G
Guest
Guest
Number1TideFan19 said:CtrlAltieDel said:
I meant '48... :?
You meant 1948? 1948 wasn't Army's best team. Do you have any idea what you are talking about? I don't believe you do.
| FTBL philosophical question
- Thread starter rnash
- Start date
You meant 1948? 1948 wasn't Army's best team. Do you have any idea what you are talking about? I don't believe you do.
'61 Bama defense >>>>>>> '92
G
Guest
Guest
TigerBait3 said:
? On paper it was. Physically, I doubt it. Each were the best in their era.
G
Guest
Guest
I may take some heat for this...
It is truly impossible to compare eras. No disrespect to greats of the past, but the pre 70's teams would be destroyed by any top 20 D3 team of today. I talked a bit about that issue in my first Trickle Down column. Sports nutrition and weight training have created super-athletes. Every team has linemen who weigh 300# and run 5 flat or better. Linebackers like McClain didn't exist...250# and run like gazelles?
If you look at the 1978 team, the biggest player on the team went 260 or so. Dwight Stephenson was 225 at Center. OT's Brock and Bunch were 230ish. They would not match up well against a middle of the road D1AA team today.
Looking at the great 1966 team, there is no comparison to modern day. Most of our offensive linemen were in the 200# range. The great defense from 1966 featured a line that was in the 200# range. There was only one backer on the team over 200#. As much as it hurts to say it, those teams would lose badly to South Panola High School. South Panola has as much or more talent on their roster than the entire 1966 NCAA Top 25 combined. While the Alabama players on the 1966 team would have South Panola beaten in age, the high schoolers would be so much bigger, stronger, and faster, that it would not be close.
Grit, determination, and competitive spirit, are qualities worth their weight in gold, but it reaches a point where pure physical superiority is insurmountable.
In perspective, if you had a time machine and could send a player off of this year's Bama team back through time, there is not one player on our 105 that would not start on the 1966 team, with the possible exception of QB. Snake was good, but then he didn't play against defenses that were as good as today. Facing smaller, slower competition, JPW (or any of our QBs) may be better than Stabler - but there is no way to know. Kenny was known for his ability to scramble, but I bet JP is significantly faster. He is taller and over 30# heavier. Heck, JPW is bigger than 24 of the 29 linemen on the 1966 roster, and probably stronger than all of them.
It is truly impossible to compare eras. No disrespect to greats of the past, but the pre 70's teams would be destroyed by any top 20 D3 team of today. I talked a bit about that issue in my first Trickle Down column. Sports nutrition and weight training have created super-athletes. Every team has linemen who weigh 300# and run 5 flat or better. Linebackers like McClain didn't exist...250# and run like gazelles?
If you look at the 1978 team, the biggest player on the team went 260 or so. Dwight Stephenson was 225 at Center. OT's Brock and Bunch were 230ish. They would not match up well against a middle of the road D1AA team today.
Looking at the great 1966 team, there is no comparison to modern day. Most of our offensive linemen were in the 200# range. The great defense from 1966 featured a line that was in the 200# range. There was only one backer on the team over 200#. As much as it hurts to say it, those teams would lose badly to South Panola High School. South Panola has as much or more talent on their roster than the entire 1966 NCAA Top 25 combined. While the Alabama players on the 1966 team would have South Panola beaten in age, the high schoolers would be so much bigger, stronger, and faster, that it would not be close.
Grit, determination, and competitive spirit, are qualities worth their weight in gold, but it reaches a point where pure physical superiority is insurmountable.
In perspective, if you had a time machine and could send a player off of this year's Bama team back through time, there is not one player on our 105 that would not start on the 1966 team, with the possible exception of QB. Snake was good, but then he didn't play against defenses that were as good as today. Facing smaller, slower competition, JPW (or any of our QBs) may be better than Stabler - but there is no way to know. Kenny was known for his ability to scramble, but I bet JP is significantly faster. He is taller and over 30# heavier. Heck, JPW is bigger than 24 of the 29 linemen on the 1966 roster, and probably stronger than all of them.
Obviously athletes are better, but those athletes would have trained themselves to be bigger and better if they played teams in this decade but they didnt.Big_Fan said:
Id love to see a a ton of today's fat linemen try to get down and use blocking techniques like the crab block and not be able to use their hands the way they do today. Defensive linemen would blow by them.
Apples and oranges.
G
Guest
Guest
TigerBait3 said:
Actually, those fat linemen are faster than the 200# linemen were in the 60's...and most 280-300# linemen today are really not that fat. They are so strong that they could level the 200# 60's guys with a single closed fist block.
Well, thats why I said fat -- meaning the ones that really are fat.Big_Fan said:
I'm obviously not trying to say the athletes in the sixties are better than today's.
it's hard to be meaner than a guy who is 10 yards ahead of you out running your arse..
speed, strength, and size will always prevail..
honestly, do you not think that today's players would love to have the freedom of insane violence that the players of the past had?..
speed, strength, and size will always prevail..
honestly, do you not think that today's players would love to have the freedom of insane violence that the players of the past had?..
bamatommy said:
That was going to be my comment as well.
Different eras, different types of football. Look at the 60's with guys like Jerry Duncan not even 200 pounds playing offensive tackle. He couldnt do it today. Of course in the 60's no one weighed 300+ pounds.
Respect the history of the game, but lets not try to mash them together.
This comes close:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=76913
I agree though. Players are soft today. You want an example of toughness over speed? Look at West Virginia's offense this year without Owen Schmidt (sp?). A player can be as athletic as all get out but unless he likes to hit he won't be a very good football player. You can have 3 or 4 of them on your team but if you have a team full of these type players you won't be very successful.
You can call today's player's soft if you want, but today's college players with pro potential stand to lose quite a bit if they risk playing with a nagging injury. A simple pulled muscle can develop in something much more serious -- especially if you are overcompensating for the injury by overusing another part of your body.
Missing one or two games with something minor affects your draft status far less than missing a season with a major injury.
Sometimes you have to back up and look at the bigger picture.
Missing one or two games with something minor affects your draft status far less than missing a season with a major injury.
Sometimes you have to back up and look at the bigger picture.
That's a good point but only about 4% of D1 players actually go pro.
Red_Tsunami said:
Understood, but I'd guess that about 6-8% have a realistic chance to be drafted or sign as a free agent at some point by somebody. Don't forget about the Canadian league and Arena Football League. They both employ college football players.
Besides, it's that 4-8% that we would most likely focus on when it comes to debating the legitimacy of an injury. A third string safety may not dress for a game, because of a groin pull, but most of us will never know and fewer of us will ever care.
