Ex-Skin named most versatile player of all-time, possibly greatest player ever

[wewantdallas]

And that player is....

Sammy Baugh.

Just saw this on the NFL Network, Top 10 most Versatile Players in NFL History. B-Mitch was actually #8 on there, but Baugh was number 1. That's something for the franchise to be proud of. Amazingly, he held the records for passing, punting and interceptions in THE SAME YEAR. He also had a game where he threw four touchdown passes and intercepted 4 passes!! Unreal.

Most of the panelists said he's not only the most versatile player ever, but also the best athlete to ever play the game.

Anyone out there actually see this guy play?

[Spence]

I don't think anyone here is old enough to have seen him play, but the stats are pretty incredible. I don't see how an argument can be made for anyone else.

[shally]

And that player is....

Sammy Baugh.

Just saw this on the NFL Network, Top 10 most Versatile Players in NFL History. B-Mitch was actually #8 on there, but Baugh was number 1. That's something for the franchise to be proud of. Amazingly, he held the records for passing, punting and interceptions in THE SAME YEAR. He also had a game where he threw four touchdown passes and intercepted 4 passes!! Unreal.

Most of the panelists said he's not only the most versatile player ever, but also the best athlete to ever play the game.

Anyone out there actually see this guy play?

it was an entirely different game then.. similar to comparing modern nba to the nba of george mikan. totally different skills used.

i never saw baugh play and i cannot say anything in the least negative about him.. but i do not think it is fair to down grade the skills of modern players just because they were not called upon to display them..

on the other hand, punting is probably very similar (even if the ball has evolved) so he likely is the greatest punter, if ray guy isnt..

where did jim thorpe come in ? that is another fellow who is sometimes called the greatest athlete of all time

[RedskinRyan]

way to go sammy!

there's a reason he's the only person to have his number officially retired by this team.

[BurgundyNGold]

When I read the title of this thread I thought it would be Bobby Mitchell. Baugh is a good choice, though.

[JoeJacksonTaylor28]

Show will re-air today at 18:00

[S.Taylor36]

Show will re-air today at 18:00

Nice thanks for the info

[redskin_rich]

on the other hand, punting is probably very similar (even if the ball has evolved) so he likely is the greatest punter, if ray guy isnt..

where did jim thorpe come in ? that is another fellow who is sometimes called the greatest athlete of all timeI have always thought that Baugh's punting stats were padded with a lot of quick-kicks on 3rd down to an empty downfield. I believe Sammy even said as much.

I was also wondering where Thorpe fits in on that list. Has to be in the top 3.

When I read the title of this thread I thought it would be Bobby Mitchell. Baugh is a good choice, though.Same thing I thought.

[AGibbsGirl]

I knew it was Baugh before I even read the thread, best dern Rugby player the Redskins ever had.... :D

[bgforever]

Oddly, if you wanted to add another name from the Skins, you could say Bobby Mitchell, another HOF.

Baugh, compared to today's players, in size, knowledge, work ethic, leadership and abilities, matches up well against the Payton's, Mitchells, Sayers, Sanders, Joe Washington, Blanda's of the world.

This is a justifiable pick in Baugh and should forever stay the way it is. It is clear I am not bias, because I have Baugh in some pretty good company above!

[BandWagon]

I saw the piece at number 8 on Brian Mitchell. That was great. Unfortunately, I couldn't muster the energy to stay up til 1:00 to see Sammy. But hey guys! How about having two out of 10!! That's 20% of the list dominated by the burgundy and gold!

[redskin_rich]

I saw the piece at number 8 on Brian Mitchell. That was great. Unfortunately, I couldn't muster the energy to stay up til 1:00 to see Sammy. But hey guys! How about having two out of 10!! That's 20% of the list dominated by the burgundy and gold!

