The Bong Zone

Today's topic is about the best RB in NFL history. There are lots of people to choose from, so let's get started.

As of 1994, according to the NFL's 75th Anniversary Team, the 7 greatest RB's were (in alphabetical order):

Jim Brown
Marion Motley
Bronko Nagurski
Walter Payton
Gayle Sayers
OJ Simpson
Steve Van Buren

NOTES:

Gayle Sayers also made the 75th Anniversary Team as the only Kick Returner named.

Marion Motley and Bronko Nagurski also made the 75th Anniversary Team as two way players including Linebacker.

Steve Van Buren also made the 75th Anniversary Team as a two way player including Defensive Back.

So that helps to narrow down the players from the not so recent past (that we may not be as familiar with). Of that group, Jim Brown is the guy that is most commonly referred to when speaking about the greatest RB ever. So how does he stack up against say, LaDainian Tomlinson of today's era?

As of right now, LT has played 111 games and Brown 118 games. So if someone says Brown is the best despite his lack of playing time, then someone can say LT is the best as well without saying, "But LT hasn't played enough to be called the best ever."

Jim averages: 125.5 total yards per game
LT averages: 126.4 total yards per game

Jim averages: 1.07 total TD's per game
LT averages: 1.16 total TD's per game

Jim: 57 fumbles
LT: 24 fumbles

This is a fun stat:

Jim: 110.1 Passer Rating (12 passes attempted, 4 completions, 3 TD's)
LT: 154.4 Passer Rating (11 passes attempted, 8 completions, 7 TD's)

Moreover, Jim played on a great team.

Jim's teams: 79-34-5 (70%)
LT's teams: 63-49 (56%)

So why not LT? A great RB can run AND catch AND block AND score AND do the little things needed to win.

With respect to Brown he does better here:

Jim: 5.2 Yards Per Carry
LT: 4.5 Yards Per Carry

Jim: 9.5 Yards Per Catch
LT: 7.4 Yards Per Catch

I will say though regarding Jim's receiving stats, those numbers may seem a little out of proportion due to LT having so many more catches than Brown. (Brown's 262 receptions vs LT's 458 receptions). From a mathematical statistical standpoint, that is a very large difference.

Regarding the average yards per rushing attempt, Brown definitely has the advantage. Or does he???

As mentioned above, Brown played on a GREAT team.

LT's years in the league:

2001: 0 ProBowl Offensive Linemen & 0 All Pro Offensive Linemen
2002: 0 ProBowl Offensive Linemen & 0 All Pro Offensive Linemen
2003: 0 ProBowl Offensive Linemen & 0 All Pro Offensive Linemen
2004: 0 ProBowl Offensive Linemen & 0 All Pro Offensive Linemen
2005: 0 ProBowl Offensive Linemen & 0 All Pro Offensive Linemen
2006:  2 ProBowl Offensive Linemen & 0 All Pro Offensive Linemen
2007:  2 ProBowl Offensive Linemen & 0 All Pro Offensive Linemen

Jim's years in the league:

1957:  2 ProBowl Offensive Linemen & 2 All Pro Offensive Linemen (2 HOF's)
1958:  2 ProBowl Offensive Linemen & 2 All Pro Offensive Linemen (2 HOF's) (3 different guys)
1959:  3 ProBowl Offensive Linemen & 2 All Pro Offensive Linemen (2 HOF's) (4 different guys)
1960:  2 ProBowl Offensive Linemen & 2 All Pro Offensive Linemen (1 HOF)
1961:  3 ProBowl Offensive Linemen & 2 All Pro Offensive Linemen (1 HOF) (3 different guys)
1962:  2 ProBowl Offensive Linemen & 2 All Pro Offensive Linemen (1 HOF)
1963:  2 ProBowl Offensive Linemen & 1 All Pro Offensive Linemen
1964:  1 ProBowl Offensive Linemen & 2 All Pro Offensive Linemen (1 HOF)
1965:  3 ProBowl Offensive Linemen & 4 All Pro Offensive Linemen (1 HOF) (4 different guys)

Thus, the difference is pretty obvious. Jim was surrounded by massive talent blocking for him while LT did not have that same luxury.

Let's compare by adding them up per year:

ProBowlers: LT = 4, Jim = 20
All Pro Lineman: LT =0, Jim = 19
HOF Lineman: LT = 0, Jim = 11

Doesn't that make what LT has done even more impressive?

With all that said, I'm going with a guy that hardly anyone mentions in this debate... Marshall Faulk.

I judged my greatest QB of all time based on being able to run and pass. The same goes for my RB... he needs to run and catch. After all, when talking about the best EVER, that means a guy that can play in more than one type of offense and succeed. I want guys that are versatile and can do multiple things really well. So when one team shuts down the running game, my RB can burn them in the passing game.

