Russell and Wilt played against stiffs. There were like 6 teams of slow, clumsy white guys. Jordan’s competition was deeper, taller, faster, stronger and much better trained. Russell and Chamberlain’s primary assets were nothing more than height. I wouldn’t even put them ahead of Shaq in terms of total package, much less MJ.
Wilt Chamberlin was a big guy. The average height in the NBA was much lower then than now. He’d still be a big guy playing today, but not that big- 7’1". Wilt would still be an excellent inside-the-key player, but he wouldn’t be able to smash through people now the way he did then. I agree that you can debate the point, but I think that Michael Jordan is still the GOAT.
I don’t think you can declare a GOAT in the RB position in football- Sanders, Brown, Payton, and possibly (Emmett) Smith need to be considered. Gale Sayers would probably be in the running if he hadn’t gotten injured so early in his career.
The funny thing is, sure, Wilt averaged 50 one year, but Jordan still averaged more per game over a career of the same length, so it’s not that hard to dismiss the single-season peak.
I guess it comes down to what we’re looking for when we say “consensus.” If we mean literally, most people would agree, then Jordan’s the GOAT. But the OP talked about it being an easy discussion, which I think this thread has already demonstrated there are nearly none of.
There’s a massive underappreciation for Jim Brown here. He’s not only the clear best RB of all time but probably the best football player of all time.
People are biased towards modern times because of the people they’ve seen and the highlight reel. Jim Brown has the best career average of any running back in history - and he did it in an era where it was harder to run.
Back in the 50s and 60s, the modern passing game was a very new thing. Teams were still geared to run and stop the run. It was like today’s equivelant to stacking the box, but worse. They’d pick lineman and linebackers based on their ability to stop the run far more than their ability to play the pass. The hash marks were much further towards the sideline than they are today, so you’d have a very distinctive “short side” and “long side” to the field, so teams knew which way you’d be running.
And yet even in this environment which gobbled up running backs, Jim Brown still has the highest career average yards per carry and yards per game (for a reasonable number of carries) of any running back in the history league. Imagine if there was a quarterback back in the 50s and 60s that had career yards per game statistics better than Peyton Manning.
Jim Brown could run through you, around you, over you. He could catch as well as any receiver in the league. He never missed a single play due to injury, was MVP of the league several times, and lead the league in rushing IIRC 9 out of his 10 seasons. He’s a runaway greatest of all time running back and there’s a good case for greatest of all time football player. For him not to even make some of your lists as an alternate is ridiculous.
Except when they played each other. Then Russell won, very consistently. How can Wilt be the GOAT when he wasn’t even the best at his position in his own time?
No way there can be a single football GOAT. It’s hard enough to compare contemporaries at positions which do stand out individually.
Barry Sanders got owned by his own dad.
Barry’s Dad followed up with “Yeah, sure, my son may be in the running for the second greatest of all time, but if Jim Brown offered, I would let him impregnate my wife in the hopes that my adopted son could strive for his greatness”
And again, this is from an era where the rules didn’t favor the offense so much, and it was much harder to run. If Jim Brown had run in the era of these other players, he would’ve been even more impressive.
But you don’t even have to do the “if he played in today’s game, these are his likely stats” thing. The stats stand for themselves. Greatest YPC in NFL history. Greatest YPG in NFL history. It would be like, as I said, some quarterback from the 60s having the most pass yards per game. In his 1963 season, he ran for 1863 yards… on 291 carries in 14 games. In a 16 game season that would be 2130 yards. Imagine if he managed to get 370+ carries like some backs these days managed. If he maintained his average, that’d be about 2400 yards over a 16 game season.
You’re doing that thing where you get overexcited about Browns-related topics again. The anti-Jim Brown sentiment is not particularly heavy in this thread from what I can see.
Make a case against me then.
I’m a homer, but on this subject I’m just stating the truth. For some people here to list 3 potential GOATs at RB and not mention Brown is absurd. It’s probably the most clear cut of all positions.
But how many of those thousand people could even name another basketball player from more than 5 years ago?
I mean, if you asked a thousand people on the street in the U.S. who the best soccer player ever is, you’d probably get David Beckham as the top answer.
Make a case against you?
Because I’m so anti-Jim Brown?
(edit: to be clear, I’m just messing with you. I just think it’s funny that I said nobody was really putting Jim Brown down and you responded like I had put him down).
