Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby bambam » Tue Dec 28, 2010 8:41 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Marlow wrote:As for the 'apron' crack, you DO realize that a concussion is a nice name for brain damage, yes? Trying to minimize brain damage is for wusses? Really? The helmet-to-helmet rulings were long overdue.

I'm all for minimizing concussions and punishing the headhunters, but I don't think you should punish folks for incidental contact. Dick "Night Train" Lane never tackled below the head, and therefore, he couldn't play in the NFL if I were charge, and neither could Geirge Atkinson. However, I saw an Eagles defensive linemen get penalized for stripping the ball from Peyton Manning when the tip of his finger barely touched Manning's helmet. I saw Ray Lewis get penalized when a Bengals offensive lineman blocked him into Carson Palmer and his feet hit Palmer's feet causing Palmer to trip after he had already thrown the ball. It seems that Roger Goodell, who never played football at any level, has sent out a directive to all referees to conflate incidental contact with deliberate contact, and anyone who has ever played the game knows how ridiculous that is. Race car drivers don't get penalized for causing crashes unless their actions were deliberate and malicious and that's the way it should be. No one was punished when Dale Earhardt got killed because it is the life that they have chosen.

Another thing that's not being addressed is ball carriers who put their heads down in order to take on a tackler the way Adrian Peterson does. Why should running backs be exempt from being penalized and fined for helmet-to-helmet contact when they're the ones causing it many times?


What he said.

As usual, Jazzy and I agree almost completely on this.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Avante » Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:59 am

When football came about guys didn't have 4.3 speed on a 200 plus pound body. There wasn't fake and hard grass. Things are different than when even Roger the Dodger played. Size with speed again.....big difference. I think the players today take far more punishment week in week out than they ever have and it's only going to get worst. Roger wasn't running from linebackers who could out run him. The players today are bigger, faster, meaner, tuffer, stronger than ever before. So yes somethings have to change to keep them able to play. Put these guys today in with those that Roger played with/against and I doubt they wuss out.
Avante
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Marlow » Tue Dec 28, 2010 10:07 am

Avante wrote:The players today are bigger, faster, meaner, tuffer, stronger than ever before. So yes somethings have to change to keep them able to play. Put these guys today in with those that Roger played with/against and I doubt they wuss out.

The problem is that the soft tissues in knees and the fragility of brains have stayed the same, while the rest of the body got MUCH bigger and faster. If you hit an at-speed (4.7) Cam Newton (6-6, 250 pounds) with any large (6-6, 260) fast (4.7) middle linebacker at full speed, the weaker parts will have to pay the price. Knees and brains, knees and brains.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21133
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Avante » Tue Dec 28, 2010 10:37 am

Marlow wrote:
Avante wrote:The players today are bigger, faster, meaner, tuffer, stronger than ever before. So yes somethings have to change to keep them able to play. Put these guys today in with those that Roger played with/against and I doubt they wuss out.

The problem is that the soft tissues in knees and the fragility of brains have stayed the same, while the rest of the body got MUCH bigger and faster. If you hit an at-speed (4.7) Cam Newton (6-6, 250 pounds) with any large (6-6, 260) fast (4.7) middle linebacker at full speed, the weaker parts will have to pay the price. Knees and brains, knees and brains.


I think that's pretty obvious.

The thing is that Roger never played vs the kind of defenders out there right now. There's a big difference banging 320 pounds than 280 pounders. So good old Rog needs to cool the wuss talk.
Avante
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:21 am

Avante wrote:The thing is that Roger never played vs the kind of defenders out there right now. There's a big difference banging 320 pounds than 280 pounders. So good old Rog needs to cool the wuss talk.

I'll tell you a few things that Roger did played with:

    1) Cornerbacks like Mel Blount who were allowed to mug his receivers all the way down the field because bump-and-run coverage hadn't been outlawed yet.
    2) Defensive lineman like Deacon Jones who were allowed to throw brain-rattling head-slaps to the head of his offensive lineman because that hadn't been outlawed yet either.
    3) Offensive lineman who didn't have the benefit of playing with today's very liberal pass blocking rules that would have been called holding every time back in the 60's and 70's.
    4) Defensive players that had the freedom to do whatever they wanted to do to quarterback until the quarterback had thrown the ball or was on the ground, because they didn't have the fear of a five or six-figure fine lurking around in the back of their heads, or even worse, fear of being suspended for a game and taking a six or seven-figure financial hit.
By the way, while we're talking about Roger Staubach, I've come upon a very fair and analytical way to compare quarterbacks from different generations by comparing his career passer efficiency rating to the NFL's average passer efficiency rating during the time he played. I'll provide the data later, but I will tell you that Steve Young was #1, Staubach #2 and Joe Montana #3. Young and Staubach had career ratings 20+ points above the league average while Montana was just under them at 19+ points. Johnny Unitas and Bart Starr were ranked right behind Montana in the 15-16 point range. Two quarterbacks that were very mediocre using this criteria were John Elway and Terry Bradshaw, both barely above the league average for their careers.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Avante » Tue Dec 28, 2010 12:59 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Avante wrote:The thing is that Roger never played vs the kind of defenders out there right now. There's a big difference banging 320 pounds than 280 pounders. So good old Rog needs to cool the wuss talk.

I'll tell you a few things that Roger did played with:

    1) Cornerbacks like Mel Blount who were allowed to mug his receivers all the way down the field because bump-and-run coverage hadn't been outlawed yet.
    2) Defensive lineman like Deacon Jones who were allowed to throw brain-rattling head-slaps to the head of his offensive lineman because that hadn't been outlawed yet either.
    3) Offensive lineman who didn't have the benefit of playing with today's very liberal pass blocking rules that would have been called holding every time back in the 60's and 70's.
    4) Defensive players that had the freedom to do whatever they wanted to do to quarterback until the quarterback had thrown the ball or was on the ground, because they didn't have the fear of a five or six-figure fine lurking around in the back of their heads, or even worse, fear of being suspended for a game and taking a six or seven-figure financial hit.
By the way, while we're talking about Roger Staubach, I've come upon a very fair and analytical way to compare quarterbacks from different generations by comparing his career passer efficiency rating to the NFL's average passer efficiency rating during the time he played. I'll provide the data later, but I will tell you that Steve Young was #1, Staubach #2 and Joe Montana #3. Young and Staubach had career ratings 20+ points above the league average while Montana was just under them at 19+ points. Johnny Unitas and Bart Starr were ranked right behind Montana in the 15-16 point range. Two quarterbacks that were very mediocre using this criteria were John Elway and Terry Bradshaw, both barely above the league average for their careers.



The game today is so much faster/quicker than it was back in Staubachs day. The players hit harder with more velocity. Totally different deal. QB's take far more punishment than they did. That's goes with bigger, faster, stronger athletes involved.

We can always go with who was best in their era. It does end there however. Otto Graham was amazing in his day. Would he be amazing today...nope! Would Slingin' Sammy Baugh be a stud QB in 2011...nope! A punter...yep!

We can't do anything realistic other than leave an athlete in his era and judge him vs his real competition. I do believe a guy like Lance Alworth would still be blazing past defenders. Bob Hayes would still be burning defenders. Deacon Jones wouldn't be the monster he was. Dick Butkus would be rather normal. Jimmy Brown wouldn't average over 5 yards a carry....guarantee it
Avante
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Dec 28, 2010 1:49 pm

Avante, you completely ignored the points I brought up. My stance is that if the best football players of yore were playing today, they would have the same advantages - rules, training regimens, nutrition, medecine, PED's (both legal and illegal) - of today's athletes, and thus they would be just as dominant today as they were then, since the human species has not evolved a measurable amount over the last 40-50 years. Got that! The human species has not evolved a measurable amount over the last 40-50 years. Furthermore, I would argue that the increase in the size of the linemen has a lot to do with the rule changes and the evolution of the game. Could today's offensive linemen done the all the pulling that Jerry Kramer, Reggie McKenzie and Larry Little did throughout the course of a game? Hell no!

By the way, how much bigger are Desean Jackson, Michael Vick, Drew Brees and Chris Johnson than their counterparts from Lombardi's era? How much smaller are Jim Brown, Harold Carmichel and Bubba Smith than their counterparts from this era? How much faster and quicker are Tom Brady and Peyton Manning than Roger Staubach and Fran Tarkenton?