Man, when I read B-Mitch from WWD's original post, I assumed he meant Bobby Mitchell. Why in the House of Hades would Brian Mitchell be in the top ten?
Let's see about Brian,
- very good KR and PR (not even the best the Skins ever had).
- below average RB
- ditto for receiving
- blocking (lol) not so much
- QB, no.
- running his mouth, probably the best ever for the Skins.

Bobby Mitchell did it all very good (sans the running of the mouth) and played on defense.

[BandWagon]

Man, when I read B-Mitch from WWD's original post, I assumed he meant Bobby Mitchell. Why in the House of Hades would Brian Mitchell be in the top ten?
Let's see about Brian,
- very good KR and PR (not even the best the Skins ever had).
- below average RB
- ditto for receiving
- blocking (lol) not so much
- QB, no.
- running his mouth, probably the best ever for the Skins.

Bobby Mitchell did it all very good (sans the running of the mouth) and played on defense.

Number 2 all time in all purpose yards didn't hurt...

[BandWagon]

Ok, Bobby Mitchell people. Explain why he should have been among the top 10 most versatile players of all time. Most of the people on the list served "three" distinctly different roles on their teams.

[Keino]

it was an entirely different game then.. similar to comparing modern nba to the nba of george mikan. totally different skills used.

i never saw baugh play and i cannot say anything in the least negative about him.. but i do not think it is fair to down grade the skills of modern players just because they were not called upon to display them..

on the other hand, punting is probably very similar (even if the ball has evolved) so he likely is the greatest punter, if ray guy isnt..

where did jim thorpe come in ? that is another fellow who is sometimes called the greatest athlete of all time

I tend to agree with everything you wrote here. But I will note that the Ball then was a bit more round and so punting it was much easier. Ray Guy to me is hands down the best punter I've ever seen and when I couple that with the fact that from what Ive read alot of Sammy's punts were quick kicks when the defense was expecting it and therefore got the benefit of rolls and no returns.

I like the fact the B Mitch is on here, even though I no big fan of his. He was versatile.

[skins111111]

Sammy is the man......O, D and STs and he was very good at all 3

[SkinsfaninNJ]

Anyone else think Sammy doesn't get his due from the NFL? He should be more celebrated, but he's not considered a modern day player. The NFL makes it seem like QB'ing started with guys like Unitas and Tarkenton.

One of the things I like about baseball is they can still honor the greats of the past.

[LATrueRedskin]

No Al Noga? Eh, I guess Sammy is better. :D

[redskin_rich]

Ok, Bobby Mitchell people. Explain why he should have been among the top 10 most versatile players of all time. Most of the people on the list served "three" distinctly different roles on their teams.

Bobby Mitchell:
WR
RB
KR/PR

Brian Mitchell:
KR/PR
3rd string RB
Sometimes a 3rd (emergency) QB

That's my contention.

[Keino]

Bobby Mitchell:
WR
DB
KR/PR

Brian Mitchell:
KR/PR
3rd string RB
Sometimes a 3rd (emergency) QB

That's my contention.


To be fair, Mitchell...er Brian was the 3rd down Back on those late Norv teams, but overall I agree.

[Wild Bore]

When I read the title of this thread I thought it would be Bobby Mitchell. Baugh is a good choice, though.

I did too.

[bgforever]

Ok, Bobby Mitchell people. Explain why he should have been among the top 10 most versatile players of all time. Most of the people on the list served "three" distinctly different roles on their teams.



