Gale Sayers R.I.P.
-
I can't think of a more entertaining RB in the history of the NFL than Sayers.
Agreed. Given good health, my all time "dream backfield" was Jimmy Brown & Gale Sayers. Sayers was awesome to watch running a football.
RIP Gale.
Mike
Agreed. Given good health, my all time "dream backfield" was Jimmy Brown & Gale Sayers. Sayers was awesome to watch running a football.
RIP Gale.
Mike
In this film you can see the "mudder" that Tour was talking about. ?
-
Gayle Sayers was flat out a fantastic runner... For a guy who was a mudder he had deer like moves.... He was a total class act... I remember seeing the movie Brians Song when I was just 6 years old.... It was probably James Caan's best acting performance. That movie had a pretty powerful message especially because we had just come out of the riots of the 60's... It's strange to think we're reliving that all over with a whole different set of circumstances...
-
'Brian's Song' is the one movie I refuse to ever watch with anyone again.
Saw it the first time when I was 10 and my uncle in Chicago was dying of lung cancer.
I can't think of a more entertaining RB in the history of the NFL than Sayers.
I can't think of a more entertaining RB in the history of the NFL than Sayers.
Not even Barry?
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
I can't think of a more entertaining RB in the history of the NFL than Sayers.
Not even Barry?
-
I can't think of a more entertaining RB in the history of the NFL than Sayers.
Not even Barry?
-
Well....yes! I had a good teardrop for my late father yesterday.. His 2nd love of a RB after Jim Brown..Spent most of yesterday, just enjoying watching Gale on youtube.. Never knew Gale actually played a game at Wriggly Field... It was hard viewing Gale, at age 5-7 living in Ohio? but, I may have missed some of Sayers games bumping Berry Sanders above him Dad? Yeah, everybody has a formula? but born in 63.. here's my top 11 list in order... JB//Sayers//Sanders//Payton//OJ//Emmitt//Campbell//AP//M.Allen//Dickerson//LT
RiP to Gale Sayers & ? go out to your Family & Friends.. and 1 great dad ya never met.. #glide
-
Well....yes! I had a good teardrop for my late father yesterday.. His 2nd love of a RB after Jim Brown..Spent most of yesterday, just enjoying watching Gale on youtube.. Never knew Gale actually played a game at Wriggly Field... It was hard viewing Gale, at age 5-7 living in Ohio? but, I may have missed some of Sayers games bumping Berry Sanders above him Dad? Yeah, everybody has a formula? but born in 63.. here's my top 11 list in order... JB//Sayers//Sanders//Payton//OJ//Emmitt//Campbell//AP//M.Allen//Dickerson//LT
RiP to Gale Sayers & ? go out to your Family & Friends.. and 1 great dad ya never met.. #glide
Well....yes! I had a good teardrop for my late father yesterday.. His 2nd love of a RB after Jim Brown..Spent most of yesterday, just enjoying watching Gale on youtube.. Never knew Gale actually played a game at Wriggly Field... It was hard viewing Gale, at age 5-7 living in Ohio? but, I may have missed some of Sayers games bumping Berry Sanders above him Dad? Yeah, everybody has a formula? but born in 63.. here's my top 11 list in order... JB//Sayers//Sanders//Payton//OJ//Emmitt//Campbell//AP//M.Allen//Dickerson//LT
RiP to Gale Sayers & ? go out to your Family & Friends.. and 1 great dad ya never met.. #glide
The Bears played at Wrigley Field throughout most of Sayer's career I believe before jumping over to Soldier Field.
-
I agree. Sayers was the original Sanders, and more entertaining to watch. In my book he comes in just a shade below J.B. for those too few years. He was that good. RIP
I agree. Sayers was the original Sanders, and more entertaining to watch. In my book he comes in just a shade below J.B. for those too few years. He was that good. RIP
Problem is, its hard to judge generationally. nothing against Brown or Sayers, they were great, but lets face it..in the 60's you had a bunch of slow white guys chasing you around versus todays game
-
I agree. Sayers was the original Sanders, and more entertaining to watch. In my book he comes in just a shade below J.B. for those too few years. He was that good. RIP
Problem is, its hard to judge generationally. nothing against Brown or Sayers, they were great, but lets face it..in the 60's you had a bunch of slow white guys chasing you around versus todays game
Problem is, its hard to judge generationally. nothing against Brown or Sayers, they were great, but lets face it..in the 60's you had a bunch of slow white guys chasing you around versus todays game
All you can do is judge the players by who they played against.
-
I agree. Sayers was the original Sanders, and more entertaining to watch. In my book he comes in just a shade below J.B. for those too few years. He was that good. RIP
Problem is, its hard to judge generationally. nothing against Brown or Sayers, they were great, but lets face it..in the 60's you had a bunch of slow white guys chasing you around versus todays game
Problem is, its hard to judge generationally. nothing against Brown or Sayers, they were great, but lets face it..in the 60's you had a bunch of slow white guys chasing you around versus todays game
And that is actually a fallacy. If you knew anything and or would go back and look at it you would see that many black players were top notch during that. Time.
