Most Dominant NFL Player Ever

[strive_for_five_guy]

12 hours ago, Dr.Sack said:

Jerry Rice is far ahead of all other WRs total receiving yards wise, and he did it in the pre-modern era which favors passing attacks. From 1985 to 2004 Rice played and for the vast majority of that time ‘85-02 he was a top 30 WR. In a time when most WRs are done by age 33, Rice continued to churn out yards and 1,000 yard seasons until he was 40.

Rice also was first team all-pro 10 times in his 20 year career, whereas Brady has only been first team all-pro 3 times in his 22 year career.  Yes, Brady has more Super Bowl rings (7 to 3) and more prominence as a QB, but the dominance of Rice’s stats (TDs, Receptions, Receiving Yards) relative to the next best WRs put him at #1 here.

 

[The Hub]

Wilt the Stilt Chamberlain.

[hondo in seattle]

Here's what Bart Scott said about Brady:

 

"I'd much rather go against Tom Brady every day of the week than go against Peyton Manning... I believe that's how everybody feels. Like, in the heyday, never ever have I said when I'm playing the Patriots, 'I'm so afraid of Tom Brady.'

 

"I lost as a No. 1 seed to Peyton Manning with the Baltimore Ravens. Peyton Manning gives you a different set of anxiety. ... With Tom Brady it was more about Bill Belichick, the entire team, the execution, them having a game plan."

 

That's kind of what I said.  Brady's had an amazing career.  But he never personally performed head-and-shoulders above his peers.   In fact, many knowledgeable guys, like Scott, don't even think he was the best QB of his era.

 

www.nfl.com/news/five-scariest-quarterbacks-entering-2022-nfl-season-where-gronk-ranks-among-top-

[Chicken Boo]

On 6/20/2022 at 5:28 PM, Son of a K-Gun said:

Before I even read the first post my mind went straight to Jim Brown.

 

One big point to remember with Ruth…he played 30 years before Jackie Robinson broke the colour barrier.  A bit easier to be dominant when the competition is systematically watered down.

 

Boom!

 

Josh Gibson > Babe Ruth

Edited June 28, 2022 by Chicken Boo

[HardyBoy]

On 6/20/2022 at 4:22 PM, 4merper4mer said:

Very different sports.  Ruth transformed baseball and in a way all of sports.  Sports position in society pre-Ruth was not the same as it was once he came along.  In that way he will never have a peer no matter how much the Pats fans regulars and others would like to say it.  
 

I’d say Ruth benefits from being “the first”, but he also was a major outlier from everyone else.  The fact that his anomalous nature holds up after a century is telling.  I’m not sure anyone modern sports can ever reach that.  Candidates are easier to find in sports outside of football and I feel Gretzky is by far the closest.  The hoops arguments are tougher due to the different positions,  I could see Russell, Jordan and some others making a case but all are debatable.  In football you’d have to consider Brown, Brady, LT and Rice IMO but the singular nature of their roles makes it tough to compare them to Ruth.

 

Others:  Joe Louis, Don Bradman, Bobby Jones, Mark Spitz.

 

Pele could be considered if soccer qualifies as a sport as could and Glenn Howard if curling is a sport.

 

Not really an outlier, a bunch of the best players were segregated and not allowed to play in MLB. Also, I'm pretty sure Babe Ruth shouldn't have been allowed to play in the MLB for the same reason based on some stuff I've read, which is really wild. Some great times. 

 

Jim Brown has to be the answer though right? Adrian Peterson was the most dominant player I've ever seen. 

 

On 6/20/2022 at 5:28 PM, Son of a K-Gun said:

Before I even read the first post my mind went straight to Jim Brown.

 

One big point to remember with Ruth…he played 30 years before Jackie Robinson broke the colour barrier.  A bit easier to be dominant when the competition is systematically watered down.

 

Exactly! I only read the first page before responding, but exactly what you said! 

