How DeAngelo Compares to the Greatest In History...
Posted 18 April 2010 - 06:44 PM
Greatness means how you compared with people of your time. No question, whatsoever, that he was better than backs of his time. Jim was clearly the best of his era. While I believe DeAngelo to be the best back in the NFL at this point, one can make a case of four or five others to be his equal. No question.
But Brown played in an era of lineman weighing 250 or so, if in some cases, even that. Deangelo plays and has to get his stats against far superior athletes. If DeAngelo played in the fifties and early sixties, with the same body and knowledge he has today, he would have torn Brown's records up.
That being said, if Jim Brown could play today, and use modern conditioning methods, work out all year long, watch tape, and so forth...who is to say he could not be as good as DeAngelo is today. In watching tape, I don't think he cuts like DeAngelo does, but again, hard to say. Back in those days it was must easier just to run over people.
My kids hate my old school arguments. They always say, dad, why can't x, y, or z be as good as Willie Mays or Hank Aaron, or Mickey Mantle?
Just look at the stats, that is all you can go by. Why can't DeAngelo be just as great as Walter Payton or anyone else. Bottom line, he is.
Jim Brown is still the GREATEST running back of all time, hands down. But that is not to say he is the best. We'll know more about DeAngelo's place in two years.
And for those of you who think Adrian Peterson is as good as D...those l9 fumbles over the last three years sort of stand out.....
Posted 18 April 2010 - 06:54 PM
that's what i'm complaining about. football has changed, a lot. you're right. so, comparing stats from then to now is irrelevant. you have to look at how the person played to say who is better. just because jim brown ran up a bunch of yards on people back then doesn't mean he'd do the same thing today. he would definitely be a starter. he might even make the pro bowl once in a while, but to say he's the greatest all-time and no one touches him is not right in my opinion. there are several backs today who are more athletic and talented.
Well of course athletes of today would be better than those 50 years ago.
But there's no reason to complain about how football has changed, and why guys like Jim Brown get their respect. He earned respect through how he played in his era, and through what he accomplished in his career. That's why some people consider him to be the greatest back of all time.
Posted 18 April 2010 - 09:26 PM
and it's this type of lopsided comparison that i can't stand with most williams nuthuggers...
Williams nuthuggers?? Look who's talking......Stewart nuthuggers.
Looking at the NFL 2009-2010, Williams was clearly one of the top 5 RBs. To say he isn't in top 5 show some of you folks didn't watch him enough or refuse to acknowledge how damn good he is. And the comparsion between him & Stewart is silly. They both kick ass & has their own strength: Williams is a fast RB & Stewart is a power strength RB, even though he has good speed but not quick like Williams.
Posted 18 April 2010 - 10:19 PM
If he played in the 50's or 60's, he wouldn't have played RB. Too small. Maybe a WR. Back then, equipment weighed a lot more, fields weren't nice, and the rules were much different. Back then, face masks were legal. Late hits were legal. He would have been taken off the field in pieces.
Deangelo plays and has to get his stats against far superior athletes. If DeAngelo played in the fifties and early sixties, with the same body and knowledge he has today, he would have torn Brown's records up.
Posted 18 April 2010 - 10:23 PM
Posted 18 April 2010 - 10:29 PM
Posted 19 April 2010 - 12:22 AM
Based off of the fact he isn't even the best back today, or even top three. Adrian Peterson, Chris Johnson, and Steven Jackson are all better. Remove your Carolina shades and stop being a flat out homer. I guarantee you if a Chiefs fan came in here and told you Jamaal Charles will be an all-time great when he hangs it up based off the YPC he put up in 2009, you'd think it was ridiculous too, so don't hold a double standard. But since you think YPC is the be all, end all when it comes to rating backs, keep this in mind.
Fred Taylor's YPC for his career is 4.6. Walter Payton's is 4.4. Tomlinson's is 4.3. Marshall Faulk's is 4.0. Tony Dorsett's is 4.3. Eric Dickerson's is 4.4. So do you believe Fred Taylor is better than all of those backs? Better yet, I'll use another example. Pierre Thomas had a better YPC rate than both Stewart and Williams this past season. So do you agree he had the better season?
I don't give a poo about YPC. It's a terrible way to rate backs anyway, especially considering its dependent on a lot of things including how many carries that back gets and how many they get consistently. DeAngelo Williams isn't any near the all-time great backs and I doubt he ever will be. He's already what, 27? He's not going to string together 8-9 seasons (which would be from 27 to around age 35) good enough to change my mind.
I don't want to stereotype all Panther fans on this site (by the way, I am one) since I've seen some intelligent ones. But the fact that somebody is seriously trying to argue that Williams may be on Jim Brown or Walter Payton's level someday is laughable. I'll just put it this way. If a Saints, Falcons, or Buccaneers fan came in trying to say the same exact argument for their halfback, they'd get laughed at.
Gale Sayers played 6 years in the NFL and was voted into the Hall of Fame. DeAngelo Williams in his two full seasons as starting running back should have been 2x Pro Bowler. As his career continues all his stats not only YPC will improve.
You are so blind to the fact that we had a perrenial Pro Bowler sitting on the bench for two season. AD better? That is debatable. C. Johnson maybe? Steven Jackson he's a bruiser but I would bet most NFL Coaches will take Williams over Jackson. And SO WHAT IF THEY ARE... You can't have more than one HOFer in a generation? E. Smith and Terrell Davis played at the same time. What an unqualified comment that was.
You can call me a homer if you want. Doesn't bother me at all. I am also not going discredit what I see as a player teams will have to prepare for. A la Steve Smith. REGARDLESS of what team he plays for. A player the 1st time I saw him reminded me of Barry Sanders. And still does. Maybe a bit early to tag HOF to his name but IMO he clearly has the tools and the drive to be one of the all time greats.
Sorry you don't agree but question my intelligence because you don't agree make you more shallow minded then most I have seen.
Edited by DaveThePanther2008, 19 April 2010 - 12:25 AM.
Posted 19 April 2010 - 08:25 AM
Posted 19 April 2010 - 08:35 AM
Great RB but not Elite
Posted 19 April 2010 - 08:41 AM
Wow, Steve Smith's nuts must be getting dry by now......
Steve Smith could bulk up and play RB. No doubt. Better vision, toughness, and big play ability than DeAngelo or Barry Sanders. Steve could definately dominate until at least the age 35 and then would still be productive until age 45. All in a Panther uniform also b/c he loves Carolina.
Posted 19 April 2010 - 08:42 AM
DeAngelo is now getting up there in RB years. I'd put Williams on the same level as a Ricky Watters or a Tiki Barber.
Great RB but not Elite
I think Tiki is a good comparison.....the Coughlin version he learned how to not fumble and destroyed people.