The only time I give credence to these "athletes-today-are-better" arguments is when those athletes are competing in a deeper talent pool than the athletes of yore. For example, not only did Babe Ruth not compete against Black players, he didn't compete against Hispanic players and Oriental players either. The same goes with Paavo Nurmi and Emil Zatopek, that doesn't hold for Roger Staubach and Jim Brown who competed against the same talent pool as today's athletes.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Dutra » Tue Dec 28, 2010 5:58 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:At least Staubach only called modern football players wussies, but Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell has called the entire nation wussies after the postponement of last night's Vikings-Eagles game.

It goes against everything that football is all about. My biggest beef is that this is part of what's happened in this country. . . . . We've become a nation of wusses. The Chinese are kicking our butt in everything. If this was in China do you think the Chinese would have called off the game? People would have been marching down to the stadium, they would have walked and they would have been doing calculus on the way down.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5960674

Maybe this is the kind old school politician we need in the White House.


Wasn't there a state of emergency declared in Philly?
Dutra
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Marlow » Tue Dec 28, 2010 6:45 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:The human species has not evolved a measurable amount over the last 40-50 years.

Talk about a non-sequitur! This is not a what-if game. We're talking about players today who are MUCH, MUCH bigger and faster and stronger than 40-50 years ago! That has nothing today with evolution. It has everything to do with nutrition and training. This year's Auburn would beat Lombardi's Packers of Super Bowl I - the best pro team of less than 50 years ago. Cam Newton would terrorize the Pack's defense, which was awesome for its day.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21133
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Dec 28, 2010 7:20 pm

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:The human species has not evolved a measurable amount over the last 40-50 years.

Talk about a non-sequitur! This is not a what-if game. We're talking about players today who are MUCH, MUCH bigger and faster and stronger than 40-50 years ago! That has nothing today with evolution. It has everything to do with nutrition and training. This year's Auburn would beat Lombardi's Packers of Super Bowl I - the best pro team of less than 50 years ago. Cam Newton would terrorize the Pack's defense, which was awesome for its day.

Either you didn't understand the original point I was trying to make or you don't know what a non-sequitur is.
By the way, while we're talking about Roger Staubach, I've come upon a very fair and analytical way to compare quarterbacks from different generations by comparing his career passer efficiency rating to the NFL's average passer efficiency rating during the time he played.

My stance is that if the best football players of yore were playing today, they would have the same advantages - rules, training regimens, nutrition, medecine, PED's (both legal and illegal) - of today's athletes, and thus they would be just as dominant today as they were then, since the human species has not evolved a measurable amount over the last 40-50 years.

If Lombardi's Packers had all been born 45 years later, they would be just as dominant today as they were then because today's players would not have any advantages over them. If any thing, the Packers would be better than today's NFL teams, since Lombardi didn't have to deal with free agency and a strong players' union. Trying to compare the Auburn Tigers, a good but not dominant college team, to the Packers is ridiculous. Since there has been no measureable evolution in the last 45 years and there has been no deepening of the talent pool, it's illogical to think that today's players would have a size, speed or strength advantage over the players of yore.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Marlow » Tue Dec 28, 2010 7:35 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:If Lombardi's Packers

You lost me at 'if'. I've been talking about the REALITY of today's game. Even with the new rules, it's a much more dangerous game than back 'when', when the pro players were smaller, slower and weaker than today's better D1 college players.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21133
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby guru » Tue Dec 28, 2010 7:37 pm

Dutra wrote:Wasn't there a state of emergency declared in Philly?



Only after the NFL postponed the game, and well before a single flake hit the ground.

Prior to the postponement the mayor made it clear the city could easily accommodate the game with the expected storm, and as it turned out the Philly area missed the brunt of the storm, which hit further up the coast. There was a grand total of 5 inches of snow on the ground at the time of the cancelled game.

Now NBC is quoting unnamed sources saying the Eagles did not want to PLAY in Sunday's weather(understandable, as snow is not exactly M. Vick weather), and pushed for the postponement. Good to see the Vikes handing them their butts heading into the 4th...
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Dec 28, 2010 8:23 pm

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:If Lombardi's Packers

You lost me at 'if'. I've been talking about the REALITY of today's game. Even with the new rules, it's a much more dangerous game than back 'when', when the pro players were smaller, slower and weaker than today's better D1 college players.