Edited June 28, 2022 by HardyBoy
Added a line break between a merged post

[OnTheRocks]

When these topics come up I can never narrow it down to a single player.  

My top three would be:

Jim Brown

Jerry Rice

Lawrence Taylor

 

I once read a stat (I can't confirm if it's true or not), that Jim Brown was never tackled for a loss.

 

As far as top athletes all time, I wouldn't include any of the above guys.

Top Athletes All Time:

Wayne Gretzky

Michael Jordan

And I'm going to throw in Serena Williams because.....well.....23 Grand Slam Singles Titles.   14 Grand Slam Doubles Titles.  2 Grand Slam Mixed Doubles Titles. And 4 Gold Medals.  Domination for nearly 20 years.

[Buffalo716]

On 6/24/2022 at 10:10 AM, Royale with Cheese said:

 

So it appears that these new baseballs only helped Babe Ruth...how did the baseball makers do that?  George Sisler was 2nd in the league with 19 homeruns.  

I noticed that you didn't bold the part where Babe Ruth also changed his swing...really wanted to focus on that the white ball.

 

Yes, it was illegal to do anything with a baseball but you also said a few replies up that "pitchers have always doctored balls."  But I guess they didn't/don't now?

 

I don't have a link to it because I was watching this special on TV several years ago about the use of baseballs.  It was either Peter Gammons, Kurjian or Onley...can't remember.  Basically, we use a significant amount more baseballs today.  Baseballs get an average of 2 pitches a game now.   

 

I've had several friends and teammates drafted.  A few have taken BP in MLB stadiums and said the ball just jumps off the bat.  My roommate, who took BP at the Reds stadium said he didn't feel much difference taking BP in college with an aluminum bat.  He hit as many out.

 

So I agree that you take 1920's Babe Ruth and put him in today's game...he would struggle mightily.  My argument is that if you give him today's resources and training, he could be dominant again.  You seem to be very against that notion.

You take any player in any sport from any sport from 100 years ago and put them as is today, they all struggle.

I basically agree with you

 

If you’re saying you just took Babe Ruth from 1920 and dropped him in to today without any More training he wouldn’t suck but he wouldn’t be as successful 

 

If you took the babes talent and gave him modern training from childhood he would have a chance to still be dominant 

 

Statistically he is the most dominant player in baseball history

 

I think a pitcher like Walter Johnson would also have a chance to be successful if you gave him the chance to learn the modern game

[Buffalo716]

On 6/27/2022 at 8:37 PM, Chicken Boo said:

 

Boom!

 

Josh Gibson > Babe Ruth

It’s fair to believe that and not taking anything away from Gibson who is probably a machine

 

But he also played only against Black people 

 

So him nor Ruth got to play against the best at the same time…. His Statistics are certainly outstanding tho 

 

And some people who saw them both play did call Ruth the white Gibson

[The Jokeman]

10 hours ago, Buffalo716 said:

It’s fair to believe that and not taking anything away from Gibson who is probably a machine

 

But he also played only against Black people 

 

So him nor Ruth got to play against the best at the same time…. His Statistics are certainly outstanding tho 

 

And some people who saw them both play did call Ruth the white Gibson

Did Gibson pitch too? As part of Ruth's greatness wasn't only his ability to hit but his pitching prowess too. 

[Royale with Cheese]

11 hours ago, Buffalo716 said:

I basically agree with you

 

If you’re saying you just took Babe Ruth from 1920 and dropped him in to today without any More training he wouldn’t suck but he wouldn’t be as successful 

 

If you took the babes talent and gave him modern training from childhood he would have a chance to still be dominant 

 

Statistically he is the most dominant player in baseball history

 

I think a pitcher like Walter Johnson would also have a chance to be successful if you gave him the chance to learn the modern game

 

Yes.  

 

Babe Ruth was 6"1 and 215 lbs.  That is probably average today but big back then.  With todays training, he could have added easily 20-25 lbs of muscle.  

 

Today's hitting coaches would have shortened his stride and swing.  Hitting the ball further is more bat speed than strength.  He had incredible bat speed with a 40 or so oz bat.  

