NFL's best players ever at every offensive position

[willy]

NFL's best players ever at every offensive position: Is Tom Brady the GOAT quarterback? Jerry Rice or Randy Moss at WR?


Quarterback: Tom Brady

Running back: Jim Brown

Wide receiver: Jerry Rice

Tight end: Rob Gronkowski

Offensive tackle: Anthony Munoz

Offensive guard: Larry Allen

Center: Mike Webster

George Gojkovich/Getty ImagesCopyright: © ESPN Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...fensive-tackle

[willy]

NFL's best players ever at every offensive position: Is Tom Brady the GOAT quarterback? Jerry Rice or Randy Moss at WR?


Quarterback: Tom Brady

Running back: Jim Brown

Wide receiver: Jerry Rice

Tight end: Rob Gronkowski

Offensive tackle: Anthony Munoz

Offensive guard: Larry Allen

Center: Mike Webster

George Gojkovich/Getty ImagesCopyright: © ESPN Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...fensive-tackle

NFL's best players ever at every defensive position

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...nerback-kicker

[fansince'76]

Why he's (Ray Lewis) the GOAT linebacker: Lewis led the Ravens in tackles in 14 of his 17 seasons with the team, including his rookie year.

And about 75% of those were patented "Ray Lewis tackles," i.e., jumping on top of the pile after the ballcarrier was already down and the play effectively over while the statistician credited him with a solo (or 2, if the game happened to be in Baltimore).

Aaron Donald = GOAT DT? Recency bias all the way. I'd still put Greene and Page over him.

Also, Rod Woodson > Deion Sanders for GOAT CB. Sorry, but I prefer defensive players who are willing to HIT and TACKLE.

[willy]

And about 75% of those were patented "Ray Lewis tackles," i.e., jumping on top of the pile after the ballcarrier was already down and the play effectively over while the statistician credited him with a solo (or 2, if the game happened to be in Baltimore).

Aaron Donald = GOAT DT? Recency bias all the way. I'd still put Greene and Page over him.

Also, Rod Woodson > Deion Sanders for GOAT CB. Sorry, but I prefer defensive players who are willing to HIT and TACKLE.

I agree with every point.

[DuckHodges]

Barry Sanders was the goat at RB, i don't care what anyone says. Barry would've wrecked it in any era. Jim Brown would probably be a middle of the road RB today or maybe even struggle to make an NFL roster.

And Peyton Manning > Brady. Brady played for a better overall team and a consistently good defense. Manning rarely ever had a defense. And when he did, he got it done. He's 3-1 against Brady in the AFCCG. When you compare greats, I put a lot more weight in head-to-head matchups than anything else.

[86WARD]

Barry Sanders was the goat at RB, i don't care what anyone says. Barry would've wrecked it in any era. Jim Brown would probably be a middle of the road RB today or maybe even struggle to make an NFL roster.

And Peyton Manning > Brady. Brady played for a better overall team and a consistently good defense. Manning rarely ever had a defense. And when he did, he got it done. He's 3-1 against Brady in the AFCCG. When you compare greats, I put a lot more weight in head-to-head matchups than anything else.

Agree 100%. Brown was good…Sanders was greatest. Brady is the most decorated QB. Not the best ever. Peyton Manning was better, Montana was more talented.

[willy]

Barry Sanders was the goat at RB, i don't care what anyone says. Barry would've wrecked it in any era. Jim Brown would probably be a middle of the road RB today or maybe even struggle to make an NFL roster.

And Peyton Manning > Brady. Brady played for a better overall team and a consistently good defense. Manning rarely ever had a defense. And when he did, he got it done. He's 3-1 against Brady in the AFCCG. When you compare greats, I put a lot more weight in head-to-head matchups than anything else.

Me too. "Manning and Brady played each other seventeen times, with Brady winning the head-to-head series 11–6."

[DuckHodges]

Me too. "Manning and Brady played each other seventeen times, with Brady winning the head-to-head series 11–6."

Peyton won more often when the teams overall were more evenly matched and they met in the championship games

[silver & black]

Barry Sanders was the goat at RB, i don't care what anyone says. Barry would've wrecked it in any era. Jim Brown would probably be a middle of the road RB today or maybe even struggle to make an NFL roster.

