Jump to content

Best Defense ever?


Bolts223

Recommended Posts

On 9/18/2017 at 7:07 PM, Jlowe22 said:

The thing is, athletes really do get better with time.  Some of that is training, nutrition, and environment,  if not most of it, but some of it is simply more people alive today, greater chance freak athletes will be born.
 

Quote

 

This isn't completely true. Training for sure has greatly improved, but the old timers(50's) had to work in the off season at other jobs, because they did not make enough in football to live on, so they simply could not train like athletes do today and if they did train like athletes today, they would be able to still standout. It wasn't until Randy White, the old DT of the Cowboys that team even had weight rooms. He was the first guy who really put in the time in a gym lifting weights and his success convinced owners to add a weight room to their facilities. Jimmy Brown weighed 240lbs. and ran a 4.30, so I seriously doubt he could not play today.

Nutrition: h...mmm does that include steroids, something old timers did not know about and never used, but they did play with concussions and I once saw how they got doctored up with very long needles( I estimate about 12 inches long) putting pain killers into their joints so they could play that day.

Enviroment: These guys were tough sons of ******* and mean, who came from farms and coal mines and played through pain without ever taking a game off unless they broke a bone or tore something and even then, they often played through the pain with large doses of painkillers. Yes, there are more people today, but there were only half the teams back then, so it somewhat evens out.

 

And I hate to say it, but when you go really far back, most of those guys weren't competing against blacks.  That's kinda a big deal when trying to rank them against modern athletes.

For these, and many other reasons, I don't like to compare different eras, and I roll my eyes when a top ten QB list has both Otto Graham and Tom Brady on it. Graham was the greatest of his era, Brady is the greatest of his.  Let's just leave it at that.

I could not agree more although, when I started watching pro football back in the 50's, blacks were part of the game, so the GB packers had a fair share of black players, likely not as many as you might find today, but there were plenty of solid ones.

IMO, for what it is worth, modern players would have a far harder time adjusting to the 50's/60's game which was extremely violent and required you to play even with concussions if you wanted to keep your job, than those players would have adjusting to today' rather mild game in comparison. I don't think young people today realize how violent and tough it was to play in those days.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Iamcanadian said:

 

But like I said, if you want to take the old players, and put them into today's game while giving them modern diet and training, then you got to do the same for the other way around.   The new players couldn't have played in the old era without actually living and growing up in the old era. the truth is, players are on average, bigger stronger and faster in today's game for numerous reasons, and I'm not saying older players couldn't have gotten to that level, but while they were playing they were not, on average, at that level. Even if they were tougher, you can't demolish what you can't catch.  Yes, I know Jim Brown was a freak, and that freak dominated his era like no other.  I'm not knocking the old guys, I've just heard too many times people wanting to cling to tradition and talk up the "good ole days", and they might be right, but the level of athleticism is definitely increasing with time, even if the new guys aren't necessarily born with it..  That doesn't mean there weren't freak athletes in that era, it just means, on average, they weren't the same.  Proper diet and training from an early age makes a world of difference.

As far as steroids go, yes many guys today have been on them, even if they pass drug tests.  But steroids go back longer than most people think, and cheating in general, has existed since the dawn of time.  The older guys most definitely weren't pure as snow.  If they thought they could get away with cheating, they would have.  I remember reading about Cyclists in the early 1900s taking all kinds of substances in an effort to gain a competitive advantage.  Baseball pitchers throwing spitballs, and god knows what else.  Corking bats, bribery, all sorts of things.  If steroids had existed back then, many guys would have used them.

Most young guys are soft, there's no doubt about that.  We live in a much more comfortable era.  But there are still plenty of young guys that are tough, and not everyone grows up in a cushy lifestyle even today.  Hits still hurt. There's also no reason to revert to the old style of beating each other up until you're all braindead.

Also, just the game itself has changed.  Players and coaches today have a century of games to learn from, and scheming has gotten more complex as a result.

I use guitar players as an example.  The guitar players alive today are technically better than they ever have been.  Speed and precision blows the old guys out of the water.  They have all kinds resources at their disposal they can use to improve their skills, and the old guys to learn from.  But that doesn't mean they can automatically make good music, and the older guys still made great music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Jlowe22 said:

But like I said, if you want to take the old players, and put them into today's game while giving them modern diet and training, then you got to do the same for the other way around.   The new players couldn't have played in the old era without actually living and growing up in the old era. the truth is, players are on average, bigger stronger and faster in today's game for numerous reasons, and I'm not saying older players couldn't have gotten to that level, but while they were playing they were not, on average, at that level. Even if they were tougher, you can't demolish what you can't catch.  Yes, I know Jim Brown was a freak, and that freak dominated his era like no other.  I'm not knocking the old guys, I've just heard too many times people wanting to cling to tradition and talk up the "good ole days", and they might be right, but the level of athleticism is definitely increasing with time, even if the new guys aren't necessarily born with it..  That doesn't mean there weren't freak athletes in that era, it just means, on average, they weren't the same.  Proper diet and training from an early age makes a world of difference.
 