Can’t argue with any of those, except:
Fullback: I’d put Lorenzo Neal there
Tight End: Shannon Sharpe
Cornerback: Mel Blount (didn’t allow a single touchdown pass in his first year as a starter!)
ETA: Oh, and Jim Brown at tailback. Only runner in history to average over 100 yards per game rushing over his career. End of story.
No, I’m saying yes, I’m a homer, and yes, I’m pimping Jim Brown, but you can’t dismiss me just by saying I’m a homer. I’m right in this case. If you have an argument against Jim Brown being the GOAT, you should make an argument rather than just calling me a homer.
Your assertion is without merit. Michael Jordan’s relative recentness is the only reason he would be proclaimed as the best ever now. Notice that most “best 100” or “best of” lists always list more recent events/people before them as came before.
And he is not the consensus anything. Consensus means agreement of almost anyone. The discussion here proves this is incorrect. 
As DtC pointed out, the guys before him were playing in a whole different era of competition. Have you seen those charts of basketball player height over the years? Wilt and Russell were playing against dwarfs.
The discussion here proves nothing of the sort. There’s 2 or 3 of you arguing in a community full of contrarians. C’est la SDMB.
While it is true that shining against a larger talent pool arguably makes you a better player, you cannot use the fact that Wilt the Stilt would have less of a height advantage now to dismiss his accomplishments. He became the player he was because of what he had to overcome, but a good athlete can become a good athlete regardless of what he faces. Had Wilt played today, he’d be just as dominant, but not because he scored easy points against shorter players. Remember, the sky hook isn’t effective because of your relative height advantage. And I feel certain that, if Wilt played today, he could drain 3’s on an as needed basis.
And think about it this way: To assert that Wilt’s accomplishments (to say nothing of Russell’s) are devalued by the increased abilities of modern players means that you are asserting that MJ’s accomplishments will be devalued if it turns out that future NBA players all end up 7’0" plus, with the ability to drain anything from inside of 40’. That’s just plain silliness.
Personally, I think that to try and compare athletes across significant time gaps is silly. Babe Ruth was a very good baseball player, but was he really better than Albert Pujols is? Yes, Ruth hit a ton of home runs, but he hit them against a core of pitchers who were much less talented than today’s pitchers are, since they were not the athletes that today’s pitchers can be. Does anyone really think that The Babe was as good an athlete as Pujols is? As strong, as fast, as agile? Were Ruth to play today, what numbers would he manage? The question is silly; it cannot be answered. Therefore, while the discussion might be interesting, it really cannot be answered in any meaningful way.
There are more than two or three, and it doesn’t matter if someone is being a “contrarian.” As long as you don’t have consensus, you don’t have a consensus result.
(for what it is worth, I think MJ was probably the player who, if all possible candidates were collected into one timeline, and played all against each other, would climb to the top of the heap; but not by some overly dominant factor, and it certainly wouldn’t be a sure thing)
If you’ve never heard of Bill Russell you’re not qualified to weigh in on this debate. I’ve watched exactly three basketball playoff series in my entire life and I still know who Bill Russell is.
Saying “Michael Jordan is the greatest player ever. Who’s this Bill Russell guy?” is like saying “Bill Belichick is the greatest football coach ever. Who’s this Vince Lombardi guy?”
This one sums up the difference I think between greatest in the overall public mind, and greatest among followers of the game.
Pele would get the most votes in a general poll. And I am not saying that for football lovers he isn’t thought of as one of the greatest, but it isn’t as automatic. I’ve heard many argue pationately for Maradona (cheating dwarf), Cryuff, Puskas, even Platini.
“Also, the West Coast offense requires sure-handed receivers comfortable catching in heavy traffic, and the system downplays speedy, larger receivers who are covered easily in short yardage situation. One result has been the longevity of receivers in the West Coast system (such as the notable Jerry Rice) because a decline in speed is not as harmful, when, in “stretch the field” systems, a receiver who loses a step is a major liability. “WCO” systems also rely on agile running backs that catch the ball as often as they run. Roger Craig was a leading receiver for the 49ers for many years and was a 1,000 yard rusher and 1,000 yard receiver in the 1985 season. Finally, receivers must follow precise, complicated routes as opposed to innovation; so subservient, intelligent players are valued more than independent, pure athletes.”
And then, once defenses were able to adapt and discovered effective countermeasures, the West Coast offense faded away.
The argument against Barry is his negative yardage. For every 100 positive yards he gained, it was actually something like 200 total yards minus 100 negative yards. (or was it 60/40, I forget.)