#1 Posted by Hawk (15833 posts) - - Show Bio

Offensive

Walter Payton

E. Smith

Jerry Rice

D.

LT

Butkus

I can't think of another one Deion?

#2 Posted by King Saturn (223834 posts) - - Show Bio

If You give two awards for Greatest NFL Player of All Time ( One for NFL Greatest Defensive Player and the other for NFL Greatest Offensive Player). Who would be you top 3 players for each award.

#3 Posted by Quintus_Knightfall (84610 posts) - - Show Bio

Offense

  1. Jim Brown

  2. Joe Montana

  3. Tom Brady (if they win the Super Bowl)

Defense

  1. Lawrence Taylor

  2. Dion Sanders

  3. Mel Blount

Moderator
#4 Posted by King Saturn (223834 posts) - - Show Bio

Hawk says:

"Offensive Walter Payton E. Smith Jerry Rice D. LT Butkus I can't think of another one Deion?"

You dont have to. Thats one hell of a list you got there man

#5 Posted by Hawk (15833 posts) - - Show Bio

I look at sports two ways.....Do they have Stats or Rings....

If you have both Emmitt, Jerry, Walter. your the man. Brady is now getting Stats....he didn't have them for a long time. (but had the rings)

#6 Posted by King Saturn (223834 posts) - - Show Bio

(Offense) 1) Jim Brown 2) Barry Sanders 3) Otto Graham (Defense) 1) Reggie White 2) Deion Sanders 3) Laurence Taylor

#7 Posted by speedlgt (2109 posts) - - Show Bio

but really for defense I go with LT

#8 Posted by King Saturn (223834 posts) - - Show Bio

Do you guys even know who Otto Graham is ?

#9 Posted by randumo24 (4655 posts) - - Show Bio
@King Saturn said:
"

Do you guys even know who Otto Graham is ?

"

I do!
#10 Posted by CATMANEXE (17052 posts) - - Show Bio

Bo knows!

#11 Posted by New Mutant Zombie (80 posts) - - Show Bio

Barry Sanders!!
#12 Posted by randumo24 (4655 posts) - - Show Bio

  

  
#13 Posted by AdrenalineRush (30 posts) - - Show Bio

1. Walter Payton 
 
2.Jerry Rice
 
3.Jim Brown
 
Defense
 
1.Reggie White
 
2.Michael Strahan 
 
3.Champ Bailey?

#14 Posted by King Saturn (223834 posts) - - Show Bio
@randumo24 said:
" @King Saturn said:
"

Do you guys even know who Otto Graham is ?

"
I do! "
good
#15 Posted by AdrenalineRush (30 posts) - - Show Bio
@King Saturn said:
" @randumo24 said:
" @King Saturn said:
"

Do you guys even know who Otto Graham is ?

"
I do! "
good "
yes  i also know who otto graham is
#16 Posted by King Saturn (223834 posts) - - Show Bio
@AdrenalineRush said:
" @King Saturn said:
" @randumo24 said:
" @King Saturn said:
"

Do you guys even know who Otto Graham is ?

"
I do! "
good "
yes  i also know who otto graham is "
alrighty... very good
#17 Posted by #1ElderScrollsFan (1991 posts) - - Show Bio

   
   Offense 
 
 
 
 
 
          Defense 
 
 
 
But for overall best player regardless of offense or defense it is Barry Sanders there will never be another player like him.
 
 
 
 

#18 Posted by King Saturn (223834 posts) - - Show Bio
hmmm... Chris Spielman
 
interesting
#19 Posted by Secret Turchin Man (1852 posts) - - Show Bio
@King Saturn said:
"hmmm... Chris Spielman
 
interesting "

Interesting? More like clown sh!t. LT is far and away the greatest defensive player EVER. In the most competetive era in NFL history he was the best. 
As for Offense, none of the guys mentioned in either this thread or the one that got locked is better than Jerry Rice.
#20 Posted by geraldthesloth (33313 posts) - - Show Bio

Wanna see a D player that was extremely underrated?
 

#21 Posted by Lantern Prime (13044 posts) - - Show Bio

I'll  take this serious when you do player  positons.
#22 Posted by King Saturn (223834 posts) - - Show Bio
@Secret Turchin Man said:
" @King Saturn said:
"hmmm... Chris Spielman
 
interesting "
Interesting? More like clown sh!t. LT is far and away the greatest defensive player EVER. In the most competetive era in NFL history he was the best. As for Offense, none of the guys mentioned in either this thread or the one that got locked is better than Jerry Rice. "
I dont know... I think a strong case could be made for Jim Brown being the Greatest Offensive Player...
#23 Posted by #1ElderScrollsFan (1991 posts) - - Show Bio

Or the real best player ever Barry Sanders

#24 Posted by King Saturn (223834 posts) - - Show Bio
@Statman said:
" JUST BOUGHT MADDEN '10 and it rocks my socks like it does every year. phili eagles is the only team i play with (have ever played with). and after playing that i must say that dude with the dreadlocks who just catches interception after interception. i think he plays for the dolphins... or steelers... or... idk american football.  mcnabb is a gun "
McNabb is the Real Deal... and I think he is the greatest Black QB to ever live... even better than Warren Moon
#25 Posted by King Saturn (223834 posts) - - Show Bio
@Statman said:
" @King Saturn:  yes he is very good in the game, and i think he's on the cover of 08 or 09... ive never seen him play except for the short clips they show on the news when the eagles were in the super bowl. thats all we get over here is news about teh sueprbowl. shame the pats won :( "
ah I see
#26 Posted by Secret Turchin Man (1852 posts) - - Show Bio
@King Saturn said:
" @Secret Turchin Man said:
" @King Saturn said:
"hmmm... Chris Spielman
 
interesting "
Interesting? More like clown sh!t. LT is far and away the greatest defensive player EVER. In the most competetive era in NFL history he was the best. As for Offense, none of the guys mentioned in either this thread or the one that got locked is better than Jerry Rice. "
I dont know... I think a strong case could be made for Jim Brown being the Greatest Offensive Player... "

The problem with Jim Brown is he played in an era where he was head and shoulders better than anyone else. Even if he played in the modern era, to be what he was then Brown would have to be 6'7" 330lbs and run a sub 4.2. That kind of guy does not exist, and probably wont for quite some time.
 
