlooked because of Brown. Not saying you are right or I am. I don't mind your projections here even. Seems a good guess as any.
    Last edited by slashsnake; 06-27-2015 at 10:51 PM.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    MASS
    Posts
    53,545

    Jim Brown

    Is it me or are these two guys the same poster?


    First Sim League Title!

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •