Best ever NFL running back

[SouthNYfan]

4 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Ahem.

 

There are a number of us, Shaw being perhaps the prime example, who spent years discussing the Bills on the BBMB before the team closed it down.  I can assure you that Shea's knowledge of football in general, and of the Bills in particular, is the match of anyone and for the Bills is encyclopedic in nature.  

 

I think Sanders was a top 5 guy.  But Brown was better in my, and Shaw's, opinion because we are both old enough to have seen each play, along with every other guy mentioned herein.  We don't base it on a short video here and there.  We base it on actually watching games at the time.  There are greats who had power, who had elusiveness, who had speed.  Brown is the one guy I've seen who was at the top of the list in all of such memorables.   He could run away from you, around you or through you.  He would dominate today just as he did in the 60's.

 

No one has the true answer here.  It's fun to discuss.  Let me suggest you lighten up Francis.  

 

 

In general yes.  The greats, not really.  The Big O would dominate the NBA today, just as Brown would dominate the NFL today.  Because each would avai themselves of developments in nutrition, training, etc.  that the more modern athlete has.  

 

It amazes me that all older fans claim that "I watched them play" while shaking a stick at the younger generation as if they watched every play if browns career live and in person.

Nostalgia is a fickle thing.

People love to act like Jim brown ran 50+ yards on every touch and was never stopped.

They love to act like babe Ruth hit a home run in every at bat.

That wilt and his dominance were only a product of his amazing ability and fail to include that he was significantly bigger and faster and stronger than 95% of the NBA at the time.

 

It reminds me of the scene in braveheart where the man claims William Wallace is 7 feet tall.

 

***

William: Sons of Scotland! I am William Wallace.
Soldier 2: William Wallace is seven feet tall!
William: Yes, I've heard. Kills men by the hundreds. And if HE were here, he'd consume the English with fireballs from his eyes, and bolts of lightning from his arse.

***

 

Jim brown simply would not dominate the way he did in his time.

Why??

The exact reason that was stated by many earlier.

Jim brown was an athletic specimen, a good amongst boys in both size and speed.

He was incredibly talented, don't get me wrong, and if he grew up today, training with today's tools he would still be great, but he will not dominate as he did vs the competition back in his day because, well, the competition just wasn't as strong.

 

It's akin to old men groaning about "rice burners" and "no replacement for displacement" acting as if 1960s and 1970s American muscle was the epitome of automobile engineering.

Today's vehicles decimate them.

There are v6 family sedans putting out performance numbers of 1960s muscle cars.

 

Comparing eras is just not feasible.

I just find it funny that older generations always say that younger generations can't weigh in because they never saw the old timers play.

Video exists.

It's a thing.

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, Juror#8 said:

 

I know who he is and I know bbmb. I think he did the rockpile review weekly there.

 

I was a member there long ago before I brought my talents to this board because, well, it’s better here. 

 

Two responses:

 

1. He probably would have better served keeping his brand of football analysis that tells other people who don’t agree with him that they don’t “know football” on the piece of ***** board that folded. 

 

2. What does his football knowledge have to do with him telling people who don’t agree with him that they must not “know football”? 

 

I find his words presumptious and condescending.

 

Not sure it’s a winning play to defend that. 

 

There are tons of people who feel that Sanders is the better back. Many in this thread have mentioned Sanders as their choice. Telling them that they don’t “know football” is bs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I get where you're coming from.  Your post suggested Shaw didn't know football, but since you were in the BBMB you know he does.  I think people need to dial it back a bit and have fun with this.

 

 

[Juror#8]

9 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I get where you're coming from.  Your post suggested Shaw didn't know football, but since you were in the BBMB you know he does.  I think people need to dial it back a bit and have fun with this.

 

 

 

Fair enough my friend. Appreciate your post. 

Edited March 30, 2019 by Juror#8

[oldmanfan]

2 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

It amazes me that all older fans claim that "I watched them play" while shaking a stick at the younger generation as if they watched every play if browns career live and in person.

Nostalgia is a fickle thing.

People love to act like Jim brown ran 50+ yards on every touch and was never stopped.

They love to act like babe Ruth hit a home run in every at bat.

