"Congrats man "

Congrats yourself, what is your point? That a bunch of old farts that likely wouldn't play I-A football today celebrate beating a bunch of other stiffs?

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: "Congrats man "

Congrats yourself, what is your point? That a bunch of old farts that likely wouldn't play I-A football today celebrate beating a bunch of other stiffs?

Your bragging about beating a team when your team has every advantage

I didn't understand a word of that. I'm not sure I want to understand it.

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: I didn't understand a word of that. I'm not sure I want to understand it.

Your saying that the Pats would destroy 72' Miami and I said congrats, because you are bragging that you could beat a team when you have every advantage over

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: "with the team going 19-0 having the asteriks next to their name. "

Out of curiosity what would the asterisk be? "We would have beat the crap out of the 1972 Dolphins"? A halfway decent Big 10 team would have beaten that squad today, what did their O-line average - 260 lbs?

No, the asteriks would be the 19 part because the schedule is longer now. 3 teams have already won more games than the 1972 dolphins in a season, how often do we talk about them? The patriots even went 18-0, yet you still hear more about the 1972 dolphins instead of the 18-0 patriots.

"Your saying that the Pats would destroy 72' Miami and I said congrats,"

LOL I'm saying the 2009 Ohio St. team would destroy the 1972 Miami team! With a few exceptions (maybe Morris, maybe Csonka) there isn't a single Dolphin that would play in the NFL today. What is their average lineman giving up in weight, 40, 50 lbs?

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: "Your saying that the Pats would destroy 72' Miami and I said congrats,"

LOL I'm saying the 2009 Ohio St. team would destroy the 1972 Miami team! With a few exceptions (maybe Morris, maybe Csonka) there isn't a single Dolphin that would play in the NFL today. What is their average lineman giving up in weight, 40, 50 lbs?

o lol, never mind then

thats what i get for half reading

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: "Your saying that the Pats would destroy 72' Miami and I said congrats,"

LOL I'm saying the 2009 Ohio St. team would destroy the 1972 Miami team! With a few exceptions (maybe Morris, maybe Csonka) there isn't a single Dolphin that would play in the NFL today. What is their average lineman giving up in weight, 40, 50 lbs?

and i would argue the players on the 72 dolphins were a lot tougher than players today. players werent protected the way they are today. they had to be tough.

Well I'm sure they were tough, but it was a different game then. Can you imagine Orlando Pace playing in the 70's. There was no one even remotely like him back then. Can you imagine a Randy Moss? A Tomlinson? A Ray Lewis?

Haha, do you honestly think guys like Manning, Brady, Welker, Addai, Wayne etc. actually practice full contact in the NFL.

No,they don't. The problem is that Welker's injury had NOTHING to do with contact.

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: "Your saying that the Pats would destroy 72' Miami and I said congrats,"

LOL I'm saying the 2009 Ohio St. team would destroy the 1972 Miami team! With a few exceptions (maybe Morris, maybe Csonka) there isn't a single Dolphin that would play in the NFL today. What is their average lineman giving up in weight, 40, 50 lbs?

I said it in the other thread, but here's what to consider, particularly as it relates to the 1972 team.

- Pretty much every NFL player understated their weight intentionally at the time
- A player from 1972 playing today would be able to devote his entire life to football and conditioning rather than needing to take jobs during the offseason
- A player from today playing in 1972 would actually use training camp to get into shape since the offseason couldn't do that
- A player from today playing in 1972 would have to deal with the following:
1) Inability to open hands and extend arms to pass protect
2) Receivers being chucked 25 and 30 yards down the field
3) Crackback blocking
4) Head slaps
- A player from 1972 playing today would be able to have the following:
1) Water breaks
2) Modern nutrition
3) Modern conditioning

The assertion that "the worst modern players would destroy the best of 30 years ago" is both incredibly disrespectful and beyond idiotic. For one thing, it doesn't follow anything resembling logic.

Why? Because if it did, it would inherently make true the statement that the players of today would destroy those of 10 years ago, who themselves would destroy those of 10 years previous (20 years ago), who themselves would destroy those of 10 years previous (30 years ago), and so on. This is ENTIRELY based on the idea that the players playing the game have continuously been evolving and developing into the pinnacle of sport history.

But this collapses for a good reason: it's illogical. It inherently states that a player from Year X will be rendered obsolete by Year X + 10 because so many improved players have entered the league. Barring that, it assumes that the player will simply be relegated to bench duty for the same reason. But how many times has this actually happened?

