Most Dominant NFL Player Ever

[ControllerOfPlanetX]

Steve Carlton won 27 games in 1972…..and his team only won 59 that year.

[4merper4mer]

16 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Ruths intangibles didn’t include staying in shape.  Batters face an army of fresh arms on the mound every game:starter, middle inning guy, setup guy, closer.  Safe to assume any heat Ruth faced in the first 4-5 innings was doused by the last few innings. 

Numbers are numbers and the concept of standard deviation exists.  Ruth’s performance versus his contemporaries spits in the face of any assertion that he was somehow not phenomenal.  Call him fat all you want but numbers don’t lie.

 

The intangibles are also undeniably in favor of Ruth IMO although it can be argued, and should be, that this is because he came along at the right time and being first to anything also builds the legend.  If Ruth never came along it can be argued, and has been, that sports themselves would have died on the vine.  That cannot be argued of Brady for Pete’s friggin sake.

[Chaos]

31 minutes ago, julian said:

I agree about Gretzky, of the 4 major North American sports the separation he put between himself and his contemporaries is by far the largest.

 

arguments can be made for the GOAT in baseball basketball and football, but in the NHL there really isn’t any good faith arguments beyond Gretzky.

So many people forget that some people think hockey is a major sport.  (note this discussion completely excludes any mention of Pele).  But within the sport of hockey, Gretsky is a good argument for ruthian level dominance. 

[Rico]

1 hour ago, IronMaidenBills said:

Brown, Ruth, and Robinson were all great in their own rights, but I’m just under the perception that past players didn’t have surrounding talent around them they players do today. Would all 3 of these players make a pro squad today? Probably, but I’m not sold on them having the high standings today that they created years ago. Just like players today, will likely be no match for players 30 years from now. 

IMO more likely that Barry Sanders would've been squished if he played in Jim Brown's era.

[DCofNC]

3 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Brady has had to compete agaisnt far better athletes all over the field, not just other QBs.  Yet he has dominated for many years, still well ahead of the field (in QB terms) at age 44 a year ago.

 

Ruth faced a bunch of ham and Eggers most of the time. He looks like he was taking BP in those old films.  A far superior athlete in Barry Bonds had to subsequently  get jacked on steroids to hit more HRs than Ruth because he was regularly facing far better starters and closers (didn't really exist in Ruth's day) than existed in Ruth's day. Ruth doesn't get 30 HR facing pitchers of Bonds's heyday.  Curt Schilling, Pedro, Glavine, Maddux, Smoltz (on one team!), Clemens......Randy Johnson would have destroyed Ruth.  

Your argument is valid, but nobody else was able to do what Ruth did. Wilt Chamberlain, same. 

[RoyBatty is alive]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

well then Ruth can’t be the standard for total dominance if the game he played is all but unrecognizable today.  

No it is not that the game is unrecognizable, the athletes are.  He can be the standard for his Era.

[Draconator]

Lots of Football and Baseball talk

 

But as for hockey, although Gretzky has all the offensive numbers, no one could "dominate" a game like Hasek

[4merper4mer]

6 minutes ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

No it is not that the game is unrecognizable, the athletes are.  He can be the standard for his Era.

And his era is one that literally put sports on the map.  His numbers are factually dominant.  His impact is undeniable.  Yet somehow all pales in comparison to Brady and only Brady.  Up next: A comparison of water into wine versus hitting Gronk down the seam.

[Old Coot]

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.

[msw2112]

The most dominant player in my lifetime would be Lawrence Taylor.

 

Offensively, it's more difficult to pick one guy, because there are so many interconnected parts to an NFL offense.  If the QB is throwing, he needs the OL to give him time, and the receiver to make the catch.  A RB needs the OL to give him (at least somewhat of) a hole to run through.  If you're taking about straight winning, I'd have to go with Brady.  If you're talking about dominant play at one's position (which may correlate to wins, but may not necessarily), Jerry Rice was probably the most dominant WR.  He was great with Montana, and with Young, and even put up good stats with the Raiders late in his career.  Bo Jackson was also pretty dominant, but his career was so short that he can't be the guy.  For RB, arguments could be made for Jim Brown (a little before my time), OJ, and Barry Sanders.   

[Chaos]

1 hour ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

No it is not that the game is unrecognizable, the athletes are.  He can be the standard for his Era.

Standard deviations from the mean are the meaningful across era comparison. Ruth gapped out from the mean and medians like no one before or since. 

[hondo in seattle]

1 hour ago, Rico said:

IMO more likely that Barry Sanders would've been squished if he played in Jim Brown's era.

 

I think Sanders would have been good in any era.  But I agree with your general point.   These days LBs are pass defenders first.  In the old days, you had guys like Dick Butkus, Chuck Bednarik and Sam Huff who made it their life mission to kill running backs.  And the rules allowed a lot more violence back then.  

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

Numbers are numbers and the concept of standard deviation exists.  Ruth’s performance versus his contemporaries spits in the face of any assertion that he was somehow not phenomenal.  Call him fat all you want but numbers don’t lie.

 

The intangibles are also undeniably in favor of Ruth IMO although it can be argued, and should be, that this is because he came along at the right time and being first to anything also builds the legend.  If Ruth never came along it can be argued, and has been, that sports themselves would have died on the vine.  That cannot be argued of Brady for Pete’s friggin sake.

 

 

a silly argument.  TV "saved" sports.  In his playing days, relatively speaking, almost no one had actually seen Ruth play.  Maybe they heard the games on the radio and saw some newsreels at intermission at the movie theater, but he was done years before MLB was televised.  People mostly read about him at the time.

