Who is better, Gradishar or Leemans?
Randy Gradishar leads with a GOAT score of 83.5 against 83.3 for Tuffy Leemans — a gap of 0.2 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Randy Gradishar above Tuffy Leemans: 83.5 vs 83.3. Randy Gradishar leads on Peak, Longevity, Statistics. Tuffy Leemans leads on Dominance, Honours.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Gradishar wins: Peak, Longevity, Statistics
Leemans wins: Dominance, Honours
Shareable URL · /compare/randy-gradishar-vs-tuffy-leemans
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Gradishar leads in 3 of 5 weighted categories.
Cumulative output season by season — the shape of each career against the other.
| Ghost race · career day | 30 | 100 | 365 | 1000 | 1825 | 3650 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 Gradishar | 0 | 0 | 140 | 320 | 952 | 1,759 |
| 🇺🇸 Leemans | 0 | 0 | 95 | 182 | 332 | 540 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | GradisharRetired | LeemansRetired |
|---|---|---|
| Defensive Player of the Year awards | 1 | — |
| Pro Bowls | 7 | — |
| Career tackles | 2,049 | — |
| Career interceptions | 20 | — |
| Seasons played | 10 | 8 |
| NFL titles | — | 1 |
| Rushing titles | — | 1 |
| Career rushing yards | — | 3,132 |
| All-Pro selections | — | 2 |
| Dominance w25% | 80 | 82 |
| Peak w20% | 92 | 90 |
| Longevity w20% | 76 | 74 |
| Honours w20% | 82 | 84 |
| Statistics w15% | 90 | 88 |
Randy Gradishar leads with a GOAT score of 83.5 against 83.3 for Tuffy Leemans — a gap of 0.2 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Leemans scores higher on dominance, honours. Gradishar leads on peak, statistics, longevity.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Gradishar: 83.5, Leemans: 83.3.
Make your case for Gradishar vs Leemans. The scoring is published in full — if you can point at the pillar or the weight you disagree with, we read it. Read the methodology paper.