The ONLY times in sports history where this has actually happened is in the infancy of a league or in the case of unique circumstances that cast talent across many strata (which usually has coincided with the infancy of a league). If what you say is in fact true, there would be no such thing as a player with a solid 20-year career because the natural evolution would push him out the door long before that (particularly in a salary cap league that inherently favors youth over higher-priced experience). There would be no such thing as a 14-year veteran having a terrific year since the rest of the league would have evolved and surpassed what his maximum abilities are.

Since this has never happened in over 100 years of professional sports with the exception of "the very beginning", you have no case and no leg to stand on.

"The assertion that "the worst modern players would destroy the best of 30 years ago" is both incredibly disrespectful and beyond idiotic. "

I disagree, it is true....one of my favorite examples is Bill Romanowski, that guy flat out looks skinny when you look at his old 49'ers highlight tapes, and he was on steroids! I could almost kick his rear end. What would you say comparing him to Ray Lewis? The fact is that today's athletes in the NFL are better. They are faster, they are stronger, and it is completely logical. You lost me brah. How many 14 year veterans do you have in the NFL other than the truly gifted (Moss, Manning, etc.?). There are no more 20 year veterans in case you haven't noticed.

I restate, the 2009 Ohio St. team would beat the 1972 Dolphins team. Any day, any time.

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: "The assertion that "the worst modern players would destroy the best of 30 years ago" is both incredibly disrespectful and beyond idiotic. "

I disagree, it is true....one of my favorite examples is Bill Romanowski, that guy flat out looks skinny when you look at his old 49'ers highlight tapes, and he was on steroids! I could almost kick his rear end. What would you say comparing him to Ray Lewis? The fact is that today's athletes in the NFL are better. They are faster, they are stronger, and it is completely logical. You lost me brah. How many 14 year veterans do you have in the NFL other than the truly gifted (Moss, Manning, etc.?). There are no more 20 year veterans in case you haven't noticed.

I restate, the 2009 Ohio St. team would beat the 1972 Dolphins team. Any day, any time.

I get the feeling that if we had a debate over who the best army of all time was and the choices were the Greeks under Alexander, the Romans under a variety of generals, the Mongols under Khan, or the Persians under Darius, you'd be the one saying "Any modern street gang of 20 would destroy any of them since the street gang would have guns and the others would have swords and spears".

If you want to look at the retirement lists over the last 20 years, you'll find plenty who played a huge number of games and yet will never see the HOF.

And to back up to your earlier point about Orlando Pace, no one like him would have existed back then even if he were to be directly teleported into 1970. The first thing any coach would have done would be to get him on a scale and tell him to lose 50 pounds, then come back next year.

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: Well I'm sure they were tough, but it was a different game then. Can you imagine Orlando Pace playing in the 70's. There was no one even remotely like him back then. Can you imagine a Randy Moss? A Tomlinson? A Ray Lewis?

NNN wrote: - A player from today playing in 1972 would have to deal with the following:
1) Inability to open hands and extend arms to pass protect
2) Receivers being chucked 25 and 30 yards down the field
3) Crackback blocking
4) Head slaps

and its those reasons right there. Orlando Pace, Randy Moss, LT and Ray Lewis would be on the injuried list after the first game. they would be put on their ass by any means necessary on the first play and every play after that until they didnt get up.

Glory Days wrote: and its those reasons right there. Orlando Pace, Randy Moss, LT and Ray Lewis would be on the injuried list after the first game. they would be put on their ass by any means necessary on the first play and every play after that until they didnt get up.

Let's not go to the other extreme with it. The players who dominate an era would likely dominate any era, and those who barely hung on in an era would barely hang on in any era.

Although I'll also point out that, until the arthroscope came into widespread use with fiber optic technology, a knee operation would result in a 12" vertical incision over the joint, followed by the player having that leg kept in a (full leg) cast for between 9-18 months.

Yeah, the thing is that athletic science has improved so much since the 70s that it's stupid to simply say guys back then couldn't compete now. Today's elite athletes would be inferior under the standards of yesteryear and yesteryear's elite athletes would be superior under today's standards.

Hell, as a guy who wrestled in high school back in the early 90s, I can personally attest to that. Back then, weight-cutting, at least in my area, wasn't prevalent and very few concentrated solely on it (or any one sport). Now...I see ripped, fit kids getting torn apart regularly solely because the science of the sport has altered so that you have to put a TON of work in and be amazingly proficient to win consistently. There was a kid on my team who went .500 despite not having any wrestling experience, but being strong and fit. If he, like he was then, competed now, he'd get tore up just because the general scene in that sport has improved. But if he grew up now and trained like today's athletes do, he'd be just as competitive as he was then.