Why does size matter?

You insinuated he would have a size and speed disadvantage today. And I'm telling you that for modern HB's it's not the case. He's bigger than most modern half back and as fast.

Of course it would be harder. But then you could also argue that having better tools around him to excel beyond what the 60's could provide, would outweigh that, and make him even better. Right?

Anyone who knows Football knows that success also depends on the intangibles. Jim Brown understood football. And he was damn good at it. He was also tough as nails. He would break down the defense by making them work to tackle him.

I ask about Payton because you can't think one would only do decent, and the other would be great. They played 10 years apart, and are considered the two best half backs of all time...

Idk, maybe it's the transition from black and white footage to color that makes it all seem different.

 

Again -- I apologize if I come off as condescending or rude but you just don't know what you're talking about here. Jim Brown was an excellent running back but if you knew more about football and his career, you would recognize that his dominance was due largely to his advantages in physicality. He was basically as strong as the opposing defensive linemen and linebackers and faster than anyone in the opposing secondaries. He regularly dragged, bullied, and bulled through lineman and linebackers like modern backs do to cornerbacks. Transplanted to the modern NFL, he would not have those advantages. The modern physical equivalent relative to today's defenses would probably be a 265-lb running back with track star speed.

Your Payton analogy doesn't work for reasons that should be perfectly clear. Guys with Payton's attributes and skill set rely less on raw physicality. Even he would have a significantly tougher time against modern defenses though, given the gap in physicality between today's defenses and those of the 70s and early 80s.

 

What do you mean Payton would have a tougher time? Does that mean you think he wouldn't be the best today? It seems you want to disagree with me, at the same time you don't want to say patently stupid things like that Payton would struggle today. And it's forcing you to give me unclear answers.

Do you know a guy named Darren Proles? He's 5'6, 190lb, and is one of the all time leaders in all around yards. He plays today. You think that Brown or Payton would have a significantly tough time with modern defenses for physical reasons? And yet Sproles is super effective? Lol where is your senses? Sproles can stiff arm and truck linebackers, but Jim Brown would have a tough time physically? Your imagination is quite something.

Payton had one of the most insane work ethics of any player of all time. If you spew anything about his incapability to compete at todays level physically, you've truly exposed your lack of knowledge.

Honestly you don't seem to know much about football. Seems like your appetite for disagreeing with me is making you stumble all over the place.

You've given too much weight to those who say that Brown dominated the field with his size. He wasn't bigger than the average linebacker was he? You make it sound like you can just give a big guy the ball in 1960, and he'll destroy everyone. So why wouldn't they make some of these 6'4 250lb linebackers into half backs if that were the case?

As a matter of fact, how come they don't put more TE sized guys at HB today? It's because running the ball is WAY more about size. It's always been the case, especially for Jim Brown. You seem obsessed with size, weight and height, more so than skill power and will. Jacobs was a big HB. He was good, but not close to Jim Brown good.

 

What about Sanders, Kevin? 5'8, 200lb. Retired in 98. Does he also have an uphill battle? lol

 

This is pointless. My answers are unclear to you in part because of your lack of understanding about football and in part because you seem to be having some basic reading comprehension/analysis difficulties for some reason. I probably should have refused to engage you once you claimed that Brown's Browns would take apart plenty of modern teams. That's something that only someone who doesn't understand football or know much about the NFL and its history would say. You don't seem to know enough about Brown to understand what made him so dominant in his time and you don't seem to have the basic inferential abilities to understand why his performance might fall off a great deal in the modern league. Your Sproles analogy, like your Sanders one, is completely worthless.

 

Few things worse than people who are smug and clueless at the same time. I'm embarrassed for you.

 

It's funny how America has the world's strictest laws against steroids (making it a crime to POSSESS them) but you have sports like the NFL as family entertainment which is basically an anabolic steroid trade show exhibition.

 

Just look at yourself. You're so desperate to argue that size doesn't really matter in heavyweight boxing that you're engaging in parallel NFL debates when it's evident to anyone following your posts that you don't know **** about football. Get a hold of yourself, man.

 

Zero substance in your post. Just like your knowledge of football.

 

Projecting much?

I'm not the one who uses size as a reason for why Brown would have a difficult time today, when he would be way larger than some good modern HBs.

You think Brown dominated because he was big. Someone who actually knows a lick about Brown, knows that he was also an elusive genius, on top of being the best trucker ever.

He had insane acceleration. And was very agile. He was a freak.
9 years, never missed a single game.
105 yards per game average, highest in history.
5.2 avg yards per carry!! Highest in NFL history.

This content is protected

This guys says it the best
https://streamable.com/qjn3

 

Calls Brown one of the greatest all around athletes of all time in one thread.

Calls him athletically inferior to modern players in another.

Lol, the hoops you jump through man...

 

Boxing ain't football though is it....

 

Work on your reading comprehension and it will all make sense. All jokes aside, eat a snack, take a nap and come back and reread the thread when you've calmed down. You pretending that I don't know much about football and you do is rich beyond measure. You're ridiculous and you're in over your head. This kind of reminds me of your ridiculous posts about the civil rights era and the NOI during that thread where you were butthurt because people described the Nation of Islam and Ali in harsh terms. Sometimes you just need to check your emotions and bow out of these discussions.

 

Again, you have nothing of substance to say. Your post has nothing to do with football.

I've been addressing your points. Maybe a simpler translation will do: You are attributing too much of Browns success to smaller defenses in the past, when modern half backs are at a bigger disadvantage in this regard, yet still succeed.

From this point on, you've responded with nothing meaningful related to football, or the argument. Pertaining to the NOI, I was bringing balance to a conversation that was dominated by a perception that the NOI was equally as bad as white supremacy in the 60's. And although it has nothing to do with this conversation, thanks for checking me on a mistake you THINK I made in the past.

 

course size matters , it -

1. gives u more power if you learn to use it
2. offers something in a clinch if you learn to use it and are allowed to by the ref
3. detracts from any facets relating to reduced ability to keep the larger body mass oxygenated, so detracts from
a.stamina
b. progressive power as fights go on
c.ability to maintain posture and balance
d.ability to think tactically the longer and active the fight becomes.
e. ability to land combos in large numbers, since they require a bigger oxygen debt and require a larger load from the heart than the smaller man. This means effectively the bigger man has a reduced punch output compared to the smaller man.
These stamina issues are not something you can learn to deal with anymore than another fighter. Smaller men will always have this advantage over you, all other things equal.
4. increases propensity for damage accrued during a career.

something it doesn't do, is make you a better boxer, or the HW scene would be ruled by roleypoly fatsos...something that's never happened and never will.