That wilt and his dominance were only a product of his amazing ability and fail to include that he was significantly bigger and faster and stronger than 95% of the NBA at the time.

 

It reminds me of the scene in braveheart where the man claims William Wallace is 7 feet tall.

 

***

William: Sons of Scotland! I am William Wallace.
Soldier 2: William Wallace is seven feet tall!
William: Yes, I've heard. Kills men by the hundreds. And if HE were here, he'd consume the English with fireballs from his eyes, and bolts of lightning from his arse.

***

 

Jim brown simply would not dominate the way he did in his time.

Why??

The exact reason that was stated by many earlier.

Jim brown was an athletic specimen, a good amongst boys in both size and speed.

He was incredibly talented, don't get me wrong, and if he grew up today, training with today's tools he would still be great, but he will not dominate as he did vs the competition back in his day because, well, the competition just wasn't as strong.

 

It's akin to old men groaning about "rice burners" and "no replacement for displacement" acting as if 1960s and 1970s American muscle was the epitome of automobile engineering.

Today's vehicles decimate them.

There are v6 family sedans putting out performance numbers of 1960s muscle cars.

 

Comparing eras is just not feasible.

I just find it funny that older generations always say that younger generations can't weigh in because they never saw the old timers play.

Video exists.

It's a thing.

It is fun to try though.

 

The error I think you make is in assuming the older guys would not improve over the absolute excellence they had in their day if they played now.  A guy like Jimmy Brown would have access to modern training regimens, medical technologies, and so in.  So it is perfectly reasonable that they would also be improved.  And thinking of a Jim Brown being even better than he was then is scary.  Brown would dominate I feel.  As I pointed out above he's the one guy I've ever watched that could run past you, around you or over you.  Having access to modern training, access to turf instead of grass fields?  Whoa.

 

By the way us older guys aren't shaking a stick at the younguns.  We just want to be sure you appreciate history.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Walter Payton.

 

[Logic]

1 hour ago, MichaelAbdallah said:

 

The Bills have had 1,000+ yard rushers for 30 of their 59 seasons of existence. I believe that is the highest percentage of all 32 NFL franchises. And only the Bears (31) and Rams (33) have had more total seasons with a 1,000+ yard rusher. Also, thirteen different Buffalo RB's have rushed for 1,000+ yards: Gilchrist, OJ, Terry Miller, Cribbs, Greg Bell, Thurman, Antowain Smith, Henry, McGahee, Lynch, Jackson, Spiller, and McCoy. 10-15 years from now, the Bills may very well have 5 RB's in the Hall of Fame and among the top 30 RB's of all time: OJ, Thurman, Lynch, McCoy, and Gore. I'd put Gore at 99%, McCoy at 75%, and Lynch at 50% chance (if he doesn't retire this year) of the Hall of Fame right now. Since 1960, this franchise has always prioritized the RB position because of the idea that the weather here makes it difficult for QB's to throw with any consistency. This mindset should have become less relevant after the emergence of West Coast offenses and the modern passing game in general, but it hasn't. Jim Kelly altered this mindset a bit, but then the idea was that you needed to be a physically big QB with a very strong arm to have any success here. So for almost 25 years, management threw 1st round picks away chasing the big arm (RJ, Bledsoe, Losman, Manuel) at the expense of the more cerebral aspects of the QB position. Even now, Josh Allen is sort of a continuation of this philosophy. Although he is actually very bright and hard-working, so he definitely has a chance to buck the trend of failed Buffalo QB's since the mid-90's.

 

Oops...sorry for the QB rant...lol...

 

Getting back to the OP, I think an emerging consensus here is one between Jim Brown vs. Barry Sanders for greatest RB ever. I'm leaning toward Sanders at the moment for three reasons:

 

1. Fumbles per touch. Sanders (once per 83 touches) beats Brown (once per 46 touches) by a decent amount. Turnovers are the most important determining statistic in the outcome of football games (next to the obvious of points).

 

2. Quality of teammates. Football is very much a team sport. Sanders had a lot less (OL, QB, coaching, defense) to work with than Brown throughout his career.

