Shaw66

Yes, Campbell instead of Bettis for sure. This discussion is repeated on message boards over and over, all over the country. You know what discussion DOESN'T appear nearly so often? Best RECEIVER of all time. That's a very short discussion.

It's funny, because it's an endless discussion. To you I'd say the reason it's Brown is that he needs to be in the speed category as well. He was the fastest man in the league. And I have OJ way up on my list because he belongs in the elusiveness category with Sanders (although they were elusive in different ways) and in the multipurpose category, as well (although because of the era the Bills didn't throw to him as much as some of the more modern backs). And to thenorthremember, all I can say is there is no way I put Tomlinson in the top five and leave OJ out. Tomlinson was great, but his best days were OJ's average days. And that's one of the things that makes the discussion hopeless. It's a team game, and any skill player's performance is a function of not only his ability, but all sorts of things both his teammates and his opponents are doing. Brown and Simpson and Sanders all had good offensive lines, and they all faced defenses stacked to stop them. For sure, some of them played in better total circumstances than some others, but it's impossible to determine that and factor it into the discussion.

Thanks. I'm amused that I never thought of it that way. I try in my mind to imagine Brown playing in a later era, and he'd do great, I'm sure. But I've never really tried to imagine later greats in an earlier era. Peterson is a great example. I think he would have been a monster in the 50s and 60s. He is like Brown in that he has an amazing combination of speed, power and elusiveness. Bo Jackson translated back to that era also would have thrived. And Simpson. with perhaps the best speed of the group and only slightly less power. Even I'm not old enough to have seen Thorpe, but I think he dominated because of his size compared to the rest of the league. I know people say that about Brown, too, but in Brown's era there were 300 pound defensive linemen (not as many, granted, but they were there). And in Brown's era there were other 230 pound running backs, but they couldn't do what Brown did. I like K-9's comment. It is a futile discussion, but that doesn't mean it isn't fun. His conclusion is correct - there are several guys who deserve a seat at the table, and it's a round table. It's true. The guys I'd invite to the table are Brown, Simpson, Jackson, Sanders, Campbell. Maybe Dickerson and Sayers. For some reason, my emotional response always leaves Peterson out, but my brain tells me he probably needs a seat. If, using your test - how would he do if he played in Brown's era, those guys all would have been devastating weapons. Sayers DID play in that era and WAS spectacularly good, and Simpson came shortly after. One thing about Brown is clear: he taught the NFL the value of a truly elite running back. Brown went 8th in the NFL draft. Only one year later, seven teams were wondering what they were thinking. Simpson, DIckerson, Sanders, Campbell all went right up near the top of the draft. And that's why the Giants took Barkley where they did. When there's a guy in the draft who looks like he deserves to sit at that round table, you gotta take him.

You're like me. It was the Browns and Giants on TV every week in the late 50s, and we were a Browns family. The Browns were my first team until the Bills came along. One of the greatest weekends of my liife was going to War Memorial Stadium on Saturday to see the Bills beat the Chargers for the AFL championship, then sit at home on Sunday and watch the Browns beat the Colts for the NFL championship. Gilchrist and Brown would have made for a GREAT first Super Bowl. I was crushed when Brown announced from England that he was retiring. LeRoy Kelly had been returning punts for the Browns, and Brown said the Browns will be fine without him, because they have LeRoy Kelly. I remember wondering what he was talking about - a punt returner replacing the greatest back ever, but Brown was right. Kelly was amazing.