-
I agree. Sayers was the original Sanders, and more entertaining to watch. In my book he comes in just a shade below J.B. for those too few years. He was that good. RIP
Problem is, its hard to judge generationally. nothing against Brown or Sayers, they were great, but lets face it..in the 60's you had a bunch of slow white guys chasing you around versus todays game
Problem is, its hard to judge generationally. nothing against Brown or Sayers, they were great, but lets face it..in the 60's you had a bunch of slow white guys chasing you around versus todays game
It definitely is an eyeball test, and how much that person dominated the other players at the time they played. But if you are going to compare players from different eras (which is just a guessing game, imo), I think running backs are probably one of the easier positions to do so. Sayers was 200 lbs and 6 ft. J.B. was 6'2" and 232 lbs. Both those stats would stand up well today as well as their speed. True, the opposition were smaller and slower. You go back as far as the 20s and there is Wilbur 'Pete' Henry, also known as 'Fats'. He was one oft he NFL's largest and most dominant linemen in the 20s and was 5'11" and 245 lbs.
-
I agree. Sayers was the original Sanders, and more entertaining to watch. In my book he comes in just a shade below J.B. for those too few years. He was that good. RIP
Problem is, its hard to judge generationally. nothing against Brown or Sayers, they were great, but lets face it..in the 60's you had a bunch of slow white guys chasing you around versus todays game
Problem is, its hard to judge generationally. nothing against Brown or Sayers, they were great, but lets face it..in the 60's you had a bunch of slow white guys chasing you around versus todays game
That's why you cannot really accurately judge generational players or teams the games change over time.
Is Unitas better than TBrady ? Is JBrown the best ever ? We'll never really know.
-
Few players from the 60's could play in today's game... and almost all who could were skill position players.
JB tops my list... but if he couldn't, then he could always fall back upon his best sport, Lacrosse.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
Problem is, its hard to judge generationally. nothing against Brown or Sayers, they were great, but lets face it..in the 60's you had a bunch of slow white guys chasing you around versus todays game
It definitely is an eyeball test, and how much that person dominated the other players at the time they played. But if you are going to compare players from different eras (which is just a guessing game, imo), I think running backs are probably one of the easier positions to do so. Sayers was 200 lbs and 6 ft. J.B. was 6'2" and 232 lbs. Both those stats would stand up well today as well as their speed. True, the opposition were smaller and slower. You go back as far as the 20s and there is Wilbur 'Pete' Henry, also known as 'Fats'. He was one oft he NFL's largest and most dominant linemen in the 20s and was 5'11" and 245 lbs.
It definitely is an eyeball test, and how much that person dominated the other players at the time they played. But if you are going to compare players from different eras (which is just a guessing game, imo), I think running backs are probably one of the easier positions to do so. Sayers was 200 lbs and 6 ft. J.B. was 6'2" and 232 lbs. Both those stats would stand up well today as well as their speed. True, the opposition were smaller and slower. You go back as far as the 20s and there is Wilbur 'Pete' Henry, also known as 'Fats'. He was one oft he NFL's largest and most dominant linemen in the 20s and was 5'11" and 245 lbs.
I am not of the opinion that the "opposition" back in the 60 was necessarily smaller and slower.
Bid Daddy Lipscomb was 6'9 300 pounds....
Myles Garrett is about the same size as Gino Marchetti....maybe 10 pounds different.
DBs are clearly no bigger now than they were then.
LBs today are really no bigger. Joe Schobert at 6'1" 230 at MLB is 2 inches shorter and 20 pounds lighter than Dick Butkus. 6'3 250. MLB Sam Huff was the same 6'1 230 as Schobert.
The ONLY players that are bigger? Offensive linemen....did bulk up over the 60s guys. And QBs do average an inch or two taller. That is it.
-
Few players from the 60's could play in today's game... and almost all who could were skill position players.
JB tops my list... but if he couldn't, then he could always fall back upon his best sport, Lacrosse.
Few players from the 60's could play in today's game... and almost all who could were skill position players.
JB tops my list... but if he couldn't, then he could always fall back upon his best sport, Lacrosse.
yea, right. sure. Dick Butkus at 6'3 250 could never play MLB today.
And, let's see....how much taller are Kyler Murray, Baker Mayfield, Lamar Jackson, Drew Brees, Russell Wilson than the QBs of the 60s? Oh? Not at all you say...those guys are shorter than most 60s QBs. And 6'9 300 Gene Lipscomb? How many DEs today are that big?
And Bob Hayes who ran a 9.1 100 yard dash....couldn't keep up?
And Jim Brown is a dwarf next to Nick Chubb.....or, uh, err, maybe not. Chubb 5'11 225. JB 6'2 232.
All those guys need to compete today would be the same training/nutrition programs.
-
It definitely is an eyeball test, and how much that person dominated the other players at the time they played. But if you are going to compare players from different eras (which is just a guessing game, imo), I think running backs are probably one of the easier positions to do so. Sayers was 200 lbs and 6 ft. J.B. was 6'2" and 232 lbs. Both those stats would stand up well today as well as their speed. True, the opposition were smaller and slower. You go back as far as the 20s and there is Wilbur 'Pete' Henry, also known as 'Fats'. He was one oft he NFL's largest and most dominant linemen in the 20s and was 5'11" and 245 lbs.
