Why does size matter?

Because it does

 

The average size of an NFL lineman in 1968 was 6 foot and 240 pounds. That is now 6 foot 4 and 320.

Who you gonna pick in a game, the 1968 Packers or 2015 Broncos?

Just curious.

 

Well, one poster argued that Jim Brown's Browns would "take apart many modern teams"...

 

You have got to be sh*tting me.

How can one even have a debate based on logic with people like this?

 

Yeah that was definitely a reach. Jim Brown would definitely be the best HB today, but I think it stops there. The players today are freakin huge. Even many QBs would be SHWs in boxing.

 

Jim Brown would be decent but he was far slower than an Adrian Peterson or Jamaal Charles. Not that speed is everything at the HB/FB position... but he just couldn't truck modern defenders like he did all those beanpoles in the 50's and 60's.

 

He was bigger than AP and was virtually unstoppable. Highest average yard per carry in history. He could toss guys aside with just his forearm. He would be far better than decent imo.

 

Runnong past and thru 195 lb linebackers is a bit different task than today's NFL defenses. He was a man among boys. Today he would be a man among men.

 

?

Looking through rosters in the 60's, looks like plenty, if not most starting linebackers in the 60's were 6'1-6'5 around 220 - 250lb. The main difference would be on the line, where some guys are behemoths. Jim could still plow through them. There are tons of small HBs who can block modern huge DE's.


This dude is smaller then Brown, and trucks an athletic 300lb beast.

This content is protected

Plus, Browns gift was the combination of power and speed. He could also pull away from these big guys. He has a lot of tools.

Jim Brown was bigger than Payton who came after him. They were both bigger than Sanders, who came even later. Brown was bigger than AP, and Marshawn, two modern day beasts. He has a huge size advantage for someone in his position who can run the way he can.

Everyone knows Jim Brown would kill. Saying he'd be decent is slightly worse than saying the same thing about Payton. Just no.

 

Can you name some of the 6'5 250-lb starting linebackers you found from Browns era? Today's defensive players aren't just bigger-- they're better trained and far better all-around athletes than their predecessors. No comparison. The speed gap in particular is impossible to overstate. Brown in his era was like one of those superstar high school running backs who are bigger than most opposing defenders, and faster and stronger. Wouldn't enjoy those advantages today.

 

I saw so many 6'4s I figured there had be a 6'5 somewhere.

What do you mean? Jim oversizes his successors. Speed and weight for linebackers hasn't changed monumentally. Clay Matthews is 6'3, a guy like Briggs was 6'1, Keuchly is 6'3 237lb.

Supposedly Browns 40 yard dash was 4.5, and AP's is 4.4. And Jim is bigger.

Jim is bigger than Marshawn, Forte, AP, Sanders, Payton, and many other great backs. To say he's at a size disadvantage, or less athletic is silly talk.

How do you think Payton and Sanders do in todays game? Decent?

 

Are you mischaracterizing my post on purpose? My point is basic and obvious: as dominant as Brown was in his era, he would have a far, far more difficult time dominating the superbly-trained super athletes of modern NFL defenses.

Btw, you just made up the 6'5? Seems pretty dishonest.

 

I addressed your points. By "mischaracterizing", I think you mean disagreeing. Sounds like you just don't have an answer to it.

There may be a few things he would need to pick up, but he would still dominate. We're talking about an intelligent human being here, not a mule. You think he won't be able to run the drills, and do the exercises? Get outta here.

How would Sander and Payton do today? Just decent?

 

You acted as if I claimed that Brown would be at a size disadvantage relative o modern running backs. Thats mischaracterizing what I wrote.

Your posts, going back to your claim that Browns Browns would dismantle many modern teams suggest that you don't really get how much the game and its athletes have changed. I like Jim Brown. He had the athletic gifts to have a great career in the modern era but it would be much, much, much harder for him to dominate the way he did in his time.

And why are you comparing Brown, a power back, to two of the shiftiest, most elusive, best field vision having running back of all time?