|
Post by Zaz on Dec 11, 2019 9:17:07 GMT -7
I dont care about YPC. I care about total yards, catches and TDs. Also consider in 2019 guys are bigger stronger faster. There were still white DBs in 1967. Cmon now You come on NOW ZAZ, Let me list a few dbs in 1967 vs 2019 Herb Adderley Green Bay Packers 1967 Pro Football Hall Of Fame Patrick Peterson P.E.D leader 2019 Adderley could tackle too Peterson never could Lem Barney Detroit Lions Densive rookie of the Year 1967 He was a 2ND ROUND PICK IN 1967 2019 Top NFL Cornerbacks drafted Deandre Baker NY Giants 1st round 44 tackles NO INTS 13 GAMES Lem Barney 10 ints When teams ran the ball 14 gamesByron Murphy 2nd rd pick Will he be a Hall of Famer? Maybe one day. But Lem Barney has the Jacket already. Byron Murphy Cardinals 1 INT 13 GAMES Cornell Green Dallas Cowboys 1967 7 ints 14 games Dave Whitsel New Orleans 10 INTS 14 games
Zaz your premise has no ground Whitsel is the only 1 guy that meets your all of your criteria for All Pro DBs in 1967 Jackie Smith blocks better tha Gronk, You used yards as a metric Smith 1205 yards his best year 14 games 1967 Versus Gronkowski 1327 yards 16 games That is why Yards per catch matter more. Smith wins
Gronkowski who I love as a player is not the blocker the runner nor the punter Jackie Smith was. He is close in receiving.
Smith did all this on bad teams as well.
With guys like Butkus hitting him while GRONK has guys like Peterson or Brandon Williams LOL no wonder he does so well.
I have 2 points to make on this. #1 - regarding all those INT numbers. Very impressive...without context. The context is that QBs back then mostly suck. Even the good ones. Dont believe me? Joe Namath is a hall of fame QB. His career passing numbers: 173 TDs, 220 INTs. Thats garbage. Night train Lane had 14INts his Rookie year. Very impressive...keep in mind he was picking off the likes of Tobin Rote (who is in the Packers HOF)....148 TDs-191 INTs. Johnny Unitas. Considered one of the greatest QBs in history...career passing % of 54%. Almost half his passes were in the dirt. I think prime PP playing into those days would probably have 150 INTs. Any good current day CB would pick off those olden' day QBs. #2 - You mentioned PP's PEDs...well: The use of performance-enhancing drugs and anabolic steroids dates back to the late 1960s in the National Football League (NFL). Former player and NFL coach Jim Haslett said in 2005 that during the 1980s, half of the players in the league used some type of performance-enhancing drug or steroid and all of the defensive lineman used them.
NFL didnt start drug testing until 1989. Meaning that this "golden era" of football you are referring to, was completely unregulated for almost 30 years. Guys running around on horse tranquilizers and german superman juice (whatever Arnold was using).
|
|
biggs
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1,076
|
Post by biggs on Dec 11, 2019 10:34:30 GMT -7
You come on NOW ZAZ, Let me list a few dbs in 1967 vs 2019 Herb Adderley Green Bay Packers 1967 Pro Football Hall Of Fame Patrick Peterson P.E.D leader 2019 Adderley could tackle too Peterson never could Lem Barney Detroit Lions Densive rookie of the Year 1967 He was a 2ND ROUND PICK IN 1967 2019 Top NFL Cornerbacks drafted Deandre Baker NY Giants 1st round 44 tackles NO INTS 13 GAMES Lem Barney 10 ints When teams ran the ball 14 gamesByron Murphy 2nd rd pick Will he be a Hall of Famer? Maybe one day. But Lem Barney has the Jacket already. Byron Murphy Cardinals 1 INT 13 GAMES Cornell Green Dallas Cowboys 1967 7 ints 14 games Dave Whitsel New Orleans 10 INTS 14 games
Zaz your premise has no ground Whitsel is the only 1 guy that meets your all of your criteria for All Pro DBs in 1967 Jackie Smith blocks better tha Gronk, You used yards as a metric Smith 1205 yards his best year 14 games 1967 Versus Gronkowski 1327 yards 16 games That is why Yards per catch matter more. Smith wins
Gronkowski who I love as a player is not the blocker the runner nor the punter Jackie Smith was. He is close in receiving.