As for Barry Sanders. He was not a great goal line runner, blocker, or receiving threat. Sanders was the best pure runner EVER. But best ever? No.
#27 Edited by Sidney (1272 posts) - - Show Bio

Jim Thorpe. Cannot beleive you people did not mention him. This man was palying when football was a ''mans'' game not this sweet junk today. He played both offense and defense. Was the first guy to win the hesiman trophy, hell its named after him. Also he was a great offensive and defensive player. He is the greatest NFL player of all time. 
 
And their can be a 6 foot 7 runningback? Thought tall people could not play runningback cause they too tall and defensive guys would come at their knees more to bring them down? And because of that they would not be able to play alot longert in the NFL. 
 
And lol did someone say Mcnabb is the greatest black quarterback to ever play the game? Look Warren Moon is better then Mcnabb. Guy set all kind of records and led his teams, who were not contenders like the Eagles, to the playoffs most of the time by himself. He led that offense when it was struggling. Also their is Randall Cunningham who led Eagles when they had no weapons, and was a main reason they made the playofs other thhe great defense they had. Also who can forget the first black quarterback to win the Super Bowl. To suffer a knee injury and in that same game throw 4 TDs. Come on! Also Vick is a better QB then Mcnabb pre jail time, sure he did not throw alot but he still has an arm and can throw a cannon. Also Culpepper before he got hurt was a better QB then Mcnabb. Sure he had Moss but Culpepper still was faster then Mcnabb and had a better arm then him aswell. Mcnabb not the greatest black QB's he one of them but the best is Warren Moon.
#28 Edited by Secret Turchin Man (1852 posts) - - Show Bio
@Sidney said:

"Jim Thorpe. Cannot beleive you people did not mention him. This man was palying when football was a ''mans'' game not this sweet junk today. He played both offense and defense. Was the first guy to win the hesiman trophy, hell its named after him. Also he was a great offensive and defensive player. He is the greatest NFL player of all time.  And their can be a 6 foot 7 runningback? Thought tall people could not play runningback cause they too tall and defensive guys would come at their knees more to bring them down? And because of that they would not be able to play alot longert in the NFL.  And lol did someone say Mcnabb is the greatest black quarterback to ever play the game? Look Warren Moon is better then Mcnabb. Guy set all kind of records and led his teams, who were not contenders like the Eagles, to the playoffs most of the time by himself. He led that offense when it was struggling. Also their is Randall Cunningham who led Eagles when they had no weapons, and was a main reason they made the playofs other thhe great defense they had. Also who can forget the first black quarterback to win the Super Bowl. To suffer a knee injury and in that same game throw 4 TDs. Come on! Also Vick is a better QB then Mcnabb pre jail time, sure he did not throw alot but he still has an arm and can throw a cannon. Also Culpepper before he got hurt was a better QB then Mcnabb. Sure he had Moss but Culpepper still was faster then Mcnabb and had a better arm then him aswell. Mcnabb not the greatest black QB's he one of them but the best is Warren Moon. "



Brandon Jacobs is 6'4", and you obviously missed the whole point.  As for Williams the guy had ONE shining moment(He didn't even win the starting job).  And what is this best "Black" QB nonsense. Quarterbacks are Quarterbacks. When did they start keeping statistics for "Black" Quarterbacks? As for JimThorpe: Why do people keep trying to name these guys who played when the league was either all white, or almost all white? The level of competition was LOW. 
It is the same reason I don't like to discuss Baseball before '69. The Majors were not fully intergrated till then.
#29 Posted by Night Thrasher (3605 posts) - - Show Bio

MONTANA

#30 Posted by Static Shock (47329 posts) - - Show Bio

I find it difficult to determine who the greatest football of all time is.

#31 Posted by King Saturn (223834 posts) - - Show Bio
@Secret Turchin Man said:
" @King Saturn said:
" @Secret Turchin Man said:
" @King Saturn said:
"hmmm... Chris Spielman
 
interesting "
Interesting? More like clown sh!t. LT is far and away the greatest defensive player EVER. In the most competetive era in NFL history he was the best. As for Offense, none of the guys mentioned in either this thread or the one that got locked is better than Jerry Rice. "
I dont know... I think a strong case could be made for Jim Brown being the Greatest Offensive Player... "
The problem with Jim Brown is he played in an era where he was head and shoulders better than anyone else. Even if he played in the modern era, to be what he was then Brown would have to be 6'7" 330lbs and run a sub 4.2. That kind of guy does not exist, and probably wont for quite some time. As for Barry Sanders. He was not a great goal line runner, blocker, or receiving threat. Sanders was the best pure runner EVER. But best ever? No. "
I hate when people say this because its not fair to the player itself... Jim Brown may not have played in the modern era... but his greatness during the era he played in should not be counted against him... Jim Brown didnt really have a choice to what era he would rise to power in pro football... he just came in during that time and did his thing... whether he would fit in this era is obviously a question of great discussion and debate... but to count his greatness out because he doesnt play in our time is unfair... no matter how much the game has changed
#32 Posted by #1ElderScrollsFan (1991 posts) - - Show Bio
@Secret Turchin Man said:
" @King Saturn said:
" @Secret Turchin Man said:
" @King Saturn said:
"hmmm... Chris Spielman
 