If one of today's teams had to go back into the 60's and play just one Sunday by the rules of that day, I think they would be in for a rude awakening despite their size, strength and speed advantage. Between, the stricter pass blocking rules and the defensive linemen wopping them up side the head, the offensive lineman would get called for holding or get their quarterback killed on every play. Furthermore, the receivers would struggle to get open with unrestricted bump-and-run coverage. If Belichick' Patriots only had a week to prepare, my money would be on Lombardi's Packers. Of course, the more games they played, the better they would become until their generational advantages tipped the scales in their favor.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Dutra » Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:10 pm

guru wrote:
Dutra wrote:Wasn't there a state of emergency declared in Philly?



Only after the NFL postponed the game, and well before a single flake hit the ground.

Prior to the postponement the mayor made it clear the city could easily accommodate the game with the expected storm, and as it turned out the Philly area missed the brunt of the storm, which hit further up the coast. There was a grand total of 5 inches of snow on the ground at the time of the cancelled game.


So the mayor said the city could accommodate the game then declared a state of emergency which, in short, means in part to stay off the roads and streets? So basically we can play the game however don't go out on the streets? That makes no sense and how much snow actually did fall matters not at all.

Something is missing from this story. Were any other events cancelled in Philly that night?
Dutra
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Dutra » Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:12 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:If Lombardi's Packers

You lost me at 'if'. I've been talking about the REALITY of today's game. Even with the new rules, it's a much more dangerous game than back 'when', when the pro players were smaller, slower and weaker than today's better D1 college players.

If one of today's teams had to go back into the 60's and play just one Sunday by the rules of that day, I think they would be in for a rude awakening despite their size, strength and speed advantage. Between, the stricter pass blocking rules and the defensive linemen wopping them up side the head, the offensive lineman would get called for holding or get their quarterback killed on every play. Furthermore, the receivers would struggle to get open with unrestricted bump-and-run coverage. If Belichick' Patriots only had a week to prepare, my money would be on Lombardi's Packers. Of course, the more games they played, the better they would become until their generational advantages tipped the scales in their favor.


When the kids on my son's HS team are over and some "old" film comes on TV of games in the 60's they usually declare that they (the HSers) could probably beat them.

Teams in the NFL today would wipe the floor with the old guys.
Dutra
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby guru » Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:22 pm

Dutra wrote:So the mayor said the city could accommodate the game then declared a state of emergency which, in short, means in part to stay off the roads and streets? So basically we can play the game however don't go out on the streets? That makes no sense and how much snow actually did fall matters not at all.



Important to note it was a SNOW emergency, not state of emergency. Snow emergency is more related to parking issues, and making sure streets are cleared of parked vehicles so plows can do their work.

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/loc ... 69984.html

I suspect had the game gone on as scheduled they would have held off on the snow emergency declaration until after it was over.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:43 pm

Dutra wrote:When the kids on my son's HS team are over and some "old" film comes on TV of games in the 60's they usually declare that they (the HSers) could probably beat them.

I'm guessing those same kids would also declare that they would beat Bob Hayes and Jesse Owens. Afterall, Jacoby Ford and Trindon Holliday are both faster than those old timers were.
Dutra wrote:Teams in the NFL today would wipe the floor with the old guys.

Since the players from the 60's are probably at least 70 years old or dead, you're probably right. :wink:
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Avante » Wed Dec 29, 2010 2:17 am

Jazz

Jim Brown was 6-2 228 with 4.5ish speed vs defenders far smaller/slower/weaker than we see today. Fran Tarkenton and Roger Staubach could out run most linebackers back then. Then there's the monster Marion Mottley who dragged tacklers as did tight end John Mackey. Would Tarkenton/Staubach out run todays backers....nope! Do Mottley/Mackey drag guys around today....nope! It's a totally different game and if you wanna believe those old timers are still as dominant go for it. I prefer reality. The reason those guys were dominant was because of the competition they faced. You mentioned Chris Johnson. He's a 4.2 guy. Now what starting back in Brown's day ran a 4.2? It wasn't Dick Bass, Don Perkins, Jim Taylor, Timmy Brown, Lenny Moore or.......who? If Johnson went back in time( let's fantasize) he'd be running for 200 yards a game vs those defenders back then. The fastest db in the league was a cat named Leonard Lyles with the then Baltimore Colts. He was a 9.5ish guy while at Louisville. What 's that a 10.4ish?

My 17 year old son is already taller than I am. Come on man you honestly don't see it?

