Bill Brown: the Jim Marshall of RBs

[JameisBrownston]

In all the ways. Compiler supreme, very long career, middling peak, rather low efficiency, never missed games, even Marshall's teammate on the Vikings. Altogether seems like a viable HOVG candidate. That one random season where he was also a WR1 stands out.

[JeffreyMiller]

The main difference is that no one ever accused Brown of being a HOFer ...

[JuggernautJ]

He was a favorite when I was a kid but...

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... owBi00.htm

[TanksAndSpartans]

I'd vote for him for HOVG. Seemed like the type of player who would do whatever was asked (played special teams in his 30s according to interviews). Would have been a nice complement to a player like Foreman, but most seasons they didn't have someone like that, so he got a lot of the carries some years. Isn't Gore a better analogy when it comes to compiling stats? Brown doesn't strike me as someone who cared about statistics.

[Jay Z]

He had more Pro Bowls than Marshall, 4 to 2. In his best year, 1964, he scored 16 TDs, 9 as a receiver.

Yards per carry just too low for me, 3.3 in the season he led the NFL in attempts. John David Crow is on the ballot and I would pick Crow over Brown. Brown was good and had some talent but wasn't very good for very long. Just more average to good.

[Brian wolf]

They both contributed to NFC champions, including an NFL championship but had both retired earlier, say by 1972, would they get more traction for the HOF for Marshall and HOVG for Brown?
Grant kept them forever, so its easy to say they compiled.

[Jay Z]

They both contributed to NFC champions, including an NFL championship but had both retired earlier, say by 1972, would they get more traction for the HOF for Marshall and HOVG for Brown?
Grant kept them forever, so its easy to say they compiled.

Brown was only a regular for 8 years. That's not especially that long. Don Perkins is in HOVG, but Ken Willard isn't. Dick Bass isn't. For his peak Brown is comparable to those peers as far as length of time as a regular. He had some ability to get yards as a receiver out of the backfield. He scored some touchdowns. He was below average as any sort of breakaway threat. Then he also had 6 years as a backup that probably no one cares about for HOVG.

He also didn't do much in the playoffs despite playing for playoff teams. He was still a regular in 1968-69.

[JameisBrownston]

That seems pretty silly, Brian. Marshall would have no HOF case without his compiling/longevity. I'd argue that starting for 19 straight seasons without missing a game is its own sort of greatness.

[Brian wolf]

Yes but hear me out ... From 1972-1979, Marshall only had 30 sacks and 14 of those happened in 1973 and 1975, his last decent years. Longevity I believe, hurts his case. Yes, he has 9 sacks in postseason, which helps his cause but ironically, his first postseason game in 1968 and his second to last postseason game in 1978, were his best games in terms of pass rush.

Its weird because his best years were in the 60s, while teammate Carl Eller's were in the 70s. Both could have had more had Alan Page not had so many, yet Marshall didnt get the accolades.

[Brian wolf]

I feel longevity helps Brown more than Marshall. Yes, his good years were gone by the early 70s but he still had a place on the Vikings special teams, which helped their winning. A very effective pass receiver that doesnt get enough credit. He averaged over 11 yards per catch ...