One can't find many RB's better than Marshall when it comes to that. He ranks #109 in the history of the NFL in receiving yards and #9 in rushing yards. Seriously... stop for 15 seconds and really think about that. There are basically only 100 guys (whose ENTIRE job it was to catch the ball) that have more receiving yards than Faulk. Then on top of that, out of all the guys in the history of the league that were tasked just to run the ball, only 8 were better there. Not too shabby now is it? :)

While I realize that guys like LT and Faulk are certainly not the "popular" pick on questions like this, consider the following as well:

As just mentioned, Marshall ranks #109 on the all-time receiving list for yardage. Reggie Wayne ranks #104. Donald Driver ranks #105. Dwight Clark ranks #114. Kellen Winslow ranks #116 (HOF). Other guys that rank BELOW #150: Steve Smith, Todd Christensen, Mike Ditka (HOF), Santana Moss, John Mackey (HOF), Dave Casper (HOF), John Taylor, Lynn Swann (HOF), etc, etc, etc.

He ranks #9 in on the all time rushing list for yardage. In contrast, OJ Simpson is #16, Earl Campbell is #26, etc, etc, etc...

Thus, with Faulk, you are essentially getting Kellen Winslow AND OJ Simpson in one single player. Never to mind if Faulk played WR, he would have more than likely ended up in the Top 10 all time in that category, as his receiving skills were better than almost everyone in the league at the time.

What do you get with other RB's in comparison that make them more worthy than a guy who is essentially two stars at once? Something to ponder...

In Marshall's entire career, he had one stud lineman (Orlando Pace) and only 2 other guys that have ever made the ProBowl or be All-Pro's (only one ProBowl appearance for each guy while Marshall was on the team). So he had a grand total of 3 guys in his ENTIRE career on two different teams reach that level. Compare that to Jim who had 4 guys reach that pinnacle in the SAME YEAR. Give Jason Kidd the likes of LeBron, Kobe, Carmelo and Garnett on the same team and watch Jason's numbers skyrocket through the roof. That's the difference between what Jim Brown had compared to LT or Marshall.

This is by no means saying that Jim Brown was not great, because he most certainly was. It is simply a means of showing how they did based on the supporting cast around them. Also take into account that Barry Sanders or Gale Sayers might have been the best pure runners. Earl Campbell might have been the best powerback ever. Those guys were all unquestionably great as well.

And before I go, consider the following:

*** No one in the history of the NFL has put up more yards from scrimmage in a season than the 2,429 yards accomplished by Marshall.

*** In fact Marshall is the only guy to hold 3 of the Top 20 spots in that category (LaDainian and the great Eric Dickerson are the only others to hold 2 of the Top 20 spots).

*** He's the only guy to hold 4 of the Top 30 spots in that category (only Tomlinson has three).

*** Marshall ranks #4 in TD's scored behind only the great Jerry Rice, Emmitt Smith and Marcus Allen.

*** He is the only player to have ever accomplished at least 100 rushing TD's and 30 receiving TD's.

*** He is one of only three players to have accomplished 10,000 yards rushing (12,279) and 5,000 yards receiving (6,875)... (Marcus Allen 12,243 & 5,411 and Tiki Barber 10,449 & 5,183 are the others)

*** He had set the NFL with 26 Rushing TD's (which has since been broken).

*** Won the MVP and three consecutive NFL Offensive Player of the Year Awards.

*** He had FOUR consecutive 2,000 yard+ seasons with TWO different teams.... still and NFL record.

*** Only he and Roger Craig have had 1,000 yards rushing and receiving in the same season.

*** Became the only RB to lead his team in receptions in 5 different seasons (3 with the Colts and 2 with the Rams)

*** And as one final fun stat, he also is #1 on the all time 2 point conversion list.   :)

It would be nice that when the debates stir up about the greatest running back ever, that Marshall at least gets properly mentioned in the mix... he's certainly earned it.

Cheers!

Bong, you are overwhelming with your statistical analysis. I can't concentrate long enough to do all that research(probably due to the side effects). I can't disagree with your number barrage, but YOU know I can't just lay there and take it(no matter what Bobby Knight said!) The game of football has evolved so much from the 50s and 60s to today that statistical comparisons are almost useless. I've always believed the saying that "I can prove anything with enough statistics." Therefore, I'll resort to opinions, which can only be refuted, not disproved. Modern day RBs numbers are inflated by rule changes that have led to scoring contests. The role of RB have changed from clock killers to offensive weapons. Your argument for Faulk is compelling, accurate, and surprising(that's the word you were waiting for, isn't it?) Every RB has benefited from something that the others didn't have. Jim Brown compiled his numbers in an era where you knew they were going to hand the ball to him on first and second down. Defenses still couldn't stop him. Also, in that era, the objective of coaches like Paul Brown was to keep the other teams offense off the field and use up the clock. Hence, 3 yards and a cloud of dust. Records are ALWAYS broken by increasing production and changes in philosophy.I rely more on the margin of time between when a record is broken. Jim Brown shattered records that took decades to be broken again. I remember watching the Cowboys-Packers ice bowl game. Probably my earliest football/sport memory outside of Rupp's Runts. I've been watching sports, particularly NFL, ever since. I don't think you can pick a BEST RB ever. Instead I would catagorize them.

