Gale Sayers R.I.P.

[mjp28]

5 hours ago, Footbalfan1962 said:

Problem is, its hard to judge generationally. nothing against Brown or Sayers, they were great, but lets face it..in the 60's you had a bunch of slow white guys chasing you around versus todays game

That's why you cannot really accurately judge generational players or teams the games change over time.

Is Unitas better than TBrady ?  Is JBrown the best ever ?          We'll never really know.     

[Tour2ma]

Few players from the 60's could play in today's game... and almost all who could were skill position players.

JB tops my list... but if he couldn't, then he could always fall back upon his best sport, Lacrosse.

[The Gipper]

4 hours ago, Barry said:

It definitely is an eyeball test, and how much that person dominated the other players at the time they played. But if you are going to compare players from different eras (which is just a guessing game, imo), I think running backs are probably one of the easier positions to do so. Sayers was 200 lbs and 6 ft. J.B. was 6'2" and 232 lbs. Both those stats would stand up well today as well as their speed. True, the opposition were smaller and slower. You go back as far as the 20s and there is Wilbur 'Pete' Henry, also known as 'Fats'.  He was one oft he NFL's largest and most dominant linemen in the 20s and was 5'11" and 245 lbs.

 

I am not of the opinion that the "opposition" back in the 60 was necessarily smaller and slower. 

Bid Daddy Lipscomb was  6'9  300 pounds....

Myles Garrett is about the same size as Gino Marchetti....maybe 10 pounds different. 

DBs are clearly no bigger now than they were then.  

LBs today are really no bigger.   Joe Schobert  at 6'1"  230  at MLB is 2 inches shorter  and 20 pounds lighter than Dick Butkus.   6'3 250.  MLB Sam Huff was the same 6'1  230 as Schobert. 

The ONLY players that are bigger?  Offensive linemen....did bulk up over the 60s guys.  And QBs do average an inch or two taller.  That is it. 

[The Gipper]

On 9/25/2020 at 11:52 AM, Tour2ma said:

Few players from the 60's could play in today's game... and almost all who could were skill position players.

JB tops my list... but if he couldn't, then he could always fall back upon his best sport, Lacrosse.

yea, right. sure.   Dick Butkus at 6'3 250 could never play MLB today. 

And, let's see....how much taller are  Kyler Murray, Baker Mayfield, Lamar Jackson, Drew Brees, Russell Wilson than the QBs of the 60s?  Oh? Not at all you say...those guys are shorter than most 60s QBs.  And 6'9 300 Gene Lipscomb?   How many DEs today are that big? 

And Bob Hayes who ran a 9.1 100 yard dash....couldn't keep up? 

And Jim Brown is a dwarf next to Nick Chubb.....or, uh, err, maybe not.   Chubb 5'11 225.  JB  6'2  232.  

All those guys need to compete today would be the same training/nutrition programs. 

[Barry]

3 hours ago, The Gipper said:

I am not of the opinion that the "opposition" back in the 60 was necessarily smaller and slower. 

Bid Daddy Lipscomb was  6'9  300 pounds....

Myles Garrett is about the same size as Gino Marchetti....maybe 10 pounds different. 

DBs are clearly no bigger now than they were then.  

LBs today are really no bigger.   Joe Schobert  at 6'1"  230  at MLB is 2 inches shorter  and 20 pounds lighter than Dick Butkus.   6'3 250.  MLB Sam Huff was the same 6'1  230 as Schobert. 

The ONLY players that are bigger?  Offensive linemen....did bulk up over the 60s guys.  And QBs do average an inch or two taller.  That is it. 

I remember looking at the roster charts that were in the Browns programs in the mid-60s and seeing if any players were 300 pounds. There were only 1-2 total from both teams so I have come to think that most of the players were smaller than they are today. But I found this roster of the '65 Browns (brings back a lot of memories) and, you are right, except for the linemen and maybe a linebacker or two, the sizes were not much different than they are today. Thanks for the correction. Was really interesting looking over this sheet. Here it is in case you are interested:  https://www.statscrew.com/football/roster/t-CLE/y-1965

[The Gipper]

1 hour ago, Barry said:

I remember looking at the roster charts that were in the Browns programs in the mid-60s and seeing if any players were 300 pounds. There were only 1-2 total from both teams so I have come to think that most of the players were smaller than they are today. But I found this roster of the '65 Browns (brings back a lot of memories) and, you are right, except for the linemen and maybe a linebacker or two, the sizes were not much different than they are today. Thanks for the correction. Was really interesting looking over this sheet. Here it is in case you are interested:  https://www.statscrew.com/football/roster/t-CLE/y-1965

Yerp,   latter day OL have bulked up,  and the occasional DL is heavier, but  those Browns had DL of like 265/270 pounds...which is not much difference than today.   And I am not even sure about the LBs.  Jim Houston was 6'3 240.  What are our LBs today? 

