PFRA is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the history of professional football. Formed in 1979, PFRA members include many of the game's foremost historians and writers.
https://mail.profootballresearchers.org/forum/
https://mail.profootballresearchers.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6025
I'd say it was sheer lack of desire. He was the same as a lacrosse player. He hogged the ball and there was some sense in that because he was such an offensive force. But he didn't get many assists because he didn't like to pass the ball even if he had an attack man wide open near the net.JohnR wrote:Was it a lack of talent or a lack of desire? Some of his blocks looked half-assed.racepug wrote:Yeah, I've often read that Jim Brown wasn't much for pass catching or for blocking. But I guess given his talent for running the ball he didn't need to be.Brian wolf wrote:Though Brown was a better runner than Gilchrist, I rate Cookie over him because he could wipe out people when blocking. Brown was one of the worst blockers I ever saw on films, for his size.
You deserve some kind of award for knowing anything about Jim Brown as a lacrosse player!rhickok1109 wrote:I'd say it was sheer lack of desire. He was the same as a lacrosse player. He hogged the ball and there was some sense in that because he was such an offensive force. But he didn't get many assists because he didn't like to pass the ball even if he had an attack man wide open near the net.
Go ahead and tell him, Ralph....racepug wrote:You deserve some kind of award for knowing anything about Jim Brown as a lacrosse player!
I played against him in 1956.racepug wrote:You deserve some kind of award for knowing anything about Jim Brown as a lacrosse player!rhickok1109 wrote:I'd say it was sheer lack of desire. He was the same as a lacrosse player. He hogged the ball and there was some sense in that because he was such an offensive force. But he didn't get many assists because he didn't like to pass the ball even if he had an attack man wide open near the net.
Great knowledge drop over Jim Brown's lacrosse career - especially from an up-close "something you can tell your grandkids" perspective in that you played against him!! I did know that he was actually a better lacrosse player than he was a football player (just like Stu Ungar was actually better at Rummy than he was the very thing he was known most for...Poker), but didn't know the details. Jim Brown's blocking and pass-catching, and Shaquille O'Neal's foul-shooting and perimeter game...still both "bad-asses" but simply focused on their strengths, fulfilling their "main"-purposes thus still being considered the "best-ever" RB and "best-ever" in-the-paint NBA big-man respectively.rhickok1109 wrote:I played against him in 1956.racepug wrote:You deserve some kind of award for knowing anything about Jim Brown as a lacrosse player!rhickok1109 wrote:I'd say it was sheer lack of desire. He was the same as a lacrosse player. He hogged the ball and there was some sense in that because he was such an offensive force. But he didn't get many assists because he didn't like to pass the ball even if he had an attack man wide open near the net.
Wow - that's amazing! Did J.B. already have a reputation back then or when you played against him was he "just another opponent" as far as you were concerned?rhickok1109 wrote:I played against him in 1956.racepug wrote:You deserve some kind of award for knowing anything about Jim Brown as a lacrosse player!rhickok1109 wrote:I'd say it was sheer lack of desire. He was the same as a lacrosse player. He hogged the ball and there was some sense in that because he was such an offensive force. But he didn't get many assists because he didn't like to pass the ball even if he had an attack man wide open near the net.
I played against him in 1956.[/quote]Wow - that's amazing! Did J.B. already have a reputation back then or when you played against him was he "just another opponent" as far as you were concerned?[/quote]racepug wrote:You deserve some kind of award for knowing anything about Jim Brown as a lacrosse player!