 

3. Running style. A lazy analysis of the RB position might divide it into two types: the between-the-tackles north-south power back (Brown's style) and the outside-the-tackles elusive tailback (Sanders' style). Both have value to an offense. Both are incorporated in every offensive playbook. I would argue that the talent gap between Sanders and the rest of the great RB's that ran his style is much larger than the gap between Brown and the rest of the power RB's in pro football history. Furthermore, it's a lot harder to maintain elite ability as an outside-the-tackles tailback because of what the aging process and the wear-and-tear of tackle football does to the human body. Although Barry Sanders had such a low center-of-gravity (5'8", 200 lb) to complement his speed and agility that made him better suited to absorb or simply avoid the kinds of hits that wear down a RB.

Outstanding post! Thanks very much for this!

[dave mcbride]

53 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

 

So you think that Michael Jordan and Oscar Robinson or Jerry West are equal because they played in different eras and probably dominated equally in their eras?

 

Based on a variety of reasons, human beings  have gotten stronger and faster over the last 50 years, writ large. Maybe there was the exceptional athlete in ‘55 who ran a 4.5 40. But now the preponderance of skill position players  run that like it’s nothing.  

 

Those dominating better athletes should, logically, dominate the lesser athletes even more. And I think that a comparative discussion tilts in the better athlete’s favor. 

 

Do you feel differently? Or do you feel that athletes, in general, aren’t more athletic relative to 50 years ago? 

No, i don’t think things are much different now than then in terms of relative talent levels, and it’s impossible to determine anyway. Brown dominated like no other, and that should somehow be held against him?. More broadly, I think it’s a fundamentally ridiculous argument to argue that context shouldn’t factor in. Was Von Manstein a more technically adept military strategist than Hannibal? Probably, but it is ridiculous to make that argument for fairly obvious reasons.

Edited March 30, 2019 by dave mcbride

[SouthNYfan]

9 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

It is fun to try though.

 

The error I think you make is in assuming the older guys would not improve over the absolute excellence they had in their day if they played now.  A guy like Jimmy Brown would have access to modern training regimens, medical technologies, and so in.  So it is perfectly reasonable that they would also be improved.  And thinking of a Jim Brown being even better than he was then is scary.  Brown would dominate I feel.  As I pointed out above he's the one guy I've ever watched that could run past you, around you or over you.  Having access to modern training, access to turf instead of grass fields?  Whoa.

 

By the way us older guys aren't shaking a stick at the younguns.  We just want to be sure you appreciate history.

 

Definitely appreciate history.

When debating goats it's really splitting hairs.

I didn't make a mistake.

Brown would have access to those things today, and he would improve no doubt, but the point is there is only so much the human body can improve.

Brown would see less improvement in his physical being than the people he was playing against would, that's my point.

Brown, wilt, etc would improve some, but their competition would improve to a greater science since there is more room for them to improve.

I think Jim brown would still be a great RB in today's game, just like Barry Sanders and sweetness would be great in browns era.

That's kind of what I'm getting at.

 

Everybody seems to favor guys they watched growing up vs guys they've watched as adults.

 

I was a kid watching bird, magic, and Jordan in the NBA.

I was a young teenager when Jordan retired (the first time haha)

When I watched him play as a kid, it was magical.

I watch LeBron as an adult and my initial thought is that Jordan was better, the goat, no way to change my mind, blasphemy, because LeBron didn't give be that same sense of wonder and awe.

Why is that??

Because I didn't know Jack sh*t about basketball watching Jordan when I was younger.

I was a spectator, not analyzing anything.

I've learned a lot about basketball since my early teenage days of watching Jordan, expanding my knowledge of basketball through playing d3 in college, watching and studying film, and analyzing it as a hobby.

I have watched LeBron play since he came in the league with that scrutinizing eye.

When I go back and watch Jordan's film now??

I see things I didn't back then.

Holes in his game I never saw, strengths that I didn't see as well.

I'm able to objectively look at LeBron vs Jordan instead of subjectively going on my gut feeling.

My heart still tells me Jordan by a mile, but by head tells me it's splitting hairs and is really a lot closer then at first glance.

That's how I feel with many goat discussions in any sport.

It's very fun to dig through it though.

 

[Alphadawg7]

1 hour ago, dave mcbride said:

Downgrading a player because he played in a different era is a category error. You go down that path, and you’re liable to say crazy things like Babe Ruth not being the best MLB player ever. Treat all players in the actual context in which they played. There are no time machines!