[Barry]

25 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

Yerp,   latter day OL have bulked up,  and the occasional DL is heavier, but  those Browns had DL of like 265/270 pounds...which is not much difference than today.   And I am not even sure about the LBs.  Jim Houston was 6'3 240.  What are our LBs today? 

Houston was good size but I was looking at Costello (who was a good player) who played the middle at 230, Dale Lindsey at 223, and Stan Sczurek at 5'11" and 230. As run-stoppers, which was what their primary responsibilities were in those days, that's a bit light.

[The Gipper]

2 hours ago, Barry said:

Houston was good size but I was looking at Costello (who was a good player) who played the middle at 230, Dale Lindsey at 223, and Stan Sczurek at 5'11" and 230. As run-stoppers, which was what their primary responsibilities were in those days, that's a bit light.

Joe Schobert  is 230. Mack Wilson is 6’2. 230

[Tour2ma]

Gino ... 244#

MG... 272#...

 

Yup... difference is "maybe 10"... in base maybe 28...

Wanna maybe bet who is maybe faster?

[Gorka]

19 hours ago, Footbalfan1962 said:

Problem is, its hard to judge generationally. nothing against Brown or Sayers, they were great, but lets face it..in the 60's you had a bunch of slow white guys chasing you around versus todays game

My dream backfield would be Barry Sanders and Earl Campbell. They could play in todays game imo.

[The Gipper]

20 hours ago, Tour2ma said:

Gino ... 244#

MG... 272#...

 

Yup... difference is "maybe 10"... in base maybe 28...

Wanna maybe bet who is maybe faster?

Again new modern nutrition and conditioning would’ve made up that difference. What is it about that you don’t understand? Just same thing that caused offensive  lineman to balloon up to 310 pounds when they were not nearly that in the 60s. It would be as foolish is saying that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar could not play basketball today. Besides the source I looked at said the Gino Marchetti was 260 pounds.

[Gorka]

Not only are todays players bigger faster stronger, the sheer athleticism, talent and skill are far superior in todays player.

Same applies to basketball, especially with regards to athleticism and speed.

The 2020 (any NBA team) would obliterate the 1964 Champs Boston Celtics.

As would the 2020 (any NFL team) give the1964 Champs Browns an ass whipping.

[The Gipper]

10 minutes ago, Gorka said:

Not only are todays players bigger faster stronger, the sheer athleticism, talent and skill are far superior in todays player.

Same applies to basketball, especially with regards to athleticism and speed.

The 2020 (any NBA team) would obliterate the 1964 Champs Boston Celtics.

As would the 2020 (any NFL team) give the1964 Champs Browns an ass whipping.

Prove it. 

[Gorka]

7 hours ago, The Gipper said:

Prove it. 

Haha...I knew you'd jump on that one.

I don't have to prove anything. Neither does anyone else on what is a forum meant for opinions.

 

Jim Brown in his prime would get blown up by todays linebackers.

[The Gipper]

1 hour ago, Gorka said:

Haha...I knew you'd jump on that one.

I don't have to prove anything. Neither does anyone else on what is a forum meant for opinions.

 

Jim Brown in his prime would get blown up by todays linebackers.

If Sam Huff couldn't do it,  who is the same size as the likes of Schobert and Mack Wilson and other LBs of today...what makes you think they could do it any better?  It is not like they are tackling RBs today that are any bigger, faster, stronger now than Jim Brown was. 

Again....LBs then were the same height/weight as LBs now.   They didn't test speed then that I am aware of.  Strength? Again, no comparable measurements.  (none of today's WRs  are any faster than the likes of Bob Hayes......and as for possession receivers,  Gary Collins was like 6'5"...and could catch anything thrown his direction).

[Tour2ma]

13 hours ago, Gorka said:

Not only are todays players bigger faster stronger, the sheer athleticism, talent and skill are far superior in todays player.

... and they excel at a game that is more complex many times over.

[TexasAg1969]

4 minutes ago, Tour2ma said:

... and they excel at a game that is more complex many times over.

So what we need then is an antique era, an old timey era and a modern era.

[Tour2ma]

Fossil?

[Tour2ma]

On a serious note...

Size... Power... Speed... Any player with all three could play in any era, but they dominated the game in days gone by...

It's why JB would likely be good today. Dominant? Dunno... Ditto for Earl (mentioned above)... Bo... a few others.

 

What gets interesting is the players who excelled in their time despite not having all three... or even one. WRs like Biletnikoff, Largent or even Jerry who had other traits that made them the successes they were.

[TexasAg1969]

1 hour ago, Tour2ma said:

Fossil?

Those who have been watching it from the 50s or earlier🦖.🙄

[The Gipper]

5 hours ago, Tour2ma said:

On a serious note...

Size... Power... Speed... Any player with all three could play in any era, but they dominated the game in days gone by...

It's why JB would likely be good today. Dominant? Dunno... Ditto for Earl (mentioned above)... Bo... a few others.

 

What gets interesting is the players who excelled in their time despite not having all three... or even one. WRs like Biletnikoff, Largent or even Jerry who had other traits that made them the successes they were.

The Biletnikoff/Largent types are still excelling in many situations.  Certainly Julian Edelman has nothing on either of them.  And if you ignore race,  Jarvis Landry is exactly that kind of player.  Jerry Rice  is like Jim Brown.....would have been great in the 50s/60s,  was great in the 80s/90s....and would be today. 

Jim Brown would be dominate today. He would still combine as much or more power/speed/strength as any RB today.  He would also, remember, have the benefit and enhancemet  of today's nutrition/conditioning techniques.  (and he wouldn't have to quit because he could make more doing acting).  And Earl?  I think he would have maybe been given the "Beast Mode"  nickname instead of Marshawn Lynch. 

Would EVERY player that played back then be as good now?  Perhaps not.  But everyone of them would have the same opportunities as today's players to be just as good if given the same conditions as today's players.  Joe Thomas played at  300+...but back then he would have only been asked to play at 250.  Look at him now after retirement.  What has he dropped?  60/70 pounds?  300+ was by no means his natural weight...nor that of any of these guys like. (well, except the Refrigerator Perry types...who continue to consume mass quantities after they did not have to)   

Do you all think that human kind has evolved so greatly from the 60s to today that this speed, strength, agility today's players have is better as a result of innate natural prowess?   I say Bullshit to that.  They may be (maybe...being operative) all that because they are being trained, conditioned, fed to be as good as they are to add on to their natural abilities.  The human race has NOT evolved from being like  Microraptors to become a T-Rex or Stegosaurus in just 50 years.  

So, you all who want to be football Darwinians may need to wait about another several hundred....or thousands of years to assert your claims. 

[Gorka]

On ‎9‎/‎26‎/‎2020 at 5:03 PM, The Gipper said:

The Biletnikoff/Largent types are still excelling in many situations.  Certainly Julian Edelman has nothing on either of them.  And if you ignore race,  Jarvis Landry is exactly that kind of player.  Jerry Rice  is like Jim Brown.....would have been great in the 50s/60s,  was great in the 80s/90s....and would be today. 

Jim Brown would be dominate today. He would still combine as much or more power/speed/strength as any RB today.  He would also, remember, have the benefit and enhancemet  of today's nutrition/conditioning techniques.  (and he wouldn't have to quit because he could make more doing acting).  And Earl?  I think he would have maybe been given the "Beast Mode"  nickname instead of Marshawn Lynch. 

JB would not dominate the way he did in his time. He would be serviceable today. If you were to go back in time and watch a JB highlight film in 1970, no doubt anyone would be in awe of the then GOAT and the things he did on the football field.  

I recently revisited a JB highlight film on YOUTUBE. Yawn.  Yawn because what he did is being done regularly every Sunday by NFL running backs.  BTW...the Adrian Peterson highlight film is one of my favorites.

Would EVERY player that played back then be as good now?  Perhaps not.  

Perhaps not lol? You're funny.  I wound say anywhere between "most likely not" and "absolutely not".

But everyone of them would have the same opportunities as today's players to be just as good if given the same conditions as today's players.  Joe Thomas played at  300+...but back then he would have only been asked to play at 250.  Look at him now after retirement.  What has he dropped?  60/70 pounds?  300+ was by no means his natural weight...nor that of any of these guys like. (well, except the Refrigerator Perry types...who continue to consume mass quantities after they did not have to)  

In the 1920's the average lineman was 6'0'' 211

In the 1940's the average lineman was 6'1" 221

in the 1960's the average lineman was 6'3" 251 

Whats your explanation for that?

And just so you know the average lineman today is 6'5" 315

Do you all think that human kind has evolved so greatly from the 60s to today that this speed, strength, agility today's players have is better as a result of innate natural prowess?   I say Bullshit to that.  They may be (maybe...being operative) all that because they are being trained, conditioned, fed to be as good as they are to add on to their natural abilities.  The human race has NOT evolved from being like  Microraptors to become a T-Rex or Stegosaurus in just 50 years.  

