Is Aaron Donald now the greatest DT of all time?

[TecmoSuperJoe]

1 hour ago, JonStark said:

No they shouldn't, but that doesn't mean we have to act like the playing field for both were the same. It's not. I think it's pretty fair to say that there's a far greater chance that AD would be equal or better playing in the earlier era than there is that Page was equal or better playing in the current era. 

The training and nutrition knowledge is a moot point because not only do all of the players that AD went up against have that same advantage (hence why the current era has a higher level of competition), but it's an impossible scenario to evaluate. By that logic, I could argue that Ryan Leaf would've been better than Peyton Manning had they been drafted 20 years later. 

Not true. It's perfectly fair to say that those guys would still be elite in today's game, which would be better than 95% of current players. Just because they wouldn't be on AD's level doesn't mean they would be bottom of the barrel. We don't have to go to the extreme by admitting that the competition level in today's game is a little higher. 

You don't have to act like the playing field is the same for both. But if you aren't going to penalize guys for when they were born, then saying how much someone of their era dominated everyone else should trump everything else. If we're saying Donald is put in an impossible situation to evaluate, then that goes the same for the reverse with past players. If it's impossible to evaluate, then it's value to the discussion is low. 

So I can't on board with your initial statement that Donald is "easily" the GOAT DT. Seems like a slap in the face to the past greats at the position. Because again, they can't change when they were born. And we can't have Donald be born way back when for analysis. So then what's left? Dominance amongst peer groups as best we know for each era. Isn't that fair enough?

Edited March 18 by TecmoSuperJoe

[seminoles1]

Unfortunate for Donald that he will only be the GOAT for like 15 years, since players keep getting better. And unless you're a current player, you can't be considered the GOAT.

Edited March 18 by seminoles1

[HerbertGOAT]

We can stop pretending like dominating 240lbs Linemen who had to block with their elbows out is anywhere close to being as impressive as Donald dominating those 50lbs heavier and half a foot taller, in the most skilled era of all-time.

[TecmoSuperJoe]

5 hours ago, HerbertGOAT said:

We can stop pretending like dominating 240lbs Linemen who had to block with their elbows out is anywhere close to being as impressive as Donald dominating those 50lbs heavier and half a foot taller, in the most skilled era of all-time.

But that was the game back then. People can't change when they were born. So I'm not sure what you expect them to do??? 

We can recognize that people can't control when they existed, and recognize the difference in era of ball play at the same time without diminishing the accomplishments of past players. There are disadvantages, and advantages for players in every era. Does every OL that came into the league after 1977 now have an asterisk when the legacy of their play is ever discussed with past players, because they got to block with their hands wide apart? That's one example, but we could go on, and on, back, and forth not having gained any ground for era comparison. 

Edited March 18 by TecmoSuperJoe

[JonStark]

14 hours ago, mse326 said:

Greene was like 270lbs. And his biggest strength was rush defense. It's unlikely he would be elite and he is one like a handful of players that have the weight to even be considered viable today (he's also said he isn't sure he could play under these rules since he used the head slap and would go low on QBs). Alan Page was 245lbs. He isn't even playing DT. So, no, it isn't fair to say they would be elite today and better than 95% of them.

The reality is than none from then plopped directly into today would be dominant and even the vast majority of the elite ones wouldn't even make the teams. We could do this at loads of positions. Graham and Unitas are undoubtedly among the greatest ever QBs. The QBs of today would run rings around them. But no one in their right mind would say that Kirk Cousins is better than them. If we don't rate players based on their own time then the current will always be better.

To be clear while I don't think Donald is better it is not at all a ridiculous opinion. I think they are close. But the reasoning is based on how they did in their own times.

I can get on board with this. I probably should have left out the easily part. I think that AD is the clear GOAT, but that doesn't mean it isn't close. Do you by chance know the double/triple team rates for Green/Page? I think that would illustrate the difference for me but I can't find them for the life of me. 

13 hours ago, TecmoSuperJoe said:

You don't have to act like the playing field is the same for both. But if you aren't going to penalize guys for when they were born, then saying how much someone of their era dominated everyone else should trump everything else. If we're saying Donald is put in an impossible situation to evaluate, then that goes the same for the reverse with past players. If it's impossible to evaluate, then it's value to the discussion is low. 

