The Pro Football Hall of Fame: Both Boyd Dowler and Ron Kramer Deserve Consideration

[Bob Fox]

I don't need a lecture from someone who said in another thread that only a handful of players from the 1960s could play in the NFL today. What a freaking asinine statement!

[AlexGreen#20]

14 minutes ago, Bob Fox said:

I don't need a lecture from someone who said in another thread that only a handful of players from the 1960s could play in the NFL today. What a freaking asinine statement!

If you took players from the 1960s and stuck them in a time machine, there would be maybe a handful of players that could play in Today's NFL. Who has the size and speed to compete?

[Dubz41]

16 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

If you took players from the 1960s and stuck them in a time machine, there would be maybe a handful of players that could play in Today's NFL. Who has the size and speed to compete?

Any time you need to use the term 'time machine' in a comparison? it borders on asinine.  Like- One Seal team could go back and win the Civil War.  Apples to oranges.

[Norm]

35 minutes ago, Dubz41 said:

Any time you need to use the term 'time machine' in a comparison? it borders on asinine.  Like- One Seal team could go back and win the Civil War.  Apples to oranges.

I'm confused how that an analogy proves his point is asinine though...

[Dubz41]

1 hour ago, NormSizedMidget said:

I'm confused how that an analogy proves his point is asinine though...

Sorry, a little extreme.  Bigger stronger faster compared to a time when the resources didn't provide same dynamics for an apple to apple comparison?  It's why we usually try to compare accomplishments with the time in which they were achieved.  Could Don Hutson make the roster today?  Probably not, but in his time he was THE MAN.

[Norm]

3 minutes ago, Dubz41 said:

Sorry, a little extreme.  Bigger stronger faster compared to a time when the resources didn't provide same dynamics for an apple to apple comparison?  It's why we usually try to compare accomplishments with the time in which they were achieved.  Could Don Hutson make the roster today?  Probably not, but in his time he was THE MAN.

Absolutely. How those players might have trained differently is a big factor going back in time or bringing his to the future. It's impossible to apply that too. I'm guessing he just means as we know them as athletes, there wouldn't be a lot. Not many who would play the same roles anyways. With all the advantages of modern athletes, who knows how many equals you could have. 

[Leader]

7 minutes ago, NormSizedMidget said:

Absolutely. How those players might have trained differently is a big factor going back in time or bringing his to the future. It's impossible to apply that too. I'm guessing he just means as we know them as athletes, there wouldn't be a lot. Not many who would play the same roles anyways. With all the advantages of modern athletes, who knows how many equals you could have. 

Folks - I'm enjoying the micro dissection of a fairly easy topic. Not. I dont believe its posited to take a 1960's player off the field at halftime and start them on the field in current times. Those players - who evidenced an ability to separate themselves from the talent of their time - supported by the training regimes of their time - would/could avail themselves of current training practices and techniques - and perhaps show a similar ability to produce. Thats all.

It's fairly simple if you dont require all points be proven, supported, argued and debated. There is no "case" to be won. No "judgement or ruling" will be coming down - so back off the Country Lawyer crap and just enjoy the information and insights provided you. 

[Packerraymond]

As a Packer fan base, our attention should shift toward getting Butler in now. These two are Packer HOF'ers but I don't see any reason for them to be in Canton.

Butler, Woodson (lock), Rodgers (lock), Holmgren and we get passed the Bears for #1. Peppers will count for both teams.

[Norm]

2 minutes ago, Leader said:

Folks - I'm enjoying the micro dissection of a fairly easy topic. Not. I dont believe its posited to take a 1960's player off the field at halftime and start them on the field in current times. Those players - who evidenced an ability to separate themselves from the talent of their time - supported by the training regimes of their time - would/could avail themselves of current training practices and techniques - and perhaps show a similar ability to produce. Thats all.

It's fairly simple if you dont require all points be proven, supported, argued and debated. There is no "case" to be won. No "judgement or ruling" will be coming down - so back off the Country Lawyer crap and just enjoy the information and insights provided you. 

I think what you just said, is what I just said...

I never was saying anything needed to be proven, so I don't know where this country lawyer bull**** is coming from. I simply said it's possible they could play with modern advantages, just like you did. Are you just in the mood to correct someone, or do you feel your OP buddy is being attacked and needed to be defended or something?

Seems like you were looking for a fight when I was playing the fence on the entire topic.