1) Most stylish ever - Gale Sayers, followed very closely by Barry Sanders.
2) Most powerful - Earl Campbell, Film clips just don't show how much he punished defenders for even trying to tackle him.
3) Most reliable when you need a yard - Emmit Smith
4) Most Explosive - Tony Dorsett, see longest run from scrimmage recordholder
5) Best Blocking Back - Mike Alstott, this nonstatistical catagory greatly affects every RBs numbers
6) Best receiving - Marshall Faulk, sometimes you just can't argue with stats.
7) Most feared - Eric Dickerson, always a threat to break a long one while still able to run between the tackles.
8) Best clock killer - Jim Brown
9) All time killer Running Back - O.J. in a runaway

OK, enough ranting. I'm typing this on a new Vista laptop and it just keeps doing the strangest things that I don't want it to. Kinda like realizing you shouldn't have taken that third tab, but now you're gonna have to ride the trip out. Any other Vista users out there like me. Microsoft Strikes Again. I gotta go now before I get mad enough to throw this thing right thru my 6 year old big screen so I can spend a couple of grand for a new, improved one of those that I won't like either!!!!!

jakobe1919 Reputation: 97 Level: Superstar Since: Apr 30, 2008	Posted on: May 15, 2008 9:00 am Score: 29 Best Running Back Ever... Not The Usual Suspect WOW! Who would've thought? I knew Marshall was a good running back, but I never "use to" round his name up with the rest of the greats. From now on I will. Great post! [ Reply to Comment ]
redfoxes Reputation: 99 Level: Superstar Since: Feb 2, 2007	Posted on: May 15, 2008 10:03 am Score: 91 Best Running Back Ever... Not The Usual Suspect Before reading this, I would have said Jim Brown based largely on your stats above. But LT is a very compelling case. I would have never thought of him as best ever.....................yet. I'm going to wait until LT retires to see if I would rank him as #1. As for Faulk, he was surely a great back, but best ever? If you take into account receiving yards, you have to look at the QB and the offense. In the two names you bring up, Faulk and Craig, they both had MVP QB's and Super Bowl winners in Warner and Montana. I think that plays as much a part as the RB. Those offenses were pretty amazing. I realize that offensive line plays a big part as well in rushing, but for me the rushing yards are more important then receiving yards for a RB. I'll give you that Faulk probably had the greatest year that a RB ever had when he had over 2400 yards from scrimmage as well as over 20 TD's. But the whole portfolio would not have him as #1 over an entire career. With that said, I look at a RB first from a rushing perspective and then the receiving is an added bonus. I would not look at both on an equal basis. I'm still going with Jim Brown based on your stats from above. The guy played in 9 seasons, played in 12 game (4) and 14 game (5) regular seasons, never missed a game, had wider hash marks on the field and really played in a primitive offense. What could he have done in today's game is purely speculative, but you have to think if he had 26 more games and tighter hashmarks when he did play, his numbers surely would have been increased. If I'm going with a back since the merger, then why not Emmit Smith. Yes, he was not as flashy and his yards per carry and game are lower then others, but he is the all time leading rusher, had good speed, was tough as they come, rarely missed a game due to injury and obviously had some longevity. He played on some great Dallas teams, but also played on some very average Dallas teams later in his carreer. This guy was a pro's pro. Your analysis above is excellent. [ Reply to Comment ]
DDriver80 Reputation: 99 Level: Superstar Since: Feb 9, 2007	Posted on: May 15, 2008 10:24 am Score: 95 Best Running Back Ever... Not The Usual Suspect Another great blog Bong! Its true what you say as well, I usually put Marshall Faulk in my Top 5 RB's list, when the discussion comes up. Its sad that he doesn't get mentioned in the Top 5 that often when everyone says he revolutionized the runningback position. Now take into account that he played in the Rams greatest show on turf, and the fact that he is still in the Top 10 in all time rushing is an even more telling stat. Bong, you seem to have the stat hookups, it would be interesting to see the stats for when Marshall was on the field the percent of the time they ran and passed the ball. Cheers! DD [ Reply to Comment ]
WarpedMind Reputation: 98 Level: Superstar Since: Aug 13, 2007	Posted on: May 15, 2008 10:44 am Score: 94 Best Running Back Ever... Not The Usual Suspect Another great post, Bong! I'd have to add Onterrio Smith to that list because he made "Whizzinator" a household word. On a less warped note, it'd be interesting to see how LT stacks up statistically against His Sweetness, Walter Payton (who's still #1 in my book, even though I never did like the Bears, being a good Vikings fan and all..) [ Reply to Comment ]