So I can't on board with your initial statement that Donald is "easily" the GOAT DT. Seems like a slap in the face to the past greats at the position. Because again, they can't change when they were born. And we can't have Donald be born way back when for analysis. So then what's left? Dominance amongst peer groups as best we know for each era. Isn't that fair enough?

I don't agree with the "penalizing guys for when they were born" argument. That's really just dismissing the reality of the debate. I understand what you're saying and it probably should be taken into account somewhat, but it can't just be a get out of jail free card for the older generations for playing lesser competition. 

Like I said above, easily was probably the wrong word. I don't see it as a 1A/1B type situation but that doesn't mean that the gap is big. When we're talking about dominance, we should be looking at how much attention the opposing team was forced to give them and how often they still won. I can't find the numbers for Page/Green but I would assume AD has a significantly higher winrate vs double/triple teams than those two. Over the last 5 years, his winrate vs double teams was literally higher than the average passrusher against single. He also has 40 more TFL than any other player in the league since 2014 (not just DT). I could go on listing all of his insane stats but it just seems unlikely to me that, as amazing as Green/Page were, they were more dominant (even in their respective times) than AD was.  

Edited March 18 by JonStark

[TecmoSuperJoe]

4 hours ago, JonStark said:

I don't agree with the "penalizing guys for when they were born" argument. That's really just dismissing the reality of the debate. I understand what you're saying and it probably should be taken into account somewhat, but it can't just be a get out of jail free card for the older generations for playing lesser competition. 

Like I said above, easily was probably the wrong word. I don't see it as a 1A/1B type situation but that doesn't mean that the gap is big. When we're talking about dominance, we should be looking at how much attention the opposing team was forced to give them and how often they still won. I can't find the numbers for Page/Green but I would assume AD has a significantly higher winrate vs double/triple teams than those two. Over the last 5 years, his winrate vs double teams was literally higher than the average passrusher against single. He also has 40 more TFL than any other player in the league since 2014 (not just DT). I could go on listing all of his insane stats but it just seems unlikely to me that, as amazing as Green/Page were, they were more dominant (even in their respective times) than AD was.  

Well, when people were born is the reality of the debate, because it's something we can't get around. If you want to marginalize what past generations of players did, because of what you thought of the league was at the time so be it. All I ask is for you to ask yourself if that's fair when discussing the greatness of anyone that's ever played. And if it's not fair, then does the exercise have any value in the first place if we're trying to figure out who the greatest player of all time is. 

Edited March 18 by TecmoSuperJoe

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

Yes, without question.

[Soko]

1 hour ago, TecmoSuperJoe said:

Well, when people were born is the reality of the debate, because it's something we can't get around. If you want to marginalize what past generations of players did, because of what you thought of the league was at the time so be it. All I ask is for you to ask yourself if that's fair when discussing the greatness of anyone that's ever played. 

Yes, it’s fair. It has nothing to do with when they were born and everything to do with who they played with/against. Certain things are more impressive than others, it is what it is. This point only ever gets brought up in football (and baseball, tbh). Nobody who follows the NBA ever says Russell>Jordan because championships, or Wilt>Jordan because scoring. Everyone understands there’s a difference in era and competition. It’s not like the 2000s vs 2010s level difference in era, it’s an easily identifiable difference in the athletes and quality of competition. It’s not opinionated. 

It’s not penalizing old timers. It’s about giving credit to guys that are accomplishing similar physical feats vs superior physical competition. No, that’s not anyone’s fault, but it’s the truth. 

[seminoles1]

That's why you have to compare how they performed against their peers, not compared to players who came 40-50 years later. Yes, there will always be context, but that goes both ways.

[mse326]

5 hours ago, JonStark said:

Do you by chance know the double/triple team rates for Green/Page? I think that would illustrate the difference for me but I can't find them for the life of me. 

No, I don't think they kept those stats back then.

[seminoles1]

1 hour ago, Soko said:

Nobody who follows the NBA ever says Russell>Jordan because championships, or Wilt>Jordan because scoring.

Michael Jordan wouldn't be any better than DeMar DeRozan in today's NBA. He couldn't shoot 3s and wasn't used to the caliber of athlete and skill that is prevalent in the league now, so he can't be the GOAT.

