The Jets-Colts Super Bowl - a tangent

Just a point on the Ted Williams and baseball stuff ... that of all sports hasn't changed much. Pitchers still throw pretty close to what they did back then in speed and the curves still bite the same amount. The only big difference is relievers and thus pitchers can throw full out more because they don't have to conserve for 7-9 innings.

 

Well, I do think it's important to note that if you placed a star of the past in todays game, you'd have to put that player in a modern frame of reference. In other words, a modern Joe Namath would have grown up playing 7-on-7 and he would have played his college ball for Nick Saban or he might have skipped Alabama altogether to play at pass-oriented programs like a Miami (if he played his college ball in 2000 or so), Texas or at USC, under Caroll (he'd be "Hollywood Joe").

Ted Williams would still be a lanky outfielder, but lanky these days means instead of being 6-3, 180, he would be 6-3, 210 with more lean muscle because players no longer believe the myth that weight training will make you slow (and, of course, they've gone WAY past that to the build-muscle-at-all-cost phase).

And while Ted's before-his-time observations about the mental aspect of hitting that were revolutionary for his time are now either cliche or outdated, the unusual personality that made him such an outlier in the way he thought the game then would likely make him ahead of the curve now in terms of the mental aspect of the game.

And the long swing that some say would not allow him to compete now? It wouldn't be that long because he would have adjusted it. Bonds had a long swing, but not as long as Williams because he adjusted it to modern pitching norms. Same with J.D. Drew. Same with Griffey, Jr.

Of course, this all goes back to the fallacy of comparing eras.

And Lester Hayes? Chad would eat him alive. On the first two plays, he'd get called for illegal contact and then he'd get ejected for stickum on the third play ;-).

 

If you consider dump and flare passes and throwing a 3-yard pass on 3rd-and-2 "better". Sure ain't all that exciting.

Unitas had seasons where he averaged 9.3 and 9.0 yards per attempt and 17.9 yards per completion.

Tom Brady's best numbers are 8.3 and 12.8.

Think about that. Even with defenses able to basically mug receivers their entire route, Unitas' best season was FIVE YARDS PER COMPLETION better than Brady's.

And regarding the overall look of the game . . .

The playing fields are as immaculate as you can get today, making for a faster track. Shoes are better. Uniforms are made of lighter materials. The Colts and Jets didn't exactly feature lightning-quick tailbacks, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist.

 

Bob Cousy would be Steve Nash today. He would have been running sprints, working out off-season, never touching cigs, etc etc, since high school.

Ted Williams would be Josh Hamilton. He would have hit the weights starting at age 12, and instead of being 6-4, 205, he would be 6-4, 235.

Joe Namath would be Eli Manning.

Johnny Unitas would be Kurt Warner (Coming out of college, Unitas, remember, bounced around a couple years playing semipro football before catching on with the Colts).

 

Lester Hayes played almost his entire career after the NFL changed the rules to open up the passing game. They stopped allowing contact more than five yards down field in 1978, if I remember correctly. Hayes' first season was 1977.

 

You're right. He'd still get tossed for the stickum though ;-)

 

Fair point. Just saying that when looking at quarterbacks, receivers and defensive backs, you really have to look at 1978 as a dividing line.

 

I'd venture to say that had Dallas not lost to Cleveland in the divisional round and faced Baltimore the following week, 1) the Cowboys would have defeated the Colts and 2) beat the hell of the Jets.

Dallas finished 12-2, led the NFL in points scored and second only to Baltimore in points allowed. The Cowboys played a more wide-open style and had WR Bob Hayes in his prime who would have wore out the Jets simply by his presence. Maynard and Sauer would not have been as successful on Mel Renfro (HOFer) and Cornell Green (one of the more underrated players of his era).

If Dallas had defeated New York:
*Tom Landry would have had the "next year's champion" monkey off his back and would have won at least 2-3 more Super Bowls than the two he did eventually get.

*The AFL would have still been viewed as the inferior product, which would have left Len Dawson in a less brash Joe Namath role.

*Namath would not have become the icon he eventually evolved into; in the same breath, Don Meredith perhaps sticks around a few more seasons, becomes a Hall of Famer and would have left a void for Monday Night Football that may not have been filled. Gifford, Cosell and....

In the spirit of the NFL Network's Missing Rings series, that '68 Cowboys team is right up there.

 

BTW, what makes anyone think that players from 25-50 years ago, if given today's scientific, technical and financial advantages wouldn't have evolved into players of today.

If Oscar Robertson had been born in 1984, maybe he'd be built like LeBron.

 

Excellent point, Abbott. It's like in golf, people comparing eras don't account for the fact it's very unlikely Ben Hogan would've chosen to play persimmon woods and the golf ball of 1948 if he was around in 2011. All human beings are limited in what they do by the tools their time gives them to do it.

 

Unlikely in this era that The Jets would have had Bill Baird and Jim Hudson as their safeties or Al Akinson as their MLB>

 

Hudson was a stud.