fansince66 Reputation: 97 Level: Superstar Since: Mar 20, 2008	Posted on: May 15, 2008 12:18 pm Score: 82 Best Running Back Ever... Not The Usual Suspect Bong, you are overwhelming with your statistical analysis. I can't concentrate long enough to do all that research(probably due to the side effects). I can't disagree with your number barrage, but YOU know I can't just lay there and take it(no matter what Bobby Knight said!) The game of football has evolved so much from the 50s and 60s to today that statistical comparisons are almost useless. I've always believed the saying that "I can prove anything with enough statistics." Therefore, I'll resort to opinions, which can only be refuted, not disproved. Modern day RBs numbers are inflated by rule changes that have led to scoring contests. The role of RB have changed from clock killers to offensive weapons. Your argument for Faulk is compelling, accurate, and surprising(that's the word you were waiting for, isn't it?) Every RB has benefited from something that the others didn't have. Jim Brown compiled his numbers in an era where you knew they were going to hand the ball to him on first and second down. Defenses still couldn't stop him. Also, in that era, the objective of coaches like Paul Brown was to keep the other teams offense off the field and use up the clock. Hence, 3 yards and a cloud of dust. Records are ALWAYS broken by increasing production and changes in philosophy.I rely more on the margin of time between when a record is broken. Jim Brown shattered records that took decades to be broken again. I remember watching the Cowboys-Packers ice bowl game. Probably my earliest football/sport memory outside of Rupp's Runts. I've been watching sports, particularly NFL, ever since. I don't think you can pick a BEST RB ever. Instead I would catagorize them. 1) Most stylish ever - Gale Sayers, followed very closely by Barry Sanders. 2) Most powerful - Earl Campbell, Film clips just don't show how much he punished defenders for even trying to tackle him. 3) Most reliable when you need a yard - Emmit Smith 4) Most Explosive - Tony Dorsett, see longest run from scrimmage recordholder 5) Best Blocking Back - Mike Alstott, this nonstatistical catagory greatly affects every RBs numbers 6) Best receiving - Marshall Faulk, sometimes you just can't argue with stats. 7) Most feared - Eric Dickerson, always a threat to break a long one while still able to run between the tackles. 8) Best clock killer - Jim Brown 9) All time killer Running Back - O.J. in a runaway OK, enough ranting. I'm typing this on a new Vista laptop and it just keeps doing the strangest things that I don't want it to. Kinda like realizing you shouldn't have taken that third tab, but now you're gonna have to ride the trip out. Any other Vista users out there like me. Microsoft Strikes Again. I gotta go now before I get mad enough to throw this thing right thru my 6 year old big screen so I can spend a couple of grand for a new, improved one of those that I won't like either!!!!! [ Reply to Comment ]
Clovdyx Reputation: 96 Level: Superstar Since: Nov 6, 2006	Posted on: May 15, 2008 3:11 pm Score: 91 Best Running Back Ever... Not The Usual Suspect Allow me to offer a few opinions. 1) When it's all said and done, there is no reason that we should not be declaring LaDainian Tomlinson the best ever. I truly believe that the only thing that could prevent that is a very early retirement (see: Barry Sanders). As good as guys like Sanders, Payton, and Jim Brown were....you can't argue with LT's numbers. 2) I knew you were going to say Marshall Faulk. I know how much you love statistics (especially those less popular stats, such as running back passes and wide receiver blocking), and I knew most of those facts regarding Marshall Faulk. I think people generally overlook him because he wasn't necessarily a huge, powerful back that could just pound a defense. I'm not sure how great of a blocker he was. I don't think he necessarily excelled at 3rd and 1 situations. However, he produced on the ground. He produced in the air. He could find the endzone. Most importantly, in my opinion, he was the guy to stop. If you contained him, the team could lose. If you can't contain him, you were going to have a VERY long day. [ Reply to Comment ]
benitofelix Reputation: 92 Level: All-Star Since: May 3, 2008	Posted on: May 15, 2008 4:11 pm Score: 28 Best Running Back Ever... Not The Usual Suspect what about barry sanders (G.O.A.T.)....where does he fall on this list

The Bong Show

Best Running Back Ever... Not The Usual Suspect

Best Running Back Ever... Not The Usual Suspect

Best Running Back Ever... Not The Usual Suspect

Best Running Back Ever... Not The Usual Suspect

Best Running Back Ever... Not The Usual Suspect

Best Running Back Ever... Not The Usual Suspect

Best Running Back Ever... Not The Usual Suspect

Best Running Back Ever... Not The Usual Suspect