Here ya' go sport. As I recall if Bobby Mitchell had 14,078 total yards as a "Flanker ONLY", you and me would be shocked out of our boots. So he definitely did more than just play Flanker. He also at one point blocked, for Jim Brown, received and ran the ball, returned punts, kickoffs, for the Cleveland Browns,for 4 years before he arrived in DC, where he still did some of the same besides being the flanker.
Go to 70 Greatest Redskins, then find him in the roster.

http://www.redskins.com/team/history-70.jsp

http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.jsp?player_id=152

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Mitchell

http://web.wireimage.com/images/tnm/11307500.jpg

Bobby Mitchell takes a handoff from Jurgenson in '63 game -- **NOTE Mitchell's Total Numbers compared to Monks Receiving Validates the Monumental effort of Art Monk, because Monk's total for rec was over 12,000 yards. A testament to time on the field, which for Monk was against defenses designed to make sport of receivers, like him and Mitchell, getting creamed by folks like Tunnel and Lott. At that time, a WR having seasons like Mitchell and Monk was very, very uncommon. Now get this, Charley Taylor ALSO, at the time became a League Leading Receiver, with similar numbers. He, as you already know was the BRIDGE between Mitchell and Monk.

[Wild Bore]

Bobby Mitchell:
WR
DB
KR/PR

Brian Mitchell:
KR/PR
3rd string RB
Sometimes a 3rd (emergency) QB

That's my contention.Bobby Mitchell was also a running back for the first four years of his career in Cleveland. He was traded to Washington because he was showing up Jim Brown.

Sammy Baugh may be the greatest football player that ever lived (my dad thinks so), but Bobby Mitchell was the best Redskin football player I ever saw play, bar none.

Bobby Mitchell had 521 career receptions. This was BEFORE the big passing era began. Also, he wasn't a wide receiver his whole career, only for the last seven years of his career. And he played in 12 and 14 game seasons, not 16 game seasons. His yards per catch were 15.3. Compare that to Jerry Rice, who many consider the greatest wide receiver ever, who averaged only 14.8 yards per catch. You simply could not catch Bobby Mitchell to tackle him. He had 1436 yards receiving in 1963, a record that stood for the Redskins for over forty years, until Santana recently broke it. Santana did it in a 16 game season though. Think about it, 1436 in a 14 game season was an average of over 100 yards per game!!! He nearly did it in 1962 as well, when he had 1384 yards.

Let's talk about his years as a running back: His yards per carry were as follows: 6.2,5.7,4.6,5.4. WOW!

Don't compare B. Mitch with the original. I saw both. Bobby would blow away Brian, even on kickoffs. If I had to pick one player from all time on my Redskins team, he would be it.

[redskin_rich]

Don't compare B. Mitch with the original. I saw both. Bobby would blow away Brian, even on kickoffs. If I had to pick one player from all time on my Redskins team, he would be it.

Preach on, brother!
I don't even think Brian was one of the greatest players of his era, not even close. He was good, like about 100 other guys during the 90's.

[James F. Quinn]

I have always thought that Baugh's punting stats were padded with a lot of quick-kicks on 3rd down to an empty downfield. I believe Sammy even said as much.


True, but all the teams of that era used the quick kick. So theyall had padded stats. Nonetheless, it was Sammy who generally led the league back then.

I never saw him play, obviously, and those cornball old photos make him look a little bit clownish, but he seemed to dominate as a two-way player.

[James F. Quinn]

Oddly, if you wanted to add another name from the Skins, you could say Bobby Mitchell, another HOF.

Baugh, compared to today's players, in size, knowledge, work ethic, leadership and abilities, matches up well against the Payton's, Mitchells, Sayers, Sanders, Joe Washington, Blanda's of the world.

This is a justifiable pick in Baugh and should forever stay the way it is. It is clear I am not bias, because I have Baugh in some pretty good company above!

However, considering that Sammy played both ways, be has all of the above beaten hands down. Sanders could get a slight nod because his speed would make him a potentially dangerous WR, but it was mostly done as a gimmick. But Sammy played QB FT and DB FT, and was the league's best punter. I think he still holds at least one NFL punting record.

[James F. Quinn]

Bobby Mitchell:
WR
DB
KR/PR

Brian Mitchell:
KR/PR
3rd string RB
Sometimes a 3rd (emergency) QB

That's my contention.

I remember Bobby M as a running back,as a wide receiver, and as a returner. But I simply cannot recall him playing DB. Nor is that mentioned in his HOF or Wikipedia bios.