interesting "
Interesting? More like clown sh!t. LT is far and away the greatest defensive player EVER. In the most competetive era in NFL history he was the best. As for Offense, none of the guys mentioned in either this thread or the one that got locked is better than Jerry Rice. "
I dont know... I think a strong case could be made for Jim Brown being the Greatest Offensive Player... "
The problem with Jim Brown is he played in an era where he was head and shoulders better than anyone else. Even if he played in the modern era, to be what he was then Brown would have to be 6'7" 330lbs and run a sub 4.2. That kind of guy does not exist, and probably wont for quite some time. As for Barry Sanders. He was not a great goal line runner, blocker, or receiving threat. Sanders was the best pure runner EVER. But best ever? No. "
Wrong the best ever is Barry Sanders.
#33 Posted by Sidney (1272 posts) - - Show Bio
@#1ElderScrollsFan said:
" @Secret Turchin Man said:
" @King Saturn said:
" @Secret Turchin Man said:
" @King Saturn said:
"hmmm... Chris Spielman
 
interesting "
Interesting? More like clown sh!t. LT is far and away the greatest defensive player EVER. In the most competetive era in NFL history he was the best. As for Offense, none of the guys mentioned in either this thread or the one that got locked is better than Jerry Rice. "
I dont know... I think a strong case could be made for Jim Brown being the Greatest Offensive Player... "
The problem with Jim Brown is he played in an era where he was head and shoulders better than anyone else. Even if he played in the modern era, to be what he was then Brown would have to be 6'7" 330lbs and run a sub 4.2. That kind of guy does not exist, and probably wont for quite some time. As for Barry Sanders. He was not a great goal line runner, blocker, or receiving threat. Sanders was the best pure runner EVER. But best ever? No. "
Wrong the best ever is Barry Sanders. "

Wrong best ever is Jim Thorpe.
#34 Posted by Secret Turchin Man (1852 posts) - - Show Bio

@Sidney said:

Wrong best ever is Jim Thorpe. "

I can understand the other answers. You are just being silly. 

@#1ElderScrollsFan said:

Wrong the best ever is Barry Sanders. "

Are you related to him? While nobody can match his running skills there are plenty of backs who have done things he never did. While I understand that Barry didn't play on the best team, there were years that the Lions had a solid offense and defense, and made some noise in the playoffs. It always ended the same way. Barry going home after getting shut down.

@King Saturn said:

I hate when people say this because its not fair to the player itself... Jim Brown may not have played in the modern era... but his greatness during the era he played in should not be counted against him... Jim Brown didnt really have a choice to what era he would rise to power in pro football... he just came in during that time and did his thing... whether he would fit in this era is obviously a question of great discussion and debate... but to count his greatness out because he doesnt play in our time is unfair... no matter how much the game has changed "


 I am not discounting his greatness, simply stating facts.  He was great in his era and would still be good. Just not as good. I hate when people try and make these guys who played in LESSER era's the equivilant of todays players. Brown simply wouldn't be as dominant today. What is not fair is taking a guy who played before the NFL was trully competetive and acting like he would do the same thing today.  
 
1957 NFL Championship: 20 carries, 69 yards, 3.45 avg, 1 TD 
1958 NFL Divisional Round: 7 carries, 8 yards, 1.14 avg,  0 TD (He even had a run of 20 yards and still finished with 8)
1964 NFL Championship: 27 carries 114 yards, 4,2 avg, 0TD
1966 NFL Championship: 12 carries, 50 yards , 4.16 avg, 0TD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
66 carries, 241 yards, 3.65 avg, 1 TD  

4 playoff appereances  
1 good game( Still below his standards.) 
When he did not play teams that he was simply to good for, the numbers look much different. In todays game he would not be head and shoulders above the majority of teams.

#35 Posted by King Saturn (223834 posts) - - Show Bio
@Secret Turchin Man said:


@King Saturn said:

I hate when people say this because its not fair to the player itself... Jim Brown may not have played in the modern era... but his greatness during the era he played in should not be counted against him... Jim Brown didnt really have a choice to what era he would rise to power in pro football... he just came in during that time and did his thing... whether he would fit in this era is obviously a question of great discussion and debate... but to count his greatness out because he doesnt play in our time is unfair... no matter how much the game has changed "


 I am not discounting his greatness, simply stating facts.  He was great in his era and would still be good. Just not as good. I hate when people try and make these guys who played in LESSER era's the equivilant of todays players. Brown simply wouldn't be as dominant today. What is not fair is taking a guy who played before the NFL was trully competetive and acting like he would do the same thing today.  
 
1957 NFL Championship: 20 carries, 69 yards, 3.45 avg, 1 TD 
1958 NFL Divisional Round: 7 carries, 8 yards, 1.14 avg,  0 TD (He even had a run of 20 yards and still finished with 8)
1964 NFL Championship: 27 carries 114 yards, 4,2 avg, 0TD
1966 NFL Championship: 12 carries, 50 yards , 4.16 avg, 0TD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
66 carries, 241 yards, 3.65 avg, 1 TD  

4 playoff appereances  
1 good game( Still below his standards.) 
When he did not play teams that he was simply to good for, the numbers look much different. In todays game he would not be head and shoulders above the majority of teams.

