PDA

View Full Version : Football Which statement is more true?


Rain Man
04-25-2011, 03:46 PM
Statement A. Being named an all-pro in the modern era is more impressive than being named an all-pro in earlier eras because there are more teams and more players to compete with.

Statement B. All-pro is all-pro. Having more teams now makes no difference, because only the best players are on the field. Having the top eight guys in an eight team league is just as competitive as having the top 8 guys and 24 more in a 32 team league.



For the purposes of this, don't think about things like different leagues (AFL vs. NFL) that each named their own all-pro teams. Think of it purely in terms of numbers of teams.

luv
04-25-2011, 03:58 PM
So strictly by numbers, and not competitiveness/skill of today's players v. yesterday's players?

Iowanian
04-25-2011, 04:01 PM
I think there are ALL-Pro players from 20 years ago who would get cut in camp today.

Rain Man
04-25-2011, 04:03 PM
So strictly by numbers, and not competitiveness/skill of today's players v. yesterday's players?

Yep.

I'm wondering if being an all-pro in an 8-team league is more impressive than being an all-pro in a 16-team league or a 32-team league. Pure numbers.

Maybe a better way to have phrased the question would be, "If the NFL cut down to 16 teams, would it be just as impressive to be an all-pro, more impressive, or less impressive?"

Old Dog
04-25-2011, 04:04 PM
I went with the second option

MoreLemonPledge
04-25-2011, 04:08 PM
Yep.

I'm wondering if being an all-pro in an 8-team league is more impressive than being an all-pro in a 16-team league or a 32-team league. Pure numbers.

Maybe a better way to have phrased the question would be, "If the NFL cut down to 16 teams, would it be just as impressive to be an all-pro, more impressive, or less impressive?"

I voted slightly more impressive, but I think we would really just see the overall quality of the average player increase. The quality of the best players won't necessarily increase. Each team would be some variation of an All-Pro team if it's an 8 team league as opposed to a 32 team league.

Assuming the number of All-Pros is relative to the number of teams, it should be that the lower number of teams, the higher quality of All-Pro, if only because the quality of being an All-Pro isn't diluted by having 4 other guys at your position.

notorious
04-25-2011, 04:09 PM
I think there are ALL-Pro players from 20 years ago who would get cut in camp today.

Yep.


And when they talk about football 60-70 years ago I just laugh.

luv
04-25-2011, 04:12 PM
Yep.

I'm wondering if being an all-pro in an 8-team league is more impressive than being an all-pro in a 16-team league or a 32-team league. Pure numbers.

Maybe a better way to have phrased the question would be, "If the NFL cut down to 16 teams, would it be just as impressive to be an all-pro, more impressive, or less impressive?"

Probably, because I have a feeling several will think of it that way, whether they mean to or not.

As for my opinion....

It could nearly go both ways. Strictly numbers, beating out more people is always more impressive. However, if there were fewer people to beat out, then chances are the competition is stiffer, since only the cream of the crop would be making teams to begin with.

Bump
04-25-2011, 04:23 PM
I almost punched this dude in the face who said that Michael Jordan would totally suck in "today's NBA"

I'm starting to rage again just thinking about that argument.

ElGringo
04-25-2011, 04:25 PM
Person A can bench 220 out of a field of 50 people that average bench 200.

Person B can bench 220 out of a field of 10 people that average bench 200.

No matter how many teams are in the league, Peyton Manning will be Peyton Manning, Tom Brady will be Tom Brady.

cdcox
04-25-2011, 04:28 PM
I went with B being slightly more correct. The more impressive thing about being selected today is that the competition pool (for example, the number of males in the right demographic group) is larger today than it was 60 years ago. But it doesn't have anything to do with the number of teams in the league.

Hydrae
04-25-2011, 04:31 PM
I went with B being slightly more correct. The more impressive thing about being selected today is that the competition pool (for example, the number of males in the right demographic group) is larger today than it was 60 years ago. But it doesn't have anything to do with the number of teams in the league.

I voted the same way with the thinking that the best are still the best no matter how the rest of the league is diluted by having more teams.

