Most dominant all-around Rbs in NFL History

[PonyExpress]

First I should say that I love the thread...thank you.

but since you've put me on the defensive...

I interpreted the question the same way the voters for the pro-football Hall of Fame did...how can you discard the greatest and most dominant back of all time simply because his prime years did not overlap with the NFL for very long?

Grange was a charter member of the Hall of Fame, the prestigious class of '63 -- with Thorpe and Halas. One wonders what those idiots must've been thinking since he only had a "mediocre" career.

He had 3 great years in pro ball, one in the NFL and 2 in the AFL. As you're aware, the Patriots were an AFL team -- anyone who wants to enshrine Gino better hope there's no bias againt the AFL. I suppose O.J. Simpson, another AFL back, must also be ignored??

Grange's AFL team, the Yankees, eventually became an AAFC team...the AAFC was the league where Paul Brown and Otto Graham had most of their success.

I answered the question literally -- "most dominant back in NFL history" -- absolutely no concessions for career length.

Neither Gale Sayers nor Earl Campbell played more than 2-3 injury free seasons...should we therefore ignore them too?

Up until the 1940s (and really the 50's), all the best coaches and teams were in the college ranks. For example, Grange's coach at Illinois, Zuppke, was a far more significant innovator than Halas (who is commonly and wrongly credited for the invention of the T formation).

Luckily for the pro game, the best of the college game and the NFL would occasionally overlap. Thorpe, Nevers and Grange all had pro careers which were FAR less significant than their college careers -- but they were inarguably the 3 most dominant backs from the 1910-1935...unless this is strictly a cookie-cutter "pure NFL and NFL only" thread (which strikes me as rather silly), then I don't see the point of leaving them out of any discussion of the "most dominant backs."

Now, if we're looking at "all-around" backs, then durability is a major criteria...but I interpreted the question narrowly on the question of "dominance" and broadly on the question of "NFL."

Let's not pretend Red Grange didn't exist simply because the NFL was a joke prior to WWII (and if not for Graham and Namath the League would almost certainly have a different name today).

again, thanks for the thread...always fun to inject some history into the offseason.

The AFL to which the patriots belonged is not the same AFL as Grange participate in in 1927. There were 3 AFLs all of which failed prior to WWII. The Pats' AFL started in 1960 with 8 new charter members. Also, OJ Simpson's prime years were in the NFL, 1972-6, Gale Sayers had 5 prime years with the Bears, as did Campbell with the Oilers.

 

[AllabouttheVinces]

Yes, huge fan. Maybe the greatest college backfield of the last 50 years.

I have to agree. They were dominant, but didn't get the TV time of the top-ranked teams, so they are still underappreciated to this day. They got more notoriety once ****erson dominated in the NFL.

You may not want to hear this if you're a Mustang, but I also liked the Texas Longhorn wishbone offenses of the early 70's. Everyone knew they would run the ball all day, and still couldn't stop them.

 

[the taildragger]

The AFL to which the patriots belonged is not the same AFL as Grange participate in in 1927. There were 3 AFLs all of which failed prior to WWII. The Pats' AFL started in 1960 with 8 new charter members. Also, OJ Simpson's prime years were in the NFL, 1972-6, Gale Sayers had 5 prime years with the Bears, as did Campbell with the Oilers.

Good point on Simpson's prime years...touche.

re AFL: there were indeed multiple incarnations of the same league...the American Football League...the last version the Pats played in also died after the merger, and is therefore defunct.

I remain convinced that Grange was both dominant and did indeed play in the NFL (while still dominant), so he still gets my vote.

re Sayers: His five years were not all "prime," he was only healthy for 3.5 of those seasons.

Campbell's career was also cut short by injury, though he played in the NFL longer than Grange, my point was that a brief career doesn't necessarily disqualify a guy from a discussion of "dominant backs"...that's also why I brought both up Sayers...both had very brief careers, but were brilliant while they lasted.

Same with Grange.

 

[PonyExpress]

Good point on Simpson's prime years...touche.

re AFL: there were indeed multiple incarnations of the same league...the American Football League...the last version the Pats played in also died after the merger, and is therefore defunct.

I remain convinced that Grange was both dominant and did indeed play in the NFL (while still dominant), so he still gets my vote.

re Sayers: His five years were not all "prime," he was only healthy for 3.5 of those seasons.

Campbell's career was also cut short by injury, though he played in the NFL longer than Grange, my point was that a brief career doesn't necessarily disqualify a guy from a discussion of "dominant backs"...that's also why I brought both up Sayers...both had very brief careers, but were brilliant while they lasted.