Football has evolved, football players have evolved, but to suggest it is a part of human evolution is ludicrous. I'm not of the belief that nature has no interest in developing bigger, better football players.

So, you all who want to be football Darwinians may need to wait about another several hundred....or thousands of years to assert your claims. 

Plenty of ifs, ands, or buts in all of that, but in that sense you helped prove my point...as profoundly secondary those reasons may be, there's gotta be reasons as to why players are so much better today.

But the most glaring reason as to why any of the 32 NFL teams of today would knock the shit out of the 64 Browns you omitted.

[The Gipper]

JB would not dominate the way he did in his time. He would be serviceable today. If you were to go back in time and watch a JB highlight film in 1970, no doubt anyone would be in awe of the then GOAT and the things he did on the football field.  

I recently revisited a JB highlight film on YOUTUBE. Yawn.  Yawn because what he did is being done regularly every Sunday by NFL running backs.  BTW...the Adrian Peterson highlight film is one of my favorites.

You are a complete idiot.  You are only disparaging him because you want to...not because you have any basis to. 

 

In the 1920's the average lineman was 6'0'' 211

In the 1940's the average lineman was 6'1" 221

in the 1960's the average lineman was 6'3" 251 

Whats your explanation for that?

And just so you know the average lineman today is 6'5" 315

My explanation is that they are finding the bigger guys to play....one thing you are somewhat right about is that back in the 20s and 40s they did NOT for the most part allow blacks to play in the NFL....so the 6'5 guys were still out picking cotton....and not being recruited by colleges or playing in the pros.   The other thing...again, is nutrition and conditioning.

What is YOUR explanation?   Eugenics, seemingly.   Or, rapid evolution? I can clearly see a fascist like you believing in the former, but not the latter. 

 

Plenty of ifs, ands, or buts in all of that, but in that sense you helped prove my point...as profoundly secondary those reasons may be, there's gotta be reasons as to why players are so much better today.

But the most glaring reason as to why any of the 32 NFL teams of today would knock the shit out of the 64 Browns you omitted.

You are ASSuming a whole lot of shit there. There is absolutely NO basis to claim that players are better today.  Offensive linemen  and some DL are bigger because they eat a lot more and train a lot more.  But the skill players of the 1964 Browns are as good as any set of skill players playing today. Jim Brown, Paul Warfield, Gary Collins, Leroy Kelly, Ernie Green, Frank Ryan ....Every bit as good or better than Chubb, Hunt, OBJ, Landry, Mayfield and Andy Janovich.    So, maybe, sure the bigger, fatter OL  could roll over the 1964 DL....but then if the 1964 DL had today's nutrition...maybe not.  And which of our LBs were any bigger/better than Jim Houston at 6'4 240? 

 

 

[Icecube]

On 9/25/2020 at 2:28 PM, The Gipper said:

I am not of the opinion that the "opposition" back in the 60 was necessarily smaller and slower. 

Bid Daddy Lipscomb was  6'9  300 pounds....

Myles Garrett is about the same size as Gino Marchetti....maybe 10 pounds different. 

DBs are clearly no bigger now than they were then.  

LBs today are really no bigger.   Joe Schobert  at 6'1"  230  at MLB is 2 inches shorter  and 20 pounds lighter than Dick Butkus.   6'3 250.  MLB Sam Huff was the same 6'1  230 as Schobert. 

The ONLY players that are bigger?  Offensive linemen....did bulk up over the 60s guys.  And QBs do average an inch or two taller.  That is it. 

You telling me DTs from the 60's were no smaller or slower than today's DTs? TEs? WRs? And mentioning ONE exception is not really an accurate representation. 

[The Gipper]

15 minutes ago, Icecube said:

You telling me DTs from the 60's were no smaller or slower than today's DTs? TEs? WRs? And mentioning ONE exception is not really an accurate representation. 

The DTs are probably smaller....for the same reason the OL then were smaller.  A policy of bulking up in weight....so, training and conditioning,  which, if those players had the same weight and conditioning training would/could be just as big as those of today. 

And that applies to DTs.   If you look at DEs, I think you  would find them about the same.

I mean, look at the Fearsome Foursome:

Deacon Jones  6'5  272    (Myles Garrett  6'4 271) 

Merlin Olsen  6'5  270  (Shelddon Richardson  6'3  293) 

Rosey Grier   6'5  284  (Larry Ogunjobi, 6'3 304) 

Lamar Lundy  6'5  260  Vernon Olivier  6'2, 261)

Find a tall DLine like that  today.   And I am sure if they had been asked or needed to....or conditioned/trained/nutritioned to be so they could have carried the same weight easily that today's players do.