[Soko]

18 minutes ago, seminoles1 said:

Michael Jordan wouldn't be any better than DeMar DeRozan in today's NBA. He couldn't shoot 3s and wasn't used to the caliber of athlete and skill that is prevalent in the league now, so he can't be the GOAT.

Wilt would still be scoring 100+ and be the best scorer in today’s NBA because he would adapt and have better training. /s

60s vs 90s isn’t the same as 90s vs 2020s in terms of competition and athleticism (not to mention the difference in the actual game), which is exactly why people are more comfortable comparing Jordan to present day guys than they are Wilt or Russell. Height and weight are similar to what they were in the late 80s-90s. That’s not true when talking about the 60s. Same deal in the NFL, OL aren’t 250lb like they used to be. 

I’m not saying Donald>everyone because era. Just chiming on the guy saying “it’s not their fault they were born”. It’s way off base. Weighing era isn’t supposed to completely swing the debate in one direction vs the other, but dismissing the obvious, tangible difference in athleticism just because it’s “not fair” is wrong.

 

Edited March 18 by Soko

[AngusMcFife]

It's interesting that many are considering Donald the GOAT DT when I've seen multiple offenses cut through a prime Donald and solid Rams defense like butter, scoring 40+ or even 50+ points multiple times.

Coming from a Ravens fans who focuses more on the AFC, there were two games we played vs the Rams scored at will, he was invisible the whole game.

It just didn't really feel like we were going against a force of nature, like a prime JJ Watt or Ray Lewis. Maybe that's the nature of the DT position, it can get schemed around.  

Just my anecdotal 2 cents.

[AngusMcFife]

1 hour ago, Soko said:

Yes, it’s fair. It has nothing to do with when they were born and everything to do with who they played with/against. Certain things are more impressive than others, it is what it is. This point only ever gets brought up in football (and baseball, tbh). Nobody who follows the NBA ever says Russell>Jordan because championships, or Wilt>Jordan because scoring. Everyone understands there’s a difference in era and competition. It’s not like the 2000s vs 2010s level difference in era, it’s an easily identifiable difference in the athletes and quality of competition. It’s not opinionated.

Poor analogy. Jordan was simply a more dominant player than Russell and Wilt based on a combo of stats and winning. Russell didn't have stats, and Wilt didn't have winning.

Quote

It’s not penalizing old timers. It’s about giving credit to guys that are accomplishing similar physical feats vs superior physical competition. No, that’s not anyone’s fault, but it’s the truth. 

But the modern players are also physically superior simply due to the era they were born in. I don't see why I give anyone credit for being more athletic, better trained, and better coached than guys from the 60s, it's just the way it is.

[Soko]

14 minutes ago, AngusMcFife said:

Poor analogy. Jordan was simply a more dominant player than Russell and Wilt based on a combo of stats and winning. Russell didn't have stats, and Wilt didn't have winning.

And Jordan didn’t win nearly as much as Russell and didn’t score nearly as much as Wilt. You’re focusing on the trees instead of the forest here.

14 minutes ago, AngusMcFife said:

But the modern players are also physically superior simply due to the era they were born in. I don't see why I give anyone credit for being more athletic, better trained, and better coached than guys from the 60s, it's just the way it is.

You don’t see why dominating physical competition with greatly superior athleticism and size would be viewed as a positive? To each their own.

In Page’s case specifically (which I haven’t really been commenting on to this point) at least he can say he was similar size to the guys he was dominating. It’s not like he was a normal 2020s DL playing against a bunch of OL who weighed less than some LBers. 

But again, commenting on the general era talk, there’s no argument for Player X doing ABC vs smaller, weaker, slower guys being equally as impressive as Player Z doing ABC vs bigger, stronger, faster guys. On the basis of what? It not being fair? Gimme a break. If in 40-60 years the NFL OL average size is 7’0, 400lbs, with 40+ inch arms and running 4.6, you better believe someone physically dominating those guys on a regular basis will be more impressive than Aaron Donald doing it against smaller, weaker guys. Again, era’s not a defining variable, but there’s no argument for throwing our hands up and ignoring context just cus’. 

Edited March 18 by Soko