Can you enlighten me?

[bgforever]

However, considering that Sammy played both ways, be has all of the above beaten hands down. Sanders could get a slight nod because his speed would make him a potentially dangerous WR, but it was mostly done as a gimmick. But Sammy played QB FT and DB FT, and was the league's best punter. I think he still holds at least one NFL punting record.

Oh fo sho! Right on. No way would I remove Sammy Baugh from being #1.
The mold was thrown away. In fact, as overall athletes, I put Baugh in the top 5 with Bo Jackson, Jim Thorpe, Deon Sanders period!

[redskin_rich]

I remember Bobby M as a running back,as a wide receiver, and as a returner. But I simply cannot recall him playing DB. Nor is that mentioned in his HOF or Wikipedia bios.

Can you enlighten me?

Eh, I could have sworn I read before that Bobby played some defense but I can't find anything to back it up, so I'll retract that and edit RB into that post in place of DB.

[James F. Quinn]

Eh, I could have sworn I read before that Bobby played some defense but I can't find anything to back it up, so I'll retract that and edit RB into that post in place of DB.

I do not doubt for a minute that he COULD have played DB. He had world-class sprinter's speed and wasn't afraid of contact.

I think the Arena league shows that the modern athletes are just as capable of playing both ways. It's just that the modern game has become so specialized and requires such repetition to acquire the top skills.

IIRC, Redskins Dick James was one of the last true two-way players as a running back and DB.

I don't count guys like Sanders and Bailey who dabbled in a little bit of WR.

IIRC, Roy Green of the Cards was also a latter-day twofer, but he never played full seasons as both: he came up as a DB and switched to WR.

[smoak]

Same thing I thought.

And here my first thought was "Bruce Smith".

[shally]

Bobby Mitchell was also a running back for the first four years of his career in Cleveland. He was traded to Washington because he was showing up Jim Brown.

Sammy Baugh may be the greatest football player that ever lived (my dad thinks so), but Bobby Mitchell was the best Redskin football player I ever saw play, bar none.

Bobby Mitchell had 521 career receptions. This was BEFORE the big passing era began. Also, he wasn't a wide receiver his whole career, only for the last seven years of his career. And he played in 12 and 14 game seasons, not 16 game seasons. His yards per catch were 15.3. Compare that to Jerry Rice, who many consider the greatest wide receiver ever, who averaged only 14.8 yards per catch. You simply could not catch Bobby Mitchell to tackle him. He had 1436 yards receiving in 1963, a record that stood for the Redskins for over forty years, until Santana recently broke it. Santana did it in a 16 game season though. Think about it, 1436 in a 14 game season was an average of over 100 yards per game!!! He nearly did it in 1962 as well, when he had 1384 yards.

Let's talk about his years as a running back: His yards per carry were as follows: 6.2,5.7,4.6,5.4. WOW!

Don't compare B. Mitch with the original. I saw both. Bobby would blow away Brian, even on kickoffs. If I had to pick one player from all time on my Redskins team, he would be it.


beg to differ.... he was most assuredly not showing up brown. they were 2 entirely different backs.

what caused him to get traded was the desire of the browns tohave the "ultimate" backfield pairing of brown and the late ernie davis. the skins had the pick, and the browns knew it would take someone special to pry it away fromthe skins. they also threw in leroy jackson, a rb who never amounted to much with the skins

[SpicyMcHaggis]

I don't see how Brian Mitchell can be considered versatile. He was a kick/punt returner and a barely decent running back. If he was versatile, so is Rock Cartright. Are Marshall Faulk or Ladainian Tomlison on that list?

[shally]

Eh, I could have sworn I read before that Bobby played some defense but I can't find anything to back it up, so I'll retract that and edit RB into that post in place of DB.

maybe in college, at univ of illinois... but i do not believe he played db as a pro

I do not doubt for a minute that he COULD have played DB. He had world-class sprinter's speed and wasn't afraid of contact.