"
he doesnt have to be as great as he was in this era... its what he did during his day what we count here... and thats the point... and like I said before... its a lot of great players who have lackluster numbers in the postseason... and the fact they played less games back during his era in the regular season as well as the playoffs should also be accounted for...
 
 
#36 Posted by Bruce Vain (1869 posts) - - Show Bio

Offense 
1) Jim Brown 
 2) Barry Sanders 
3)Peyton Manning 
 
Defense 
1) Dick Butkus 
2)Deacon Jones 
3)Jack "Dracula " Lambert
#37 Posted by Secret Turchin Man (1852 posts) - - Show Bio
@King Saturn said:
" @Secret Turchin Man said:


@King Saturn said:

I hate when people say this because its not fair to the player itself... Jim Brown may not have played in the modern era... but his greatness during the era he played in should not be counted against him... Jim Brown didnt really have a choice to what era he would rise to power in pro football... he just came in during that time and did his thing... whether he would fit in this era is obviously a question of great discussion and debate... but to count his greatness out because he doesnt play in our time is unfair... no matter how much the game has changed "


 I am not discounting his greatness, simply stating facts.  He was great in his era and would still be good. Just not as good. I hate when people try and make these guys who played in LESSER era's the equivilant of todays players. Brown simply wouldn't be as dominant today. What is not fair is taking a guy who played before the NFL was trully competetive and acting like he would do the same thing today.  
 
1957 NFL Championship: 20 carries, 69 yards, 3.45 avg, 1 TD 
1958 NFL Divisional Round: 7 carries, 8 yards, 1.14 avg,  0 TD (He even had a run of 20 yards and still finished with 8)
1964 NFL Championship: 27 carries 114 yards, 4,2 avg, 0TD
1966 NFL Championship: 12 carries, 50 yards , 4.16 avg, 0TD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
66 carries, 241 yards, 3.65 avg, 1 TD  

4 playoff appereances  
1 good game( Still below his standards.) 
When he did not play teams that he was simply to good for, the numbers look much different. In todays game he would not be head and shoulders above the majority of teams.

"
he doesnt have to be as great as he was in this era... its what he did during his day what we count here... and thats the point... and like I said before... its a lot of great players who have lackluster numbers in the postseason... and the fact they played less games back during his era in the regular season as well as the playoffs should also be accounted for...
 
  "

Lackluster postseason production is the very reason they aren't great. Jerry Rice dominated the post season. So much attention was payed to LT in the postseason that other guys had a field day. That is what makes a player "great". Making everyone around you better ans stepping up in the biggest moments. Getting shut down in the postseason is the antithesis of greatness.
#38 Edited by King Saturn (223834 posts) - - Show Bio
@Secret Turchin Man said:

" @King Saturn said:

" @Secret Turchin Man said:


@King Saturn said:

I hate when people say this because its not fair to the player itself... Jim Brown may not have played in the modern era... but his greatness during the era he played in should not be counted against him... Jim Brown didnt really have a choice to what era he would rise to power in pro football... he just came in during that time and did his thing... whether he would fit in this era is obviously a question of great discussion and debate... but to count his greatness out because he doesnt play in our time is unfair... no matter how much the game has changed "


 I am not discounting his greatness, simply stating facts.  He was great in his era and would still be good. Just not as good. I hate when people try and make these guys who played in LESSER era's the equivilant of todays players. Brown simply wouldn't be as dominant today. What is not fair is taking a guy who played before the NFL was trully competetive and acting like he would do the same thing today.  
 
1957 NFL Championship: 20 carries, 69 yards, 3.45 avg, 1 TD 
1958 NFL Divisional Round: 7 carries, 8 yards, 1.14 avg,  0 TD (He even had a run of 20 yards and still finished with 8)
1964 NFL Championship: 27 carries 114 yards, 4,2 avg, 0TD
1966 NFL Championship: 12 carries, 50 yards , 4.16 avg, 0TD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
66 carries, 241 yards, 3.65 avg, 1 TD  

4 playoff appereances  
1 good game( Still below his standards.) 
When he did not play teams that he was simply to good for, the numbers look much different. In todays game he would not be head and shoulders above the majority of teams.

"
he doesnt have to be as great as he was in this era... its what he did during his day what we count here... and thats the point... and like I said before... its a lot of great players who have lackluster numbers in the postseason... and the fact they played less games back during his era in the regular season as well as the playoffs should also be accounted for...
 
  "
Lackluster postseason production is the very reason they aren't great. Jerry Rice dominated the post season. So much attention was payed to LT in the postseason that other guys had a field day. That is what makes a player "great". Making everyone around you better ans stepping up in the biggest moments. Getting shut down in the postseason is the antithesis of greatness. "
you make it seem like Jerry Rice was the Michael Jordan of his team... Jerry has Joe Montana and Steve Young tossing the ball to him... as well as a solid running game through Roger Craig... and they passed the ball a lot in that Offense... Jerry was great... but he had help... and hell of a lot of More Offensive help than Barry Sanders or Jim Brown had... its harder to dominate with the run when they know thats what you are gonna come with especially in the postseason... Jim Brown and Barry Sanders were the only true factors of offense in the postseason... so the teams could simply stuff the run... because they knew the passing game were near to non existent with both teams... 
 