Quote

 

I am in no way arguing in favour of 'the good old days', no way would I want the violence of the old days into today's game and believe strongly in concussion safety measures.

Yes, the players today are bigger and possibly stronger, those old timers were natural strong from working hard from an early age, there wasn't a soft player among them and not necessarily faster, but using your 'other way around formula, they could not train, nor eat, nor lift weights like they do today, because they would all have to work in the off  season to feed and house themselves and their families. How many of today's players would do it for the peanuts they made back then. How many of today's players would play with concussions, play with broken bones. It was pretty rare back then to not play whether injured or not.

 

As far as steroids go, yes many guys today have been on them, even if they pass drug tests.  But steroids go back longer than most people think, and cheating in general, has existed since the dawn of time.  The older guys most definitely weren't pure as snow.  If they thought they could get away with cheating, they would have.  I remember reading about Cyclists in the early 1900s taking all kinds of substances in an effort to gain a competitive advantage.  Baseball pitchers throwing spitballs, and god knows what else.  Corking bats, bribery, all sorts of things.  If steroids had existed back then, many guys would have used them.

Quote

I think you will find that alcohol was the drug of choice back then not drugs and cheating is a way of life in professional sports. Heck, Halas of the Bears, planted equipment so he could listen in on the opposing team's locker room.

Most young guys are soft, there's no doubt about that.  We live in a much more comfortable era.  But there are still plenty of young guys that are tough, and not everyone grows up in a cushy lifestyle even today.  Hits still hurt. There's also no reason to revert to the old style of beating each other up until you're all braindead.

Quote

Today's players also have far superior equipment which mitigates the pain inflicted on their bodies. Poor kids are tough, no doubt about that.

Also, just the game itself has changed.  Players and coaches today have a century of games to learn from, and scheming has gotten more complex as a result.

Quote

I think rule changes have a lot to do with that, more so than just complexity. An awful lot of what those generations created, are still used in today's game, Zone defenses, Bump and run, Cover 2, WCO. They were not as simple as you might think.

I use guitar players as an example.  The guitar players alive today are technically better than they ever have been.  Speed and precision blows the old guys out of the water.  They have all kinds resources at their disposal they can use to improve their skills, and the old guys to learn from.  But that doesn't mean they can automatically make good music, and the older guys still made great music.

Quote

It really depends on what you consider important in music, great music or fancy technical stuff. I go to a lot of new guitar player concerts for jazz and I'll take a BB King over all of the modern musicians with their emphasis on technique over the music itself. Just like modern American film makers have serious problems with story telling, but are experts at all the technical stuff that goes into American movies, it is the reason, so few modern American movies ever win an Oscar as best picture.

All, I am really saying is that a general statement like, 'old timers could not play in today's game' is simply not true, it is a common mistake that I thought I should defend against!!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/20/2017 at 9:13 PM, Iamcanadian said:

All, I am really saying is that a general statement like, 'old timers could not play in today's game' is simply not true, it is a common mistake that I thought I should defend against!!!

Agreed, and at the same time, there are still way too many differences to compare eras.  I don't like seeing top ten lists with guys from eras 50-60 years apart.  No one has any idea how to properly rank such players. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2017 at 10:53 PM, Jlowe22 said:

Agreed, and at the same time, there are still way too many differences to compare eras.  I don't like seeing top ten lists with guys from eras 50-60 years apart.  No one has any idea how to properly rank such players. 

You are dead on, comparing players from different eras is a complete waste of time. Each generation produces its stars and that is all you can really say. the rule changes in pro football and the inventions of top HC's make each generation face a totally different playing field. i.e. Look at Montana, he played in a completely new offensive system invented by his HC Bill Walsh called the WCO and it took DC's and HC's a decade to learn how to defend it, so how can you compare him to other QB's of different eras. You can't, all you can say is, he was special for his generation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

For me Broncos 2015> Seahawks 2013.

Because the Seahawks seemed like a more balanced team than the 13 Broncos. Strange saying that about a team that had P Man at QB, Sanders and Thomas at WR, a 2 years younger than present Vernon Davis at TE,  CJ Anderson and Ronnie Hillman at RB, but there it is. They were inferior to that Seahawks offense. Not on the sheet but on the pitch where it matters.

 

The Seahawks defense SB performance was the GOAT Sb defense performance maybe. The Broncos really weren't bad though holding a CAM Newton offense to 10. Taking also into account that the Carolina team the Broncos played was all round better than the 2013 Broncos team Seattle faced. The 2015 Broncos team lost the time of possession. They had to keep coming back onto the field cos the offense couldn't do anything.

 

What was impressive is that they did this in important game after important game. The game against the Patriots was even more of a defensive masterpiece.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/4/2017 at 9:18 AM, Bullet Club said:

I've never understood the logic behind downplaying athleticism that is only one generation older.