Same with Grange.

The 1959 version of the AFL's only connection with the pre-WW II AFLs was (a) it bore the same name and (b) it wasn't the NFL. To suggest it was an "incarnation" of the "same league" is misleading. Also Sayers had 5 very good years. http://profootballreference.com/players/SayeGa00.htm

 

[Patjew]

I would have been curious to see where Bo Jackson fit into that list had he played football full time.

Great call. I think without baseball and the injury he could have been the best ever. Now he's doing crappy reality TV shows. Oh well.

M. Faulk scared me more than any back I've ever seen, but that also had something to do with the high-powered offense he was in.

 

[the taildragger]

The 1959 version of the AFL's only connection with the pre-WW II AFLs was (a) it bore the same name and (b) it wasn't the NFL. To suggest it was an "incarnation" of the "same league" is misleading. Also Sayers had 5 very good years. http://profootballreference.com/players/SayeGa00.htm

I'll concede all of that...we're probably getting into semantics.

The original AFL (that disbanded a couple times) went 20 years before being resurrected by, as you suggest, completely different management (same thing happens in corporate America all the time)...but the original AFL was indeed the ancestor of the modern AFL -- for example the Bulldogs became the Shamrocks which were the ancestor of the Patriots -- Boston did not have another football team until the Pats...same in buffalo with the Indians eventually becoming the Bills in the modern AFL.

I certainly wouldn't suggest Sayers wasn't "very good" in his last two seasons, but -- by his own admission -- he did not run near full strength from '68 on. His "prime" was just 3 electrifying seasons: 65-67. he continued to dominate for another two seasons until further injuries prematurely derailed him for good.

I'm sure you'll agree that we're getting further away from the premise.

I firmly stand by Grange or vintage Sayers. I will change my mind if there are career minimums in the debate -- but why go there?

Jim Brown did not consistently dominate games like Red...neither did Barry Sanders or Bo Jackson or anyone else. Would Bo know football if he were transported back in time 70 years?...I wasn't around, but something tells me the training regimine was a tad less condusive to manufacturing athletes...the most successful backs were bruisers, but Red was an exception...along with Thorpe, the most natural athlete the game has produced...and in his era, he was miles above everyone else on the field.

Though he never played a single HEALTHY season in the NFL (which I assume disqualifies him from consideration), Tom Harmon was another guy who could take over a game whenever and whereever -- the last great triple threat halfback...I just hate for a guy like that to fall through the cracks.

 

[PonyExpress]

I'll concede all of that...we're probably getting into semantics.

The original AFL (that disbanded a couple times) went 20 years before being resurrected by, as you suggest, completely different management (same thing happens in corporate America all the time)...but the original AFL was indeed the ancestor of the modern AFL -- for example the Bulldogs became the Shamrocks which were the ancestor of the Patriots -- Boston did not have another football team until the Pats...same in buffalo with the Indians eventually becoming the Bills in the modern AFL.

I certainly wouldn't suggest Sayers wasn't "very good" in his last two seasons, but -- by his own admission -- he did not run near full strength from '68 on. His "prime" was just 3 electrifying seasons: 65-67. he continued to dominate for another two seasons until further injuries prematurely derailed him for good.

I'm sure you'll agree that we're getting further away from the premise.

I firmly stand by Grange or vintage Sayers. I will change my mind if there are career minimums in the debate -- but why go there?

Jim Brown did not consistently dominate games like Red...neither did Barry Sanders or Bo Jackson or anyone else. Would Bo know football if he were transported back in time 70 years?...I wasn't around, but something tells me the training regimine was a tad less condusive to manufacturing athletes...the most successful backs were bruisers, but Red was an exception...along with Thorpe, the most natural athlete the game has produced...and in his era, he was miles above everyone else on the field.

Though he never played a single HEALTHY season in the NFL (which I assume disqualifies him from consideration), Tom Harmon was another guy who could take over a game whenever and whereever -- the last great triple threat halfback...I just hate for a guy like that to fall through the cracks.

Now you are just flinging bullcrap. the original AFL was not "resurrected". I guess when you make factually inaccurate statements you like to dismiss them as "semantics". Once again there is no business connection other than name and non-nfl status between the AFL of 1959 and the three AFLs prior to WWII. Sayers led the NFL in rushing in 1969, which most other than yourself would consider a significant accomplishment for a RB. The rest sounds like gobbledygook.

 

[the taildragger]

hysterical jim thorpe story...

