|
Blackula69 posted:That team was completely ridiculous. The only team they didn't blow out/rear end-stomp was the Vick-led Hokies. I wish I'd been more into college football at the time. Bryant McKinnie on the line as well, they were pretty much unstoppable.
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2010 20:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:37 |
|
|
Oodles of Wootles posted:http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/college/rosters/2001/mmi/ To sort of correct your edit, they had 17 players on that team go in the first round. That is bananas. They would still be crushed by any NFL team.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2010 20:44
|
|
|
They're widely considered the best team of all time, and it would be unanimous if their QB was any good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2010 22:25
|
|
|
Blackula69 posted:They're widely considered the best team of all time, and it would be unanimous if their QB was any good. I was amazed at the brief NFL career he managed to have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2010 22:50
|
|
|
The fact that I recognized more than a quarter of the names on that roster means it was bonkers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2010 01:13
|
|
|
This might be a really dumb question, but it's bugging me. I'm sitting here watching this NFL Films documentary on the 1967 Cowboys/Packers Ice Bowl. It feels like the players are moving in slow motion, and I notice this same thing when I see any old film of the NFL. Is this just an example of how much the players in the game have changed over the decades, or is there something with how these old games were filmed?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2010 03:42
|
|
|
-Dethstryk- posted:This might be a really dumb question, but it's bugging me. Strength, conditioning, and speed have increased exponentially since the 1960s. Players are in much better shape, have much more regimented diets and workout programs, and are doing something NFL related pretty much year round. Players have also gotten bigger. Being a 250 pound offensive lineman in the 1960s wasn't uncommon, but today you'll be hard pressed to find an offensive lineman who isn't over 300.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2010 03:58
|
|
|
-Dethstryk- posted:This might be a really dumb question, but it's bugging me. I suspect it's more to do with the difference between the frame rates for film versus on-line video. Players haven't changed all that much - at least not so much that the play on the field would appear significantly different to the eye. If it was filmed at 24 fps and is being played back at 20 fps, for example, it would look 20% slower than real time. Edit: As an example, Jim Brown reportedly ran a 4.5 40 (in full uniform) back in the 50s. That would still be a pretty fast runner today. Deteriorata fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Dec 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2010 04:00
|
|
|
I was watching a few clips of Gale Sayers the other night and wondered the same thing. Every person they interviewed said "fastest guy you've ever seen" and while he's outrunning the guys on the field, he looks like your average middle linebacker lumbering back an interception. It has to be the film because Sayers was fast goddamnit 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2010 04:31
|
|
|
Two replies, each for both sides of the coin. I suspect that the truth probably does lie in the middle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2010 05:19
|
|
|
Blackula69 posted:2e: hahaha sorry, they stomped everyone except Virginia Tech and...the Brian St. Pierre-led Boston College! BSP 4 lyfe. If you're wondering why Ed Reed loves lateraling or handing the ball off during returns, well... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_ZQkJKw4NA
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2010 05:54
|
|
|
-Dethstryk- posted:Two replies, each for both sides of the coin. I suspect that the truth probably does lie in the middle. The bulk of the speed increase in the last 50 years has come in linemen and linebackers, the "unskilled" positions. Receivers and running backs have always been track stars. The other part of it is that the game has opened up a whole lot, making speed more important in more positions. 50 years ago the game was played mostly between the tackles, and linemen were valued for their immobility as a consequence. As the game has evolved toward the edges, lateral pursuit has become far more important. So I guess the answer to the question depends on what you're looking at. Line play is considerably faster and more sophisticated now than it was back then, but the speed burners are just about the same speed they ever were.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2010 07:33
|
|
|
JGdmn posted:I was watching a few clips of Gale Sayers the other night and wondered the same thing. Every person they interviewed said "fastest guy you've ever seen" and while he's outrunning the guys on the field, he looks like your average middle linebacker lumbering back an interception. I think my favorite way to watch these is just to watch in comparison to everyone else on the field. Sayers doesn't look fast (because of film or whatever the case is), but holy poo poo does he torch the other guys in those videos. The difference in speed between him and the guys chasing him definitely comes through. e: my personal guess based on nothing is that the elite guys were as fast or close to as fast as elite guys today, while the average speed was waaaaaay slower for the reasons Deteriorata pointed out. So the filming method coming into it does make some sense to me. But I have nothing other than my opinion backing me up. Grittybeard fucked around with this message at 09:21 on Dec 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2010 09:12