I am not of the opinion that the "opposition" back in the 60 was necessarily smaller and slower.
Bid Daddy Lipscomb was 6'9 300 pounds....
Myles Garrett is about the same size as Gino Marchetti....maybe 10 pounds different.
DBs are clearly no bigger now than they were then.
LBs today are really no bigger. Joe Schobert at 6'1" 230 at MLB is 2 inches shorter and 20 pounds lighter than Dick Butkus. 6'3 250. MLB Sam Huff was the same 6'1 230 as Schobert.
The ONLY players that are bigger? Offensive linemen....did bulk up over the 60s guys. And QBs do average an inch or two taller. That is it.
I am not of the opinion that the "opposition" back in the 60 was necessarily smaller and slower.
Bid Daddy Lipscomb was 6'9 300 pounds....
Myles Garrett is about the same size as Gino Marchetti....maybe 10 pounds different.
DBs are clearly no bigger now than they were then.
LBs today are really no bigger. Joe Schobert at 6'1" 230 at MLB is 2 inches shorter and 20 pounds lighter than Dick Butkus. 6'3 250. MLB Sam Huff was the same 6'1 230 as Schobert.
The ONLY players that are bigger? Offensive linemen....did bulk up over the 60s guys. And QBs do average an inch or two taller. That is it.
I remember looking at the roster charts that were in the Browns programs in the mid-60s and seeing if any players were 300 pounds. There were only 1-2 total from both teams so I have come to think that most of the players were smaller than they are today. But I found this roster of the '65 Browns (brings back a lot of memories) and, you are right, except for the linemen and maybe a linebacker or two, the sizes were not much different than they are today. Thanks for the correction. Was really interesting looking over this sheet. Here it is in case you are interested: https://www.statscrew.com/football/roster/t-CLE/y-1965
-
I am not of the opinion that the "opposition" back in the 60 was necessarily smaller and slower.
Bid Daddy Lipscomb was 6'9 300 pounds....
Myles Garrett is about the same size as Gino Marchetti....maybe 10 pounds different.
DBs are clearly no bigger now than they were then.
LBs today are really no bigger. Joe Schobert at 6'1" 230 at MLB is 2 inches shorter and 20 pounds lighter than Dick Butkus. 6'3 250. MLB Sam Huff was the same 6'1 230 as Schobert.
The ONLY players that are bigger? Offensive linemen....did bulk up over the 60s guys. And QBs do average an inch or two taller. That is it.
I remember looking at the roster charts that were in the Browns programs in the mid-60s and seeing if any players were 300 pounds. There were only 1-2 total from both teams so I have come to think that most of the players were smaller than they are today. But I found this roster of the '65 Browns (brings back a lot of memories) and, you are right, except for the linemen and maybe a linebacker or two, the sizes were not much different than they are today. Thanks for the correction. Was really interesting looking over this sheet. Here it is in case you are interested: https://www.statscrew.com/football/roster/t-CLE/y-1965
I remember looking at the roster charts that were in the Browns programs in the mid-60s and seeing if any players were 300 pounds. There were only 1-2 total from both teams so I have come to think that most of the players were smaller than they are today. But I found this roster of the '65 Browns (brings back a lot of memories) and, you are right, except for the linemen and maybe a linebacker or two, the sizes were not much different than they are today. Thanks for the correction. Was really interesting looking over this sheet. Here it is in case you are interested: https://www.statscrew.com/football/roster/t-CLE/y-1965
Yerp, latter day OL have bulked up, and the occasional DL is heavier, but those Browns had DL of like 265/270 pounds...which is not much difference than today. And I am not even sure about the LBs. Jim Houston was 6'3 240. What are our LBs today?
-
I remember looking at the roster charts that were in the Browns programs in the mid-60s and seeing if any players were 300 pounds. There were only 1-2 total from both teams so I have come to think that most of the players were smaller than they are today. But I found this roster of the '65 Browns (brings back a lot of memories) and, you are right, except for the linemen and maybe a linebacker or two, the sizes were not much different than they are today. Thanks for the correction. Was really interesting looking over this sheet. Here it is in case you are interested: https://www.statscrew.com/football/roster/t-CLE/y-1965
Yerp, latter day OL have bulked up, and the occasional DL is heavier, but those Browns had DL of like 265/270 pounds...which is not much difference than today. And I am not even sure about the LBs. Jim Houston was 6'3 240. What are our LBs today?
Yerp, latter day OL have bulked up, and the occasional DL is heavier, but those Browns had DL of like 265/270 pounds...which is not much difference than today. And I am not even sure about the LBs. Jim Houston was 6'3 240. What are our LBs today?
Houston was good size but I was looking at Costello (who was a good player) who played the middle at 230, Dale Lindsey at 223, and Stan Sczurek at 5'11" and 230. As run-stoppers, which was what their primary responsibilities were in those days, that's a bit light.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login