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?
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.
Yes.
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.
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.
Oh, I was so gonna bust you on this 'cause I knew it was BS, but you are apparently correct, color my ignorance fought.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
True, but his duties on the Minnesota Supreme Court don’t allow much time for practice anyway…
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.
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’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.
:dubious:
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.
Excellent post.