Jerry didnt have that problem because he played with an all around dominant team that loved to pass and pass deep... so of course his numbers were gonna be great... because the QB was great, the Offensive Line was great, the Running Game was great... all he had to do was show up and run the routes and get the long Rec and rake up numbers... but Jim Brown was basically that teams key player on Offense with the Browns... as well as Barry was the same way with the Lions... Jerry was great... but he wasnt the only key player on his offense... he had a hell of a QB getting him the ball for most of his career as well as a great team all around him most of his career...
#39 Posted by King Saturn (223834 posts) - - Show Bio
and another thing... which LT are you talking about ? Cause if you are talking about Ladainian Tomlinson... keep in mind that Philip Rivers was the QB for that team... he threw for 4,000 yds and 34 TDs last year... Tomlinson had Help... just like Emmitt Smith when he was doing his thing with the Cowboys... they had a tremendous amount of talent around them... compared to what Jim Brown and Barry Sanders had... and you know it which is why I cant understand why you look at Jim Brown and Barry Sanders and see them as lackluster talent... or not Great as you said... because they didnt put up 150 yards rushing every game in the postseason...
#40 Posted by Secret Turchin Man (1852 posts) - - Show Bio
@King Saturn said:
"@Secret Turchin Man said:

" @King Saturn said:

" @Secret Turchin Man said:


@King Saturn said:

I hate when people say this because its not fair to the player itself... Jim Brown may not have played in the modern era... but his greatness during the era he played in should not be counted against him... Jim Brown didnt really have a choice to what era he would rise to power in pro football... he just came in during that time and did his thing... whether he would fit in this era is obviously a question of great discussion and debate... but to count his greatness out because he doesnt play in our time is unfair... no matter how much the game has changed "


 I am not discounting his greatness, simply stating facts.  He was great in his era and would still be good. Just not as good. I hate when people try and make these guys who played in LESSER era's the equivilant of todays players. Brown simply wouldn't be as dominant today. What is not fair is taking a guy who played before the NFL was trully competetive and acting like he would do the same thing today.  
 
1957 NFL Championship: 20 carries, 69 yards, 3.45 avg, 1 TD 
1958 NFL Divisional Round: 7 carries, 8 yards, 1.14 avg,  0 TD (He even had a run of 20 yards and still finished with 8)
1964 NFL Championship: 27 carries 114 yards, 4,2 avg, 0TD
1966 NFL Championship: 12 carries, 50 yards , 4.16 avg, 0TD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
66 carries, 241 yards, 3.65 avg, 1 TD  

4 playoff appereances  
1 good game( Still below his standards.) 
When he did not play teams that he was simply to good for, the numbers look much different. In todays game he would not be head and shoulders above the majority of teams.

"
he doesnt have to be as great as he was in this era... its what he did during his day what we count here... and thats the point... and like I said before... its a lot of great players who have lackluster numbers in the postseason... and the fact they played less games back during his era in the regular season as well as the playoffs should also be accounted for...
 
  "
Lackluster postseason production is the very reason they aren't great. Jerry Rice dominated the post season. So much attention was payed to LT in the postseason that other guys had a field day. That is what makes a player "great". Making everyone around you better ans stepping up in the biggest moments. Getting shut down in the postseason is the antithesis of greatness. "
you make it seem like Jerry Rice was the Michael Jordan of his team... Jerry has Joe Montana and Steve Young tossing the ball to him... as well as a solid running game through Roger Craig... and they passed the ball a lot in that Offense... Jerry was great... but he had help... and hell of a lot of More Offensive help than Barry Sanders or Jim Brown had... its harder to dominate with the run when they know thats what you are gonna come with especially in the postseason... Jim Brown and Barry Sanders were the only true factors of offense in the postseason... so the teams could simply stuff the run... because they knew the passing game were near to non existent with both teams... 
 
Jerry didnt have that problem because he played with an all around dominant team that loved to pass and pass deep... so of course his numbers were gonna be great... because the QB was great, the Offensive Line was great, the Running Game was great... all he had to do was show up and run the routes and get the long Rec and rake up numbers... but Jim Brown was basically that teams key player on Offense with the Browns... as well as Barry was the same way with the Lions... Jerry was great... but he wasnt the only key player on his offense... he had a hell of a QB getting him the ball for most of his career as well as a great team all around him most of his career... "

Actually Barry had Herman Moore(4 time Pro Bowler, 3 time All-Pro) and Brett Perrimen(back to back 1000 yard seasons) at the same time. 
While Brown had 3 pro bowl QBs during his time in Cleveland: Tommy O'Connell, Milt Plum, and Frank Ryan(Which means he played every season with a Pro Bowler at the QB spot). Brown also had Ray Renfro(3 time Pro Bowl HB/FL) and Paul Warfield(8 time Pro Bowler, 2 Time All-Pro, HOFer). 
Now as for the Jerry/Jordan thing. Jordan had Pippen, Grant, Rodman, Kukoc, and Harper during his various championship runs. While Jerry had plenty of help also, he like Jordan took over when it mattered most. And quite frankly Jerry's career numbers are every bit as impressive as Jordan's.
#41 Posted by King Saturn (223834 posts) - - Show Bio
@Secret Turchin Man said:
" @King Saturn said:
"@Secret Turchin Man said:

" @King Saturn said:

" @Secret Turchin Man said:


@King Saturn said:

I hate when people say this because its not fair to the player itself... Jim Brown may not have played in the modern era... but his greatness during the era he played in should not be counted against him... Jim Brown didnt really have a choice to what era he would rise to power in pro football... he just came in during that time and did his thing... whether he would fit in this era is obviously a question of great discussion and debate... but to count his greatness out because he doesnt play in our time is unfair... no matter how much the game has changed "


 I am not discounting his greatness, simply stating facts.  He was great in his era and would still be good. Just not as good. I hate when people try and make these guys who played in LESSER era's the equivilant of todays players. Brown simply wouldn't be as dominant today. What is not fair is taking a guy who played before the NFL was trully competetive and acting like he would do the same thing today.  
 