Smith did all this on bad teams as well.
With guys like Butkus hitting him while GRONK has guys like Peterson or Brandon Williams LOL no wonder he does so well.
I have 2 points to make on this. #1 - regarding all those INT numbers. Very impressive...without context. The context is that QBs back then mostly suck. Even the good ones. Dont believe me? Joe Namath is a hall of fame QB. His career passing numbers: 173 TDs, 220 INTs. Thats garbage. Night train Lane had 14INts his Rookie year. Very impressive...keep in mind he was picking off the likes of Tobin Rote (who is in the Packers HOF)....148 TDs-191 INTs. Johnny Unitas. Considered one of the greatest QBs in history...career passing % of 54%. Almost half his passes were in the dirt. I think prime PP playing into those days would probably have 150 INTs. Any good current day CB would pick off those olden' day QBs. #2 - You mentioned PP's PEDs...well: The use of performance-enhancing drugs and anabolic steroids dates back to the late 1960s in the National Football League (NFL). Former player and NFL coach Jim Haslett said in 2005 that during the 1980s, half of the players in the league used some type of performance-enhancing drug or steroid and all of the defensive lineman used them.
NFL didnt start drug testing until 1989. Meaning that this "golden era" of football you are referring to, was completely unregulated for almost 30 years. Guys running around on horse tranquilizers and german superman juice (whatever Arnold was using). You have a point that there were more INT's relative to passing attempts. Your point that QB's mostly suck shows an absolute lack of understanding of the difference in the game. When Namath and Unitas played OL men could not extend their arms, defensive lineman were able to go to the head and the hash marks were out wider. WR were routinely held at the LOS and mugged down the field. All NFL games were played outside on grass and/or dirt. There were few warm weather NFL cities. In 1972 Joe Namath had an 8.7 YPA with a 50% completion percentage. To give you some perspective last year Mahomes led the league in YPA with an 8.8 average with a 66% pass completion percentage. In other words with less protection for both the QB and the WR, less field to work because of the hash marks, Namath was driving the ball down the field at almost the same rate that Mahomes was last year while completing 16% less of his passes. Namath had a game in 72 against Unitas where he had 496 yards, 6TD's and 1 INT on 15 completions. Drew Brees last week had 349 yards and 5 TD's on 29 completions indoors with every play on centered hash marks, OL men who could extend their arms and WR who were essentially unencumbered by contact down the field and the game was played inside under absolutely perfect conditions to throw the ball. QB's today put a premium on safe throws and they have check downs. The idea that Namath or Unitas couldn't do that is dumb. Brees playing in the wind at Shea Stadium without check downs might suck. There is more context than you are giving. The game today is on perfect turf, many games are in doors in perfect conditions, the rules have been vastly changed to protect and encourage the passing game. The drugs and enhancement today is way more focussed with all kinds of masking agents. The idea that drugs aren't better, training isn't better and the rules and conditions aren't more favorable today is absurd. The other huge advantage today is specialized coaching. Not to mention surgery is far better. Players who were done in the 60's and 70's are back at full health in months. While the pool of players is bigger today because of integration there are also more teams and more alternatives for great athletes. Your point about integration increasing the pool of players, as crudely as you put it is correct. The NBA today has more white athletes today than it did 10 years ago. The pool of players has been opened up more because foreign born players are now routinely recruited. Of course there are also more teams so it's hard to argue the level of competition is better? The rules are different, the pool of players is bigger and there are more slots for the bigger pool because of expansion. A guy like Gronk as good as he is has been injury prone. He may well have washed out playing in Smith's era. Where you have an argument is in the speed and size ratio. The athlete today is generally a little bigger and faster across the board. The NFL 100 years is multi-generational. It's not really a comparison of talent between generations. It's a comparison of dominance of their generation. In that context Smith still doesn't measure up to Mackey but I get why he would be in the conversation. I also get why you view Gronk as the GOAT. I do put a premium on play that lifts teams to the championship level and Gronk is clearly the leader at the TE position in dominance against the best of his generation when it mattered most.