 

Had he never existed, television would have put all sports in every home with a TV.  This, not choppy films or static filled radio calls of Ruth's exploits, made sports in this country.  He helped get MLB out of it's 1919 scandal perhaps (although his own "scandalous" life prohibited him from. owning a team in his later years).

[BruceVilanch]

Most dominant player I saw was Lawrence Taylor

[Royale with Cheese]

2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Ruths intangibles didn’t include staying in shape.  Batters face an army of fresh arms on the mound every game:starter, middle inning guy, setup guy, closer.  Safe to assume any heat Ruth faced in the first 4-5 innings was doused by the last few innings. 

Again, it was a different era.  You give Ruth the training regiment of todays athlete, he still could have been great.

 

He was in good enough shape to play 22 seasons of baseball.  Hit worse balls with worse bats 500 ft….that’s insane.  The bats are so good today that Mike Trout his a homer on a check swing.  Several guys have hit homeruns on broken bats.

 

Yes the pitching was diluted but so were their resources.  They would tape up bats if they split.  Fans had to throw foul balls back from the stands and reused balls all game long.  Now they use 100+ a game.

 

Mike Trout wouldn’t have the body, the speed or agility in 1920 that he has today.  

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, DCofNC said:

Your argument is valid, but nobody else was able to do what Ruth did. Wilt Chamberlain, same. 

 

1 hour ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

No it is not that the game is unrecognizable, the athletes are.  He can be the standard for his Era.

 

Ruth was the outlier for his era, obviously. Chamberlain was likely the greatest athlete to play a major pro sport.  And he dominated against better competition than Ruth in his day. 

1 minute ago, Royale with Cheese said:

Again, it was a different era.  You give Ruth the training regiment of todays athlete, he still could have been great.

 

He was in good enough shape to play 22 seasons of baseball.  Hit worse balls with worse bats 500 ft….that’s insane.  The bats are so good today that Mike Trout his a homer on a check swing.  Several guys have hit homeruns on broken bats.

 

Yes the pitching was diluted but so were their resources.  They would tape up bats if they split.  Fans had to throw foul balls back from the stands and reused balls all game long.  Now they use 100+ a game.

 

Mike Trout wouldn’t have the body, the speed or agility in 1920 that he has today.  

 

 

That's a testament to the inane power these guys have, not a massive change in wooden bat tech.  Ruth was a great hitter, plain and simple.  

 

[4merper4mer]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

a silly argument.  TV "saved" sports.  In his playing days, relatively speaking, almost no one had actually seen Ruth play.  Maybe they heard the games on the radio and saw some newsreels at intermission at the movie theater, but he was done years before MLB was televised.  People mostly read about him at the time.

 

Had he never existed, television would have put all sports in every home with a TV.  This, not choppy films or static filled radio calls of Ruth's exploits, made sports in this country.  He helped get MLB out of it's 1919 scandal perhaps (although his own "scandalous" life prohibited him from. owning a team in his later years).

If sports had died before TV was invented would TV have saved sports?  
 

Even if much of it is legend, there has been much written about Ruth’s impact on baseball and sports in general.  Are you denying that?  
 

One example:  https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/how-babe-ruth-changed-baseball-51810018/

 

Care to link to an article from the Smithsonian or another equally credible source about how Brady changed the sport of football?  One?

 

Choppy films notwithstanding, Ruth’s statistics can be compared to his contemporaries. They dwarf them in a manner unmatched to this day.  Are you denying that?

 

I won’t deny that a part of Ruth’s legacy is allegory and legend a la Paul Bunyan and that those days are over.  Yes, he was in the right place at the right time to have the societal impact that he had.  But he had it.  To deny this out of some weird loyalty to Tom Brady is awkward at best.  Yes era to era comparisons are tough because things change.  Was Jimmy Carter a more significant president than George Washington because the economy was larger under Carter?

[Royale with Cheese]

6 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Ruth was the outlier for his era, obviously. Chamberlain was likely the greatest athlete to play a major pro sport.  And he dominated against better competition than Ruth in his day. 

 

 

That's a testament to the inane power these guys have, not a massive change in wooden bat tech.  Ruth was a great hitter, plain and simple.  

 

Are you seriously saying that the wooden bats aren’t a lot better today?  Are you really saying that?  

 

Its not a testament of strength hitting 500 foot homeruns with looser baseballs?  Do you not understand how much tighter baseballs are wound today and the huge difference it makes?  Have you ever talked to someone who has taken BP in major league fields?  

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

5 hours ago, H2o said:

I almost think you have to go one for offense and one for defense.

 

Offense is Barry Sanders, hands down, in my book. His lowest yardage total for his career was 1,115 yards and he did that in 11 games that season, 1993. He was the entire Detroit Lions offense, people knew he was going to get the ball 20+ times a game, and they still couldn't stop him. He singlehandedly carried them to the Playoffs 5 times pretty much. He probably could have played at a high level another 4 years at least and would still be the all time leading rusher more than likely if he had done so. 

 

Defense, though this may hurt some feelings, to me is Reggie White. As a DE he eclipsed 100 tackles 4 times, with the highest total being 133 (those are LB #'s), and was 2 tackles away one season from a 5th. He could destroy your QB, blow up your running game, and would maul any OL'man you put in front of him. He was a true game wrecker, especially in his prime. 

 

 

 

Sanders did about half of what Jim Brown could do.  He had a style of running that haven't seen since including Sanders.

 

Supposedly too football wasn't even Browns best sport, his best was Lacrosse.

[4merper4mer]

2 minutes ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

 

Sanders did about half of what Jim Brown could do.  He had a style of running that haven't seen since including Sanders.

 

Supposedly too football wasn't even Browns best sport, his best was Lacrosse.

For some reason this post makes me want to add Jesse Owens and Jim Thorpe to the mix.