2011 Bengals Discussion

[traderumor]

Why wouldn't we? Did those players not get the advantages of the technology and training?

Here is what I am saying.....

Take Ray Lewis in 1999 and progress his career forward, but he has to use the exact same technology for the rest of his career moving forward as he had available in 1999 and the exact same training principles that he had available in 1999, including supplements and compare it to moving that exact same player who was able to use new technology and supplements and training.... who is going to be better?

Of course it is going to be the guy who has the better technology, supplements and training. That is why guys today would be better than guys 10 years ago, 20 years ago and 30 years ago. They have athletic advantages that make them bigger, faster, stronger and quicker in reaction. They have technological advantages that also prepare them better, by infinite amounts if you are able to go back 15-20 years or longer. That makes them all play smarter and quicker.

When you put those things together, it is just going to make better players. I really can't figure out where the other side of the argument is. Guys today are better. Part of it is genetics, because as humans we are generally just getting bigger, but a lot of it is the technology we have. Between what we know now with training, guys are just better athletes than ever before. It isn't to say the guys in the past wouldn't be if they had the same advantages, but they didn't have the same advantages.

I hear what you're saying, but I think it is always implied in discussions such as this that the best players or teams were "state of the art." I'm not sure the comparisons are ever apples to apples in sports because of the ever changing "state of the art." There are vast differences in any of the major professional sports within a decade, let alone comparing eras that are decades apart. Lining up the 60s Cleveland Browns and the 2010 Carolina Panthers and saying that the Panthers would probably win easily is like saying Edison's discovery of the light bulb pales in comparison to the development of the computer chip.

[dougdirt]

I hear what you're saying, but I think it is always implied in discussions such as this that the best players or teams were "state of the art." I'm not sure the comparisons are ever apples to apples in sports because of the ever changing "state of the art." There are vast differences in any of the major professional sports within a decade, let alone comparing eras that are decades apart. Lining up the 60s Cleveland Browns and the 2010 Carolina Panthers and saying that the Panthers would probably win easily is like saying Edison's discovery of the light bulb pales in comparison to the development of the computer chip.

Yet when I said that, I was questioned as if what I said weren't true.

I never said anything to the effect that we are better today vs our competition than they were against theirs. I said that the guys in todays games would obliterate guys from the past and its mostly because of the technology we have that makes us bigger, stronger, faster, quicker and at least play smarter if not actually being smarter.

[Sea Ray]

Yet when I said that, I was questioned as if what I said weren't true.

I never said anything to the effect that we are better today vs our competition than they were against theirs. I said that the guys in todays games would obliterate guys from the past and its mostly because of the technology we have that makes us bigger, stronger, faster, quicker and at least play smarter if not actually being smarter.

By today's standards Jim Brown would not stand out as a big and fast RB

[dougdirt]

By today's standards Jim Brown would not stand out as a big and fast RB

I know this. Jim Brown was bigger than some lineman when he was playing.

But that was part of my point. Guys today are just incredibly better and I am tired of hearing how watered down our sports are compared to "yesteryear". They aren't. Not even close. The pool of talent is incredibly larger by sheer population numbers and the athletes are incredibly better.

[Mario-Rijo]

I know this. Jim Brown was bigger than some lineman when he was playing.

But that was part of my point. Guys today are just incredibly better and I am tired of hearing how watered down our sports are compared to "yesteryear". They aren't. Not even close. The pool of talent is incredibly larger by sheer population numbers and the athletes are incredibly better.

They are no doubt more talented but if you put todays team back in those days I'm guessing they wouldn't be as dominant as you think. Toughness and rule differences the older teams always have.

[IslandRed]

I think that since World War II, there have been two huge leaps in quality of play in various sports. One, obviously, was integration. The second was the relatively short period of time where weight training and (non-PED) supplements etc. meshed with players having enough money to spend the offseason working out instead of working a second job, overlapping with computers and video becoming commonplace. Outside those periods, the field-of-play gains have tended to be smaller and incremental.

I also think that stars would still be stars in the era that follows them. What changed most over time is the makeup of the average player.

[Sea Ray]

I know this. Jim Brown was bigger than some lineman when he was playing.

But that was part of my point. Guys today are just incredibly better and I am tired of hearing how watered down our sports are compared to "yesteryear". They aren't. Not even close. The pool of talent is incredibly larger by sheer population numbers and the athletes are incredibly better.

Uhhh, I'm on your side Doug. My example supports what you were saying.

[dougdirt]

They are no doubt more talented but if you put todays team back in those days I'm guessing they wouldn't be as dominant as you think. Toughness and rule differences the older teams always have.

