Really? OJ had his share of negative plays. Regardless, he too had a better Front Office, coaches and o-line by comparison.
##Sanders also holds the NFL record for the most carries for negative yardage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Sanders OJ had a better front office and oline? whaaaaa? btw I think barry was great, but he had his flaws.
Not disputing the yardage just smh that you would reference that and call it a "flaw". That distinction and other related lies at the feet of Detroit's Front Office and coaching staff. The man made the Pro-Bowl every yr he played the gm and named All-Pro eight of those yrs. An arguement could be made that he was the best pure runner of all time.
I'm not sure how it's the coaching staff and front office fault that he had a lot of negative plays (negative 3 yards on average!) compared to other great RBs. surely he could fall forward if he wanted to. The man asked what argument could be made that he isn't the greatest and I gave it. let's not turn this into a "you a hater" thread.
I'd take a healthy Jim Brown, OJ, and Erick ****erson (homer pick) over barry. that isn't to say barry wasn't one of the all time greats.
You can't have the carries he did and never miss a game without there being a serious question of his competitors.
His running style ran him into a lot of those negative plays, but the same thing is why he'd take the next one 65. I dunno if I'd even call it a "flaw", it's just the kind of runner he was.
Then the same can be said of any back or other NFL player. That is the problem with football when talking goats. The game and players have changed too much, as have the rules. Babe Ruth or Josh Gibson would be great baseball players today. The sixties Packers teams would get steamrolled in today's NFL. But when compared go his contemporaries, no one touches Jim Brown.