I love this discussion every time it comes. Obviously, there's no right answer to the question, but looking at the posts, I've clarified my thinking about it. I've seen them all. I've always said Brown is the best, and I'm still there. I've also always said that if I had to watch one running back play, it would be Sanders. It sort of comes down to you standard of measurement. If you want the most exciting running back, it was Sanders. Sanders has the best highlights. He did stuff on the field that no one else ever has done. (In fact, one thing I like about Shady is in his prime, he was about the most-Sanders like of any back I can recall. Start stop, change direction, amazing acceleration. But in that category, Sanders is in a league by himself. However, Sanders isn't my greatest back ever. Football is about production and making plays, and if you want a back to make plays for you, consistently, it isn't Sanders. I know it sounded like heresy, but whoever said OJ made Sanders look like a gadget back was correct. May have overstated it, but he had the right point. OJ was elusive in a different way than Sanders was, but he had an astounding ability to make people miss. OJ had better speed than Sanders; Sanders regularly got caught from behind on long runs, but no one caught OJ. And Sanders simply was not a good receiver. He didn't catch well, and he never seemed to produce in the passing game, even though the Lions tried for years. OJ was devastating in the passing game. Bills fans don't like it when I say it, but OJ was a better receiver than Thurman. THe Bills didn't throw to him as much as to Thurman, because it was a different era, but he was deadly as a receiver. Excellent hands, and give him the ball in the open field - wow! And Brown was better than both. He was the fastest guy in the NFL. He may have been the best pure athlete to play in the NFL, ever. (He was so good at lacrosse that they actually had to rewrite some of the rules to neutralize his style.) He had incredible strength and amazing balance. He beat you with speed, with power and with finesse. And HE was an excellent receiver, too, although in those days running back routes were primarily swing passes in the flat. Brown retired at age 30, in 1965. Brown was the league leading career rusher for about 15 years, when Walter Payton closed in on him and passed him. Brown, who has a big ego, didn't like the fact that someone was taking his record, especially a guy who, as great as he was, was a compiler, not a back breaking, power back or a great break away threat. (I'm pretty sure it was Payton, but it might have been Franco Harris, who ultiimately didn't pass Brown.) Brown was 45, and he said he was still better than anyone in the league. He said he was going to come out of retirement to preserve his record. Now, the interesting thing about that was not that Brown was being a loudmouthed egomaniac, like TO or someone. The interesting thing about that was that Brown was so good, so dominant that FIFTEEN years after he retired there was SERIOUS discussion in the press about how good Brown would be if he came back. NOBODY in 2013 could suggest that Barry Sanders at age 45 could come back and do what he did. Brown may have been the greatest athlete of the century. The only guy I can think of who could challenge him was Bo Jackson.

Loved Thurm, but he wasn't even the best back in BILLS history.

It's so hard to compare them. I was going to mention Sayers if no one else did. Sayers was unbelievable. His style was different from Sanders, but he was the only guy other than Sanders who week after did things that you'd never seen anyone else do. And Dickerson, like Campbell, had a short career but was spectacularly good in his prime. Still, it's Brown. People can day he was playing against smaller guys than now, but it doesn't matter. Jim Taylor was the second best in that era, he was as big as Brown, but there was no comparison. Brown was the most punishing back in the league and he was the fastest player in the league. He would be as big a star today as he was then.

Oh, and the season he didn't lead the league, he played most od the season with a broken wrist. Brown had a vicious stiff arm, and with a broken wrist he lost that weapon. He was the best.

Love that guy. What a hoot!

I agree completely. I'm ready to admit it. I've been optimistic for years, but never like this. I think this team could get really good, really fast.

I think LeVeon Bell is way over-hyped. I mean, the guy is obviously a very talented back, but I don't think he turns a loser into a winner. Why? 1. You don't need a great running back to win. He's a luxury. You need a great QB and a great line. Where the Jets are in those categories is certainly an open question. 2. Bell was great in Pittsburgh in his last couple of seasons because the Steelers' line was great. Bell held the ball, danced, looked, sometimes just stood still, while the offensive line held their blocks, held their blocks and eventually moved someone in the right direction to create a hole. I'd watch it and wish the Bills could block for Shady like that, because Shady is great at waiting for the hole and then bursting into. I think that unless the Jets can block like that, Bell is going to look like an ordinary human being.

