PDA

View Full Version : Earl Campbell: Today’s running backs look average


CloakNNNdagger
08-03-2012, 10:02 PM
Jim Brown grabbed some attention this offseason when he called Browns first-round pick Trent Richardson an “ordinary” running back.

One of Brown’s fellow Hall of Famers doesn’t think Richardson is the only back out there deserving of the label. Earl Campbell told NFL.com that he doesn’t see any dominant backs in today’s game, largely because of the way the game is played.

“I think it’s because the way the game has changed, to where all of them just look like they’re average backs because they pass the ball so much,” Campbell said. “I don’t think there’s a runner in pro football you could say was like a Jim Brown.”

More (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/08/03/earl-campbell-todays-running-backs-look-average/)

Cjeremy635
08-03-2012, 10:41 PM
While I'm not taking anything away from Campbell's or Brown's accomplishments, the game today is different. Those guys were bruisers and ran right over people. I agree that there really isn't a back that does that today on a regular basis. Having said that, guys run smarter now. They're fast, maybe even faster then they were back in the day, and they try to be more elusive to avoid that type of contact. It definitely lengthens a career and saves your body from breaking down like Earl's did. Guys think about their future after football these days and the idea of a wheelchair is not a welcome one.

Kaiser Toro
08-03-2012, 10:46 PM
The only back that reminds of the old school elite RB is Peterson.

Insideop
08-04-2012, 08:19 AM
Here is another article from the Around The League segment on NFL.com. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82b06e60/article/earl-campbell-todays-rbs-look-like-theyre-average?module=HP11_content_stream It basically is the same article but there is a great video with it that shows Campbell in his early days with the Oilers. What a beast! Don't know of too many RB's today that can run and punish the defenses the way Earl did.

infantrycak
08-04-2012, 09:29 AM
Earl like Marino gives lie to the notion having a great WR, RB or QB means SB wins.

In fact, none of this year's HoF inductees has a SB ring.

Texecutioner
08-04-2012, 10:54 AM
Earl like Marino gives lie to the notion having a great WR, RB or QB means SB wins.

In fact, none of this year's HoF inductees has a SB ring.

You may not need an elite RB, but having an elite QB damn sure goes a long way.

Last SB winners were:

1. Giants
2. Packers
3. Saints
4. Steelers
5. Giants
6. Colts
7. Steelers
8. Patriots
9. Patriots
10. Patriots
11. Ravens
12. Rams
13. Broncos
14. Broncos
15. Packers
16. Cowboys
17. Niners
18. Cowboys
19. Cowboys
20 . Redskins
21. Giants

Just about all of those teams going back to 1990 all had elite QB's playing for them. Guys like Eli Manning and Ben have both been right on the cusp of elite. Then you've got a few in there like the Ravens and that Bucs team that won on pure defense. THe majority of those winners all had HOF level or elite QB's leading their team all the way.

SF49erFaithful
08-05-2012, 12:18 AM
Are these guys envious of the new guys' fame and fortune or something? Today's running backs are better than ever. AP, McFadden, Foster, Gore, MJD, Rice, Jackson, Forte, Turner, Sproles, Lynch, Mccoy. Wow. Honestly if AP played in Jim Brown's or Earl Campbell's era he would own every record imaginable.

With that said, I agree with Jim Brown that Richardson is fairly ordinary. People expecting him to have a McFadden or AP type of impact are in for a rude, rude awakening.

SF49erFaithful
08-05-2012, 12:25 AM
You may not need an elite RB, but having an elite QB damn sure goes a long way.

Last SB winners were:

1. Giants
2. Packers
3. Saints
4. Steelers
5. Giants
6. Colts
7. Steelers
8. Patriots
9. Patriots
10. Patriots
11. Ravens
12. Rams
13. Broncos
14. Broncos
15. Packers
16. Cowboys
17. Niners
18. Cowboys
19. Cowboys
20 . Redskins
21. Giants

Just about all of those teams going back to 1990 all had elite QB's playing for them. Guys like Eli Manning and Ben have both been right on the cusp of elite. Then you've got a few in there like the Ravens and that Bucs team that won on pure defense. THe majority of those winners all had HOF level or elite QB's leading their team all the way.