Sure they would. All of the toughness in the world isn't going to make up for the large differences in talent/size. Toughness doesn't do you any good if you can't catch up to the guy or he is just physically dominating you because he is taller, bigger, stronger and faster than you are.

[dougdirt]

I think that since World War II, there have been two huge leaps in quality of play in various sports. One, obviously, was integration. The second was the relatively short period of time where weight training and (non-PED) supplements etc. meshed with players having enough money to spend the offseason working out instead of working a second job, overlapping with computers and video becoming commonplace. Outside those periods, the field-of-play gains have tended to be smaller and incremental.

I also think that stars would still be stars in the era that follows them. What changed most over time is the makeup of the average player.

Agreed here. Guys today wouldn't be any better if they were transported through time as children and were brought up in those times, just like guys back then wouldn't be any different if they were transported forward through time as children and got to grow up with the same advantages we have today. The differences, as you noted, are mostly because of the times we live in that provides athletes a much better situation to improve their skillset compared to those that came before them.

[Mario-Rijo]

Sure they would. All of the toughness in the world isn't going to make up for the large differences in talent/size. Toughness doesn't do you any good if you can't catch up to the guy or he is just physically dominating you because he is taller, bigger, stronger and faster than you are.

He can't physically dominate you if he can't see, can't walk, can't rationalize the win being worth the beating. These skilled players today would get smashed in a pile up back then. Yeah the teams are still way more talented but let's give those guys their due, they were a different kind of animal. Just as an example I have fought many guys more physically gifted than myself but they lacked heart usually and were easy to break mentally. Sometimes it really is about who wants it more and who is willing to slug it out (so to speak).

And you might just want to re-read my initial post I never said it made up for it all the way.

[dougdirt]

He can't physically dominate you if he can't see, can't walk, can't rationalize the win being worth the beating. These skilled players today would get smashed in a pile up back then. Yeah the teams are still way more talented but let's give those guys their due, they were a different kind of animal. Just as an example I have fought many guys more physically gifted than myself but they lacked heart usually and were easy to break mentally. Sometimes it really is about who wants it more and who is willing to slug it out (so to speak).

And you might just want to re-read my initial post I never said it made up for it all the way.

There wouldn't be a pile up back then. The old day guys would be flat on their backs or chasing the back/reciever and losing ground with every step.

What you did against other guys means nothing in this context. We are talking about the absolute best athletes in the world here. Not just a non athlete versus a better non athlete.

[Mario-Rijo]

There wouldn't be a pile up back then. The old day guys would be flat on their backs or chasing the back/reciever and losing ground with every step.

What you did against other guys means nothing in this context. We are talking about the absolute best athletes in the world here. Not just a non athlete versus a better non athlete.

Oh so now they won't even lay a finger on them? Come on Doug, sometimes you really take things too far.

[dougdirt]

Oh so now they won't even lay a finger on them? Come on Doug, sometimes you really take things too far.

Lineman are much bigger/strong/faster than they ever have been. That equates to dominating at the line of scrimmage. Line backers are smaller than they are now and slower. Running backs are bigger and faster, as are wide recievers. So now we have smaller and slower guys trying to chase down and tackle faster, more agile and stronger guys with the ball.

I don't really think I am taking it too far. Of course they would lay a hand on them, but there wouldn't be pile ups all that often because pile ups happen when both sides are evenly matched and the line doesn't go anywhere. Put todays linemen against linemen of yesteryear and todays linemen will absolutely dominate the line of scrimmage on every down.

[The Operator]

I hate to break up a good argument, but this is a Bengals thread, guys.

I think the "today vs. yesteryear" argument is fascinating and worth talking about, and if you want to continue it I'd be glad to move the related posts in this thread into a separate thread for you to continue discussing it, if you all would like that.

But for this thread, for the last three pages or so it's been only this topic with Bengals talk sprinkled in about every 5th or 6th post. So please try to keep it on topic.

[WebScorpion]

We gotta keep Wallace in front of us on Sunday. The Pitt running game isn't what it usually is so I'm confident we can stop it. Let our D-Line wear em down and tee off in the 2nd half like usual.

I think we're gonna win on Sunday. Dalton just needs to play smart and stay away from Polamalu.

I think the Bengals will win too. Even the good Bengal teams that I remember (and there aren't many of those) didn't make halftime adjustments like this team. It's like having a great bullpen in baseball...as long as the offense keeps us in the game in the first half, our defense will shut them down and let us catch up in the end. I'm loving it!