[Leader]

Just now, NormSizedMidget said:

I think what you just said, is what I just said...

I never was saying anything needed to be proven, so I don't know where this country lawyer bull**** is coming from. I simply said it's possible they could play with modern advantages, just like you did. Are you just in the mood to correct someone, or do you feel your OP buddy is being attacked and needed to be defended or something?

Seems like you were looking for a fight when I was playing the fence on the entire topic.

Actually not. Dont take it personally. You werent on my mind at the time of the posting and I dont look for fights, debates and/or arguments when discussing football.

[Norm]

3 minutes ago, Leader said:

Actually not. Dont take it personally. You werent on my mind at the time of the posting and I dont look for fights, debates and/or arguments when discussing football.

I think I'm slightly insulted because although I'm only in my thirties, few people who are online much have seen as much pre merger football as me I would venture to guess. Literally anything online I've found and watched over the years. So I'm about the last person to try and crap on the history of the NFL or players from the 60s. But there are still realities that a lot of those guys just weren't that athletically talented, though I think there are some that could clearly play. Buck Buchanon continues to come to mind. Outside of the more obvious star skill position guys.

I tend to sit these debates out since those who lived it don't think I have a clue and those who never watched any of it feel the same. Lol

[ThatJerkDave]

12 hours ago, Dubz41 said:

Sorry, a little extreme.  Bigger stronger faster compared to a time when the resources didn't provide same dynamics for an apple to apple comparison?  It's why we usually try to compare accomplishments with the time in which they were achieved.  Could Don Hutson make the roster today?  Probably not, but in his time he was THE MAN.

Well, he is dead.  But give us that time machine, and I say yes.  And he would probably be pretty good.  He was 6'1 183 and had world class speed.  And that was with 1940s training and having to work jobs in the offseason.  

[AlexGreen#20]

21 hours ago, DavidatMIZZOU said:

Well, he is dead.  But give us that time machine, and I say yes.  And he would probably be pretty good.  He was 6'1 183 and had world class speed.  And that was with 1940s training and having to work jobs in the offseason.  

Jordy Nelson in highschool ran a 10.63 100m. Tinus Osenkomp won a god damn bronze medal in the olympics at 10.5 in 1936. He came in 5th at the European Championships that same year at 10.9. World Class speed in the 1930s and 1940s isn't even comparable to today. If we assume that Hutson was running at roughly the same speed as the 100m bronze medalist, which I think is an absurd assumption to make, he still only has average NFL speed. Hutson would be of average height, slim build, and below average speed if he played today, as well as being decades behind in technique, route running, and understanding of the game. The greatest receiver of the first half century of the NFL, wouldn't be close to ready to play if you time machined him at halftime. 

This isn't to say that Hutson wasn't dominant compared to his peers, but the game has changed significantly, and ignoring that seems to be a ridiculous way to handle the hall of fame. 

[Norm]

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Jordy Nelson in highschool ran a 10.63 100m. Tinus Osenkomp won a god damn bronze medal in the olympics at 10.5 in 1936. He came in 5th at the European Championships that same year at 10.9. World Class speed in the 1930s and 1940s isn't even comparable to today. If we assume that Hutson was running at roughly the same speed as the 100m bronze medalist, which I think is an absurd assumption to make, he still only has average NFL speed. Hutson would be of average height, slim build, and below average speed if he played today, as well as being decades behind in technique, route running, and understanding of the game. The greatest receiver of the first half century of the NFL, wouldn't be close to ready to play if you time machined him at halftime. 

This isn't to say that Hutson wasn't dominant compared to his peers, but the game has changed significantly, and ignoring that seems to be a ridiculous way to handle the hall of fame. 

I agree with all of this until the end, but maybe I'm not understanding exactly either. I think those who clearly stood out and paved the way from pre merger football should get in or at least consideration. My issue is I don't took these two in this topic should be. Which isn't meant to be a slight.

I have a pretty different view of the HOF than most though

[AlexGreen#20]

Just now, NormSizedMidget said:

I agree with all of this until the end, but maybe I'm not understanding exactly either. I think those who clearly stood out and paved the way from pre merger football should get in or at least consideration. My issue is I don't took these two in this topic should be. Which isn't meant to be a slight.

I have a pretty different view of the HOF than most though

No, you and I are on the same page. 

The truly great players should be in the HOF. Dowler and the lesser Kramer just aren't near that level.