Recruiting Forum Football Talk IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
#108,202
#108,202
  • Like
Reactions: VolsDoc81TX and butchna
#108,204
#108,204
  • Like
Reactions: VolsDoc81TX and butchna
#108,207
#108,207
butchna said:
You take Jim Plunkett and remove the time he had to run the triple option for Chuck Fairbanks Patriots and muddle around in pre-Walsh San Francisco and we can have an honest discussion. Since that’s impossible…we won’t. Never going to convince me that Johnny Unitas with modern passing concepts and physical training doesn’t hold serve. Archie Manning with anything close to what either of his sons had in concepts instead of running around and throwing long? Going by NUMBERS with entirely different games is an exercise in futility.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying there weren't good QBs, but overall all the things you just mentioned modern passing concepts and physical training weren't fully developed for that part of the game yet.

Is the discussion "put this guy in today's game and let him learn, he'll be a beast" or is the discussion "those guys WITH their terrible concepts, physical training, and knowledge aren't as good as today's players" cause you like to change the goal post a lot when you have discussions.

So to be clear, any of the legit athletes of the 60s/70s dropped into today's game with years of preparation I still think ballers are going to ball. Johnny Unitas and Archie Manning would have still been great QBs. But that's a hypothetical what-if game that is meaningless. We do know what they did do when they played, the passing game was well behind in that era and the QB play because of it wasn't as good as today's game. Hell just giving some of those QBs real pass protection could have been career changing for most of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolsDoc81TX and Ulysees E. McGill
#108,209
#108,209
Captain Mitch said:
Coke, Pepsi, butter, skunks, garlic, and gasoline all still smell/taste like burnt rubber
Click to expand...
That somewhat matches my description of burnt chemical/pesticide smell/taste!
Any dry food with a shelf life, tastes horrible to me!
Sadly, coffee isn’t that good anymore, but I’m powering through that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jave36
#108,210
#108,210
MoCo_Vol said:
I'm not saying there weren't good QBs, but overall all the things you just mentioned modern passing concepts and physical training weren't fully developed for that part of the game yet.

Is the discussion "put this guy in today's game and let him learn, he'll be a beast" or is the discussion "those guys WITH their terrible concepts, physical training, and knowledge aren't as good as today's players" cause you like to change the goal post a lot when you have discussions.

So to be clear, any of the legit athletes of the 60s/70s dropped into today's game with years of preparation I still think ballers are going to ball. Johnny Unitas and Archie Manning would have still been great QBs. But that's a hypothetical what-if game that is meaningless. We do know what they did do when they played, the passing game was well behind in that era and the QB play because of it wasn't as good as today's game. Hell just giving some of those QBs real pass protection could have been career changing for most of them.
Click to expand...
Then we’re not really disagreeing and I regret to inform you that means you don’t really agree with McGill. He said Bradshaw unilaterally sucked…because numbers. And that passers “from the 80’s onward were more talented”. That’s not picking a fight…that was his argument.
 
#108,214
#108,214
butchna said:
Then we’re not really disagreeing and I regret to inform you that means you don’t really agree with McGill. He said Bradshaw unilaterally sucked…because numbers. And that passers “from the 80’s onward were more talented”. That’s not picking a fight…that was his argument.
Click to expand...

And still passers from the 80s onward are more talented. If you play the "what-if" game you can hypothetically change that...but using the only thing you have to go by. Results and numbers, it's objectively a true statement.

The debate topic isn't are passers of the 80s onward more talented...it's WHY. As you've pointed out passing concepts, physical training are part of it and as BigSteve points out the way games are officiated is also part of it. Then I also pointed out pass protection has changed a ton as well since those guys played.

But nothing you say will convince me that Archie Manning, 55.2% 23,911 passing yards 125 TDs and 173 INTs with 2197 rushing yards, and 73 fumbles for his career is even in the same ball park as Dan Marino, John Elway, Joe Montana or hell even Warren Moon for that matter.

All these what ifs aren't changing results, and you can blame it on a wide variety of things but it doesn't change the results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ulysees E. McGill
#108,216
#108,216
MoCo_Vol said:
And still passers from the 80s onward are more talented. If you play the "what-if" game you can hypothetically change that...but using the only thing you have to go by. Results and numbers, it's objectively a true statement.

The debate topic isn't are passers of the 80s onward more talented...it's WHY. As you've pointed out passing concepts, physical training are part of it and as BigSteve points out the way games are officiated is also part of it. Then I also pointed out pass protection has changed a ton as well since those guys played.

But nothing you say will convince me that Archie Manning, 55.2% 23,911 passing yards 125 TDs and 173 INTs with 2197 rushing yards, and 73 fumbles for his career is even in the same ball park as Dan Marino, John Elway, Joe Montana or hell even Warren Moon for that matter.

All these what ifs aren't changing results, and you can blame it on a wide variety of things but it doesn't change the results.
Click to expand...
Then we don’t agree. Misread your previous post and misinterpreted your open-mindedness. Carry on.
 
#108,217
#108,217
MoCo_Vol said:
I'm not saying there weren't good QBs, but overall all the things you just mentioned modern passing concepts and physical training weren't fully developed for that part of the game yet.

Is the discussion "put this guy in today's game and let him learn, he'll be a beast" or is the discussion "those guys WITH their terrible concepts, physical training, and knowledge aren't as good as today's players" cause you like to change the goal post a lot when you have discussions.

So to be clear, any of the legit athletes of the 60s/70s dropped into today's game with years of preparation I still think ballers are going to ball. Johnny Unitas and Archie Manning would have still been great QBs. But that's a hypothetical what-if game that is meaningless. We do know what they did do when they played, the passing game was well behind in that era and the QB play because of it wasn't as good as today's game. Hell just giving some of those QBs real pass protection could have been career changing for most of them.
Click to expand...
The argument against that way of thinking is all the rule changes and short, quick passing game that has led to very mediocre QBs to be able to throw for over 4,000 yards…. Ex. Jared Goff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: butchna
#108,219
#108,219
Also if anything the QB you should point to to really have an honest discussion is Fran Tarkenton. The entirety of his career played before 1980, before Walsh coached his first game for the 49ers and that guy's name is still hanging in the top 15 for career passing yards and passing TDs. Once Bud Grant came to town him and Fran were changing the game before Walsh even showed up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brillovol, 825VOL, hooter vol and 2 others
#108,220
#108,220
volbeast33 said:
The argument against that way of thinking is all the rule changes and short, quick passing game that has led to very mediocre QBs to be able to throw for over 4,000 yards…. Ex. Jared Goff.
Click to expand...

Jared Goff is only "very mediocre" by today's standards. He would have been a pretty highly praised QB had he played in the 60s/70s era. 6'4" 215lbs and running laser timed 4.8s
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ulysees E. McGill
#108,221
#108,221
Z06VolinWV said:
That somewhat matches my description of burnt chemical/pesticide smell/taste!
Any dry food with a shelf life, tastes horrible to me!
Sadly, coffee isn’t that good anymore, but I’m powering through that.
Click to expand...
That burnt/chemical/pesticide taste is now described as "smells/tastes like COVID."

Fried foods for me, with a few exceptions. I'm guessing it's the quality of the oil, but can't verify yet. Soda tastes WAY too sweet now, and coke tastes like 100% vanilla.

The dry food with a shelf life got me for a while too, but it's mostly gone now.
Thankfully iced tea never tasted bad, my life would have been over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VOLSONLY, Big Orange#1, Z06VolinWV and 1 other person
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top