1957 NFL Championship: 20 carries, 69 yards, 3.45 avg, 1 TD 
1958 NFL Divisional Round: 7 carries, 8 yards, 1.14 avg,  0 TD (He even had a run of 20 yards and still finished with 8)
1964 NFL Championship: 27 carries 114 yards, 4,2 avg, 0TD
1966 NFL Championship: 12 carries, 50 yards , 4.16 avg, 0TD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
66 carries, 241 yards, 3.65 avg, 1 TD  

4 playoff appereances  
1 good game( Still below his standards.) 
When he did not play teams that he was simply to good for, the numbers look much different. In todays game he would not be head and shoulders above the majority of teams.

"
he doesnt have to be as great as he was in this era... its what he did during his day what we count here... and thats the point... and like I said before... its a lot of great players who have lackluster numbers in the postseason... and the fact they played less games back during his era in the regular season as well as the playoffs should also be accounted for...
 
  "
Lackluster postseason production is the very reason they aren't great. Jerry Rice dominated the post season. So much attention was payed to LT in the postseason that other guys had a field day. That is what makes a player "great". Making everyone around you better ans stepping up in the biggest moments. Getting shut down in the postseason is the antithesis of greatness. "
you make it seem like Jerry Rice was the Michael Jordan of his team... Jerry has Joe Montana and Steve Young tossing the ball to him... as well as a solid running game through Roger Craig... and they passed the ball a lot in that Offense... Jerry was great... but he had help... and hell of a lot of More Offensive help than Barry Sanders or Jim Brown had... its harder to dominate with the run when they know thats what you are gonna come with especially in the postseason... Jim Brown and Barry Sanders were the only true factors of offense in the postseason... so the teams could simply stuff the run... because they knew the passing game were near to non existent with both teams... 
 
Jerry didnt have that problem because he played with an all around dominant team that loved to pass and pass deep... so of course his numbers were gonna be great... because the QB was great, the Offensive Line was great, the Running Game was great... all he had to do was show up and run the routes and get the long Rec and rake up numbers... but Jim Brown was basically that teams key player on Offense with the Browns... as well as Barry was the same way with the Lions... Jerry was great... but he wasnt the only key player on his offense... he had a hell of a QB getting him the ball for most of his career as well as a great team all around him most of his career... "
Actually Barry had Herman Moore(4 time Pro Bowler, 3 time All-Pro) and Brett Perrimen(back to back 1000 yard seasons) at the same time. While Brown had 3 pro bowl QBs during his time in Cleveland: Tommy O'Connell, Milt Plum, and Frank Ryan(Which means he played every season with a Pro Bowler at the QB spot). Brown also had Ray Renfro(3 time Pro Bowl HB/FL) and Paul Warfield(8 time Pro Bowler, 2 Time All-Pro, HOFer). Now as for the Jerry/Jordan thing. Jordan had Pippen, Grant, Rodman, Kukoc, and Harper during his various championship runs. While Jerry had plenty of help also, he like Jordan took over when it mattered most. And quite frankly Jerry's career numbers are every bit as impressive as Jordan's. "
You Gotta Be Kidding Me... who in the fu#k is Tommy O Connell, Milt Plum or Frank Ryan compared to Joe Montana or Steve Young ? Montana and Young are regareded as two of the Greatest QB's of all time... and even if these QB's you named did make it to the Pro Bowl... even Brett Farve went to the Pro Bowl with terrible numbers as a NY Jet... so what does that mean ? And you cant be serious... you think Jerry Rice is the Michael Jordan of Pro Football ? Of course Jerry could take over... hell if you have Joe Montana or Steve Young tossing the Football to you in an offense that Pass Built anyways its gonna happen... but that goes back to the level of help here... you cant honestly think that Montana or Young is Pippen to Rice as Jordan ? Sounds a little funny to me... especially since Montana did win a SB without Rice...  and you cant be serious about thinking Barry Sanders had a lot of talent of his team... Herman Moore was good a few years... Perrimen has a peak of a season or so... but overall this is madness... if we go by your logic... then Jerry Rice and Emmitt Smith are the best players ever in football... and I cant see it... they were great but not the best ever...
#42 Posted by capall (8278 posts) - - Show Bio

offence:  
e.smith 
j. rice & r. moss
t. brady 
 
defence: 
r. lewis 
r. white 
l. taylor 
 
ther are many more if i did not list them no bad intentions
#43 Posted by Secret Turchin Man (1852 posts) - - Show Bio

@King Saturn said:

" @Secret Turchin Man said:
" @King Saturn said:
"@Secret Turchin Man said:

" @King Saturn said:

" @Secret Turchin Man said:


@King Saturn said:

I hate when people say this because its not fair to the player itself... Jim Brown may not have played in the modern era... but his greatness during the era he played in should not be counted against him... Jim Brown didnt really have a choice to what era he would rise to power in pro football... he just came in during that time and did his thing... whether he would fit in this era is obviously a question of great discussion and debate... but to count his greatness out because he doesnt play in our time is unfair... no matter how much the game has changed "


 I am not discounting his greatness, simply stating facts.  He was great in his era and would still be good. Just not as good. I hate when people try and make these guys who played in LESSER era's the equivilant of todays players. Brown simply wouldn't be as dominant today. What is not fair is taking a guy who played before the NFL was trully competetive and acting like he would do the same thing today.  
 
