Are Pro football teams today really any better than the teams of the 70's and 80's?

[astro]

Equipment differences aside, physically and skills wise, is the average 2006 NFL/AFL team really any better the the average 70's or 80's NFL/AFL team?

[Jonathan Chance]

I'd have to believe so. The players are simply larger and faster and harder now.

Frankly, I believe this applies to most professional sports. Both equipment, training, and philosophy of athletics has come a LONG way with advances in analysis, computing, and medicine.

[Gatopescado]

Yes.

[Shagnasty]

I would say so as well. You have evolution going on within the system in many different ways. Players and coaches have figured out the best workout and practice systems, coaching has improved based on what has been shown to work, and the farm team system (colleges) has learned who to grab and train them even better than before.

[Cheesesteak]

The size differences are just too big to get past. The "hogs" of the early 80's were considered a big offensive line, they only averaged about 275lbs, with some guys nearer to 250. These days, line's average well over 300lbs, with the smallest guy on the line being 300lbs. Defensive linemen are similarly larger, particularly with the tackles.

If the only difference between your teams is an offensive line 30lbs heavier at each position, that's enough to dominate.

[Operation Ripper]

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak

The "hogs" of the early 80's were considered a big offensive line, they only averaged about 275lbs, with some guys nearer to 250.

Oh, I was so gonna bust you on this 'cause I knew it was BS, but you are apparently correct, color my ignorance fought.

[Sal Ammoniac]

I also say yes, and that despite the vast number of people you meet who romaticize the game of yore. The factors mentioned above count for a lot, but the one thing that matters hugely is broadening the talent pool. This matters more for hockey and baseball than for football, but it's still a factor. I expect you'll see more international players every year in the NFL.

[kelly5078]

The fat guys are fatter and quicker, for sure. As for the people who get their hands on the ball, I'm not convinced there's much difference.

[Madd Maxx]

Actually, that Wiki article that Operation Ripper linked to needs a little correction. The tight ends were only ever considered "Honorary Hogs" along with John Riggins. The real Hogs were only the offensive line.

[R. P. McMurphy]

Bigger, faster and stronger. They may not always win but that's the way to bet.

I don't know where all of these giants are coming from but they are not only huge, they are fast and athletic. If you look at the old time rosters you will be shocked at how small they were by comparison. The average Division I college line is far bigger than the NFL lines of years ago. Dick Budkus would probably not get a look as a middle linebacker today unless he bulked up like crazy. Heavyweight fighters used to weigh in at 190 lbs. Hockey players now are 6'3"+ and can move with plenty of speed and agility.

Today, it's a different game. That's not to detract from the athleticism of the old timers but you have to face the fact that the bar has been raised substantially.

[astorian]

The game itself may not be better or more entertaining than it used to be, but the players are much bigger and faster than ever.

The changes have come so rapidly that fans can SEE them. To give you an example, when I was a seniro in high school, Jack Lambert of the Steelers was considered everything you'd ever want in a linebacker. Less than 10 years later, guys like Lawrence Taylor had re-written the job description so completely thata Jack Lambert coming out of college would be dismissed as "too small, too slow, and too white."

I'm old enough to remember when 235 pound Alan Page was considered a dominat lineman. Today, he couldn't start for a lot of high school teams!

[Tartuffe52]

Originally Posted by astro

Equipment differences aside, physically and skills wise, is the average 2006 NFL/AFL team really any better the the average 70's or 80's NFL/AFL team?

We have this dicussion at work occasionally. Our great minds (stop laughing!) have come to the conclusion that the NFL of today is much better than days of yore. As an old Denver fan, I remember a tackle named Claude Minor who was one of the biggest lineman in the league..at 270 pounds. I wonder if some of the greats of yesteryear would even make it on the team today. Now if your going to ask if the players themselves are tougher now....no.

[Jet Jaguar]

No doubt teams today are better than teams of 20 or 30 years ago, but I wonder how they would fare if they went back in time to a point where the game was significantly different. How would the 2006 Bears do against the 1934 Bears, after they cut their roster in half and those 300 lb lineman have to drag their asses up and down the field for 60 straight minutes playing every down on both sides of the ball? Urlacher, you're playing linebacker, and fullback, and kicking punts. Whomever scored a touchdown is the one kicking the extra point. Even the ball was different - it was heavier and a little more rounded.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by astorian

I'm old enough to remember when 235 pound Alan Page was considered a dominat lineman. Today, he couldn't start for a lot of high school teams!

True, but his duties on the Minnesota Supreme Court don't allow much time for practice anyway...

http://www.courts.state.mn.us/?page=31&ID=30009

[zamboniracer]

I find it hard to reconcile the idea that the quality of pro football is so much better today than 20 years ago with the fact that a lousy (ok, mediocre) QB such as Vinny Testaverde has been in the league throughout that period and remains in the league today. If the league was so much better today than it was before, shouldn't Vinny be long gone by now?

[astorian]

Originally Posted by zamboniracer

I find it hard to reconcile the idea that the quality of pro football is so much better today than 20 years ago with the fact that a lousy (ok, mediocre) QB such as Vinny Testaverde has been in the league throughout that period and remains in the league today. If the league was so much better today than it was before, shouldn't Vinny be long gone by now?

Vinny had all the physical tools to be a great quarterback, and I have little doubt that he'd have put up spectacular numbers if he'd played in the Seventies.

Problem is, it's a lot HARDER to be a great quarterback now than it was in the Seventies. Back then, "pass rush" meant defensive linemen like Bob Lilly or Buck Buchanan coming at you. It was no fun to get sacked by those guys, but you usually saw them coming, and could either get rid of the ball or brace yourself for impact.

And back then, the wide receivers were typically much faster than the defensive backs. I mean, mismatches were common, which was why you saw so many 49-42 type games in the old AFL.

And on top of that, game plans are much more complicated than ever. Roger Staubach was one of the smartest quarterbacks I ever saw, but if he'd stepped into a time machine in 1972 and appeared under center in a Cowboys-Patriots game today, he'd look at Belichick's defensive formations and wonder, "What the hell are they doing???? I've never seen anything like it... there's no way I can read this defense!"

Today, the game is so much faster, it's mind-blowing. The pass rush Vinny Testaverde faced in the Nineties was waaaay faster and more intense than anything Kenny Stabler or Fran Tarkenton ever saw. And the cornerbacks are at LEAST as fast as the receivers, which means Vinny never got to see wide open receivers downfield as Roman Gabriel and Len Dawson often did.

So, don't be too hard on Vinny, or on anyone else. It was never easy to be a great NFL quarterback, but it's even harder now. Heck, even Hall of Famer Terry Bradshaw regularly admits on "The NFL Today" that he could never make it as a quarterback in today's league.

[zamboniracer]

Originally Posted by astorian

Vinny had all the physical tools to be a great quarterback, and I have little doubt that he'd have put up spectacular numbers if he'd played in the Seventies.

Astorian, I greatly respect your opinion, but having seen poor Vinny completely flummoxed by Joe Paterno's Penn State defense in the 1987 Fiesta Bowl I doubt that statement very much.

[bump]

I'll agree that teams are better... insofar as if you transported last year's Cowboys back to play the 1979 Steelers, the 2005 Cowboys would probably crush the 1979 team.

However... I find it hard to believe that the players themselves would necessarily be outclassed in today's pro football environment.

By that, I mean that if you had say... Jack Lambert drafted from college this year, he'd be a significantly different player than what he was in the 70s. He'd be in better shape, etc...

I think for many of the past greats, the things that made them great weren't necessarily the physical attributes, but instead the mental ones. Howie Long in his prime wouldn't give up a step to anyone these days, and if you transported the 1977 Roger Staubach into 2006, he'd still be a good quarterback, possibly even one of the best, given time to learn the changes in football over the intervening 3 decades.

I suspect that Dick Butkus would still be a terrific linebacker, especially with today's training methods and medical care.

[bordelond]

Originally Posted by zamboniracer

Astorian, I greatly respect your opinion, but having seen poor Vinny completely flummoxed by Joe Paterno's Penn State defense in the 1987 Fiesta Bowl I doubt that statement very much.

You do realize that Testaverde has put up borderline Hall of Fame numbers in the NFL, right? He won't get voted in because of a lack of playoff success, but the guy's been a reasonably decent NFL signal caller over the last decade or so.

[bordelond]

Originally Posted by bump

I'll agree that teams are better... insofar as if you transported last year's Cowboys back to play the 1979 Steelers, the 2005 Cowboys would probably crush the 1979 team.

However... I find it hard to believe that the players themselves would necessarily be outclassed in today's pro football environment.

By that, I mean that if you had say... Jack Lambert drafted from college this year, he'd be a significantly different player than what he was in the 70s. He'd be in better shape, etc...

Excellent post.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Originally Posted by zamboniracer

Astorian, I greatly respect your opinion, but having seen poor Vinny completely flummoxed by Joe Paterno's Penn State defense in the 1987 Fiesta Bowl I doubt that statement very much.

I don't understand this at all in the context of this thread. This is the same Vinny Testaverde who won the Heisman Trophy, was the first overall pick in the NFL draft, and who is in the top ten all-time in passing yards, completions, and touchdowns in NFL history, right? What exactly is there to doubt? He's had a very good career in the modern area, where offenses and defenses are more complicated, where things happen much faster, and where the position of quarterback is infinitely more demanding. If you transported him back into a time when the position required less, how could he have been worse?

And bump, that's exactly the point, isn't it? I mean, what you're saying about Jack Lambert's contemporary equivalent is just another way of saying that players in those days were too slow and too light to compete in today's NFL. Jack Lambert with another 45 pounds of muscle and with 4.5 speed wouldn't be Jack Lambert. He'd be a much better player, physically and skills-wise, which is what the OP asked. If we're assuming that we're allowed to "update" players physically, we're assuming away the question.

[Guinastasia]

One thing I imagine is that Lambert might not be as intimidating, because these days he'd almost certainly have his front teeth replaced.

Imagine that face coming at you on the field-I defy anyone NOT to be a little shaken.
And if this little tidbit from Wiki is true:

Jack Lambert used to phsyc himself up by banging his head against the lockers until the point where you see him on the field dripping with blood.

well, I dunno.

[Jackknifed Juggernaut]

I've been arguing this point for years. IMO, the worst NFL team this year would beat the best team 20 years ago. Same goes for basketball. I also think Lennox Lewis would dominate Muhammed Ali. Baseball's a bit different (assuming you discount for steroids) because the sport is much older, and because speed and power aren't as valued as in other sports. In baseball, today's teams are better, but ot THAT much better.

[Cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Chitwood

If we're assuming that we're allowed to "update" players physically, we're assuming away the question.

Agreed. Nobody is suggesting that todays players are genetically different than players 20 years ago. Today's players benefit from nutrition, training and "medical" improvements, that make today's teams bigger, stronger and faster than prior teams.

[astorian]

Originally Posted by zamboniracer

I find it hard to reconcile the idea that the quality of pro football is so much better today than 20 years ago with the fact that a lousy (ok, mediocre) QB such as Vinny Testaverde has been in the league throughout that period and remains in the league today. If the league was so much better today than it was before, shouldn't Vinny be long gone by now?

Your post made me do a little research, and you might be surprised by a few facts.

You regard Vinny Testaverde as a mediocre quarterback, and most fans probably share your opinion. And yet...

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/

If you compare Vinny's stats to those of the superstars of yesteryear, you'll notice something interesting: Vinny's stats are, in many ways, much better than the old time stars'.

Vinny has a career completion rate of 56.6%

How does that compare to some Hall of Fame quarterbacks?

Bart Starr 57.4%
Roger Staubach 57.0%
Fran Tarkenton 57.0%
Bob Griese 56.2%
Johnny Unitas 54.6%
Terry Bradshaw 51.9%

Get the idea? In SPITE of the fact that Vinny Testaverde faced defenses far tougher than his predecessors did, this "mediocre" quarterback's completion percentage was about as good as that of yesteryear's "superstars"!

In the Seventies, a 60% completion rate was considered remarkable. Today, it's EXPECTED!

[Ellis Dee]

Originally Posted by Jackknifed Juggernaut

IMO, the worst NFL team this year would beat the best team 20 years ago.

I'd bet the farm on the 85 Bears, 86 Giants, or 88 49ers destroying the 04 Cardinals, 05 Texans, or 06 Raiders. I'd even give double-digit points.

[zamboniracer]

To continue the hijack re Vinny Interceptaverde, his most important stats are his interception rate and his yard per attempt rate, the first of which is and always has been way too high, and the second of which has always been too low. Vinny gets into the HOF the same way I do, by buying a ticket. Consider:

Vinny's lifetime QB rating is a mediocre 75.2. Cite . Sure, he had a 101.6 rating in 1998. That doesn't balance out his 59.0 rating in 1991 or his 69.0 rating in 2000.

The fact that that bum is still good enough to be employed as a pro quarterback is damning proof that the quality of pro football has not improved as much as the NFL and its propaganda machine would have you believe. I think bump is correct in that given the inherent advantages in pay (yesterday's players had to work real jobs in the offseason, like selling insurance and unloading beer trucks), training and nutrition (and steriods?) today's players have over the oldsters, that the oldsters would aquit themselves very well if given the same advantages.

FWIW, as for completion percentage, while having a high one is nice, I believe in rating quarterbacks by adjusted yards per attempt, (Yds-(Int*40))/Att) as per Ignatin and Barra's book Football By The Numbers 1986

[zamboniracer]

re: Testaverde. I almost forgot to mention my brother in law's comment, "Testaverde always has a beautiful, tight spiral on his interceptions."

[Jackknifed Juggernaut]

Originally Posted by Ellis Dee

I'd bet the farm on the 85 Bears, 86 Giants, or 88 49ers destroying the 04 Cardinals, 05 Texans, or 06 Raiders. I'd even give double-digit points.

OK. Let's set it up. I wonder if Jim McMahon's accuracy has gotten any better. BTW, how much is your farm worth?

[jackelope]

Originally Posted by bordelond

You do realize that Testaverde has put up borderline Hall of Fame numbers in the NFL, right? He won't get voted in because of a lack of playoff success, but the guy's been a reasonably decent NFL signal caller over the last decade or so.

Make that the last two decades or so. Granted, he was saddled with some serious loser-teams in the early part of his career, but it seemed worth pointing out that Vinny's in his 20th NFL season.

[astorian]

Originally Posted by jackelope

Make that the last two decades or so. Granted, he was saddled with some serious loser-teams in the early part of his career, but it seemed worth pointing out that Vinny's in his 20th NFL season.

Fair point. I mean, the Raiders of the Seventies would NEVER have kept a 48 year old like George Blanda around as their backup quarterback.

Okay, bad example...

[bordelond]

Originally Posted by jackelope

Make that the last two decades or so. Granted, he was saddled with some serious loser-teams in the early part of his career, but it seemed worth pointing out that Vinny's in his 20th NFL season.

Yeah, I was trying to gloss over his bad days in Tampa. Actually, Testaverde's first season in Cleveland (1993) was decent ... and from then on, he's been mostly (not perfectly) solid, with a few high INT seasons thrown in.

[Carm6773]

I'm not sure if the 2006 Bucs could beat the 1976 or the 1986 Bucs. This year reminds me of the Orange Creamsicle years.

[bump]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Chitwood

And bump, that's exactly the point, isn't it? I mean, what you're saying about Jack Lambert's contemporary equivalent is just another way of saying that players in those days were too slow and too light to compete in today's NFL. Jack Lambert with another 45 pounds of muscle and with 4.5 speed wouldn't be Jack Lambert. He'd be a much better player, physically and skills-wise, which is what the OP asked. If we're assuming that we're allowed to "update" players physically, we're assuming away the question.

Well... no more than if we assume that Albert Einstein wouldn't be a succesful physics professor these days, because he wouldn't know how to use a computer or any of the knowledge learned since his death.

Einstein would still be one of the greats, only he'd use computer simulations, etc... to do his work.

[gonzomax]

With steroids and human growth serum ,the game is bigger and faster. With the money more people want to play. Bigger pool to chose from.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Jackknifed Juggernaut, Ellis Dee. Time to put up or shut up.


Here's the link and if you want to actually have something to base the contests on, here it is.

That site is an AMAZING time waster and argument settler. Actually, if someone wants to run a whatif sports league (or even me if there's interest) I'm down for that.

The first game, with the 85 Bears at home against the 05 Cardinals, the Bears won 41-17.

Feel free to tinker.

[astorian]

Well, just consider a few examples.

Bob Griese is considered one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time. His son Brian is considered a mediocrity (he's now on the bench, backing up Rex Freaking Grossman).

And yet...

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...ers/gindex.htm

Look at the numbers. On the whole, Brian Griese's stats are BETTER than his Dad's!

I know it's counterintuitive. And yet, it's true. Brian has a better completion percentage. He has a better TD to interception ratio. His yardsa per attempt are similar, though not quite as good.And yet, Brian is widely seen as a bust, as a kid who couldn't measure up to his old man.

I'm not saying Bob wasn't great- I merely point out that, in 2006, a quarterback with Bob Griese's overall numbers would be viewed as subpar. The job is a lot harder than it used to be.

[Enginerd]

Originally Posted by Least Original User Name Ever

Jackknifed Juggernaut, Ellis Dee. Time to put up or shut up.


Here's the link and if you want to actually have something to base the contests on, here it is.

That site is an AMAZING time waster and argument settler. Actually, if someone wants to run a whatif sports league (or even me if there's interest) I'm down for that.

The first game, with the 85 Bears at home against the 05 Cardinals, the Bears won 41-17.

Feel free to tinker.

Hey, what's your username on WIS? I've been playing there (just baseball and GD, though - no NFL) for about four years - I'm shark9685.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Originally Posted by bump

Well... no more than if we assume that Albert Einstein wouldn't be a succesful physics professor these days, because he wouldn't know how to use a computer or any of the knowledge learned since his death.

Einstein would still be one of the greats, only he'd use computer simulations, etc... to do his work.

It may be true that what I was responding to is no more true than your new scenario, but that's because they both miss the point. Albert Einstein, if we pretend he was born at a different time, would know how to run computer simulations, obviously. But if we jumped in a time machine, abducted Einstein, and stuck him in a classroom right this second, he'd have no idea what a computer was. That's what the OP asked:

Originally Posted by OP

physically and skills wise, is the average 2006 NFL/AFL team really any better the the average 70's or 80's NFL/AFL team?

Which is the equivalent of asking if we instantaneously transported a 2006 team and a 70s or 80s team to the same field and had them play, who would win? As I said, if you're going to pretend that players in the 70s were actually players from 2006, you're getting rid of what appears to be the crux of the issue, which is whether or not players today are physically better than players were then.

And Least, whatifsports, as a mechanism for settling arguments, is about as effective as painting the names of two teams on the backs of a couple of rats and having them fight to the death to settle the issue.

[Enginerd]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Chitwood

And Least, whatifsports, as a mechanism for settling arguments, is about as effective as painting the names of two teams on the backs of a couple of rats and having them fight to the death to settle the issue.

Arguably less effective for this question. WIS uses normalized statistics from a single year to generate the rating that they use in their game simulation. So if you pitted the Hogs of the 80s against this year's Bears defense, the sim wouldn't penalize the 'Skins for their undersized O-line.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Right. As I understand it, it just measures one team's success for its era, and compares it to the other team's success for its era, which would serve to perfectly level the playing field.

[jimmmy]

I will post twice rather than monster post.

I think one thing not touched on is that Teams significantly played by different rules – Rules that favored for Instance a QB who could hang in a bit longer to take a vicious hit (not as important today) and rules that allowed huge monster hitting LB’s and Linemen to play a bigger role as most defenses ask LB’s now to play more pass coverage or specialize.

E.g. A. pre-1980 players were allowed to directly strike, swing, or club on the head, neck, or face. Starting in 1980, a penalty could be called for such contact whether or not the initial contact was made below the neck area – so that meant that players that could withtand/dishout headslaps were less valuable after 1980.
B.Simalrly 1979 NFL rules changes prohibited players on the receiving team from blocking below the waist during kickoffs, punts, and field-goal attempts; and had the first in the grasp QB rules.

[jimmmy]

Spent way, way too much time – that I didn’t have – on this I know… but the size question seemed knowable - not theoretical. Following Cheeesecake and Ripper I used the NFL '83 version vs. 2006.

ProFootball Insiders and FOX rated the Broncos the best O-line coming into the 2006 season – but lets say they are top 5 to avoid getting caught up on that
Denver06 LT Pears 6’8 305/ LG Hamiltion 6’4 283/C Nalen 6’3 286/RG Kuper 6’5 285/RT Meadows 6’5 290/ Alexander TE 6’4 280
Vs.
The Hogs 1984 Superbowl version (lost this Superbowl but were reigning NFL Champs, 14-2 and set record for scoring still 2nd all time)
LT Jacoby 6-7, 310,/LG Grimm 6’3 270/C Bostic 6-2, 260/RG May 6’6 295/ RT Starke 6' 5' 255/ Warren 6’4 240 AVERAGE 6’4.5 271

AVERAGE 2006 BRONCO Starting O-Lineman 6’4.8 288 vs. Average SuperSkins 1983 6’4.5 271 – about a third of an inch and 17 lbs difference on average (A statistically valid average would be to randomly select an appropriate number, or all players, at each position and average it and compare – I ain’t doing that)

Pro Football Insiders and FOX rated the Bears the best D-front 7 coming into the 2006 season – but lets say they are top 5 to avoid getting caught up on that

Ogunleye,6’4 270/ DT Harris 6’3 300/Johnson 6’3 300/Brown DE 6’3 260
Briggs 6’1 240, Urlacher 6’4 258/ Hillenmeyer 6’4 258
Vs.
Miami was the best Statistical Defense in the 1983 Season. I can see their players but cannot be sure I am picking starters (Remember it is a 3-4 D Took top 7 Defensive stat leaders who weren’t CB/S)

DE Betters 6’7 260/NT Baumhower 6' 5'' 265//DELB Bokamper 6’6 250
LB Bowser 6’3 232/DELB Duhe 6’4 249/DELB Brown 6’2 230/Rhone 6’2 218

AVERAGE 2006 BEAR Front D-7 6’3 269.4 vs. Average Killer B’s 1983 6’4 271 – about an shorter and 2 lbs lighter today on average (Again a statistically valid average would be to randomly select an appropriate number, or all players, at each position and average it and compare – I ain’t doing that)

Really I think the rules (and speed implied but not shown here) is where most of the difference is Football 23 years on is faster, more specialized and less overtly brutish. I submit this: The NFL 2006 vs. 1983 is a different game - more different than a BCS College Game is than the NFL today - the skills sets don't match 1:1

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Originally Posted by Enginerd

Hey, what's your username on WIS? I've been playing there (just baseball and GD, though - no NFL) for about four years - I'm shark9685.

I've tinkered on the site, but never paid for a subscription. If we wanna start a league, I'm all for registering.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Originally Posted by jimmmy

I will post twice rather than monster post.

I think one thing not touched on is that Teams significantly played by different rules – Rules that favored for Instance a QB who could hang in a bit longer to take a vicious hit (not as important today) and rules that allowed huge monster hitting LB’s and Linemen to play a bigger role as most defenses ask LB’s now to play more pass coverage or specialize.

E.g. A. pre-1980 players were allowed to directly strike, swing, or club on the head, neck, or face. Starting in 1980, a penalty could be called for such contact whether or not the initial contact was made below the neck area – so that meant that players that could withtand/dishout headslaps were less valuable after 1980.
B.Simalrly 1979 NFL rules changes prohibited players on the receiving team from blocking below the waist during kickoffs, punts, and field-goal attempts; and had the first in the grasp QB rules.

Because of these rules, I wonder how Night Train Lane would have fared against the receivers of today. If allowed to be physical, he might be one of the few anomalies that would be way above average today.

[Ellis Dee]

The Broncos OL is considered undersized, and that contributes to some of the controversy about their cut blocking scheme. I wouldn't be surprised if the Broncos line was right in the middle between the sizes of yesteryear and the average of the other four teams in the top 5. (Though I'm not even sure who those four would be.)

[Enginerd]

Since, the argument is about average size rather than the best of the best, it's probably ok to simply look at the best rushing teams in the league. The top 5 rushing teams right now are Atlanta, San Diego, Jacksonville, San Francisco, and Dallas. Atlanta uses the same cut-blocking scheme that Denver uses, so I'd expect their o-line to be on the small side compared to the other four teams there.

Atlanta Falcons
LT: Gandy (6-4, 315)
LG: Alexander (6-4, 297)
C: McClure (6-1, 286)
RG: Clabo (6-6, 314)
RT: Weiner (6-4, 297)
TE: Crumpler (6-2, 262)
Line Average: 6-3.8, 302
Average w/ TE: 6-3.5, 295

San Diego Chargers
LT: McNeil (6-7. 336)
LG: Deilman (6-4, 310)
C: Hardwick (6-4, 295)
RG: Goff (6-5, 311)
RT: Olivea (6-4, 312)
TE: Gates (6-4, 260)
Line Average: 6-4.8, 312
Average w/ TE: 6-4.7, 304

Jacksonville Jaguars
LT: Barnes (6-5, 325)
LG: Manuwai (6-2, 325)
C: Meester (6-3, 300)
RG: Naeole (6-3, 330)
RT: Williams (6-5, 315)
TE: Brady* (6-6, 280)
Line Average: 6-3.6, 319
Average w/ TE: 6-4, 313

San Francisco 49ers
LT: Jennings (6-3, 325)
LG: Allen (6-3, 325)
C: Heitmann (6-3, 305)
RG: Smiley (6-3, 301)
RT: Harris (6-7, 310)
TE: Davis (6-3, 253)
Line Average: 6-3.8, 313
Average w/ TE: 6-3.7, 303

Dallas Cowboys
LT: Adams (6-7. 340)
LG: Kosier (6-5, 305)
C: Gurode (6-4, 312)
RG: Rivera (6-4, 309)
RT: Colombo (6-8, 320)
TE: Witten (6-5, 265)
Line Average: 6-5.6, 317
Average w/ TE: 6-5.5, 308

Based on these numbers, the average starting NFL lineman on a top rushing offense is a little over 6-4 and 313 pounds. Looking at the numbers for the Broncos that Jimmy listed above, you notice that every guy on the Broncos' line is lighter than average - they're probably not the best team to use as the basis for comparing sizes.

The average "Hog" was 40 pounds lighter than the average top lineman is now - that's a much bigger difference than you see looking at just the Broncos. Jacoby was the only one within spitting distance of the average - the other 4 are tiny by today's standards.

Lightest Active Offensive Linemen (not including long snappers who don't play other o-line positions:
BUF: T Brad Butler 6-8, 292
MIA: T Orrin Thompson 6-6, 310
NE: C Dan Koppen 6-2, 296
NYJ: G Pete Kendall 6-5, 292

BAL: C Chris Chester 6-3, 305
CIN: G Eric Steinback 6-6, 290
CLE: G Lennie Friedmann 6-3, 295
PIT: C Brandon Newton 6-2, 296

HOU: C Scott Jackson 6-4, 300
IND: G Ryan Lilja 6-2, 290
JAC: C Brad Meester 6-3, 300
TEN: C Kevin Mawae 6-4, 289

DEN: G Ben Hamilton 6-4, 283
KC: C Casey Wiegmann 6-2, 285
OAK: C Jake Grove 6-4, 300
SD: C Corey Withrow 6-2, 287

DAL: C E.J. Whitney 6-5, 293
NYG: C Grey Reugamer 6-4, 299
PHI: T Stefan Rodgers 6-4, 305
WAS: C Casey Rabach 6-4, 295

CHI: C Olin Kreutz 6-2, 292
DET: C Dominic Raiola 6-1, 295
GB: G Daryn Colledge 6-4, 299
MIN: G Jason Whittle 6-4, 305

ATL: C Todd McClure 6-1, 286
CAR: T Rashad Butler 6-4, 293
NO: C Jeff Faine 6-3, 291
TB: C Nick Mihlhauser 6-3, 291

ARI: C Nick Leckey 6-3, 291
STL: C Brett Romberg 6-3, 293
SF: T Patrick Estes 6-7, 280
SEA: T Sean Locklear 6-3, 301

The smallest active O-lineman in the NFL today is 49ers tackle Patrick Estes, who weighs in at 280 pounds. Three of the five starting "Hogs" are smaller than Estes. Today's defensive lines would crash through them like a knife through hot butter.

[Enginerd]

Originally Posted by Least Original User Name Ever

I've tinkered on the site, but never paid for a subscription. If we wanna start a league, I'm all for registering.

I think it would be fun. I'll be traveling for most of December, but we can give it a shot when I get back.

[gonzomax]

The payers of the past would also be bigger and faster today. Therefore the Packers of Lombardi would be just as good now as they were then. if you want to time warp them up to today ,thats different.

[John DiFool]

Gonzo, ordinarily I'd agree. My question is whether pro football linemen (well every player
really) are getting into the league because they get huge after an adolescence full of Creatine
milkshakes and other nutritional supplements, or whether they are huge to begin with. In
other words if you take today's linemen and those of the sixties, raise them from birth with
the same foods, nutrition, training, weightlifting, would today's still be bigger? I don't know
the answer to that question.