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. pressboxer

    pressboxer Active Member

    Considering how many of them are now in their 70s, yeah, it wouldn't be very watchable.
  2. finishthehat

    finishthehat Active Member

    The point on the rules is a good one. Modern wide receivers, even the o-line, would be pretty taken aback at what the defense was allowed to do.

    Not arguing, of course, that modern ballplayers are much more developed as athletes, given science, training methods, etc.
  3. Captain_Kirk

    Captain_Kirk Well-Known Member

    It's an interesting point to consider. Yes, the athletes of 40 years later are better trained and conditioned that physically they would overwhelm the boys of yesteryear. But, Namath would probably still rate a high draft pick based on his arm. Matt Snell? Maybe a fullback in today's game (probably could be a pro bowler at that position. George Sauer--probably selling insurance.

    Basketball is where the greater degree of separation occurs. Chamberlain would still be a beast today. Baylor would be a star. Nate Thurmond would be a solid pro. Guys like Sharman and Larry Siegfried wouldn't ever smell the pro game.

    The interesting guys to consider are players like Don Maynard or John Havlicek. Could they be a solid contributor on a pro roster. I think so. But, certainly not all star material.
  4. ColdCat

    ColdCat Well-Known Member

    in that same vein, I was surprised when I stumbled upon this http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_cmp_perc_career.htm
    The career leaders in passing completion percentage in the NFL. If you look at the top 30, you won't see Joe Willie or Johnny U or Bart Starr, but you do see Shaun Hill and David Garrard.
    Everything in the passing game has gotten better in the NFL in the past 20 years or so. The QBs are more likely to have played in a passing oriented offense in high school and college so they are more comfortable throwing, the receivers have gotten quicker and better, the tactics have improved, and yes, the rules changes have been a big part of that.
    But it's still kind of jarring to see someone who 40 years ago was considered the greatest QB in the history of the game completed fewer of his passes than someone who would have trouble keeping his job today.
  5. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    Lester Hayes would make Chad 85 cry.

    Many of today's football players lacks the toughness of the players from the 40's-80's.

    If Mark Schlereth got head slapped by Deacon Jones, he wouldn't just piss his pants on the sidelines, he's wet them in the huddle.

    The receivers and QBs today are so coddled and protected, they wouldn't last a season in the 60's.

    BTW the '69 or '73 Knicks could beat the 2011 Heat.
  6. BYH

    BYH Active Member

    Wh-wh-wh-wh-wh-wh-wh-what did you say?
  7. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    Give today's defenses the 1960s rules, and 50 percent would be the league leading completion percentage. And John Havlicek would be an All-Star today, too. There's more talent compression in the NBA today, by which I mean players 7-12 on rosters are way better than back in the day. The top six, not so much.
  8. Stoney

    Stoney Well-Known Member

    If you think that's bad, try watching some early 60s NBA games. It's just staggering how completely different pro basketball was back then.

    One thing I've noticed when I've watched those old games is how the guys who were supposed to be transcendent talents are actually the only ones who look NORMAL to the modern eye. It's not Oscar Robertson's and Elgin Baylor's talent that strikes you, instead it's their familiarity--they're the only ones you recognize as moving and looking like real NBA players. Instead it's the OTHER guys that really grab your attention--the ones who can't dribble without looking at the ball, can't use their opposite hand, shoot flat-footed push shots, two handed set shots (still around as late as the early 60s), etc..--and make you say "WTF is this shit? THIS was the NBA?"

    If you ever hear oldtimers spew the "well, yes, today's players are physically superior--bigger, stronger, faster, etc.-- but back in the 60s players were more fundamentally sound, better shooters, passers, etc." crock, tell em it's utter bullshit. I've watched those games, they were far inferior at EVERYTHING--worse shooters, worse ballhandlers, MUCH worse defenders, and absent a few glaring exceptions (Wilt, Robertson, Baylor, Havlicek, Russell, West, etc.) SO far inferior physically and athletically that it's almost comical.
  9. poindexter

    poindexter Well-Known Member

    Oscar Robertson looked like a duck walking across the street when he dribbled. They could have used his body as a double for Carlton on Fresh Prince of Bel Air. Dribbled completely stiff.

    Dave DeBusschere's body couldn't have looked less toned. If he played today, I think he'd wipe the court with the lawyers playing at lunch at the Y. Maybe.
  10. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    DeBusschere would have stayed with baseball based on the money being thrown around.
  11. Brooklyn Bridge

    Brooklyn Bridge Well-Known Member

    I think the truly great players would not have a problem fitting in in any era. Do you think say Ray Lewis, Ronnie Lott and Anthony Munoz would have trouble adjusting to whatever offense/defense thrown at them?
  12. cyclingwriter

    cyclingwriter Active Member

    Nicely done.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page