 

The only hitter I think back in that era that could have hit today's pitching as is was Ted Williams.  

[Buffalo716]

4 hours ago, The Jokeman said:

Did Gibson pitch too? As part of Ruth's greatness wasn't only his ability to hit but his pitching prowess too. 

No I don’t believe he did

 

and yes babe was a top pitcher as well which is why his legacy is so grand today 

 

John Holway A Baseball historian said Gibson had 56 at bats versus white mlb pitchers During his compilation  of ***** league data

 

Holway lists him as 21-56 with 2 home runs 

 

 

 

 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

Most dominant player I’ve ever seen in my lifetime is Larry Allen. 

[Chicken Boo]

16 hours ago, Buffalo716 said:

It’s fair to believe that and not taking anything away from Gibson who is probably a machine

 

But he also played only against Black people 

 

So him nor Ruth got to play against the best at the same time…. His Statistics are certainly outstanding tho 

 

And some people who saw them both play did call Ruth the white Gibson

 

Gibson also played against the Mexican and Puerto Rican Leaguers. 

[Buffalo716]

3 minutes ago, Chicken Boo said:

 

Gibson also played against the Mexican and Puerto Rican Leaguers. 

I know

 

As I said in a post Above, a major league historian said he was 21-56 with 2 HRs against MLB pitchers

Edited June 29, 2022 by Buffalo716

[Shaw66]

On 6/20/2022 at 7:30 PM, Old Coot said:

It's difficult to pick one footballer because football is much more a team sport than baseball, basketball or hockey.

 

The best offensive player has to be Jim Brown.

 

The best defensive player, that's more difficult but I'll go with lawrence Taylor.  He is single-handedly responsible for creating the left tackle position.  Before his time, the tackles were considered interchangeable.

 

Brady -- he's a pretty good QB -- the Otto Graham of his time -- with Paul Brown playing the part of Bill Belichick.

Yes to Brown and Taylor.   The question was most dominant.   That means who dominated?   Who won games on his own, who changed games regularly, who succeeded pretty much no matter what the opponent did.   

 

Unlike who was the greatest of all time, dominant means who stood out most among his peers.  

 

That was Brown.   Someone asked Paul Brown once why Jim Brown got so many more carries than Bobby Mitchell, who was a really special talent.   Paul Brown said something like "why fire a pop-gun when I have a shotgun?"  

 

I'd guess that Taylor caused more adjustments by offensive coordinators than any defensive player in the history of the game.  He was the first linebacker that the defense would turn lose and just let him create.   DEs like White and Smith were great, but they lined up in a place where they could be double-teamed and at least slowed down.   The Giants schemed to get Taylor free somewhere, and it seemed like it was never the same place twice.   He just destroyed games.  

 

Graham and Brady were different kinds of players, but what you say about them and their coaches is a great comparison.   Teams kept losing to the Browns, year after year, and Graham was the field general and leader, just like Brady.   But neither of them single-handedly, dominated games like Brown and Taylor.  

 

It's not about stats.  It's about which player, in the game that is more of team game than any other game, would dominate almost regardless of the team he was on.  

 

And some of it is about the era.   EVERY team ran the ball in the 50s and early 60s.   Passing was high-risk proposition.   Still, NOBODY ran like Brown.   I actually think Derrick Henry is the most like Brown of any player I've seen.   Unreal power and straight ahead speed, with some shiftiness.   But in this era, Henry can't dominate like Brown did.  And that's because, as someone said, the overall talent now is much better than in those days.  

 

[RaoulDuke79]

Reggie White is an under the radar candidate. Its hard with football because it's offense and defense are two different animals. Nobody remembers great defensive baseball players, its always offense.

[Shaw66]

On 6/28/2022 at 9:53 PM, OnTheRocks said:

I once read a stat (I can't confirm if it's true or not), that Jim Brown was never tackled for a loss.