 

This is true, I don't disagree with that and its a more than fair point.  But the question is who was the greatest RB of all time, not of a specific era.  So there is just no way to accurately do that without weighing how their ability translates over the course of history to some degree.  So everyone is going to have different things that influence that choice.  Its no different than Montana vs Brady for instance that generally leaves out guys like Unitas out of the convo except by old timers who grew up on Unitas and still believe he is the GOAT.  

 

The core issue is that "GOAT" question has variable context too.  

• There is looking at if from a dominance stand point.  If thats the case, there is no other choice in Basketball other than Wilt Chamberlain.  But he is rarely even in the top 5 let alone atop the GOAT list.  
• There is the most talented.  This is a difficult one to gauge as era, teams, schemes, etc will all affect how this is graded.  This is why I still had Bo Jackson on my top 15 list because his talent was other worldly before the hip injury.
• Then there is the most legendary/fabled.  This is like Babe Ruth...will always be a popular choice for the GOAT, but was he really in comparison to the baseball players that came after him?  Ali is another choice...his mythology is greater than many other great boxing legends, but was he really the best pure boxer the sport has ever seen?

For me, when it comes down to RB, its Barry Sanders because no man has ever come close to being able to do what Barry could do on the field.  There have been other backs with the power and speed of Brown, not many, but there are other guys.  Barry was special in a way no other RB has ever been, and may not ever be again.  I can't say that about Brown even though he is still in rare company.  

 

 NOTE:  People keep saying "downgrading" but I mean I have Brown ranked 2nd all time.  Some of the responses act like I knocked Brown out of the top 10 or something.  

Edited March 30, 2019 by Alphadawg7

[dave mcbride]

8 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

This is true, I don't disagree with that and its a more than fair point.  But the question is who was the greatest RB of all time, not of a specific era.  So there is just no way to accurately do that without weighing how their ability translates over the course of history to some degree.  So everyone is going to have different things that influence that choice.  Its no different than Montana vs Brady for instance that generally leaves out guys like Unitas out of the convo except by old timers who grew up on Unitas and still believe he is the GOAT.  

 

The core issue is that "GOAT" question has variable context too.  

• There is looking at if from a dominance stand point.  If thats the case, there is no other choice in Basketball than Wilt Chamberlain.  But he is rarely even in the top 5 let alone atop the GOAT list.  
• There is the most talented.  This is a difficult one gauge as era, teams, schemes, etc will all affect how this is graded.  This is why I still had Bo Jackson on my top 15 list because his talent was other worldly before the hip injury.
• Then there is the most legendary/fabled.  This is like Babe Ruth...will always be a popular choice for the GOAT, but was he really in comparison to the baseball players that came after him?  Ali is another choice...his mythology is greater than many other great boxing legends, but was he really the best pure boxer the sport has ever seen?

For me, when it comes down to RB, its Barry Sanders because no man has ever come close to being able to do what Barry could do on the field.  There have been other backs with the power and speed of Brown, not many, but there are other guys.  Barry was special in a way no other RB has ever been, and many not ever be again.  I can't say that about Brown even though he is still in rare company.  

 

 NOTE:  People keep saying "downgrading" but I mean I have Brown ranked 2nd all time.  Some of the responses act like I knocked Brown out of the top 10 or something.  

Growing up, i was always under the impression that Bill russell was the better all-around center than chamberlain.

[hemma]

32 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

I just find it funny that older generations always say that younger generations can't weigh in because they never saw the old timers play.

Video exists.

It's a thing.

 

You sound like you know lots of stuff, so being old and hoping to wallow in nostalgia on a lazy Saturday afternoon I decided to watch some video of the 11/1/1959 game between the Browns and the Colts.  Jim ran for over 170 in that game, but I must be doing something stupid Interweb wrong, cuz I can’t find it!

 

I know that video is available because ‘Video exists’.  Could you post the URL to that thing?

[Alphadawg7]

35 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

It is fun to try though.