Look at Cam Newton, he's 6-6 240-250 pounds and can run. Then there's Tim Tebow. What old timer reminds you of them? Johnny Unitas, Y.A Tittle, Sonny Jurgenson, Norm Snead, Bart Starr? Sure Tarkenton could run around but who is he running over?

Jazz, things are totally different today if you can't see that.......why? It's that size with speed thing. Look at Curtis Johnson, Andre Johnson, Terrell Owens, Randy Moss etc etc. Those kinds of athletes simply didn't exist in the 60's/70's. Harold Carmichael was no speedster. Otis Taylor was close.
Avante
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Dutra » Wed Dec 29, 2010 6:59 am

guru wrote:
Dutra wrote:So the mayor said the city could accommodate the game then declared a state of emergency which, in short, means in part to stay off the roads and streets? So basically we can play the game however don't go out on the streets? That makes no sense and how much snow actually did fall matters not at all.



Important to note it was a SNOW emergency, not state of emergency. Snow emergency is more related to parking issues, and making sure streets are cleared of parked vehicles so plows can do their work.


Ok. That makes a lot more sense.
Dutra
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 29, 2010 7:19 am

Avante wrote:Would Tarkenton/Staubach out run todays backers....nope!

Why not? Michael Vick is doing the same thing today? Avante, the thing you keep overlooking is the fact that all of the advanatges you point to are generational, not evolutionary. In my hypothetical football games, the generational advantages are completely ignored, since I imagine how things might have been if a specific athlete was born at a different point in time. However, I do consider things like the size of the talent pool and evolution if those factors are relevant to the debate.

Here's a question for you and Marlow. How do you compare folks like Bob Hayes and Jess Owens to today's sprinters? Would they be able to compete with Tyson Gay, Usain Bolt and Asafa Powell if they had been born in the 1980's? I say yes for the same reasons that I say the old time football players would be able to compete, but you might have other ideas?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Marlow » Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:07 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Here's a question for you and Marlow. How do you compare folks like Bob Hayes and Jess Owens to today's sprinters? Would they be able to compete with Tyson Gay, Usain Bolt and Asafa Powell if they had been born in the 1980's? I say yes for the same reasons that I say the old time football players would be able to compete, but you might have other ideas?

Both Owens and Hayes were genetic freaks - WAY ahead of their times (as is Bolt today). Hayes could certainly sprint today and he'd still be a huge receiver threat in the pros. Owens wouldn't be in the league with Bolt or Gay, but yeah, he could hang. But they were head and shoulders (and torso) ahead of their peers.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21133
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 29, 2010 9:25 am

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Here's a question for you and Marlow. How do you compare folks like Bob Hayes and Jess Owens to today's sprinters? Would they be able to compete with Tyson Gay, Usain Bolt and Asafa Powell if they had been born in the 1980's? I say yes for the same reasons that I say the old time football players would be able to compete, but you might have other ideas?

Both Owens and Hayes were genetic freaks - WAY ahead of their times (as is Bolt today). Hayes could certainly sprint today and he'd still be a huge receiver threat in the pros. Owens wouldn't be in the league with Bolt or Gay, but yeah, he could hang. But they were head and shoulders (and torso) ahead of their peers.

I knew I would get through to you eventually. You've used a good phrase - "genetic freak". The genetic freaks from the days of yore would be bigger, faster and stronger genetic freaks if they had been around today since they would have had the same generational advantages as today's athletes. For example, I don't think that Trindon Holliday would be able to beat Bob Hayes in the 100 meters if Hayes was around today, despite the fact that Holliday has run faster that Hayes's PR on numerous occasions. Similarly, Jim Brown was a genetic freak and if his clone were born today, he would be bigger than 6'2" - 232 and faster than 4.5s.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Marlow » Wed Dec 29, 2010 9:33 am

jazzcyclist wrote:I knew I would get through to you eventually. You've used a good phrase - "genetic freak". The genetic freaks from the days of yore would be bigger, faster and stronger genetic freaks if they had been around today since they would have had the same generational advantages as today's athletes. For example, I don't think that Trindon Holliday would be able to beat Bob Hayes in the 100 meters if Hayes was around today, despite the fact that Holliday has run faster that Hayes's PR on numerous occasions. Similarly, Jim Brown was a genetic freak and if his clone were born today, he would be bigger than 6'2" - 232 and faster than 4.5s.