 

As far as top athletes all time, I wouldn't include any of the above guys.

 

Well, you may want to rethink that.   Brown was one of the great lacrosse players of all time.   You know how they eliminated dunking in college when Lew Alcindor came along?   They changed lacrosse rules because of Brown.  

 

As a sophomore, he was the second-leading scorer on the Syracuse basketball team.  As a junior he finished fifth in the national decathlon championships.  When the lacrosse schedule didn't interfere, he ran track.  

 

When Franco Harris was late in his career, he had a chance to pass Brown as the all-time rushing leader.   Some people were saying that Franco Harris was better than Jim Brown.   Brown, whose ego is legendary, was angered by the mere thought of that.   He said he could come out of retirement in the upcoming season and be better than Harris.   Brown was 45, and he was so great that many fans believed it was true.  

 

 

 

 

[Old Coot]

6 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

And some of it is about the era.   EVERY team ran the ball in the 50s and early 60s.   Passing was high-risk proposition.   Still, NOBODY ran like Brown.   I actually think Derrick Henry is the most like Brown of any player I've seen.   Unreal power and straight ahead speed, with some shiftiness.   But in this era, Henry can't dominate like Brown did.  And that's because, as someone said, the overall talent now is much better than in those days.

Good comparison, Shaw

[Watkins101]

On 6/20/2022 at 3:26 PM, hondo in seattle said:

Babe Ruth is the most dominant professional athlete in major American sports history.  When he hit 54 homers in the 1920, the next best guy - a star in his own right - only hit 19.  Babe was hitting at another level: a staggering 184% better than the next greatest long ball hitter that year.  The next year, the story was pretty much the same: Babe was 146% better than the next biggest star.  

 

But what about football?  The NFL doesn't have a Babe Ruth.  Brady is great because he's been one of the top 5 QBs in the league since our own star QB, Josh Allen, was in kindergarten.  Yet Brady was never - statistically anyway - far and away the best QB in the league in any particular season.   Not the same way Babe was.  

 

There are, though, two NFL players who do come to mind when I think about dominance.  You've got to go back a few years back to the time when the best athletes became RBs and defenses were designed to stop & destroy those backs.  In 1973, OJ had 75% more yards than the next best RB.  Ten years earlier, Jim Brown had 70% more yards than the #2 guy.  Both these guys were transcendent, mind-boggling talents.  

 

In Brady's most dominant season, 2007, he only finished with 8.7% yards more than the next best guy.  Brady might be the GOAT.  But in their prime, OJ and Jim Brown were more dominant.  

Gretzky is more dominant IMO. Gretzky has the most goals and most assists in NHL history. His assist totals alone (1963) beat out the closest competitor in goals and assists combined (Jagr, 1921). His point total (2857) is 149% higher than the second highest of all time. Gretzky also has 4 of the 5 most points in a postseason (1,3,4,5), as well as another in the top 10 and another tied for 11th. He also had the top 4 regular season point totals, as well as 9 of the top 11 in NHL history. He dominated for a much longer period of time than Babe Ruth. 

Edited July 1, 2022 by Watkins101

[Ethan in Cleveland]

1 hour ago, Watkins101 said:

Gretzky is more dominant IMO. Gretzky has the most goals and most assists in NHL history. His assist totals alone (1963) beat out the closest competitor in goals and assists combined (Jagr, 1921). His point total (2857) is 149% higher than the second highest of all time. Gretzky also has 4 of the 5 most points in a postseason (1,3,4,5), as well as another in the top 10 and another tied for 11th. He also had the top 4 regular season point totals, as well as 9 of the top 11 in NHL history. He dominated for a much longer period of time than Babe Ruth. 

Gretzky is the only athlete in the conversation for most dominant across all sports. As you pointed out its not even close.  The only criticism of Gretzky would be he dominated at a time in Edmonton when the Eastern European and Russian players were not in the NHL yet. 

 

As for Ruth, you can't even discuss him without brining up the fact he didn't play against black or Latin players.