 

The error I think you make is in assuming the older guys would not improve over the absolute excellence they had in their day if they played now.  A guy like Jimmy Brown would have access to modern training regimens, medical technologies, and so in.  So it is perfectly reasonable that they would also be improved.  And thinking of a Jim Brown being even better than he was then is scary.  Brown would dominate I feel.  As I pointed out above he's the one guy I've ever watched that could run past you, around you or over you.  Having access to modern training, access to turf instead of grass fields?  Whoa.

 

By the way us older guys aren't shaking a stick at the younguns.  We just want to be sure you appreciate history.

 

Here is the issue to what you said though...Brown was already like more of the athletes today.  Its not like today he would suddenly run a sub 4.2 forty, bench 80 reps, and be 280 pounds while doing it all.

 

The gain he would get would not be as massive as the overall gains of the other athletes had on the field over the 50 years.  The gap would significantly grow smaller, but you say it like the gap would remain the same if Brown had modern equipment.  Its just not a reasonable presumption.  So while I am sure Brown could be a great RB in modern NFL, the gap of his talent versus the guys stopping him would be much smaller than when he played.  

[oldmanfan]

12 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

This is true, I don't disagree with that and its a more than fair point.  But the question is who was the greatest RB of all time, not of a specific era.  So there is just no way to accurately do that without weighing how their ability translates over the course of history to some degree.  So everyone is going to have different things that influence that choice.  Its no different than Montana vs Brady for instance that generally leaves out guys like Unitas out of the convo except by old timers who grew up on Unitas and still believe he is the GOAT.  

 

The core issue is that "GOAT" question has variable context too.  

• There is looking at if from a dominance stand point.  If thats the case, there is no other choice in Basketball other than Wilt Chamberlain.  But he is rarely even in the top 5 let alone atop the GOAT list.  
• There is the most talented.  This is a difficult one to gauge as era, teams, schemes, etc will all affect how this is graded.  This is why I still had Bo Jackson on my top 15 list because his talent was other worldly before the hip injury.
• Then there is the most legendary/fabled.  This is like Babe Ruth...will always be a popular choice for the GOAT, but was he really in comparison to the baseball players that came after him?  Ali is another choice...his mythology is greater than many other great boxing legends, but was he really the best pure boxer the sport has ever seen?

For me, when it comes down to RB, its Barry Sanders because no man has ever come close to being able to do what Barry could do on the field.  There have been other backs with the power and speed of Brown, not many, but there are other guys.  Barry was special in a way no other RB has ever been, and may not ever be again.  I can't say that about Brown even though he is still in rare company.  

 

 NOTE:  People keep saying "downgrading" but I mean I have Brown ranked 2nd all time.  Some of the responses act like I knocked Brown out of the top 10 or something.  

I would challenge you here.  When you say Sanders had stuff no one else could match, what parts?  Sayers was his equal in terms of elusiveness.  OJ was at minimum his equal in terms of speed, hitting a hole and taking off.  Dorset was also a guy not mentioned a lot here but he had acceleration like few others.  Power?  Campbell, Czonka maybe, hell even Lynch were great.

 

Now, you put them all together there are very, very few guys that had it all.  You have Sanders 1 and Brown  2 and I have them flip flopped.  Maybe for this simple reason:  if I had 3rd and 3 and I could pick one guy to make the yards or die a terrible death, has to be Brown.  I saw Sanders take too many losses.  Rarely did Brown get stopped behind the line.  Fun stuff to discuss.

[Alphadawg7]

9 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Growing up, i was always under the impression that Bill russell was the better all-around center than chamberlain.

 

Exactly my point...if you go off individual "dominance", Wilt was statistically the single most dominating player on an individual level than any player in basketball history and maybe any team sport ever.  He once averaged 50 points and 20 rebounds for a season.

 

Russell won 11 championships in 13 years.  Wilt won 2.  

[SouthNYfan]

10 minutes ago, hemma said:

 

You sound like you know lots of stuff, so being old and hoping to wallow in nostalgia on a lazy Saturday afternoon I decided to watch some video of the 11/1/1959 game between the Browns and the Colts.  Jim ran for over 170 in that game, but I must be doing something stupid Interweb wrong, cuz I can’t find it!

 

I know that video is available because ‘Video exists’.  Could you post the URL to that thing?

 

You failed to grasp the point of what I said, so let me help:

 

Video exists, which means younger generations can watch older players, you know, play.