A great D is essential too. Nearly all those teams had an elite defense AND QB. Notice that GB didn't win it this year, with their defensive slide. NE hasn't won it ever since their defense has started to tank. Also recall that NO and INDI, who usually tend to struggle on that side of the ball, only won the Big Game when their defensive units were ranked amongst the NFL's best.

Rey
08-05-2012, 12:30 AM
Anyone read the comments section?

I never saw Earl play live, but I almost made an account just to tell some of those guys to stfu.

PapaL
08-05-2012, 02:54 AM
Are these guys envious of the new guys' fame and fortune or something? Today's running backs are better than ever. AP, McFadden, Foster, Gore, MJD, Rice, Jackson, Forte, Turner, Sproles, Lynch, Mccoy. Wow. Honestly if AP played in Jim Brown's or Earl Campbell's era he would own every record imaginable.

With that said, I agree with Jim Brown that Richardson is fairly ordinary. People expecting him to have a McFadden or AP type of impact are in for a rude, rude awakening.

I disagree. Defenses now are lame compared to what was legal back then and what defenses did. Forearm shots to the head were legal and VERY common. Defenses were built to stop the run, now it's about getting to the QB.

Lucky
08-05-2012, 09:07 AM
Guys like Eli Manning and Ben have both been right on the cusp of elite.
Would guys like Eli and Big Ben be considered "on the cusp" had they not won Super Bowls? I realize they did win Super Bowls, but the main reason they are in the conversation of "elite" is because they did.

Even in Earl's day, there were no other Earls. Payton would run over a DB on occasion, but that wasn't his main game. Dorsett, Sims, and Montgomery would avoid tacklers. Even bigger backs like Franco Harris and Chuck Muncie would rarely take on defenders. Earl was just different, in any era.

*Edit - John Riggins would run guys over. That's 2.

infantrycak
08-05-2012, 10:09 AM
Would guys like Eli and Big Ben be considered "on the cusp" had they not won Super Bowls?

Random observation here - Big Ben has only played in 16 games once in his career.

To the topic, yes Earl ran unlike many others. Jim Brown was big and powerful but they weren't the same runner at all.

BCRich
08-05-2012, 10:44 AM
While I'm not taking anything away from Campbell's or Brown's accomplishments, the game today is different. Those guys were bruisers and ran right over people. I agree that there really isn't a back that does that today on a regular basis. Having said that, guys run smarter now. They're fast, maybe even faster then they were back in the day, and they try to be more elusive to avoid that type of contact. It definitely lengthens a career and saves your body from breaking down like Earl's did. Guys think about their future after football these days and the idea of a wheelchair is not a welcome one.

Completely agree. the last guy I can remember who was that big, bowling, bruiser, was Ricky Williams, or maybe Deuce. Niether, however, built up legendary status like Earl Campbell & Jim Brown. Their all like Oj nowadays.

I don't think an Earl Campbell could do what Earl Campbell did nowadays. Defenses are bigger, stronger, faster, & more athletic.

But I'd love to see a big bruiser.

BCRich
08-05-2012, 10:47 AM
The only back that reminds of the old school elite RB is Peterson.

Come to think of it, Michael Bush & Ben Tate remind me more of Early than Peterson does.

Texecutioner
08-05-2012, 01:00 PM
A great D is essential too. Nearly all those teams had an elite defense AND QB. Notice that GB didn't win it this year, with their defensive slide. NE hasn't won it ever since their defense has started to tank. Also recall that NO and INDI, who usually tend to struggle on that side of the ball, only won the Big Game when their defensive units were ranked amongst the NFL's best.

A great D is very essential. No question there, but we've seen a lot of great D's and only 3 teams in NFL history have won it all with just great D's and nothing else, and that is the Ravens, Bears, and the Bucs.

Other than that, you've got a ton of teams where the common denominator in most was great QB play. Tons of guys can get you deep in the playoffs, but great QB play gets teams over the top. NE may not have won a SB since their defense dropped off some, but they were a miracle play away from having a perfect season, and a dropped Welker pass away from having two more rings. That's close enough in my book.