And Peyton Manning > Brady. Brady played for a better overall team and a consistently good defense. Manning rarely ever had a defense. And when he did, he got it done. He's 3-1 against Brady in the AFCCG. When you compare greats, I put a lot more weight in head-to-head matchups than anything else.

Agreed!

[teegre]

Jim Brown would probably be a middle of the road RB today or maybe even struggle to make an NFL roster.

I disagree.

When Brown played, the opposing players hated him… even some of his teammates. Defenders would cheap-shot him and step on his hands after plays. They tried extra hard to stop him… and simply couldn’t.

[Mojouw]

I disagree.

When Brown played, the opposing players hated him… even some of his teammates. Defenders would cheap-shot him and step on his hands after plays. They tried extra hard to stop him… and simply couldn’t.

Glad you took that one on.

I’ve seen some whoppers around here and made more than a few myself.

But Jim Brown not making a roster? Cmon.

[steelreserve]

Brown was the best of his era, but seems like he kind of keeps making the top of these lists because he's always made the top of the list, like how "Thriller" was always #1 in every top music video countdown for the entire '80s and '90s just because it was Thriller. But I think a number of guys have come along that matched or surpassed Brown in various ways, depending on whether you value pure talent (Sanders), endurance (Smith, Payton), or all-around versatility (Faulk, LT, etc.). I'd probably take Sanders out of all of them.

QB is Montana and it's not even close. Brady is like ... top 10 MAYBE, although personally I'd leave him out.

[willy]

Peyton won more often when the teams overall were more evenly matched and they met in the championship games

IMO Brady is the GOAT and Jim Brown is the GOAT. Sanders was great and Manning was great, but they're both nosed out.

BTW, I don't know if you're old enough to have seen Brown play but if you're not you missed the most dominate player in the history of the NFL except LT. Brown won 8 rushing titles in his 9 years.

[DesertSteel]

Jim Brown is the GOAT at RB. It’s not even close.

[DuckHodges]

I disagree.

When Brown played, the opposing players hated him… even some of his teammates. Defenders would cheap-shot him and step on his hands after plays. They tried extra hard to stop him… and simply couldn’t.

Maybe I'm biased since I wasn't alive to witness Brown, but the footage I've seen of him, I noticed he was both the biggest and fastest guy on the field. Players nowadays are bigger and faster. It'd be like in the current day if we had a RB that could run a 4.2 40 and weighed 330 lbs. I highly doubt at 230 lbs and 4.55 speed that he would dominate today's game like he did back then. While I was exaggerating about not making an NFL roster, but I have doubts that he'd be a star in the league. I would say a good chance that if both Sanders and Brown in their prime were to suit up and play the game today, Sanders would be more likely to be known as the best RB. Still to this day I've never seen any RB or player, period that had the same level of quickness and speed than Barry.

[steelreserve]

Jim Brown is basically the same idea as if Jerome Bettis was teleported back in time to play against people 50 pounds lighter than they are now. I mean, defensive tackles back then were 250 pounds, a decent power back by today's standards could just bull-rush through the center of a defense and gain good yardage every time.

It's kind of like how George Mikan was the first "modern" basketball center and just abused the shit out of people who were not cut out to handle it. Could George Mikan be a legitimate NBA post player today? Sure. How well would he do against Shaq or Giannis Anasdafdgafdfasa, could he just run them over? Doubt it. Maybe he'd be an excellent power forward, like on the level of Karl Malone, but few people would say Karl Malone was THE best post player of all time.

[Mojouw]

If you’re going to scale up the size, speed, and attributes of the rest of the players; you’ve gotta scale up Brown as well.

He’s gonna benefit from the improvements in training, conditioning, nutrition, etc as well.

[willy]

Jim Brown is basically the same idea as if Jerome Bettis was teleported back in time to play against people 50 pounds lighter than they are now. I mean, defensive tackles back then were 250 pounds, a decent power back by today's standards could just bull-rush through the center of a defense and gain good yardage every time.

Jerome Bettis = Jim Brown?

That's some funny stuff.