I was never 'inaccessible'. Simple logic works every time! :D
I agree that Hayes would beat Holliday (and Demps), but that's just because the tracks, shoes, and technical aspects of sprinting have improved. Jim Brown would still be 6'2, but he'd be 250 (more time in the weight room) and faster (same reason). He'd still be a premier back in the NFL, but mostly due to his superior 'vision', a vastly underrated 'talent' for RBs. The guy that recognizes where the holes are and how they are developing is a great asset.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21133
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Dutra » Wed Dec 29, 2010 9:40 am

jazzcyclist wrote:If one of today's teams had to go back into the 60's and play just one Sunday by the rules of that day, I think they would be in for a rude awakening despite their size, strength and speed advantage. Between, the stricter pass blocking rules and the defensive linemen wopping them up side the head, the offensive lineman would get called for holding or get their quarterback killed on every play. Furthermore, the receivers would struggle to get open with unrestricted bump-and-run coverage. If Belichick' Patriots only had a week to prepare, my money would be on Lombardi's Packers. Of course, the more games they played, the better they would become until their generational advantages tipped the scales in their favor.



You're bouncing all over the place. Do the current players have the size, strength and speed advantage or not. In some responses you couch your point by stating directly or implying that the players of yesteryear would have all the advantages of today's players and in others you declare that today's players are bigger and stronger, etc and the rules and toughness would even things out.

If your stating that yesterday's players placed in today's society would be the equal athletically of today's players I'd agree with you to some degree. If your stating that their abilities in their own times would remain the same then today's players would absolutely wipe the floor with the old guys.
Dutra
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Avante » Wed Dec 29, 2010 9:55 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Avante wrote:Would Tarkenton/Staubach out run todays backers....nope!

Why not? Michael Vick is doing the same thing today? Avante, the thing you keep overlooking is the fact that all of the advanatges you point to are generational, not evolutionary. In my hypothetical football games, the generational advantages are completely ignored, since I imagine how things might have been if a specific athlete was born at a different point in time. However, I do consider things like the size of the talent pool and evolution if those factors are relevant to the debate.

Here's a question for you and Marlow. How do you compare folks like Bob Hayes and Jess Owens to today's sprinters? Would they be able to compete with Tyson Gay, Usain Bolt and Asafa Powell if they had been born in the 1980's? I say yes for the same reasons that I say the old time football players would be able to compete, but you might have other ideas?


Jesse Owens was beaten many times in the 100. He was not all that as a sprinter....honest! You can actually make a case for Metcalfe being the better sprinter. Then there's Eulace Peacock. Owens was an amazing long jumper.

Bob Hayes competed against...

Harry Jerome
Roger Sayers
Trenton Jackson
Mel Pender
Gerry Ashworth
Bernie Rivers
Darel Newman
John Moon
Nate Adams
Paul Drayton
Richard Stebbins
Enrique Figuerola

...only Jerome/Figuerola would be considered a great 100 sprinter. Not knocking Bullet Bob. He was a big and powerful as anyone sprinting today. He just wouldn't shine vs the quality of sprinter today like he did back in the day. I do however see him in the mix something I can't say about any of those others not even Jerome.Figuerola. Bullet Bob was head and shoulders above his USA competition.

Bob Hayes and Jim Brown are still talked about when the greats are discussed. They probably could compete vs any era, not that they'd dominate. Jimmy Brown is not running over these guys today like he did those guys back when. He is not blowing by these db's today like he did those db's. He was already big and and fast.
Avante
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Marlow » Wed Dec 29, 2010 11:40 am

Avante wrote:Jimmy Brown is not running over these guys today like he did those guys back when. He is not blowing by these db's today like he did those db's. He was already big and and fast.

There's two different questions here.
1. If you time-traveled Jim Brown to today, let him work from pre-season camp on, he'd still be among the league leaders in rushing.
2. If you time-traveled him as a new-born to 1985 and saw him play today at 25, yeah, he'd be THE Man.

If you did the same to Hayes, plopped him intact into a fall 2010 work-out prior to the 2011 season, he'd be right behind Bolt and Gay. Have him born in 1985 and still a pro at 25? He'd be right on Bolt's butt, ahead of Gay.

Athletes today are not only better because of weight training, nutrition, and training techniques today, there's just lots more of them, raised from an earlier age to specialize in A sport.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21133
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Avante » Wed Dec 29, 2010 11:53 am

Marlow wrote:
Avante wrote:Jimmy Brown is not running over these guys today like he did those guys back when. He is not blowing by these db's today like he did those db's. He was already big and and fast.