"As a quadruple-threat superstar, he was unconcerned about the opposing team. Some critics charged that Thorpe, a moody man, could be lazy and indifferent in a game, but he also possessed a sharp sense of showmanship. When rookie lineman Knute Rockne, fresh out of Notre Dame, once tackled him too savagely, Thorpe chided, “Let the old Indian run, Rock — that’s what the people paid to see.†Rockne ignored this advice and hit Thorpe again on the next play. On the third try, Thorpe blasted Rockne so hard he knocked him out, then danced to a touchdown. As Rockne came to, he heard Thorpe’s gentle voice say, 'That’s a good boy, Rock. You let old Jim run.'"

 

[the taildragger]

Now you are just flinging bullcrap. the original AFL was not "resurrected". I guess when you make factually inaccurate statements you like to dismiss them as "semantics". Once again there is no business connection other than name and non-nfl status between the AFL of 1959 and the three AFLs prior to WWII. Sayers led the NFL in rushing in 1969, which most other than yourself would consider a significant accomplishment for a RB. The rest sounds like gobbledygook.

what part of "completely new management" has you confused with me making an assertion of a "business connection."

when a brand name is revived...this includes SPORTS LEAGUES...it is commonly known as "resurrection" whether the original owner has anything to do with it or not.

Leading the league in rushing is "significant"....you're starting to make inferences on your own. Sayers had three prime years before he led the league in rushing...ACCORDING TO THE MAN HIMSELF, he was not the same back in '69 DESPITE LEADING THE LEAGUE. Not sure why you continue to assert that I don't think he was any good at that point.

I have not once accused you of being "misleading" "innacurate" or a bull **** artist...I would appreciate some mutual consideration.

I enjoy the thread, and have tried to bring a sensible contribution to bear...I enjoy the disagreement and appreciate that you are a feisty person but it's crossed the line.

 

[the taildragger]

Maybe the greatest college backfield of the last 50 years.

p.s. this would make an excellent topic as well.

Pony, I tried to send you a PM but I honestly don’t know how. but like DaBruinz said, I'm ******ed.

You’re a respectable poster. Things get lost in translation...FWI, I'm certain we agree more than disagree...I didn't initially post all the areas where we agreed, but it wouldn't have hurt to do so.

I don't always spend enough time on posts -- let's be honest, it's hard to know how seriously anything in here gets taken.

it’s obvious you put a lot into your original analysis -- sometimes by adding additional feedback one comes off as a supreme jerk…I was honestly afraid things would escalate. if i'm pissed off it will be obvious -- otherwise I'm just being direct or generally subversive. I could always be more liberal with the smilies, which should probably be my tagline.

I’m going to have to take a break from this posting business – it’s a little addictive in a good way but you guys are wearing me out -- and frankly, I've yet to master the art.

But I’ll be checking back for news as frequently as possible. it's obviously time for me to retain my 2 cents for another day.

GO PATS

 

[wcda]

One thing that has to be taken into consideration is how the game was played back then and how its played now. The equipment and the rules are major factors. Wonder how the so called moder era players would stand up if they played in the early years.

 

[PonyExpress]

taildragger,
the minute I posted m y last post I knew it would be offensive and I regretted it. But it was too late to edit. Don't leave the forum on my account. I appreciate the give and take. Just have the facts with you- many of us are diehard football fans who take it more seriously than a sane person should.

 

[seahawkspatriotschick]

Great Post ....Pony Express

 

[PonyExpress]

I just want to note a glaring omission in my original list: Laurence McCutcheon, the great RB for the Rams in the 70s. If he had been included he would have ended up tied for 40th with Corey Dillon. (1973-7: 100.4/5.03/.47)

 

[PatsFanInVa]

"He's the greatest DOT COM!"

- Guys in barbershop in commercial on this theme

 

[Johnny Z]

Yes, huge fan. Maybe the greatest college backfield of the last 50 years.

Somebody asked, so...I used to watch the Packers play Jim Brown. Lombardi had some black football players on his defense and he stopped Jim Brown in his tracks. In one championship game they held Brown to 50 yards. Taylor and Hornung ran for 201 yards.

Later in life I went back to college and got a degree. I picked a school that was in bicycle range. It happened to have two running backs - ****erson and James.

Eric ****erson is the greatest running back I have ever watched play football.

 

[yamamba]

****erson or sanders for me as the best rushers.maybe not best all round but for magic happening when they got the ball....bo jackson if he hadnt been injured...not old enough to remember pre 80s