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:So I guess the answer to the question depends on what you're looking at. Line play is considerably faster and more sophisticated now than it was back then, but the speed burners are just about the same speed they ever were. This isn't really true. I mean, back in the day you might have one guy running sub 4.5 and he would be able to outrun everyone else. Now every speed guy is about that level or faster. The pure speed of the fastest of the fast hasn't increased much. But the amount of fast as hell guys has. Agility has significantly increased as well. The important thing is we have a great farm system to feed the best athletes into the NFL now which wasn't really in place in the 60s.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2010 19:39
|
|
|
Bashez posted:This isn't really true. I mean, back in the day you might have one guy running sub 4.5 and he would be able to outrun everyone else. Now every speed guy is about that level or faster. The pure speed of the fastest of the fast hasn't increased much. But the amount of fast as hell guys has. Agility has significantly increased as well. The important thing is we have a great farm system to feed the best athletes into the NFL now which wasn't really in place in the 60s. I'm not sure what "farm system" you're referring to. College athletes have been playing in the NFL after graduation since the NFL was founded.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2010 22:37
|
|
|
But college football wasn't any where near as developed as it is now until the 1970s at least.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2010 01:41
|
|
|
Blackula69 posted:But college football wasn't any where near as developed as it is now until the 1970s at least. Pro football wasn't very sophisticated back then, either. One of Vince Lombardi's major innovations at Green Bay was the pulling guard on the end sweep, featuring Jerry Kramer. Kramer was also the place kicker, to give you an idea of the degree of specialization.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2010 03:12
|
|
|
Anyone know off the top of their head when it was that NFL players stopped having to have a summer job to make ends meet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2010 03:52
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Anyone know off the top of their head when it was that NFL players stopped having to have a summer job to make ends meet? Might be wrong on this, but I've seen NFL Films stuff or programs on NFLN about teams or players well into the 60's were guys were not able to rely on football to make ends meet. My guess would be some of the big name guys of that era were comfortable with just their football earnings like Unitas and the like, but not until the mid 70's were most players able to solely rely on their football salary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2010 04:00
|
|
|
McKracken posted:Might be wrong on this, but I've seen NFL Films stuff or programs on NFLN about teams or players well into the 60's were guys were not able to rely on football to make ends meet. My guess would be some of the big name guys of that era were comfortable with just their football earnings like Unitas and the like, but not until the mid 70's were most players able to solely rely on their football salary. In 1970 the union signed a contract requiring a minimum salary of $12,500 for rookies and $13,000 for veterans. Not sure on my history, but I don't think that would have been enough for a guy trying to support a family. I would guess it was really until the mid 80s when the USFL started stealing their players.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2010 04:05
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Pro football wasn't very sophisticated back then, either. One of Vince Lombardi's major innovations at Green Bay was the pulling guard on the end sweep, featuring Jerry Kramer. Kramer was also the place kicker, to give you an idea of the degree of specialization. I understand this, but the training and organization of college football was also at a much reduced level. It wasn't a farm system in the same way it is now, guys weren't preparing for the pro game or anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2010 07:36
|
|
|
Blackula69 posted:I understand this, but the training and organization of college football was also at a much reduced level. It wasn't a farm system in the same way it is now, guys weren't preparing for the pro game or anything. Of course they were. What makes you think they weren't? Eta: Of course, given the state of professional football at the time, there wasn't a lot of serious preparation to be done. As pro football has become more demanding, college players with intent of playing pro ball have become more demanding in their preparation. My point is that the two go together. College players have been getting themselves prepared for a post-college pro career since the 30s or so, it's just that that preparation largely consisted of registering for the draft and not much else until the 1970s or thereabouts. Deteriorata fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Dec 24, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2010 15:35