Texecutioner
08-05-2012, 01:02 PM
Would guys like Eli and Big Ben be considered "on the cusp" had they not won Super Bowls? I realize they did win Super Bowls, but the main reason they are in the conversation of "elite" is because they did.

Even in Earl's day, there were no other Earls. Payton would run over a DB on occasion, but that wasn't his main game. Dorsett, Sims, and Montgomery would avoid tacklers. Even bigger backs like Franco Harris and Chuck Muncie would rarely take on defenders. Earl was just different, in any era.

*Edit - John Riggins would run guys over. That's 2.

Big Ben = Yes
Eli = Probably not.

Eli's status got way overblown after that last SB, but I've always thought that Eli caught way more criticism than he deserved playing in NY. He has been a top 10 type QB for many years now and put up pretty solid numbers in the toughest division in football every year. Add that with two SB victories, and I'd put him right in between the elites and the 2nd group of really good QB's. Him and Ben both belong right there in my opinion and possibly Rivers as well.

Texanmike02
08-05-2012, 02:27 PM
You may not need an elite RB, but having an elite QB damn sure goes a long way.

Last SB winners were:

1. Giants
2. Packers
3. Saints
4. Steelers
5. Giants
6. Colts
7. Steelers
8. Patriots
9. Patriots
10. Patriots
11. Ravens
12. Rams
13. Broncos
14. Broncos
15. Packers
16. Cowboys
17. Niners
18. Cowboys
19. Cowboys
20 . Redskins
21. Giants

Just about all of those teams going back to 1990 all had elite QB's playing for them. Guys like Eli Manning and Ben have both been right on the cusp of elite. Then you've got a few in there like the Ravens and that Bucs team that won on pure defense. THe majority of those winners all had HOF level or elite QB's leading their team all the way.

Before the boards merged I did some research and found that no league leader in rushing has won a Superbowl since TD and only Baltimore won a SB when one back received more than 70% of that teams carries that year. I font remember the particulars though.

Mike

The Medic01
08-05-2012, 02:40 PM
Times have changed. These running backs are dominant they just don't do it he way they used to.

Texecutioner
08-05-2012, 02:41 PM
Before the boards merged I did some research and found that no league leader in rushing has won a Superbowl since TD and only Baltimore won a SB when one back received more than 70% of that teams carries that year. I font remember the particulars though.

Mike

Yes, and I'm glad you brought that back up. When I originally listed all of those teams, part of my post was supposed to talk about the fact that elite RB's are very rarely on SB winning teams. That was one of the reasons I didn't want to the Texans to severely over pay for Foster before we signed him, because I don't value RB's that high in the grand scheme of things even though some RB's have a huge impact. A great O line that is built to protect the passer and open holes for a productive running game will be a lot more important than having an elite RB any day of the week.

And speaking of Foster, I was proud to read that he was the #1 Fantasy pick in FF magazine for mock drafts. Not bad Foster.

infantrycak
08-05-2012, 02:46 PM
Before the boards merged I did some research and found that no league leader in rushing has won a Superbowl since TD and only Baltimore won a SB when one back received more than 70% of that teams carries that year. I font remember the particulars though.

I am not arguing against your point, more against those who discount Emmitt - he led the league four times and they won the SB three of those years and he had more than 70% of the carries each year.

To further your point, he was the first rushing leader to win a SB. So the short story is there have been two rushing leaders to ever win the SB.

HJam72
08-05-2012, 02:48 PM
Yeah, and TD happened to play on a team with John Elway.

Not sayin' Elway didn't need TD, but I think they needed each other to make it all the way. I think QB is the one position where you ALMOST need a star player. Exceptions exist, but they are rare. All the other positions are more a matter of just needing overall talent and some stars mixed in wherever.

infantrycak
08-05-2012, 02:52 PM
Yeah, and TD happened to play on a team with John Elway.

Not sayin' Elway didn't need TD, but I think they needed each other to make it all the way. I think QB is the one position where you ALMOST need a star player. Exceptions exist, but they are rare. All the other positions are more a matter of just needing overall talent and some stars mixed in wherever.