There's two different questions here.
1. If you time-traveled Jim Brown to today, let him work from pre-season camp on, he'd still be among the league leaders in rushing.
2. If you time-traveled him as a new-born to 1985 and saw him play today at 25, yeah, he'd be THE Man.

If you did the same to Hayes, plopped him intact into a fall 2010 work-out prior to the 2011 season, he'd be right behind Bolt and Gay. Have him born in 1985 and still a pro at 25? He'd be right on Bolt's butt, ahead of Gay.

Athletes today are not only better because of weight training, nutrition, and training techniques today, there's just lots more of them, raised from an earlier age to specialize in A sport.



When it comes to Jimmy Brown/Bob Hayes and Tommie Smith it's really hard to do anything disrespectful. They were totally...wow! Those three were just as physically gifted as anyone today, the thing is we can't say that about 95% of those they competed against. MOST....those oldies wouldn't make it today under and scenario/time machine. Jimmy Brown would still be a load, Hayes would still be one of the fastest in the league, Smith would still be...."The Jet" I don't think they would be as awe inspiring as they were however. The competition isn't the same.
Avante
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Marlow » Wed Dec 29, 2010 12:32 pm

Avante wrote:When it comes to Jimmy Brown/Bob Hayes and Tommie Smith it's really hard to do anything disrespectful. They were totally...wow! Those three were just as physically gifted as anyone today, the thing is we can't say that about 95% of those they competed against. MOST....those oldies wouldn't make it today under and scenario/time machine. Jimmy Brown would still be a load, Hayes would still be one of the fastest in the league, Smith would still be...."The Jet" I don't think they would be as awe inspiring as they were however. The competition isn't the same.

Dawn of a new age - we totally agree. :D
Marlow
 
Posts: 21133
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 29, 2010 12:40 pm

Marlow wrote:1. If you time-traveled Jim Brown to today, let him work from pre-season camp on, he'd still be among the league leaders in rushing.
2. If you time-traveled him as a new-born to 1985 and saw him play today at 25, yeah, he'd be THE Man.


If you did the same to Hayes, plopped him intact into a fall 2010 work-out prior to the 2011 season, he'd be right behind Bolt and Gay. Have him born in 1985 and still a pro at 25? He'd be right on Bolt's butt, ahead of Gay.

That's what I've been saying all along.

    Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
    That saved a wretch like Marlow.
    He once was lost but now is found,
    Was blind, but now he sees.
:wink:
Marlow wrote:Athletes today are not only better because of weight training, nutrition, and training techniques today, there's just lots more of them, raised from an earlier age to specialize in A sport.

Good points! Back in those days, not only did Hayes not have to compete against Caribbean and African sprinters, but the financial incentives in sports is so much greater today than it was in those days. The average NFL football salary was probably not significantly higher than the salary of the average American worker back in Jim Brown's day. Based on the total inflation of 590.23% in the American economy from 1965 to 2010, Jim Brown maximum salary of $75,000 would only be $442,672.50 today. However, the 2010 league minimum for a player with 7-9 years of experience is $760,000! So even with adjustments for inflation, Jim Brown, arguably the greatest player of all-times, made barely half of the league minimum when he played.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 29, 2010 12:53 pm

Avante wrote:When it comes to Jimmy Brown/Bob Hayes and Tommie Smith it's really hard to do anything disrespectful. They were totally...wow! Those three were just as physically gifted as anyone today, the thing is we can't say that about 95% of those they competed against. MOST....those oldies wouldn't make it today under and scenario/time machine. Jimmy Brown would still be a load, Hayes would still be one of the fastest in the league, Smith would still be...."The Jet" I don't think they would be as awe inspiring as they were however. The competition isn't the same.

I basically agree with this, but I would also add that very few of today's athletes are freaks. Certainly Michael Vick is a freak, but I don't think there's anything exceptional about Peyton Manning or Tom Brady other than they're a little bigger the quarterbacks of Staubach's era due to nutrition and medicine. Julius Peppers is also a freak, but how many of today's athletes fit in his category? 5%? 7%? 10%? The freaks from any era would have been freaks regardless of when they were born.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Marlow » Wed Dec 29, 2010 1:56 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
    Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
    That saved a wretch like Marlow.
    He once was lost but now is found,
    Was blind, but now he sees.