|
|
|
I'm tempted to shell out the $99 for a 2010 NFL Game Pass account. Is anyone else using this? I wonder if the price will drop again after Superbowl, maybe someone knows about this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2010 19:01
|
|
|
I wonder if there is enough time for the Texans to score here, and STILL lose Edit: sorry wrong thread Number_6 fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Dec 27, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 00:51
|
|
|
E: oops
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 01:08
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Of course they were. What makes you think they weren't? Pro football was considered inferior to College football, guys weren't preparing to play professional football. We now have a dedicated system of training athletes with access to weight rooms and off season training camps starting in middle school. The NFL went from well gently caress it I was good in college maybe I can put on a leather hat to 10 year old kids dedicating every waking moment of their life for their big NFL break. Plenty of guys in the 30's were preparing for a draft, just not for the NFL. (Hopefully that isn't what you were talking about). The NFL was not a viable career choice for decades after that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2010 00:16
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Anyone know off the top of their head when it was that NFL players stopped having to have a summer job to make ends meet? I remember watching a show about the strike-shortened 1982 season and players talking about how playing 5 less games was a serious blow to their personal finances, and caused several players to get other jobs in the meantime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2010 03:23
|
|
|
Has anyone ever read this book? http://www.amazon.com/Take-Your-Eye-Ball-ebook/dp/B004322EYQ/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2010 15:29
|
|
|
I went to my first NFL game yesterday which was Vikings-Lions and I was a little disappointed. I don't want to have one experience taint my feelings on this league so I wanted to ask some questions. 1.) I found the fans to be lacking. I always assumed that an NFL game would be loud and fans crazy like what I see on tv, but they seemed pretty calm. I was sitting behind the Vikings bench because my friend who got the tickets is a fan of them so I may have been too removed from the Lions fans. He also said it probably was because the game was meaningless and neither team was going to the playoffs. Was this game more quiet than usual or are Lions fans just not that hyper? Is every game a sellout? I could see some empty seats though not sure if they were part of the boxes. 2.) I'm used to the CFL where the field dimensions are bigger so I couldn't get over how small the field was. Do different fields have different dimensions or is there one standard? 3.) How is Ford Field compared to other stadiums? It was nice, but there were no banners hanging or stuff up from past teams. It mainly seemed to be food and drink places. Do NFL teams not do this? I'm used to NHL/MLB so I found it kind of strange. 4.) Joe Webb was drafted in the 6th round and my friend said that was also the round Tom Brady was drafted. Is it because of the huge college system that the draft can be so good still in later rounds or are there just surprises? Are 1st round draft picks always good and NFL ready? Is there a certain number of years a rookie has to wait until they are ready? Suh was taken this year and he seemed pretty dominant on the field and with the fans affection. 5.) I have a friend who goes to the University of Alabama and he is always talking about Mark Ingram. When will he enter the draft? Will be the 1st overall?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 01:36
|
|
|
Private Snowball posted:I went to my first NFL game yesterday which was Vikings-Lions and I was a little disappointed. I don't want to have one experience taint my feelings on this league so I wanted to ask some questions. Most of your problems can be explained by it being Detroit. You might do a little research on the history of the Lions franchise to understand why the crowds were subdued and there weren't any banners hanging anywhere. Otherwise, yes, CFL fields are bigger than NFL or college fields. 10 yard shorter playing field (midfield is the 50, not the 55) with only 10 yard deep endzones, and the goalposts at the back line. Not sure on the width.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 01:52
|
|
|
Private Snowball posted:A majority of games across the league are sellouts, but not all. It will be worse for teams that are awful in cities with horrendous economies (Detroit). 2) All US football fields (high school, college, NFL) are the same size as far as I know (locations of hash marks change between levels). The internet says that CFL has 10 extra yards in each endzone, and and extra 10 yards in the center of the field. That gives a total of 150yds for CFL and 120yds for NFL. No idea on the width. 3) No idea about Ford Field specifically. Teams do hang up banners and poo poo, but the Lions don't really win anything. 4) The success of a player coming out of college into the NFL is wildly unpredictable. Some 6th round guys end up being great, some undrafted guys end up being great, some 1st round guys end up being great. Overall though, more guys end up being lovely/mediocre than great. LOTS of things factor into a players success. It's not just more talent = better than. A player can play as soon as he is drafted. Players have to be out of high school for 3 years before they are able to be drafted. 5) I think he's a junior. He may come out this year because the guys behind him are amazing and he'll get less and less playing time. I don't follow the draft much, but I think he'll be one of the first RB drafted. He will not be the first overall pick in the draft.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 01:56