I think Lucky hit the nail on the head. As a QB winning a SB will elevate your status from on the cusp to elite. You can be an elite WR or RB without a SB. Name the best WR's and RB's in the league right now and only Fitzgerald has played in much less won a SB.

CloakNNNdagger
08-05-2012, 03:28 PM
Weight training in the NFL didn't become popular until the 70's.

Texecutioner
08-05-2012, 03:47 PM
I think Lucky hit the nail on the head. As a QB winning a SB will elevate your status from on the cusp to elite. You can be an elite WR or RB without a SB. Name the best WR's and RB's in the league right now and only Fitzgerald has played in much less won a SB.

Moss almost won a ring with NE
Greg Jennings won a ring, and he's on the cusp of being elite.
Hines Ward was on the cusp of being elite a long time ago.
Jerry Rice won 4 rings.
Michael Irvin won 3 rings.
Plexico Burress wasn't elite, but he was right behind the elites.
Rod Smith was right behind the elites as well.

Say Watt
08-05-2012, 03:49 PM
I know the guy is considered a god around here, but this was an idiotic statement by Earl. It was idiotic when Jim Brown said it about Richardson before the guy has ever even played an NFL game, and it is idiotic for Earl to say something similar.

Nostalgia is great and all but as others have said, running backs might look "ordinary" today because of two big reasons: more reliance on the passing game and bigger, faster, and stronger defenses. Yes, the players probably had to deal with more cheap shots back then, but the players now are monsters.

Fact is guys like AD, Foster, MJD, etc would dominate in any era of football. Please, cut this crap out that none of these guys would have been successful. It makes me think Earl spends too much time watching old footage of himself instead of keeping up with today's game.

Rey
08-05-2012, 03:53 PM
I know the guy is considered a god around here, but this was an idiotic statement by Earl. It was idiotic when Jim Brown said it about Richardson before the guy has ever even played an NFL game, and it is idiotic for Earl to say something similar.

Nostalgia is great and all but as others have said, running backs might look "ordinary" today because of two big reasons: more reliance on the passing game and bigger, faster, and stronger defenses. Yes, the players probably had to deal with more cheap shots back then, but the players now are monsters.

Fact is guys like AD, Foster, MJD, etc would dominate in any era of football. Please, cut this crap out that none of these guys would have been successful. It makes me think Earl spends too much time watching old footage of himself instead of keeping up with today's game.

LOL.

You might want to actually read.

Texecutioner
08-05-2012, 03:55 PM
I know the guy is considered a god around here, but this was an idiotic statement by Earl. It was idiotic when Jim Brown said it about Richardson before the guy has ever even played an NFL game, and it is idiotic for Earl to say something similar.

Nostalgia is great and all but as others have said, running backs might look "ordinary" today because of two big reasons: more reliance on the passing game and bigger, faster, and stronger defenses. Yes, the players probably had to deal with more cheap shots back then, but the players now are monsters.

Fact is guys like AD, Foster, MJD, etc would dominate in any era of football. Please, cut this crap out that none of these guys would have been successful. It makes me think Earl spends too much time watching old footage of himself instead of keeping up with today's game.

I agree. There are tons of talented backs now days.

How many backs back in the day could receive and take screen pass plays to the house like Westbrook would. Nobody was better in space on screen passes.

Look at LT. He was the perfect combination of speed, power, and elusiveness. He was right there with a lot of those old school backs.

Foster is an amazing back with speed, great cut moves, and amazing vision.

MJD could play in any era as you have suggested as well.

I could go on and on about a lot of backs over the years.

badboy
08-05-2012, 08:16 PM
As an old Oiler fan from season one, I am a huge fan of Earl. I have a question for him and Jim Brown, however. How many passes did you catch? These comments from two of the greatest NFl players remind me of guys telling their offspring how many miles they walked thru the snow to get to school. Comes across to me like sour grapes.

Rey
08-05-2012, 09:15 PM
I can't believe so few of you read what Earl actually said.

