ilduce06410
Third String But Playing on Special Teams
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2005
- Messages
- 898
- Reaction score
- 0
the time machine
it's ok in baseball and in hockey, with some changes in equipment.
but in football, you have this size/speed question.
was ray nitshcke a lesser player than mike singletary? raymond berry vs michael irvin? jim parker vs orlando pace? tom landry vs ed reed?
for me, if those guys from the '50s and '60s played today, they wouldnd't BE the part-time undertrained guys they were then. first, they'd work year-round 'cause they could afford to. they wowuldn't be selling cars in the off season. second, they'd use the weight programs that modern-day athletes are. third, they'd have 21st century nutrition practices. fourth, they wouldn't have had half-assed training from part-time coaches in college.
raymond berry would have run a 4.5. nitschke would have been 2 steps quicker at 250 lbs. jim parker would have been a solid 300 lbs.
i don't think you can fairly compare yesterdays players with today's people unless you update the ENVIRONMENT athletes played in in the '50s, '60, and '70s. not their skills, or athletic ability, just their standard of living and training.
i think that's reasonable when you look at mike garrett vs tiki barber, or jack ham vs mike vrabel.
your point is only a consideration for "greatest" teams in football, i think. i'd be comfortable putting john havlicek on the floor with jordan, nate archibald with allan iverson. luke jackson of 1967 could easily pug with ben wallace. chamberlain-shaq would be memorable.Fanfrom1960 said:That was a great team with a lot of HOFers, but, as others have been saying, players now are bigger, faster and stronger. That Pittsburgh team had two linebackers that played at 225 and 215 pounds (Ham and Lambert respectively). Today, they'd have to bulk up, or play safety, or not make the team, any team. You really have to compare teams within a period of 10 - 15 years or so, I think.
Another thing, the best pash rusher on the early great 49er teams, probably also best of his time, Fred Dean, weighed about 225 pounds, at DE.
it's ok in baseball and in hockey, with some changes in equipment.
but in football, you have this size/speed question.
was ray nitshcke a lesser player than mike singletary? raymond berry vs michael irvin? jim parker vs orlando pace? tom landry vs ed reed?
for me, if those guys from the '50s and '60s played today, they wouldnd't BE the part-time undertrained guys they were then. first, they'd work year-round 'cause they could afford to. they wowuldn't be selling cars in the off season. second, they'd use the weight programs that modern-day athletes are. third, they'd have 21st century nutrition practices. fourth, they wouldn't have had half-assed training from part-time coaches in college.
raymond berry would have run a 4.5. nitschke would have been 2 steps quicker at 250 lbs. jim parker would have been a solid 300 lbs.
i don't think you can fairly compare yesterdays players with today's people unless you update the ENVIRONMENT athletes played in in the '50s, '60, and '70s. not their skills, or athletic ability, just their standard of living and training.
i think that's reasonable when you look at mike garrett vs tiki barber, or jack ham vs mike vrabel.