I think the Arena league shows that the modern athletes are just as capable of playing both ways. It's just that the modern game has become so specialized and requires such repetition to acquire the top skills.

IIRC, Redskins Dick James was one of the last true two-way players as a running back and DB.

I don't count guys like Sanders and Bailey who dabbled in a little bit of WR.

IIRC, Roy Green of the Cards was also a latter-day twofer, but he never played full seasons as both: he came up as a DB and switched to WR.

i was going to make the comment about roy green making the transition

also, the vikes had a receiver who made the reverse transition from wr to db-- tate, i believe

[James F. Quinn]

beg to differ.... he was most assuredly not showing up brown. they were 2 entirely different backs.

what caused him to get traded was the desire of the browns tohave the "ultimate" backfield pairing of brown and the late ernie davis. the skins had the pick, and the browns knew it would take someone special to pry it away fromthe skins. they also threw in leroy jackson, a rb who never amounted to much with the skins

An exceptionally sad story, that. ED and JB were both Syracuse standouts and it boggles my mind to think of them playing together. But then, after the trade, ED was diagnosed with Leukemia. This much later, I can't help wondering why the trade wasn't nullified.

[Wild Bore]

beg to differ.... he was most assuredly not showing up brown. they were 2 entirely different backs.

what caused him to get traded was the desire of the browns tohave the "ultimate" backfield pairing of brown and the late ernie davis. the skins had the pick, and the browns knew it would take someone special to pry it away fromthe skins. they also threw in leroy jackson, a rb who never amounted to much with the skinsMitchell and Brown were entirely different backs. Agreed. But your explanation of the trade is maybe what was said publicly. My explanation is was what I believe to be actually true, in my opinion. Jim Brown WAS the Cleveland Browns in those days. He was not going to share the spotlight with anyone. Paul Brown was intent on making Jim Brown happy. There was not enough room for both of them in the same backfield. I think one of the reasons Jim Brown was so effective in the late 50s and early 60s was that teams were actually more scared of Mitchell.

Incidently, it is funny how things work out. You state that the Browns were trying to have the "ultimate" backfield. What they apparently didn't realize at the time is that they already had the ultimate backfield.

[native skin]

Number 2 all time in all purpose yards didn't hurt...

Oh yeah, that would be a good reason. At least for consideration on some list. I have to agree with some of you though, Brian was a shotty RB. But he was consistant at KR/PR.

[shally]

Mitchell and Brown were entirely different backs. Agreed. But your explanation of the trade is maybe what was said publicly. My explanation is was what I believe to be actually true, in my opinion. Jim Brown WAS the Cleveland Browns in those days. He was not going to share the spotlight with anyone. Paul Brown was intent on making Jim Brown happy. There was not enough room for both of them in the same backfield. I think one of the reasons Jim Brown was so effective in the late 50s and early 60s was that teams were actually more scared of Mitchell.

Incidently, it is funny how things work out. You state that the Browns were trying to have the "ultimate" backfield. What they apparently didn't realize at the time is that they already had the ultimate backfield.

again, what you say makes no sense in the context of what the browns did.
if brown did not want to share with mitchell, why on earth would he be willing to share with ernie davis ?

no, i still think the browns felt they were getting the ultimate pairing because davis and brown were going to be playing together with brown still at FB

and as good as mitchell was as a runner, he was even better as a receiver because the db's simply could not stay with him in space.

[Wild Bore]

again, what you say makes no sense in the context of what the browns did.
if brown did not want to share with mitchell, why on earth would he be willing to share with ernie davis ?

no, i still think the browns felt they were getting the ultimate pairing because davis and brown were going to be playing together with brown still at FB

and as good as mitchell was as a runner, he was even better as a receiver because the db's simply could not stay with him in space.Shally, the point about Mitchell vs. Brown was not really central to my main point, which was how great Mitchell was with the Redskins and I was merely answering a question posed by someone about what was so great with Mitchell.