Either that or I don't think you guys' comprehended what was said.

The Pencil Neck
08-05-2012, 09:32 PM
You may not need an elite RB, but having an elite QB damn sure goes a long way.

Last SB winners were:

1. Giants
2. Packers
3. Saints
4. Steelers
5. Giants
6. Colts
7. Steelers
8. Patriots
9. Patriots
10. Patriots
11. Ravens
12. Rams
13. Broncos
14. Broncos
15. Packers
16. Cowboys
17. Niners
18. Cowboys
19. Cowboys
20 . Redskins
21. Giants

Just about all of those teams going back to 1990 all had elite QB's playing for them. Guys like Eli Manning and Ben have both been right on the cusp of elite. Then you've got a few in there like the Ravens and that Bucs team that won on pure defense. THe majority of those winners all had HOF level or elite QB's leading their team all the way.

Just a quibble, but you gave the Patriots 3 consecutive SBs by leaving the Buccs out. They won with a great D and a bad QB.

And as someone else said, I don't buy into Eli and Ben being elite QBs based on purely on performance. The Steelers won one of those SBs despite him playing like dog-meat. And those two guys are in the "borderline elite" discussion because their teams won SBs.

Ultimately, though, the point isn't that it doesn't help a whole, whole lot to have an elite QB but that having an elite QB isn't absolutely necessary if you've got a QB at a certain level and the other pieces to make up for his deficiencies. And people have brought up the fact that it's fairly rare for guys to lead the league in rushing and win a SB (with Emmitt being the first and I think TD being the last), but it's also rare for a QB to lead the league in passing yards and win the SB.

Tom Brady has grown into a phenomenal QB but he wasn't the "greatest evar" when he won that first one. Neither was Ben. Those were both teams that relied on their defense kicking ass and their offense doing just enough to win.

This is a team sport and everything needs to come together and balance out like an equation.

Rey
08-05-2012, 09:59 PM
I'd take Eli and Ben in this offense over schaub.

I love schaub and have since his first camp here.

But with this play action offense and running game a think both Eli and Ben would have us at a different level. Jmo.

Say Watt
08-05-2012, 11:27 PM
LOL.

You might want to actually read.

LOL.

You might want to actually learn some manners.

Earl directly stated there are no backs in the NFL today like a Jim Brown. He IS saying he thinks the RBs today would basically not be as good as the star RBs back then. Yes, he said the game has changed, but he also hints with his last comment that the stud RBs today would not be as good as the stud backs when Earl and Brown played. I think he is dead wrong and that the studs today would be stud RBs in any era.

You might want to actually read next time.

Rey
08-05-2012, 11:59 PM
LOL.

You might want to actually learn some manners.

Earl directly stated there are no backs in the NFL today like a Jim Brown. He IS saying he thinks the RBs today would basically not be as good as the star RBs back then. Yes, he said the game has changed, but he also hints with his last comment that the stud RBs today would not be as good as the stud backs when Earl and Brown played. I think he is dead wrong and that the studs today would be stud RBs in any era.

You might want to actually read next time.


“I think it’s because the way the game has changed, to where all of them just look like they’re average backs because they pass the ball so much,” Campbell said. “I don’t think there’s a runner in pro football you could say was like a Jim Brown.


Yeah, I'll stick with my original thoughts which us you either didn't read initially (and now you're going to back up your foolish post at all cost) or your comprehension is awful.

Disregard everything else he said because he said there isn't a running back like Jim brown in the game today? That's the statement that set you off? Really?

I don't think there is a running back like Brown in the game either. Matter of fact I don't see any rb's like Earl either. Guess that makes me a bitter old man or whatever adjectives you used to describe him for being observant.

Why don't you just admit that you were sucked in by the title and didn't really read and comprehend what he said? I have a feeling you won't and you'll keep up with your world class deductions.


Edit: and you wanna know how I know you're full of it....you went on to give one if the same reasons Earl gave for running backs "looking ordinary" in your initial post.

