1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Jets-Colts Super Bowl - a tangent

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by poindexter, May 11, 2011.

  1. poindexter

    poindexter Well-Known Member

    This thread has nothing to do with the NY-centric nature of the 'greatest sports moments'...

    But since SB III was brought up so many times...
    Some network recently showed the NBC telecast of the game. I was astonished how completely and utterly inferior the NFL product was back in the day.

    The running backs were slow and plodding. The play calling was so conservative, it was to the right of Attila the Hun. The Colts were supposed to be the cream of the NFL. Long Beach Poly on a good year would blow them out of the water today.

    There was NOTHING attractive about Joe Willie Namath, Emerson Boozer, the Colts, or anything about the telecast. The good old days sucked balls compared to the NFL today.

    Ed Sabol's slow motion NFL Films can mask the crappiness of late 1960's pro football. But watching that dreck in real time exposes how horrible those games were.
  2. BYH

    BYH Active Member

  3. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Is your opinion based more on the athleticism or the X's and O's? More than any other sport, obviously, football evolves. I guess it's kind of like music. If you heard Nickelback first, you would hear Robert Johnson or Woody Guthrie and think, "Man, do these guys suck." But it's unfair to analyze it that way. So we realize that Robert Johnson and Woody Guthrie were awesome, and that Nickelback sucks. Even though RJ and Woody wouldn't even get a minute of airplay on late-night satellite radio if they were around today.

    P.S. Once had a big leaguer tell me that Ted Williams wouldn't be able to hit in the majors in the 2000s with his swing. Take that for what it's worth.
  4. poindexter

    poindexter Well-Known Member

    Spoiler Alert: The winning qb gets drunk and wants to kiss a sideline reporter.
  5. poindexter

    poindexter Well-Known Member

    Both athleticism and X's and O's.

    I really don't care about Woodie Guthrie or Nickelback. I firmly believe that pro football and the NBA doesn't hold a candle to today's game. The Jets or the Colts would get beat 73-0, and Bob Cousy couldn't start on a high school state champion team.

    Not sure about Ted Williams.
  6. Bob Cook

    Bob Cook Active Member

    He would stand frozen in the batter's box.
  7. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    The idea the athletes of yesteryear are inferior to today's is as ancient and foolish as the idea that the athletes of today couldn't hold a candle to the athletes of yesteryear. It was recognized AT THE TIME that Super Bowl III (and in fact, about the first 10 Super Bowls), was an inferior grade of NFL entertainment that just happened to be an historic upset. The rules were different. Try to run spread formations or the West Coast offense without blockers being allowed to extend their arms and use their hands, every team'd bury three quarterbacks a season. Players are bigger today, just as players of 1968 were bigger than players of 1925. But they weren't inherently better football players.
    PS: Good one, Cook.
  8. BrianGriffin

    BrianGriffin Active Member

    In other news, Einstein was as dumb as shit because he didn't understand dark energy and had never heard of parallel universes.
  9. shockey

    shockey Active Member

    simply because of the physical evolution of today's players/athletes i totally understand what you're saying. the nature of both football and basketball, with size and speed essential to both makes comparing teams in different eras ridiculously futile exercises.

    because baseball excellence is is not as dependent upon size and speed issues -- in any era it simply comes down to pitching (which hasn't evolve much at all) vs. a man swinging a piece of wood, the ol' goal of hitting that round ball square. it' mano vs. mano with the primary action supplied by guys who are pretty much stationery.

    again, football and basketball are true 'team' sports in which size and speed are much more essential and always evolving. i dunno precisely what your point is here; sure, if the '69 jets or colts or packers played today the game would seem antiquated. but it still pitted the best players/athletes of their time against each other.

    heck, fans in '69 made the exact same point about how laughable players/teams 20-30-40 years were, how slow and unathletic they were in comparison to 'modern' teams like the high-tecj jets or chiefs or raiders.

    no revelations in any of this, really...
  10. BYH

    BYH Active Member

    It's also hard to hit with no head.
  11. Bubbler

    Bubbler Active Member

    I wonder if Ted Williams had a no-head version of that batting average guide he created?


    "I have no head, so drop my average to .290 if the pitch is inside."
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2014
  12. poindexter

    poindexter Well-Known Member

    Today, both his balls are the ice-cold blue color.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page