|
|
|
Private Snowball posted:I went to my first NFL game yesterday which was Vikings-Lions and I was a little disappointed. I don't want to have one experience taint my feelings on this league so I wanted to ask some questions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 02:41
|
|
|
An American football field is exactly 53 and 1/3 yards wide, for reasons that no doubt made sense at the time and so nobody bothered to write them down. Fun fact; Walter Camp, the guy responsible for taking the myriad traditional mob football games played at American universities and turning them into a single unified game of football, was asked in the early 1900s to think up some new ideas to make the game less violent and more open. His main recommendation was to widen the field, to allow more space for 11 players to coexist and to run plays (he also had a great wacky idea that I utterly love, whereby any kick that went more than 25 yards could be legally caught or recovered by the kicking team). Trouble is, Harvard had just build a brand-new state-of-the-art stadium, and it was too small for Camp's recommended width, so all his great new ideas fell by the wayside because there was no way that they were moving out or building another one. However, the rules committee still felt the need to open the game up more, and as they couldn't widen the field, they instead decided to legalise this other great wacky idea that somebody else had had. It was called a "forward pass"...
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 03:13
|
|
|
CFL fields are 65 yards wide. Honestly, I like American football more, but it takes getting used to after the wide-open passing of the CFL.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 03:38
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:An American football field is exactly 53 and 1/3 yards wide, for reasons that no doubt made sense at the time and so nobody bothered to write them down. That's 160 feet. Maybe it made a good match to the overall 360 feet the rest of the field is. They both end in 60...? Wait, back when the field was the grid, how far apart were the grid lines (the ones that eventually became the hashes, i mean)?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 04:36
|
|
|
They didn't divide the field perfectly into boxes, if that's what you're getting at; the boxes were 5 yards by 5 yards except the ones next to the sidelines, which were 5 yards long by 5 feet wide, and IIRC the field width had more or less become standardised before 5-yard lines were invented. Wikipedia's got a picture of what the true gridiron looked like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Football_Diagram_1904.jpg The sharp-eyed may notice that it's 110 yards long, which is something that stuck around for quite a while even after the American field narrowed. Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Jan 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 05:35
|
|
|
Is there an actual origin to "no respect" or is it just a generic attitude?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 07:14
|
|
|
Doppelganger posted:Is there an actual origin to "no respect" or is it just a generic attitude? A bunch of idiots get motivated when they think someone isn't giving them enough respect so coaches feed this poo poo like crazy to motivate people. Belichick is really good at this. This goes hand in hand with bulletin board material. If someone says something like "oh yeah we feel like we can score a touchdown against them and hopefully our defense will carry us" you blow that poo poo up and post "oh yeah we feel like we can score" somewhere the defense will see it all the time and then post "our defense will carry us" so that the offense gets angry too. After that you see if you can't suss out some signals from your video, while listening to some Bon Jovi.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 08:31
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:They didn't divide the field perfectly into boxes, if that's what you're getting at; the boxes were 5 yards by 5 yards except the ones next to the sidelines, which were 5 yards long by 5 feet wide, and IIRC the field width had more or less become standardised before 5-yard lines were invented. I was curious if maybe the spacing of them added with their number made the seemingly random 160 feet make sense. Like if there were 20 of them spaced out at eight yards, because you'd get 10 on each side of the centerline of the field but that still wouldn't explain why they picked eight feet to space them out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 15:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:37 |
|
|
Sash! posted:I was curious if maybe the spacing of them added with their number made the seemingly random 160 feet make sense. Like if there were 20 of them spaced out at eight yards, because you'd get 10 on each side of the centerline of the field but that still wouldn't explain why they picked eight feet to space them out. 10 grids of 5 yards each = 50 yards = 150 feet 2 sideline grids of 5 feet each = 10 feet Booya
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 22:50
|
|
