Why does size matter?

Size does matter but I do think there is a point of no return. I hope they don't get any bigger than they are now. I actually kind of wish they didn't go past 220. After that they all just seem slow and boring to me.

 

Well it's down to the 220lb fighters to dethrone these boring giants...

 

If heavyweight boxing has any luck left.

 

Brown played against significantly smaller lines, linebackers and defensive backs, especially those on the defensive line. To argue otherwise is a fool's errand. He was a man among boys, possessing an advantage he would not have today. You speak of his speed but he was a very average sprinter. Hell, I was faster at 14 years old than he was in a 100 meters in college.

And the one year that Jim Taylor didn't have that *sshat Paul Hornung next to him sharing carries, Taylor outrushed Jimmy Brown... averaging 5.4 yards per carry and 106 yards per game.

 

Another seldom remembered fact is that the Browns' lead back after Jim Brown, Leroy Kelly, averaged even more yards per carry during his first season as a starter (and more than 5 yds per carry his first three seasons) than Brown had in the previous two...

 

Brown played against significantly smaller DBs and linebackers? How significant? Look at the size of CBs in the 60's versus today. Do the same for linebackers. Browns team had linebackers all at 230lb-240lb. Some of them bigger than guys like Keuchly. They were definitely smaller on average, but I would be careful not to overplay the significance.

Browns success wasn't driven by his size. That's silly. This is football. Coaches only care if you are an effective running back. Brown was the most effective RB in history. He could stop while sprinting, juke, and accelerate to full speed again. He had everything. Size was but one of many features he had. It's not the whole story, not even close.

How was he an average sprinter?? Again, you'll have to define what average. He ran the 100 years dash in under 10 seconds. At 48 years old, he did the 40 years dash in 5.7. Where do you see his time for 100 meters? Also, have you watched his highlights? He clearly has insane acceleration, and can run pretty damn fast.

That Jim Taylor stat is for one year, right? Jim Browns 5.2 is a career average. Thats a massive difference. In 1963, Jim averaged 6.4 yards per carry!

 

It's weird that you guys point to like two seasons where some other half back did good, to take away from Brown. I find the fascination with bringing a legend like him down a peg or two just so odd.

Yeah, if you isolate a single stat in a single year, of course you'll find people who do better.

You guys make fun of others for "hero worship." But what if, in reality, others are judging these athletes properly, and you guys have something called "hero admonishment?"

I mean, if you're just bringing up the Jim Taylor fact because it's interesting, okay, fair play. But to use a single season average to diminish the significance of a career long average??

 

If Brown was simply a man amongst boys, why are halfbacks today roughly the same size, if not smaller?

If Browns success = big halfback. Why don't teams today use giants as halfbacks? The position is waaaay more about size. You guys know this...

 

Of course we know this. And you know that we know this. Which means that you're arguing against a bogus strawman. Nobody here has said that Brown's success was only about size.

 

"Brown played against significantly smaller lines, linebackers and defensive backs, especially those on the defensive line. To argue otherwise is a fool's errand. He was a man among boys, possessing an advantage he would not have today."

It seems to be the main argument.

 

And for the record, the NFL is now full of fast, muscle-bound, agile 215-lb+ running backs, many of whom very well also would have been superstars had they had the privilege of running against slow 220-lb linebackers and 240-lb defensive tackles.