Hervoyel
08-06-2012, 12:10 AM
I believe that Earl (and Brown by extension) are correct in that backs today are not "like" Jim Brown (or Earl). There probably never will be a back that runs like either of them again if for no other reason than that the game will never return to the style of play that put them center stage and called on them to run the way they did. It's more that the things they did and the way they ran is now a thing of the past not that the backs today aren't talented or couldn't have done that. We'll never know what Foster, Peterson, or MJD would have been able to do in offenses like the ones these two legends played in. Yank one of them out of the league today and drop him into 1960's or 70's football and they'd no doubt be in unreal condition compared to the players of the day. Big, fast, and talented in comparison. If you do this right though and bring one of these backs along in that era who knows what you get? With the training and diet of today they're elite athletes but would they be the same players in a "rub some dirt on it" era without the year round focus on staying fit? Do Foster's abilities come through in a league where everyone on the field knows that most of the time he's going to get the ball?

Guys like Brown and Campbell were literally so good that when everyone in the stadium knew they were getting the ball they still had a decent shot at doing something epic. I don't see that in today's running backs for the most part. Productive much of the time they are and often amazing to watch but they ply their trade in a game where defenses can never ignore the pass and most of the time have to account for it first instead of as an afterthought.

Say Watt
08-06-2012, 12:41 AM
Yeah, I'll stick with my original thoughts which us you either didn't read initially (and now you're going to back up your foolish post at all cost) or your comprehension is awful.

Disregard everything else he said because he said there isn't a running back like Jim brown in the game today? That's the statement that set you off? Really?

I don't think there is a running back like Brown in the game either. Matter of fact I don't see any rb's like Earl either. Guess that makes me a bitter old man or whatever adjectives you used to describe him for being observant.

Why don't you just admit that you were sucked in by the title and didn't really read and comprehend what he said? I have a feeling you won't and you'll keep up with your world class deductions.


Edit: and you wanna know how I know you're full of it....you went on to give one if the same reasons Earl gave for running backs "looking ordinary" in your initial post.

Nothing set me off other than your idiotic little response. You brought nothing to the conversation and other posters were making some of the exact same comments I made. So it seems you are the one with the comprehension problems as the rest of us seem to be able to connect the dots. Is it possible/likely Earl just said something stupid or that it just came out wrong? Sure.

The comment I made about "looking ordinary" was based on what another poster said in the thread as I stated. Yes, Earl said something similar about the league becoming more passing oriented, but he also seems to imply that RBs today aren't as tough and couldn't play the game the way Earl and Brown did. After all, this was in response to the statement made by Jim Brown about Trent Richardson was it not?

Anyway, make your next post soon because here shortly, you will become the lone poster on my ignore list.

Say Watt
08-06-2012, 12:47 AM
I believe that Earl (and Brown by extension) are correct in that backs today are not "like" Jim Brown (or Earl). There probably never will be a back that runs like either of them again if for no other reason than that the game will never return to the style of play that put them center stage and called on them to run the way they did. It's more that the things they did and the way they ran is now a thing of the past not that the backs today aren't talented or couldn't have done that. We'll never know what Foster, Peterson, or MJD would have been able to do in offenses like the ones these two legends played in. Yank one of them out of the league today and drop him into 1960's or 70's football and they'd no doubt be in unreal condition compared to the players of the day. Big, fast, and talented in comparison. If you do this right though and bring one of these backs along in that era who knows what you get? With the training and diet of today they're elite athletes but would they be the same players in a "rub some dirt on it" era without the year round focus on staying fit? Do Foster's abilities come through in a league where everyone on the field knows that most of the time he's going to get the ball?

Guys like Brown and Campbell were literally so good that when everyone in the stadium knew they were getting the ball they still had a decent shot at doing something epic. I don't see that in today's running backs for the most part. Productive much of the time they are and often amazing to watch but they ply their trade in a game where defenses can never ignore the pass and most of the time have to account for it first instead of as an afterthought.

Great post. Rey, take notes. This is how a post actually addressing the subject matter is done.

Only thing I will disagree with is guys like Peterson and MJD have proven they can do exactly what you said you aren't sure backs today can do. Both of those guys have played for some terrible football teams and defenses routinely stack the box against them and they still continue to lead the league in rushing and occasionally single handedly carry their teams to victory.