|
|
|
Post by njcardfan on Dec 11, 2019 11:35:44 GMT -7
I love Gronk's play but no way he had 21.5 yards a catch (1967) or 16 ypc all time when DBs and linebackers could clobber you at will. There were still white DBs in 1967. Cmon now For the record, one of those white DB's made the all time list. Larry Wilson. Some consider him the best safety to play the game. Also, there were head hunters like Pat Fischer out there.
|
|
|
Post by Zaz on Dec 11, 2019 13:52:53 GMT -7
There were still white DBs in 1967. Cmon now For the record, one of those white DB's made the all time list. Larry Wilson. Some consider him the best safety to play the game. Also, there were head hunters like Pat Fischer out there. *For his era. The entire list is greats in relation to when they played. Theres all time great OL who played at 260 pounds. You wont find an OL nowadays an once less than 300. The context of everything matters. The majority of all older players could not play in todays game. The size, speed and skill has just gone up so far.
|
|
|
Post by njcardfan on Dec 11, 2019 23:59:51 GMT -7
For the record, one of those white DB's made the all time list. Larry Wilson. Some consider him the best safety to play the game. Also, there were head hunters like Pat Fischer out there. *For his era. The entire list is greats in relation to when they played. Theres all time great OL who played at 260 pounds. You wont find an OL nowadays an once less than 300. The context of everything matters. The majority of all older players could not play in todays game. The size, speed and skill has just gone up so far. You can't say that if you factor in those athletes having access to the same training facilities, regimen, etc. Even PED's. Make everything equal and most players can transverse any era.
|
|
|
Post by jeffcardinalfan on Dec 12, 2019 5:50:35 GMT -7
LEAVE OUT THE xenophobe STUFF!! Jeff,
Zaz made the comment not myself.
Please read more carefully that is Zaz's comment not mine.
I infact debunked his comment in my reply. Take a look back. You will see his comment.
Please quote him not me in your rebuttal. Thanks!my aplolgies. im a pc dummy and dont know how to just get part of a response to quote.
|
|
|
Post by Zaz on Dec 12, 2019 8:26:49 GMT -7
*For his era. The entire list is greats in relation to when they played. Theres all time great OL who played at 260 pounds. You wont find an OL nowadays an once less than 300. The context of everything matters. The majority of all older players could not play in todays game. The size, speed and skill has just gone up so far. You can't say that if you factor in those athletes having access to the same training facilities, regimen, etc. Even PED's. Make everything equal and most players can transverse any era. But they dont. Youre introducing fantasy. "If Johnny Unitas had the resources of Tom Brady then...". Well he didnt. Dan Marino played in the 1990s, going on 30 years ago now, and his numbers are phenomenal even by todays standards. So theres no excuse for the others.
|
|
|
Post by jonlp24 on Dec 12, 2019 14:48:26 GMT -7
Marlin Briscoe said Johnny Unitas or Joe Namath couldn't play in this era but Marlin said he could. ----- If he played in today’s NFL, Briscoe’s athleticism would be embraced and celebrated as Jackson’s has been. “It’s kind of bittersweet,“ Briscoe told me over the weekend, “because my style of play was like Russell Wilson’s and Jackson’s. But that wasn’t the style of play that fit the American ideology at that position. That position was the Joe Namath dropback, the Johnny Unitas dropback. They were great players but they wouldn’t have been able play today. Not with linebackers running 40-yard dashes in 4.5. seconds. With my style of play, I could play today. “I could’ve played back then,” he added. “The tide has changed.” www.google.com/amp/s/theundefeated.com/features/qb-pioneer-marlin-briscoe-sees-so-much-of-himself-in-lamar-jackson/amp/
|
|
|
Post by FLCardinalFan on Dec 12, 2019 16:31:44 GMT -7
|
|