 

This is in response to how older fans always say something akin to "I saw him play, you didn't"

 

You'd think that you would have learned reading comprehension in your old age.

[oldmanfan]

Just now, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Exactly my point...if you go off individual "dominance", Wilt was statistically the single most dominating player on an individual level than any player in basketball history and maybe any team sport ever.  He once averaged 50 points and 20 rebounds for a season.

 

Russell won 11 championships in 13 years.  Wilt won 2.  

Speaks to the concept of a team sport.

 

Beenna lot of discussion about us old farts comparing generations.  Hard to do with a single player in a team sport.  But for an individual one?  If Snead or Nelson or Hogan played with the clubs and balls of today they might make Tiger look like just another guy on tour.

[mannc]

46 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

It is fun to try though.

 

The error I think you make is in assuming the older guys would not improve over the absolute excellence they had in their day if they played now.  A guy like Jimmy Brown would have access to modern training regimens, medical technologies, and so in.  So it is perfectly reasonable that they would also be improved.  And thinking of a Jim Brown being even better than he was then is scary.  Brown would dominate I feel.  As I pointed out above he's the one guy I've ever watched that could run past you, around you or over you.  Having access to modern training, access to turf instead of grass fields?  Whoa.

 

By the way us older guys aren't shaking a stick at the younguns.  We just want to be sure you appreciate history.

I think the most important difference between the Jim Brown era and the modern NFL is that the quality of play in the league was diminished at that time by racial segregation. As a result of that segregation, fewer black athletes got the opportunity to play college (and subsequently pro) football.  As segregation faded, more black athletes got the opportunity to play and the overall quality of play improved.  Hence, as great as Jim Brown was, it’s probably true that he wouldn’t dominate the same way in today’s NFL, where the best of the best play, regardless of race.

[SouthNYfan]

3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Speaks to the concept of a team sport.

 

Beenna lot of discussion about us old farts comparing generations.  Hard to do with a single player in a team sport.  But for an individual one?  If Snead or Nelson or Hogan played with the clubs and balls of today they might make Tiger look like just another guy on tour.

 

That I would love to see!!

Tiger dominated until his injuries.

He was a physical specimen.

A true athlete in peak physical condition.

He forced other golfers to follow suit.

 

Let's also remember that they adjusted golf courses, so called "tiger proofing" to compensate for him.

They didn't do that for the old timers.

 

I'd love to see jack and Arnold and slamming Sammy play with today's training and equipment, I think they'd be right on par with tiger!!

 

It's such a muddy swamp to trudge through with so many variables!!

 

 

[Alphadawg7]

3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I would challenge you here.  When you say Sanders had stuff no one else could match, what parts?  Sayers was his equal in terms of elusiveness.  OJ was at minimum his equal in terms of speed, hitting a hole and taking off.  Dorset was also a guy not mentioned a lot here but he had acceleration like few others.  Power?  Campbell, Czonka maybe, hell even Lynch were great.

 

Now, you put them all together there are very, very few guys that had it all.  You have Sanders 1 and Brown  2 and I have them flip flopped.  Maybe for this simple reason:  if I had 3rd and 3 and I could pick one guy to make the yards or die a terrible death, has to be Brown.  I saw Sanders take too many losses.  Rarely did Brown get stopped behind the line.  Fun stuff to discuss.

 

As great as all those other guys are, none of them could do what Barry did on the field.  I will give you that Sayers is certainly IMO the closest.  For me, Barry is the most elusive RB in history.  He made moves that others just can never make and may hurt themselves trying lol. His lower leg agility and feet were other worldly both in angle, speed, flexibility, and being able to stop and go, etc.  

 

But it is all subjective anyway and just fun dialogue 

[oldmanfan]

9 minutes ago, mannc said:

I think the most important difference between the Jim Brown era and the modern NFL is that the quality of play in the league was diminished at that time by racial segregation. As a result of that segregation, fewer black athletes got the opportunity to play college (and subsequently pro) football.  As segregation faded, more black athletes got the opportunity to play and the overall quality of play improved.  Hence, as great as Jim Brown was, it’s probably true that he wouldn’t dominate the same way in today’s NFL, where the best of the best play, regardless of race.

Interesting point