[DesertSteel]

Jim Brown is basically the same idea as if Jerome Bettis was teleported back in time to play against people 50 pounds lighter than they are now. I mean, defensive tackles back then were 250 pounds, a decent power back by today's standards could just bull-rush through the center of a defense and gain good yardage every time.

It's kind of like how George Mikan was the first "modern" basketball center and just abused the shit out of people who were not cut out to handle it. Could George Mikan be a legitimate NBA post player today? Sure. How well would he do against Shaq or Giannis Anasdafdgafdfasa, could he just run them over? Doubt it. Maybe he'd be an excellent power forward, like on the level of Karl Malone, but few people would say Karl Malone was THE best post player of all time.

Lots of ignorance about Jim Brown in this post. Michael Jordan suck too?

[steelreserve]

Lots of ignorance about Jim Brown in this post. Michael Jordan suck too?

You're going in the wrong direction with your era comparison there, pal. Which I guess is how you arrived at that belly flop of a mic drop.

Basically any superstar player from today's era, in any of the major sports, would absolutely wreak havoc several decades ago when the level of competition wasn't as high and many players were still part-timers. The few who were fortunate enough to possess that kind of talent back then were pioneers who changed the game - but greatest of all time? Probably not.

Maybe Babe Ruth would make an MLB roster today, even be a star - but how likely do you think it is that he'd hit 700 home runs facing fireball closers, and three relievers a game, and sports science and sabermetric strategy? Not very.

Would it be anything to be ashamed of if Babe Ruth in the modern era only turned out to be as good as, say, Jim Thome? No, that'd be a pretty big accomplishment. Was Jim Thome the best hitter ever? Nope.

If you're talking best ever, there is no such thing as a guy who is only #2 if you're ignorant.

[Born2Steel]

Best players by which criteria? It's so very subjective that this could never be agreed upon by most, let alone everyone. It's much better to just post 'my favorite of all time at every position'. That's a much better and easier conversation, IMO.

[polamalubeast]

When you dominate an era, you deserve all the credit......If you're great in the 2010s, that doesn't mean you wouldn't be great in the 2060s..It's just speculation at this point.....You can only control what you can control, so Babe Ruth, Jim Brown, etc deserve credit for completely dominating their era

[steelreserve]

When you dominate an era, you deserve all the credit......If you're great in the 2010s, that doesn't mean you wouldn't be great in the 2060s..It's just speculation at this point.....You can only control what you can control, so Babe Ruth, Jim Brown, etc deserve credit for completely dominating their era

No one said they don't deserve credit. "Best ever" is another matter entirely. It requires comparing people who dominated different eras.

"Jim Brown would've also benefited from modern training and coaching, so you have to add that in."

Well ok, but which improved faster from 60 years ago - the abilities of the top players like Jim Brown, or the overall level of competition? If you say Jim Brown, you'd need a guy who is roughly 8'10" and 500 pounds, and runs the 40 in 1.3 seconds. What really happened is that it is impossible now to be as far ahead of the competition as 1960 Jim Brown, because the floor was so much lower then.

[Mojouw]

Take Derrick Henry’s most statistically dominate season. Add like 5 TDs and 600 or so yards. That’s Browns 16-17 game production - roughly. I think. I estimated the math very quickly.

Then have this RB do it every year for a decade. That’s Jim Browns career.

Emmitt wasn’t even able to pull that off Nor AP.

[steelreserve]

Take Derrick Henry’s most statistically dominate season. Add like 5 TDs and 600 or so yards. That’s Browns 16-17 game production - roughly. I think. I estimated the math very quickly.

Then have this RB do it every year for a decade. That’s Jim Browns career.

Emmitt wasn’t even able to pull that off Nor AP.

Of course they weren't. That's the difference between eras. Put Emmitt Smith or Adrian Peterson up against opponents where the defensive linemen are almost the same size as the running backs, and also they play funky shit like a 5-2 defense with a middle linebacker at nose tackle, and also their best player works as a garbageman Monday through Friday, and also there are fewer games ... and that's good for an extra 5 TDs and 600 yards projected. Put someone like Bettis or Edgerrin James in there who really is the same size as the linemen, and that's probably a better comparison.