Well, I always thought Favre played a bit out of control. He was like the kid in Pee Wee football who was just better than everyone else, so the coach just gave him the ball and told him to make it happen. When he got to high school, the coach was tearing his hair out over the kid, because the kid just did whatever he wanted. Favre had a bit of that. I think Allen is much more coachable. I also think it's funny that we've all let our imaginations run away with us. Allen is going into his second season, playing on a team that's made the playoffs once in 20 years, with a first-time head coach and a first-time gm. He has to play at least a couple more regular season games before he makes the Hall of Fame.

Sammy - You're right. Cam absolutely is a franchise QB. He just isn't a franchise QB I want. I don't think a team can win consistently with him. Mostly because of his attitude. But he IS a franchise QB just, as you say, Flacco is. Thanks for clarifying it. And I really like this. I mean, there's some value in making comparisons, but at the end of the day, the great ones are uniquely different from the others. Brady, Brees, Peyton - three very different guys. Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, same thing. If Allen makes the mark we all hope he will, people won't be comparing him to the other greats. People will be comparing wannabees to Allen.

Fair enough. Since I wrote what I did, I've been asking myself who are the most physically gifted QBs in the history of the league. I'm concluding that Allen is WAY up on the list. There's Vick, even with your qualifications. Newton can run and has a big arm. Elway is up on my list, but he didn't run Allen or the other two. Randall Cunningham and Daunte Culpepper (it's interesting that they played for the same team within a few year of each other) were physically dominant runners and throwers. In his younger days Peyton was a big thrower but never a running threat. Maybe Steve Young has to be on the list. Steve McNair. Allen compares favorably with just about all of them. The open question about Allen is how good can he get as a field general.

Quantitate? Is he Golden Tate's brother?

This is exactly why I'm so excited about Allen. I think it's possible, and I don't think it's a stretch, that five years from now Allen could be a "thinking" quarterback on a par with Brady, Peyton, Brees and have pure physical skills that surpass all of them. He has a better arm, he moves better in the pocket, he runs better. Allen could be in the top five quarterbacks of all time. Okay, don't come screaming back at me. I'm not PREDICTING that he WILL be top 5 all time. But after watching one season, there is no question that he is one of the extraordinary physical talents ever to play QB in the NFL. He simply is. Vick was faster, for sure, and a better runner. Vick had a great arm, but he never became an excellent thrower and decision maker. None of the current or recently retired greats can throw with Allen. Physically, Allen has a very high ceiling. The question is the extent to which he will master the mental game. The good news is that we have not yet seen anything to suggest that the ceiling on is mental game is low. 2019 will give us a much better idea.

Funny that when Perry looks at the depth chart, he sees that Frank Gore is STILL ahead of him. It says something, by the way, that Perry has come to Buffalo. It probably means the Bills learned some things about him from Gore, and it means that Perry likes having Gore as a teammate.

Speed. A common theme for McBeane. Speed, speed and more speed. Maybe he can help.