Now, having said that, some of my arguments come from Bobby himself, in interviews on a Redskin history video tape I have. These comments weren't overt, because Bobby wasn't like that. But you can read between the lines about what he was saying. It is also, as I said, my own opinion--that Mitchell was showing up Brown, which I believe he was. It is logical that there was never enough room for both of them in one backfield. There simply was not enough carries in a game for two hall of famers.

[JoeJacksonTaylor28]

I don't see how Brian Mitchell can be considered versatile. He was a kick/punt returner and a barely decent running back. If he was versatile, so is Rock Cartright. Are Marshall Faulk or Ladainian Tomlison on that list?

Well, B Mich was far better than Rock as a RB, KR and PR. He could (and did one or two times) also play at QB.

BTW, no and no to your questions. I'm not sure I would call Tomlinson versatile, at least in the way the show was made, but Faulk definitely needs consideration.

[shally]

Shally, the point about Mitchell vs. Brown was not really central to my main point, which was how great Mitchell was with the Redskins and I was merely answering a question posed by someone about what was so great with Mitchell.

Now, having said that, some of my arguments come from Bobby himself, in interviews on a Redskin history video tape I have. These comments weren't overt, because Bobby wasn't like that. But you can read between the lines about what he was saying. It is also, as I said, my own opinion--that Mitchell was showing up Brown, which I believe he was. It is logical that there was never enough room for both of them in one backfield. There simply was not enough carries in a game for two hall of famers.

understood.. i think the problem then, was with mitchell and not with brown or the browns. it was his ego that needed stroking.. brown simply didnt care...
maybe the browns sensed that mitchell was going to be a problem for them ? although times were far different then, and problem players had little leverage with teams.
brown was the hub of the cleveland offense-- even when they had frank ryan and gary collins and milt morin to throw to...

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Well, B Mich was far better than Rock as a RB, KR and PR. He could (and did one or two times) also play at QB.

BTW, no and no to your questions. I'm not sure I would call Tomlinson versatile, at least in the way the show was made, but Faulk definitely needs consideration.

Mitchell never had more than 311 yards rushing in a season. That's not far better than anyone (especially Rock, who had 411 in his second year). As for the quarterbacking part, Mitchell completed a whopping 7 passes for 1 TD in his whole career. Tomlinson, for example, already has 5 completed passes for 4 TDs.
And regarding Tomlinson, if a running back catches 100 passes in a season, that sounds pretty versatile to me.

[wewantdallas]

Mitchell never had more than 311 yards rushing in a season. That's not far better than anyone (especially Rock, who had 411 in his second year). As for the quarterbacking part, Mitchell completed a whopping 7 passes for 1 TD in his whole career. Tomlinson, for example, already has 5 completed passes for 4 TDs.
And regarding Tomlinson, if a running back catches 100 passes in a season, that sounds pretty versatile to me.

I don't think it's fair to compare passes thrown by RBs on option/trick plays to passes thrown by a guy who is taking the snap from center and actually playing the QB position, as Mitchell did. He knew how to actually play the QB position and guide a team down the field, not just throw an option pass.

I think people are misinterpreting the "most versatile" classification somewhat. It doesn't necessarily mean that a guy was THE BEST at any of those positions, just that he was CAPABLE of playing a variety of positions well.

Mitchell was capable of actually playing QB, was one of the best KR/PR in the league, was a solid RB (5.1 YPC lifetime average) and a solid receiver. And has been mentioned before, #2 all-purpose yards all-time speaks volumes about the guy's accomplishments as a whole. He definitely belongs on that list. Top 10? Maybe that's debatable, but certainly in the top 15 or 20.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

I don't think it's fair to compare passes thrown by RBs on option/trick plays to passes thrown by a guy who is taking the snap from center and actually playing the QB position, as Mitchell did. He knew how to actually play the QB position and guide a team down the field, not just throw an option pass.