Now put Jim Brown on a team today, where the defenders outweigh him by 80 or 100 pounds but aren't any slower than the ones in the '60s, and also he has to play 30% more games. Do you think that projects better or worse than blowing away every current record?

[willy]

Of course they weren't. That's the difference between eras. Put Emmitt Smith or Adrian Peterson up against opponents where the defensive linemen are almost the same size as the running backs, and also they play funky shit like a 5-2 defense with a middle linebacker at nose tackle, and also their best player works as a garbageman Monday through Friday, and also there are fewer games ... and that's good for an extra 5 TDs and 600 yards projected. Put someone like Bettis or Edgerrin James in there who really is the same size as the linemen, and that's probably a better comparison.

Now put Jim Brown on a team today, where the defenders outweigh him by 80 or 100 pounds but aren't any slower than the ones in the '60s, and also he has to play 30% more games. Do you think that projects better or worse than blowing away every current record?

Ask 6'5" 280 Lb defensive tackle Rosey Grier about Jim Brown.

[polamalubeast]

Of course they weren't. That's the difference between eras. Put Emmitt Smith or Adrian Peterson up against opponents where the defensive linemen are almost the same size as the running backs, and also they play funky shit like a 5-2 defense with a middle linebacker at nose tackle, and also their best player works as a garbageman Monday through Friday, and also there are fewer games ... and that's good for an extra 5 TDs and 600 yards projected. Put someone like Bettis or Edgerrin James in there who really is the same size as the linemen, and that's probably a better comparison.

Now put Jim Brown on a team today, where the defenders outweigh him by 80 or 100 pounds but aren't any slower than the ones in the '60s, and also he has to play 30% more games. Do you think that projects better or worse than blowing away every current record?

You need to add 40-50 lbs to Brown and have the same speed and power.This is how big Brown was in the 1960s.

[Mojouw]

Of course they weren't. That's the difference between eras. Put Emmitt Smith or Adrian Peterson up against opponents where the defensive linemen are almost the same size as the running backs, and also they play funky shit like a 5-2 defense with a middle linebacker at nose tackle, and also their best player works as a garbageman Monday through Friday, and also there are fewer games ... and that's good for an extra 5 TDs and 600 yards projected. Put someone like Bettis or Edgerrin James in there who really is the same size as the linemen, and that's probably a better comparison.

Now put Jim Brown on a team today, where the defenders outweigh him by 80 or 100 pounds but aren't any slower than the ones in the '60s, and also he has to play 30% more games. Do you think that projects better or worse than blowing away every current record?

Why is everyone else leveling up but not Brown?

He’s not going to be lifting and training? Why wouldn’t he be stronger and faster as well?

Maybe the gap narrows. Say like defenders get 50% increases and Brown gets 15%. How large was the gap to start with? Basically unmeasurable. So it’s not like it would suddenly narrow to negligible.

[polamalubeast]

The only 2 running back to have a argument over Jim Brown are Walter Payton and Barry Sanders

[steelreserve]

Why is everyone else leveling up but not Brown?

He’s not going to be lifting and training? Why wouldn’t he be stronger and faster as well?

Maybe the gap narrows. Say like defenders get 50% increases and Brown gets 15%. How large was the gap to start with? Basically unmeasurable. So it’s not like it would suddenly narrow to negligible.

I think it would probably narrow a hell of a lot. Like, there was not a lot wrong with Jim Brown by today's standards, but there was a lot wrong with defenses by today's standards, like really obvious things. You improve the competition a lot and Jim Brown a little, and I don't think you can project that he's going to be steamrolling everyone and winning rushing titles by 700 yards. Maybe he'd lead the league in rushing. Or maybe he'd get his shit ruined by 330-pound fat guys and be banged up all the time.

How about this - take the world's best swordfighter from today and put him in 12th-century England, and he'd probably get his shit ruined too because of the difference in eras. Not because he's "bad" at swordfighting, but because there were 500 times more people doing it, and they took it fucking seriously. Could he be the best if he trained the same as them? Maybe, but the odds would be like 1 in 500. That's just how that shit works.