1957 NFL Championship: 20 carries, 69 yards, 3.45 avg, 1 TD 
1958 NFL Divisional Round: 7 carries, 8 yards, 1.14 avg,  0 TD (He even had a run of 20 yards and still finished with 8)
1964 NFL Championship: 27 carries 114 yards, 4,2 avg, 0TD
1966 NFL Championship: 12 carries, 50 yards , 4.16 avg, 0TD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
66 carries, 241 yards, 3.65 avg, 1 TD  

4 playoff appereances  
1 good game( Still below his standards.) 
When he did not play teams that he was simply to good for, the numbers look much different. In todays game he would not be head and shoulders above the majority of teams.

"
he doesnt have to be as great as he was in this era... its what he did during his day what we count here... and thats the point... and like I said before... its a lot of great players who have lackluster numbers in the postseason... and the fact they played less games back during his era in the regular season as well as the playoffs should also be accounted for...
 
  "
Lackluster postseason production is the very reason they aren't great. Jerry Rice dominated the post season. So much attention was payed to LT in the postseason that other guys had a field day. That is what makes a player "great". Making everyone around you better ans stepping up in the biggest moments. Getting shut down in the postseason is the antithesis of greatness. "
you make it seem like Jerry Rice was the Michael Jordan of his team... Jerry has Joe Montana and Steve Young tossing the ball to him... as well as a solid running game through Roger Craig... and they passed the ball a lot in that Offense... Jerry was great... but he had help... and hell of a lot of More Offensive help than Barry Sanders or Jim Brown had... its harder to dominate with the run when they know thats what you are gonna come with especially in the postseason... Jim Brown and Barry Sanders were the only true factors of offense in the postseason... so the teams could simply stuff the run... because they knew the passing game were near to non existent with both teams... 
 
Jerry didnt have that problem because he played with an all around dominant team that loved to pass and pass deep... so of course his numbers were gonna be great... because the QB was great, the Offensive Line was great, the Running Game was great... all he had to do was show up and run the routes and get the long Rec and rake up numbers... but Jim Brown was basically that teams key player on Offense with the Browns... as well as Barry was the same way with the Lions... Jerry was great... but he wasnt the only key player on his offense... he had a hell of a QB getting him the ball for most of his career as well as a great team all around him most of his career... "
Actually Barry had Herman Moore(4 time Pro Bowler, 3 time All-Pro) and Brett Perrimen(back to back 1000 yard seasons) at the same time. While Brown had 3 pro bowl QBs during his time in Cleveland: Tommy O'Connell, Milt Plum, and Frank Ryan(Which means he played every season with a Pro Bowler at the QB spot). Brown also had Ray Renfro(3 time Pro Bowl HB/FL) and Paul Warfield(8 time Pro Bowler, 2 Time All-Pro, HOFer). Now as for the Jerry/Jordan thing. Jordan had Pippen, Grant, Rodman, Kukoc, and Harper during his various championship runs. While Jerry had plenty of help also, he like Jordan took over when it mattered most. And quite frankly Jerry's career numbers are every bit as impressive as Jordan's. "
You Gotta Be Kidding Me... who in the fu#k is Tommy O Connell, Milt Plum or Frank Ryan compared to Joe Montana or Steve Young ? Montana and Young are regareded as two of the Greatest QB's of all time... and even if these QB's you named did make it to the Pro Bowl... even Brett Farve went to the Pro Bowl with terrible numbers as a NY Jet... so what does that mean ? And you cant be serious... you think Jerry Rice is the Michael Jordan of Pro Football ? Of course Jerry could take over... hell if you have Joe Montana or Steve Young tossing the Football to you in an offense that Pass Built anyways its gonna happen... but that goes back to the level of help here... you cant honestly think that Montana or Young is Pippen to Rice as Jordan ? Sounds a little funny to me... especially since Montana did win a SB without Rice...  and you cant be serious about thinking Barry Sanders had a lot of talent of his team... Herman Moore was good a few years... Perrimen has a peak of a season or so... but overall this is madness... if we go by your logic... then Jerry Rice and Emmitt Smith are the best players ever in football... and I cant see it... they were great but not the best ever... "


I never said they were as good as Montana and Young. Simply stating that there were other weapons on the Browns besides Jim. You think Montana and Young would have the same careers without Jerry Rice? You gotta be on CRACK. Scottie Pippen is a top 50 all-time player. One of the best defensive players at any position. How many rings did Jordan win without him? You said Brown and Sanders did it ALONE. Paul Warfield was the DOMINANT receiver of his era. Jerry Rice is the ALL-TIME yardage and Touchdown leader. He was double and triple teamed most of his career. People tried to stop Rice and he still killed them. The fact that you don't know, and act like it doesn't matter that Brown played with multiple Pro-Bowl QBs and with a Hall of Fame receiver makes debating you pointless. You act like Favre making the pro-bowl off fan voting is the same as when the coaches voted. Emmitt Smith is the creation of the best runblocking line ever. Jerry Rice got it done no matter who was throwing to him. As a 40 year old man he was commanding double teams with the "immortal" Rich Gannon throwing to him. No one wins championships by themselves and unlike basketball, in football you can't win in the regular season without other people making plays. Sanders and Brown were not all alone. You make it like Rice was single covered all game. Rice turned alot of seven yard outs into 50+ yard TDs. 