I mean look at MJD last year. Teams knew that MJD was getting the ball what seemed like almost every play of the game and he STILL led the league in rushing with the worst QB in the entire NFL.

I have no doubt in my mind that guys like MJD and Peterson could definitely play in the "rub some dirt on it" NFL.

Speedy
08-06-2012, 12:53 PM
I believe that Earl (and Brown by extension) are correct in that backs today are not "like" Jim Brown (or Earl). There probably never will be a back that runs like either of them again if for no other reason than that the game will never return to the style of play that put them center stage and called on them to run the way they did. It's more that the things they did and the way they ran is now a thing of the past not that the backs today aren't talented or couldn't have done that. We'll never know what Foster, Peterson, or MJD would have been able to do in offenses like the ones these two legends played in. Yank one of them out of the league today and drop him into 1960's or 70's football and they'd no doubt be in unreal condition compared to the players of the day. Big, fast, and talented in comparison. If you do this right though and bring one of these backs along in that era who knows what you get? With the training and diet of today they're elite athletes but would they be the same players in a "rub some dirt on it" era without the year round focus on staying fit? Do Foster's abilities come through in a league where everyone on the field knows that most of the time he's going to get the ball?

Guys like Brown and Campbell were literally so good that when everyone in the stadium knew they were getting the ball they still had a decent shot at doing something epic. I don't see that in today's running backs for the most part. Productive much of the time they are and often amazing to watch but they ply their trade in a game where defenses can never ignore the pass and most of the time have to account for it first instead of as an afterthought.

Exactly!! I don't why everyone is getting bent out of shape. And what Earl or Brown says is no more ridiculous than what those of you are saying about today's backs when comparing them. You don't know if they're better or not. It's a different era, different game and a different way to go about things. Players today practice year round with OTAs, minicamps, have nutritionists, etc. where the players of yesteryear had just training camp to get back into shape. Anyone remember SIX pre-season games?

It's insane to try to compare different eras like that. It's like trying to compare Babe Ruth to Barry Bonds. Don't say Ruth couldn't hang with the stars of today because he was fat and drank a lot, because the circumstances would be different had he come up in today's era, got the same training as players in this era do, etc.

If Adrian Petterson played in the 60's, trained the same way they did in the 60's, nobody knows what kind of player he'd be. If Jim Brown trained like they do now, as awesome as he was back then, what makes you think he wouldn't be a monster with year round workouts and training and eating right and all that jazz like they do now?

Comparing players from differnt eras is impossible IMO. Different game, different way things are done.

HJam72
08-06-2012, 02:10 PM
Well, when Brown and Earl played, they had to walk all the way to the opponent's stadium in the snow....and plus Earl usually carried a few of his closest teammates and Bum. :kingkong:

Double Barrel
08-06-2012, 02:15 PM
Campbell’s not really knocking the backs of today as much as the style of football.

I think this is the line in the article that says it all. He's commenting more about the fundamental changes in football than the specific position of running back. It is obvious that rules have been slanted to favor a passing league, as scoring is directly related to ticket sales.

And while I tend to agree with the sentiment that it's difficult to compare players from different eras, I do believe that Earl would be a badass regardless of era. He was one of a kind, and that's not just a cliché', but the fact of the matter.

Texan_Bill
08-07-2012, 09:40 AM
“I think it’s because the way the game has changed, to where all of them just look like they’re average backs because they pass the ball so much,” Campbell said. “I don’t think there’s a runner in pro football you could say was like a Jim Brown.”

I totally agree with Earl here. The game has changed. The roles of running backs have also changed with the passing game being so much more prominent today then it was back then. More teams than not had a bruiser for a running back.


I disagree. Defenses now are lame compared to what was legal back then and what defenses did. Forearm shots to the head were legal and VERY common. Defenses were built to stop the run, now it's about getting to the QB.

Exactly!! I remember seeing footage of guys like Butkis and others taking QB's and RB's down by their necks. That coupled with the wussification of the rules from yesteryear, giving offenses a total advantage.