I want to reply to Logic, SoTier and Ghost. I won't quote you, but I thank you each for your thoughtful posts about Allen (seems we've left Wentz by the wayside, which is fine with me). Tier, I think you miss the point about stats. What you say is correct - the bottom line is that Allen has to be better than he was last season or the Bills haven't solved their fundamental problem. Absolutely true. The point you miss is that the stats are a measure of how much he has to improve. In terms of the passer rating, he has to go from the high 60s to the mid 90s. If his passer rating goes to 85 and stalls, we have Ryan Fitzpatrick. All the best QBs are regularly in the mid 90s or above. Your point, I guess, is that the stats in and of themselves are irrelevant. That's true, but that doesn't mean they aren't useful measures of how a QB is doing. Logic - I like what you say until you get to your belief that Allen will always be a "no, no, no - YES!!!" guy. And this dovetails with what Ghost says about whether it's a tall order for Allen to change. I don't think Allen will always be a "no, no, no - YES!!!" guy. I think he will learn this year to play the short, high percentage passing game, and he will play it. In short, he will learn to make the right decisions. I think he will learn it easily, and that's why I think Ghost's pessimism is misplaced. Why do I think that? Because I believe in the process. "Oh, no," you say. "Here he goes with this process crap." Well, folks, the process is real. McBeane didn't take Allen because he has a cannon. They didn't take him because he can run. They took him because he satisfies, in spades, their culture and character models. He is an intense competitor. He is a team guy. He is willing to work at his craft 365 days a year. And he has the minimum physical requirements - he meets their MINIMUM requirements for size, speed, arm strength and intelligence. Now, in fact, he's way, way OVER the minimum in those categories, but that's not why they took him. They took him because he has the right character traits. My point is that Allen is not a stubborn "I'm doing it my way" guy. He's a guy who when the coaches tell him that the way to win is to have a high completion percentage, he says "Okay, tell me how to get a high completion percentage." I think he's already gotten the message, he's working on it, and I think we're going to see him throwing a lot more short balls this season. I don't think it's a tall order. I'll give you one example of why I think this will be easy for him. It's an example where he made, in football terms, the wrong decision, but it's an example of how much his brain is engaged when he's on the field. The play I have in mind is his completion to Kyle Williams in the flat against Miami. After the game, someone asked him if he realized the Dolphins had some coverage breakdown and our tight end was running straight up the field, uncovered. Allen said something like "there was no way on that play I was throwing the ball to anyone else but Kyle." Now, before you jump on that saying, "see, he locked onto one receiver," wait. I think it's evidence of how much Allen plays in the moment. ON THE FIELD, he was thinking about what he had to do. He was in control of himself. This is the guy who supposedly likes to bomb away deep every chance he gets; he had the perfect chance, and he ignored it, because he knew there was something more important than what he'd LIKE to do. Allen wants to win, he's a team guy, and he's smart. When his coaches tell him that the way to win is to throw passes based on how likely it is they'll be completed instead of how many yards might be gained, he'll say "okay, I can do that. I can give it to Shady in the flat all day. I can find Beasley open where's he's supposed to be. I can do that." I think we all will see that change this year. Frankly, I think the coaches will show him film of the Patriots. They will show him the decisions Brady makes - they will show him that Brady takes the deeper throws only when he has a guy, like a Hogan, who's wide open. (One exception is Brady will throw to Gronk when he's covered.) They will tell Allen that Brady WINS by doing this. Allen will say, "okay, but if my deep guy is open, can I thought it there?" His coaches will say "certainly, unless it's third down and you have a guy open short for the first down, because if both receivers are open, the short ball is easier, and the first down is more important than the bomb." Allen is smart and competitive. That stuff isn't going to be hard for him to learn and incorporate into his game.

All true. But I think his improvement is key. And the Bills definitely will go deep. They will throw all over the field. It's just that they will want to be smart about when he goes where.

That isn't correct. Bradford was the starter in Philly and was traded in September. He got the majority of work with the #1s until he was traded. Wentz was the backup until then.

Thanks. I haven't seen this anywhere, but I think that coaches are teaching their QBs that the two most important statistics in football are (1) highest possible percentage of successful plays and (2) lowest possible percentage of negative plays (lost yards or turnovers). That is, you want every play to be positive and no play to be negative. That's the objective. If anyone is actually keeping these stats, they don't value a 15-yard completion any more than a 5-yard completion. Each is a +1. A high percentage of positive plays means you keep drives alive. A low percentage of negative plays means you keep drives alive. Keeping drives alive leads to (1) scores for you and (fewer scores for the opponent). So coaches tell QBs to throw for the 15-yard or 25-yard completion only when the guy is wide open. If he isn't wide open, take the sure 5-yard completion, because the chances are much greater you'll have a positive play on the short throw than on the longer one. Sure, you'd like the yards, but keeping the ball moving positively on every play is more important than hitting a big throw. I've developed this view watching Brady. It seems like every ball he throws is to someone wide open. Now, his receivers aren't all either blanketed or wide open; some of them are sort of open, but Brady won't throw to them. He throws where he has a high probability to get the completion, regardless of the distance. He also gives up on plays and throws the ball away a lot. Why? Because negative plays are bad, and the risk of a turnover or a sack isn't worth the 15 or 20 yards you MIGHT get if you wait a second longer. He gives up and moves on. He'd rather lower his positive play percentage a bit in exchange for not risking a negative play. Now, sure, there are times when you can't follow that rule, late in the game third down, you need a score. Then you have take the risk of negative plays. But those are relatively few. That's the lesson that I think they're teaching Allen, and that's why I think we're going to see a different, and more successful, quarterback this season. I think we'll see his completion percentage go up, a lot, and his air yards go down. He'll still throw medium and deep, but he'll only throw those when they look like high percentage throws. He'll take the sure check downs more often. On top of that, Beasley is going to be his security blank, like Edelman is for Brady. Beasley's going to run precise routes and Allen will always know where to find him.