My life is complete
Sweet redemption has found me
Nothing is so sweet
As jazzcyclist's amnesty
Marlow
 
Posts: 21133
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:30 am

Another example of a player being punished for violating football's new "don't-hit-too-hard" rule.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvFYj7IJn-4
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Avante » Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:39 am

Avante
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Sep 20, 2012 2:54 pm

What's happening to the game I grew up with? I realize that the powers-that-be want to make the game safer and I agree 100% with players who have suffered a concussion being benched until they're cleared by doctors, but something's wrong when the NFL fines Golden Tate for a perfectly clean block. Keep in mind that the referees didn't call a penalty on him. Roger Goodell should just be honest and say they are outlawing hard hits, because if you put someone to sleep, he's going to fine you even if you use textbook form. Here's a link to the video:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/seattle-seaha ... n-Sean-Lee
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Marlow » Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:08 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:say they are outlawing hard hits

What do you think the penalty for "unnecessary roughness" is? There was no need for something vicious like that. All the blocker had to do was literally get in his way and the guy couldn't have made the tackle. You see that all the time in downfield blocks: guys just get in the way of would-be tacklers, so they can't catch the ball-carrier. The NFL is in its terminal stages if they can't rein in the injuries caused by head-hunters.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21133
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:33 pm

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:say they are outlawing hard hits

What do you think the penalty for "unnecessary roughness" is? There was no need for something vicious like that. All the blocker had to do was literally get in his way and the guy couldn't have made the tackle. You see that all the time in downfield blocks: guys just get in the way of would-be tacklers, so they can't catch the ball-carrier. The NFL is in its terminal stages if they can't rein in the injuries caused by head-hunters.

You sound like someone who never played football, because what you preaching goes against everything that's ingrained in football players from the time they're pewees. You're taught to arrive at the scene of impact as fast as you can and to deliver the hit with extreme prejudice, not calibrate your speed based on what you feel is necessary to avoid injuring your target. To do what you ask, we might as well put flags on the players and take the helmets and pads off.

Furthermore, there was no head-hunting by Tate on that play, all the impact was delivered to the chest area, straight out of the textbooks. I actually agree with eliiniating the head-hunting, but that's not what happened on this play. I have a very strong hunch that Goodell wouldn't be throwing around these silly fines if he had ever played football at any level. I hope enough players get tired of these fines to drag him back to court so that he gets his hand slapped by a judge AGAIN before he totally ruins the game.
:(
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Daisy » Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:31 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:what you're preaching goes against everything that's ingrained in football players from the time they're pewees.

Interestingly, this is exactly why I have zero interest in american football.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Marlow » Fri Sep 21, 2012 2:57 am

Daisy wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:what you're preaching goes against everything that's ingrained in football players from the time they're pewees.

Interestingly, this is exactly why I have zero interest in american football.

I don't watch the pros any more (unless I get a ticket to the Jags game) and my interest in college is due to old school ties. Any game where the idea is to hurt your opponent unnecessarily is not sport. Boxing is on its way out and MMA/UFC is one horrific death away from severe regulation (it'll happen soon).
Marlow
 
Posts: 21133
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Pego » Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:59 am

jazzcyclist wrote:You sound like someone who never played football, because what you preaching goes against everything that's ingrained in football players from the time they're pewees. You're taught to arrive at the scene of impact as fast as you can and to deliver the hit with extreme prejudice, not calibrate your speed based on what you feel is necessary to avoid injuring your target. To do what you ask, we might as well put flags on the players and take the helmets and pads off.


My grandson's 7th grade football season is just about one third done and my observation is that they discourage "unnecessary roughness" right from the start of those football careers. They penalize even "clean" hits when delivered more harsh than necessary to tackle the ball-carrier.

As far as the helmets are concerned, I believe that the current helmet is a major contributing factors to injuries. It should be restructured (softened) to protect the head without being a deadly weapon.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby j-a-m » Fri Sep 21, 2012 4:13 am

Marlow wrote:Boxing is on its way out and MMA/UFC is one horrific death away from severe regulation (it'll happen soon).

Sorry to have to mention this here, but MMA is safer than pole vaulting. So with all due respect, Marlow, better be careful what you wish for. And professional MMA in the U.S. is rather heavily regulated as it is.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests