Jump to content

MMQB All Time NFL Draft


Recommended Posts

Slow...yeah gotta have that sparkling speed and other wonders for the eyes. 

 

The #3 overall pick moved like a glacier. His targets were not much faster. But without the glitz, all he did was win--and did it without NFL intervention. Back when the game was REAL. Fix that with something else if you are so inclined....doesn't alter the facts one iota. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Le Tigre said:

Slow...yeah gotta have that sparkling speed and other wonders for the eyes. 

 

The #3 overall pick moved like a glacier. His targets were not much faster. But without the glitz, all he did was win--and did it without NFL intervention. Back when the game was REAL. Fix that with something else if you are so inclined....doesn't alter the facts one iota. 

 

 

 

Without the glitz, all he did was win......against a bunch of other people without the glitz as well. That's the point. The game was slower, guys weren't the athletic freaks they are today. Fred made a joke about the game being slow back then, which it kinda was, so I don't see anything out of line there. Not sure what got you bothered.

 

To your other statement, you and all of the others on this board are free to believe whatever you'd like about the NFL being fixed, but I wouldn't say they're "facts". That word means something very specific and the game being "REAL" along with the supposed "NFL intervention" is nothing but your opinions on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, fredtoast said:

Deion Sanders way too low at #38.  I have him as one of the top 5 players I have ever seen, and I have been watching NFL about 45 years.

 

Terry Bradshaw way too high at #52.  He just was not that good.

 

Deion was the first CB taken though, so I see that as patience and excellent value for Wolf to have picked him up at #38. If this was just a straight ranking of the best NFL players of all time, then I'd probably agree with ya.

 

Just look at who took Bradshaw. I'm not one for bashing every broadcaster and analyst claiming this huge anti-Bengals or pro-Stealers bias or whatever, but Fouts is a fucking turd. I'm not surprised one bit that his first few rounds include a punter, kicker, and Terry Bradshaw.

 

As far as analysis over the entire draft goes from me after looking over the rosters more...

 

IMO John Wooten has the best offense. I see at least 2 others that I'm sure some folks would argue, but I love Wooten's picks. Montana, the Juice, Thorpe, Art Monk, Hayes, Newsome, and then a killer old school line. I'm sure some people would view Bill Polian or Gil Brandt as having a more stacked offense, but I personally like every single player choice on Wooten's entire offense and there are a couple on each of the other lists that I'm not in love with.

 

I really like Ron Wolf's defense despite not being alive to see a lot of the guys play. He spent a lot of early picks on D but still managed to put together a nice looking offense as well. I may have to say that his team impresses me the most overall.

 

Peter King and Bob McGinn seemed to take a lot more modern players than the other guys which would make sense depending on how you look at the draft. I see it as each of the players vs other players of their time, but obviously someone like JJ Watt would completely dominate the league if he could time travel back to 1950. I think a lot of the active players could have been taken later in the draft so some of those picks could be seen as a reach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, omgdrdoom said:

 

Without the glitz, all he did was win......against a bunch of other people without the glitz as well. That's the point. The game was slower, guys weren't the athletic freaks they are today. Fred made a joke about the game being slow back then, which it kinda was, so I don't see anything out of line there. Not sure what got you bothered.

 

To your other statement, you and all of the others on this board are free to believe whatever you'd like about the NFL being fixed, but I wouldn't say they're "facts". That word means something very specific and the game being "REAL" along with the supposed "NFL intervention" is nothing but your opinions on the subject.

 

I was just old enough to appreciate the sight of seeing some of the greatest, and slowest, players  in history in this raggedy-ass college stadium called Franklin Field. Guys like Sonny Jurgenson, Sam Huff, Jim Ringo, Floyd Peters, Chuck Howley. Saw them all. And no real TV coverage to speak of, so you saw it in person. It was my inspiration to play the game.

 

It was slow, but it was REAL. Jurgenson, with his one bar face mask, would take shots to his head enough to kill an elephant--but would just get up and spit at the defender. Jim Ringo would get scissor-kicked by defensive linemen almost every play-but just get right up and bury their butts backwards the next one. Go ahead and talk to me about JJ Watt dominating back then--I will laugh in your face. No one today would have survived in that NFL world--because there were no rules. It was just plain Mano y Mano...the toughest won. Please try and tell me that this over-regulated farce of a sport today is anywhere in the same continent in terms of reality, as that game was. You can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Le Tigre said:

 

I was just old enough to appreciate the sight of seeing some of the greatest, and slowest, players  in history in this raggedy-ass college stadium called Franklin Field. Guys like Sonny Jurgenson, Sam Huff, Jim Ringo, Floyd Peters, Chuck Howley. Saw them all. And no real TV coverage to speak of, so you saw it in person. It was my inspiration to play the game.

 

It was slow, but it was REAL. Jurgenson, with his one bar face mask, would take shots to his head enough to kill an elephant--but would just get up and spit at the defender. Jim Ringo would get scissor-kicked by defensive linemen almost every play-but just get right up and bury their butts backwards the next one. Go ahead and talk to me about JJ Watt dominating back then--I will laugh in your face. No one today would have survived in that NFL world--because there were no rules. It was just plain Mano y Mano...the toughest won. Please try and tell me that this over-regulated farce of a sport today is anywhere in the same continent in terms of reality, as that game was. You can't.

 

Yeah, brain damage sure is cool and REAL. I wish I could have walked fifteen miles in the snow to see some REAL football. Jim Ringo is about the size of a 2017 punter, so I guess you got me there.

 

I don't care how much older folks that are behind the times laugh at me, JJ Watt would make every single linemen pre-1980 his bitch. Couldn't care less what the "back in my day...*shakes fist*" crowd has to say about that. The "toughest man" in 1950 wasn't going up against the modern genetic freak athlete, they were going up against other 1950's men, I'm not sure how you keep missing that key point.

 

Please try and tell me those farce of "athletes" in the sport 70 years ago are even remotely close in strength, technique, and raw talent as the players we're seeing enter the NFL today. You probably will, but ya shouldn't.

 

I have respect for what a lot of those older guys did for the game and how they played, but comparing them to modern athletes is flat out absurd. Your opinions aren't facts, just like mine aren't, yet you keep displaying yours as a matter of fact which is highly obnoxious. A lot of younger guys that love sports today have a bigger problem with the older generation acting the way you do more so than they have a problem with old school football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that it has nothing to do with the "better living through chemistry " steroid crazed athletes of today VS the athletes of yesteryear... it has to do with the style of play and toughness. The men of decades ago played against others close to their size, and the same happens today. Of course the athletes are bigger, stronger, and faster... chemicals rule! The athletes of times past were mentally tougher, displayed more love of the game,and sportsmanship was NOT the exception... it was the rule.  You say that it's not fact but opinion, and in that you're wrong. There WERE less rules, less bullshit, and the game was NOT compromised by the ever present need to make money by changing the rules so that the scores are higher, the game "more exciting", and it makes people watch the commercials so that the NFL makes more money.

 

I am not a snob about it, as I appreciate the freak athletes accomplishments and still love the game. I would prefer to see the game return to it's roots, and do away with the roids, chemical enhancements of ANY kind, and let the Damn players play the game instead of turning it into a flag football fest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, USN Bengal said:

The point is that it has nothing to do with the "better living through chemistry " steroid crazed athletes of today VS the athletes of yesteryear... it has to do with the style of play and toughness. The men of decades ago played against others close to their size, and the same happens today. Of course the athletes are bigger, stronger, and faster... chemicals rule! The athletes of times past were mentally tougher, displayed more love of the game,and sportsmanship was NOT the exception... it was the rule.  You say that it's not fact but opinion, and in that you're wrong. There WERE less rules, less bullshit, and the game was NOT compromised by the ever present need to make money by changing the rules so that the scores are higher, the game "more exciting", and it makes people watch the commercials so that the NFL makes more money.

 

I am not a snob about it, as I appreciate the freak athletes accomplishments and still love the game. I would prefer to see the game return to it's roots, and do away with the roids, chemical enhancements of ANY kind, and let the Damn players play the game instead of turning it into a flag football fest.

 

The only thing factual about what you said was that there were less rules. Everything else is, again, opinion. I'm sure there are facts you could point out that lead you to your opinions though, which is fine if you want to disagree with my thoughts. Sorry, but the whole fact/opinion thing is a huge pet peeve of mine. I love to debate and discuss, but it's nice if both sides understand that almost everything we're going to talk about is simply our opinions on the matter. You may feel strong about something and have plenty of facts to support your thoughts, but it still doesn't make some of this stuff a matter of fact.

 

Anyway, I have a great appreciation for a lot of older players, even the ones I never got to see play. Hell, I mentioned in one of my posts above that I thought Ron Wolf had the best team overall, and Brett Favre is the most "modern" player you'll find on his list. I'm just not going to be delusional and claim all of those guys from the 1960's would even stand a chance against the likes of Geno Atkins, JJ Watt, Von Miller, Aaron Donald, etc. etc. These aren't just some scrub "thug" low football IQ players we're talking about, we're talking about the best of now vs the best of then. The best of 2017 eats the best of 1967 for lunch 10 out of 10 times. It's not even taking a shot at the older guys either, but athletes have evolved (even without touching the steroid topic). Diet, exercise, training regiment, workouts, and more have changed drastically over the past decade, let alone us talking about 40+ years ago with most of these players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still aren't grasping the main point 'Doom...

 

No, the way back boys wouldn't stand a chance against the modern players for the most part, with rare exception.

 

The way the game was played, two way players, complete players who had to be tough. Receivers who had to work to get open against a guy literally mugging them every play. QBs that could take a hit without crying about their mangina breaking, and they'd get up and play the next play. LBs who really were terrors and hit people like football was originally designed. RBs who would block willingly, and NOT throw their gear into the stands.

Players who actually listened to their coaches, and if they didn't they rode the pine. No freaking TV timeouts, product placement BS... etc.

 

Try looking at it from that perspective, because that's where I'm coming from.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, USN Bengal said:

You still aren't grasping the main point 'Doom...

 

No, the way back boys wouldn't stand a chance against the modern players for the most part, with rare exception.

 

The way the game was played, two way players, complete players who had to be tough. Receivers who had to work to get open against a guy literally mugging them every play. QBs that could take a hit without crying about their mangina breaking, and they'd get up and play the next play. LBs who really were terrors and hit people like football was originally designed. RBs who would block willingly, and NOT throw their gear into the stands.

Players who actually listened to their coaches, and if they didn't they rode the pine. No freaking TV timeouts, product placement BS... etc.

 

Try looking at it from that perspective, because that's where I'm coming from.

 

 

 

I guess I'm missing the point because I see all of that stuff still happening today. I see modern hits that would have ended the smaller athletes of the 30's. I see RBs blocking in literally every single NFL game every single week. QBs are trying to get the calls to help give their team an advantage, call it crying all you'd like. I have no idea how TV timeouts and product placement have anything to do with anything.

 

Sure, some rules are relaxed and some things have changed. Call it soft all you'd like, but a lot of the stuff done is because of safety. Now, does the NFL honestly give a shit about player safety? Not over making a buck, which I'll agree with, but they are still trying to implement new rules to protect these guys in some way.

 

My arguments were mostly against Mr. "Go ahead and talk to me about JJ Watt dominating back then--I will laugh in your face." which is highly laughable. Whether the game is more "real" right now or 70 years ago doesn't matter too much. I prefer modern football but I also respect the old game as well. I'm just not going to pretend those rough n' tough hard nosed men of the 40's would be destroying Geno Atkins and Carlos Dunlap. LO fucking L. That type of argument reminds me of Stealers fans that think their Pittsburgh fandom makes them tough, blue collar "real men". For some reason, certain people feel the need to defend the old players to the extent they do because it somehow has something to do with their masculinity or their generation's toughness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My recollection of the older players versus modern players is this. They seemed to have had tougher mentalities and overall toughness. They seemed to play through pain/injuries a lot more frequently than today's players. Why? Idk. Perhaps today's players are more reluctant due to fears of damaging a newer bigger payday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, schotzee said:

My recollection of the older players versus modern players is this. They seemed to have had tougher mentalities and overall toughness. They seemed to play through pain/injuries a lot more frequently than today's players. Why? Idk. Perhaps today's players are more reluctant due to fears of damaging a newer bigger payday.

 

Because dirt no longer has magical healing properties.

 

 

 

 

 

:lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...