Yep. Walk into this thread. Most posts are about defenses within the last five years. Uh ok. The past five years (really the past 15) we have been in a relative defensive drought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 1:15 PM, Hunter2_1 said:

2000 Ravens

85 Bears

2013 Hawks

02 Buccs

15 Broncos.

That's exactly how I would rank them. I do think the 13 Hawks were a more dominant defense than the 15 Broncos. Just look at what they did to the highest scoring offense in NFL history in the Super Bowl.  The way I would classify them is the Seahawks were more consistently dominant while at the their peaks the Broncos were the scarier defense. That game they dished out against Green Bay was just sick. Held Rodgers to under 100 yards passing for the first time in his career. Although the Broncos did put up 500 yards of offense in that one which actually kept Rodgers off the field for a big chunk of the game.

I'm from Denver and was watching the NFC Championship game against SF and Seattle at the airport. All the Broncos fans were excited about Seattle winning and were more scared of SF. I remember telling them that the Broncos were about to walk into a buzz saw in the Super Bowl. I told them I would be surprised if they scored more than 14 points against Seattle. They laughed at me. I didn't like that matchup for that Broncos offense. That Broncos offense was a bunch of dink and dunk and YAC. That's not the kind of offense that was going to challenge that Seahawks defense. They all said Peyton Manning will figure that defense out. I told them, "There is nothing to figure out". They didn't try to trick anybody. That defense was just flat out good at all levels. DL, LBs, and secondary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 7:06 AM, TXsteeler said:

How quickly everybody in this thread forgot about the 2008 Steelers.

 

Total Yards Allowed Per game

2008 Steelers: 237.2

2015 Broncos: 283.1

2014 Seahawks: 267.1

2013 Seahawks: 273.6

 

Total Pass Yards per game

2008 Steelers: 156.9

2015 Broncos: 199.6

2014 Seahawks: 185.9

2013 Seahawks: 172.0

 

Total Rush Yards per game

2008 Steelers: 80.2

2015 Broncos: 83.6

2014 Seahawks: 81.5

2013 Seahawks: 101.6

 

Total points per game

2008 Steelers: 13.9

2015 Broncos: 18.5

2014 Seahawks: 15.9

2013 Seahawks: 14.4

 

Sacks

2008 Steelers: 51

2015 Broncos: 52

2014 Seahawks: 37

2013 Seahawks: 44

 

Interceptions

2008 Steelers: 20

2015 Broncos: 14

2014 Seahawks: 13

2013 Seahawks: 28

 

 

Forced Fumble Recoveries

2008 Steelers: 14

2015 Broncos: 13

2014 Seahawks: 10

2013 Seahawks: 11

They got shredded by Kurt Warner in the Super Bowl though. I remember hearing John Madden saying during that game because of a lot of talk leading into the game about how historically great that defense was, "You don't get to be compared to the all time great defenses if you can't do it in the big game". They gave up 377 yards and 3 TDs to Warner. That pretty much takes them out of the running.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/6/2017 at 10:17 PM, strat1080 said:

They got shredded by Kurt Warner in the Super Bowl though. I remember hearing John Madden saying during that game because of a lot of talk leading into the game about how historically great that defense was, "You don't get to be compared to the all time great defenses if you can't do it in the big game". They gave up 377 yards and 3 TDs to Warner. That pretty much takes them out of the running.

No it doesn't. They held that offense to 23 points and got the 100 yard pick six. A 14 point swing in a game won by 4 points. To say that giving up 377 yards and 3 tds negates the rest of their season is supremely asinine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TXsteeler said:

No it doesn't. They held that offense to 23 points and got the 100 yard pick six. A 14 point swing in a game won by 4 points. To say that giving up 377 yards and 3 tds negates the rest of their season is supremely asinine.

Good point, and I believe two of those 23 points were a safety, so the Steelers only allowed 21 points. People forget Warner was contained during the first three quarters of that game, the Cards had only seven offensive points entering the fourth quarter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎10‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 1:55 PM, TXsteeler said:

No it doesn't. They held that offense to 23 points and got the 100 yard pick six. A 14 point swing in a game won by 4 points. To say that giving up 377 yards and 3 tds negates the rest of their season is supremely asinine.

When we are talking all time great defenses it certainly does in my view. You make giving up 23 points in the big game seem trivial. We are talking all time great defenses here and the Steelers are just simply not in that class. That defense was just not anywhere near as good as the 2015 Broncos or 2013 Seahawks. Those defenses absolutely stomped all over some very good offenses. The 13 Seahawks held the highest scoring offense in NFL history to 8 points. The 15 Broncos held a QB that put up 45 total TDs in the regular season and won MVP to just 10 points and made him look absolutely awful. Its all about the eye test dude. Kurt Warner didn't look uncomfortable at all against that Steelers D. That's kind of the point. The 13 Seahawks and 15 Broncos along with the other defenses listed in the OP made great offenses and great QBs look silly. I know you're a Steelers fan and all but the 08 Steelers just aren't in the conversation. The Steelers had another supposedly "great" defense (led the NFL in sacks and PPG and gave up 62 YPG on the ground) two years later with pretty much the same players and very similar stats and Rodgers had a field day against them in the Super Bowl just like Warner did two years before. **** Lebeau's defense had been figured out by 2008-2010 and elite QBs were shredding that defensive scheme. That Steelers would typically look really really good against teams like the Browns but then would give up 350-400+ yards and 3-4 TDs against the top dog QBs in the NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...