I think people are misinterpreting the "most versatile" classification somewhat. It doesn't necessarily mean that a guy was THE BEST at any of those positions, just that he was CAPABLE of playing a variety of positions well.

Mitchell was capable of actually playing QB, was one of the best KR/PR in the league, was a solid RB (5.1 YPC lifetime average) and a solid receiver. And has been mentioned before, #2 all-purpose yards all-time speaks volumes about the guy's accomplishments as a whole. He definitely belongs on that list. Top 10? Maybe that's debatable, but certainly in the top 15 or 20.
Well, Mitchell might have been able to play QB, but then so are Hines Ward, Randle-El, Kordell Stewart, Seneca Walalce, and any other player that came out of college as a QB and changed position. The fact remains that Mitchell only threw 18 passes in his career, and completed just 7.
As for being a solid RB, you can't tell me a he's a solid RB when he has a career-best of 311 yards in a season. That's decent for a 3rd string RB, which is exactly what he was.
The #2 in all purpose yards speaks volumes about his durability and his ability as a returner, not about his versatility IMO.

[wewantdallas]

Well, Mitchell might have been able to play QB, but then so are Hines Ward, Randle-El, Kordell Stewart, Seneca Walalce, and any other player that came out of college as a QB and changed position. The fact remains that Mitchell only threw 18 passes in his career, and completed just 7.

I think Stewart might have actually made that list somewhere, I can't remember. In any case, if Randle El or Wallace end up with a career similar to Mitchell's in terms of production, then maybe someone will put them on a future "most versatile" list. Until that happens (if it happens), I don't think there's a comparison.

As for being a solid RB, you can't tell me a he's a solid RB when he has a career-best of 311 yards in a season. That's decent for a 3rd string RB, which is exactly what he was.

And no one's saying any different. He was usually a 3rd string back, but I think he was DEFINITELY a solid RB. "Solid" doesn't equate to great, but effective. I think his 5.1 YPC average speaks more to that effectiveness than his total yards in a season. I remember a playoff game in Minnesota where he started at RB and gained over 100 yards in less than 20 carries. He did a good, "solid" job when he toted the rock.

Again, this isn't about whether he was as good a back as Byner or as good a receiver as Clark or Monk. Of course he wasn't even close.

But he WAS one of the best KR/PR the game's ever seen - he was one of the ELITE in that category - and when you add to that (I'm going to say the word again) solid contributions as a RB, receiver and the proven ability to play QB (granted, he didn't play much, but it was nice to know he could've stepped in and done well in emergency situations, which he proved in Philly), I think that makes him more versatile than most. Obviously a lot of his peers feel the same way.

All I know is, whenever I saw Mitchell on the field, whether in the backfield or about to return a kick, I knew something big could happen. Not the guy's biggest fan on the radio, but I loved how he played for us.

[flave1969]

Well, Mitchell might have been able to play QB, but then so are Hines Ward, Randle-El, Kordell Stewart, Seneca Walalce, and any other player that came out of college as a QB and changed position. The fact remains that Mitchell only threw 18 passes in his career, and completed just 7.
As for being a solid RB, you can't tell me a he's a solid RB when he has a career-best of 311 yards in a season. That's decent for a 3rd string RB, which is exactly what he was.
The #2 in all purpose yards speaks volumes about his durability and his ability as a returner, not about his versatility IMO.

The Thing is Spicy. Returners who are just good returners rarely last a long time with one team, let alone a long time in the NFL. There are exceptions like Mel Gray. But Returners who last a long time are usually of the ilk of Dave Meggett, Speedy Duncan and Billy Johnson all had further strings to their bows and thus lasted.

Mike Nelms is arguably our finest Kick/Punt returner ever, but he did not cut it as a Defensive Back and Joe Gibbs cut him loose after five stellar return seasons.

Mitchell fits the bill just like the guys above.