I agree with much of this, but disagree with where you come out on Allen. You're absolutely right about the short and medium range game. And when you asked people to name one franchise QB who isn't good at it, someone said Cam Newton. Cam Newton is, in my opinion, a failure. He hasn't won anything, and he accomplishes very little in the passing game. You're right about Allen running - he can run all day, but his team will win consistently only if he becomes a successful thrower. Where I disagree is where you say or imply that Allen has some major problems to solve. I don't think he does; I just think he has to change the way he plays. He wasn't bad at throwing short balls (yes, he had some misses, more than he should); he was bad at deciding to throw short. He regularly took the deep option. That's why he led the league in air yards, and by a lot. 11 yards per throw, average, 50% higher than the league average. The Bills have been clear that they want him to take the shorter, easier throws. That's not a mechanical problem to fix; that's just getting him to understand what succeeds in the league. I don't think that's a tall order, as you call it. I think it's about getting him focused. He's smart, he's coachable, he wants to win. I think we will see a big change in him this season. I also agree with you that it's about Allen, not about what's around him. I mean, I'm definitely in the camp that he needs a better offensive line, but success for players in the NFL is about the player plays, not about the guys around him.

I think your reliance on QBR is misplaced. I think you bought what ESPN was selling, which was that QBR was somehow a better all-round measure of QB performance. I don't think it is. I took a look at the 50 best QB seasons based on passer rating and on QBR. You know which names dominate BOTH lists? Brady, Manning, Rodgers. Rodgers is the only one who arguably should get a QBR boost from his running ability. Guess what? He has four of the top 50 passer rating seasons, and only three of the top 50 QBR seasons. How about the most successful running QB, Russell Wilson? He has exactly two of the top 50 QBR seasons, and he also has exactly two of the top 50 passer rating seasons. Interestingly, they are different seasons. How Cam Newton? Not on either list. So I looked at the list of best rushing seasons by quarterbacks. Guess what? The list is full of exciting names, but not winners. Russell Wilson is the one exception. The names are Vick, Cunningham, Culpepper, Newton, RGIII, Tyrod Taylor. Josh Allen has the 16th best rushing season of all time, but he still was only 25th in QBR. Running is not the name of game for winning QBs. Passing is. And the passer rating is a good measure of passing success, without cluttering it up with a lot of other stuff that doesn't change the fundamental conclusion. The best QBs rate high in both, and running doesn't have any significant impact on the QBR. On top of that, Josh Allen's future is passing, not running. It's true for every QB. I've thought for a long time that Elway is the guy Allen is most like.

Me too. I'm expecting more, but I agree with your point. I'm a big believer in the notion that it takes several years to become a good NFL QB. I know there are rookie phenoms, and there are exceptions, but there's a pretty long learning curve. As you say, Josh has to get to the mid-80s in 2019, minimum. If he doesn't, there's something wrong. But as I said earlier, the emphasis for Josh this season is going to be taking the easy throw, the throw he can complete 90% of the time instead of 50%. All it takes is discipline. He needs to understand, and I think he already does, that it's better to have a lot of small, positive plays than a few big plays. Assuming he gets that, we're going to see him checking down more, in situations where last season he looked at the check down guy and then threw downfield. And Beasley will make a big difference. Josh is going to be looking for Beasley a lot when his first option isn't there. I think Duke Williams will help a lot, too.