#44 Posted by King Saturn (223834 posts) - - Show Bio
@Secret Turchin Man said:
"

@King Saturn said:


You Gotta Be Kidding Me... who in the fu#k is Tommy O Connell, Milt Plum or Frank Ryan compared to Joe Montana or Steve Young ? Montana and Young are regareded as two of the Greatest QB's of all time... and even if these QB's you named did make it to the Pro Bowl... even Brett Farve went to the Pro Bowl with terrible numbers as a NY Jet... so what does that mean ? And you cant be serious... you think Jerry Rice is the Michael Jordan of Pro Football ? Of course Jerry could take over... hell if you have Joe Montana or Steve Young tossing the Football to you in an offense that Pass Built anyways its gonna happen... but that goes back to the level of help here... you cant honestly think that Montana or Young is Pippen to Rice as Jordan ? Sounds a little funny to me... especially since Montana did win a SB without Rice...  and you cant be serious about thinking Barry Sanders had a lot of talent of his team... Herman Moore was good a few years... Perrimen has a peak of a season or so... but overall this is madness... if we go by your logic... then Jerry Rice and Emmitt Smith are the best players ever in football... and I cant see it... they were great but not the best ever... "


I never said they were as good as Montana and Young. Simply stating that there were other weapons on the Browns besides Jim. You think Montana and Young would have the same careers without Jerry Rice? You gotta be on CRACK. Scottie Pippen is a top 50 all-time player. One of the best defensive players at any position. How many rings did Jordan win without him? You said Brown and Sanders did it ALONE. Paul Warfield was the DOMINANT receiver of his era. Jerry Rice is the ALL-TIME yardage and Touchdown leader. He was double and triple teamed most of his career. People tried to stop Rice and he still killed them. The fact that you don't know, and act like it doesn't matter that Brown played with multiple Pro-Bowl QBs and with a Hall of Fame receiver makes debating you pointless. You act like Favre making the pro-bowl off fan voting is the same as when the coaches voted. Emmitt Smith is the creation of the best runblocking line ever. Jerry Rice got it done no matter who was throwing to him. As a 40 year old man he was commanding double teams with the "immortal" Rich Gannon throwing to him. No one wins championships by themselves and unlike basketball, in football you can't win in the regular season without other people making plays. Sanders and Brown were not all alone. You make it like Rice was single covered all game. Rice turned alot of seven yard outs into 50+ yard TDs. 

"
It works both ways though... yeah I am sure Joe Montana and Steve Young would have very much different looking stats if they didnt have Jerry Rice on there team... but who is to say Rice numbers would be the same if he played for another team ? Its the fact that both the QB ( Montana, Young ) as great all pro QB's were in sync with the WR ( Rice )... there is  no guarantee Rice would have been as good on another team... depending on who is throwing to him and the system he would have been in... thats my point... even though Rice was great so was Young and Montana... and in a sense almost equally...  I didnt say that Jerry Rice didnt get double teamed or triple teamed... the point is he had a considerable amount of help on from his QB ( whether it was Montana or Young ) or whether on the ground ( either Watters or Craig )... 
 
Now I will give you the fact that Jim Brown had a solid QB during the considerable amount of his career... though I will say that they year O'Connell went in 1957 where he had like 9 TD and 8 INTs really isnt that impressive overall... but Plum and Frank Ryan did put up some solid numbers... so I will take back that the... he did have a decent QB on his team... but the problem is WR... you said that Jim Brown played with Paul Warfield and he was a Dominant WR... what you didnt say was the fact that Warfield's peak years in the NFL came after Jim Brown retired... Warfield really only played a season or two while Jim Brown was with Cleveland... so yes Warfield was dominant... just not while Jim Brown was around... so overall Jim had help... just not as much as you claimed he did...
 
Lastly... I dont recall saying that Jerry Rice had it easy or wasnt double or triple teamed... he did his thing no doubt... but so did Steve Young and Joe Montana... they got him the ball... aint nobody saying Jerry Rice wasnt Great... but the debate for him being the greatest ever is under discussion... you say he is with some pretty solid points... I say he isnt... though I think he is pretty close overall...
#45 Posted by Sidney (1272 posts) - - Show Bio
@Secret Turchin Man said:
"

@Sidney said:

Wrong best ever is Jim Thorpe. "

I can understand the other answers. You are just being silly. 

@#1ElderScrollsFan said:

Wrong the best ever is Barry Sanders. "

Are you related to him? While nobody can match his running skills there are plenty of backs who have done things he never did. While I understand that Barry didn't play on the best team, there were years that the Lions had a solid offense and defense, and made some noise in the playoffs. It always ended the same way. Barry going home after getting shut down.

@King Saturn said:

I hate when people say this because its not fair to the player itself... Jim Brown may not have played in the modern era... but his greatness during the era he played in should not be counted against him... Jim Brown didnt really have a choice to what era he would rise to power in pro football... he just came in during that time and did his thing... whether he would fit in this era is obviously a question of great discussion and debate... but to count his greatness out because he doesnt play in our time is unfair... no matter how much the game has changed "


 I am not discounting his greatness, simply stating facts.  He was great in his era and would still be good. Just not as good. I hate when people try and make these guys who played in LESSER era's the equivilant of todays players. Brown simply wouldn't be as dominant today. What is not fair is taking a guy who played before the NFL was trully competetive and acting like he would do the same thing today.  
 
1957 NFL Championship: 20 carries, 69 yards, 3.45 avg, 1 TD 
1958 NFL Divisional Round: 7 carries, 8 yards, 1.14 avg,  0 TD (He even had a run of 20 yards and still finished with 8)
1964 NFL Championship: 27 carries 114 yards, 4,2 avg, 0TD
1966 NFL Championship: 12 carries, 50 yards , 4.16 avg, 0TD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
66 carries, 241 yards, 3.65 avg, 1 TD  

4 playoff appereances  
1 good game( Still below his standards.) 
When he did not play teams that he was simply to good for, the numbers look much different. In todays game he would not be head and shoulders above the majority of teams.

"

No Jim Thorpe is the best NFL player of all time.