ElGringo
04-25-2011, 04:31 PM
A different line of thinking would say the opposite is true. Right now there are 32 teams in the league, so Peyton Manning looks GREAT vs. Matt Cassle. (I know I am going to extremes) If there were only 2 teams in the league, you would have a debate about who is the "best" in the league....Peyton Manning v Tom Brady.

Rausch
04-25-2011, 04:32 PM
I think there are ALL-Pro players from 20 years ago who would get cut in camp today.

Half the spoiled athletes of today couldn't pay the bills on what the players made 20 years ago...

keg in kc
04-25-2011, 04:33 PM
I think there are ALL-Pro players from 20 years ago who would get cut in camp today.I'm not sure that's necessarily true for 20 years ago - I don't believe physiques have changed that much from 1991, and the NFL was virtually as year-round then as it is now - but I do think that's true going back, say, 50 years. Players were smaller, had offseason jobs. The league wasn't what it is today. I think a few could compete if they were time-warped to today, you always have your genetic freaks, but I think most would get creamed.

Los Pollos Hermanos
04-25-2011, 04:37 PM
I voted for Bruce Springsteen.

Rausch
04-25-2011, 04:41 PM
Players were smaller, had offseason jobs. The league wasn't what it is today. I think a few could compete if they were time-warped to today, you always have your genetic freaks, but I think most would get creamed.

If that's what we're doing - time warping players back 40 years and forward 40 years - I'd put my money on the old school guys.

Rausch
04-25-2011, 04:41 PM
I voted for Bruce Springsteen.

LMAO

RedNeckRaider
04-25-2011, 04:41 PM
I went with B being slightly more correct. The more impressive thing about being selected today is that the competition pool (for example, the number of males in the right demographic group) is larger today than it was 60 years ago. But it doesn't have anything to do with the number of teams in the league.

This. I know as an oldtimer I am supposed to say "these spoiled brats could not have made it in the day" There is is more competition for each slot~

Rain Man
04-25-2011, 05:08 PM
I'm torn on the issue.

Logically, one would expect that the best eight players would start in an eight-team league, so it shouldn't make a difference. However, there are some corrupting factors.


The biggest one, I think, is annual variation in performance. Those same top eight guys will be there, but there could be fluke one-year oddities where the 25th-best player has a career year and is an all-pro. As an example, would Dwayne Bowe be starting in an 8-team league? If not, he wouldn't have caught all those touchdowns last year. So random variance seems like it would be harder to be an all-pro for any individual player, even if you're the best overall player. This points toward the 32-team league being tougher.

Second is something related to the first. A great emerging player may not get the chance to start in an eight-team league while he earns his way in. Would Jamaal Charles have been a starter last year in an eight-team league? If not, he wouldn't have had his great year. This points toward the 32-team league being tougher because you have more opportunities for new talent to shine through.

The effect of competition is something else to consider, and I think it works in the other direction. Perhaps you'd have a different set of all-pros in an 8-team league than a 32-team league for two reasons: first, one of those top-8 players might have drawn weaker competition than the others due to the talent dilution among his opponents. So he was an all-pro even though he didn't deserve it, because maybe he ended up playing often against the weakest of the 32 opposing starters. This points toward the 8-team league being tougher because there were no real schedule advantages to give one guy an artificial advantage.

Related to the factor above, dominating against the top 32 players might be different than dominating against the top 8 players. It's possible that the guy who is most dominant against the elite opponents in an eight-team league will be different than the guy who is most dominant against 32 opponents, purely as a matter of playing style, durability, mental toughness, etc. This points toward the 8-team league being tougher because every week they were playing the best opponents.


Overall, I think it may tilt slightly toward the 32-team league being tougher, but not by much. This seems counter to the logical conclusion that they should be exactly the same.

whoman69
04-25-2011, 05:11 PM
I think All-Pro is All-Pro, it means you're the best at your position. It might have been easier to figure out who the All-Pro was back then, but it didn't make it any easier to be All-Pro. I don't buy that athletes today are better than the athletes of yesteryear either. In the past it was not a year round job, didn't pay enough to be. You give a player year round to train and they would be just as good. Plus you have a watered down league with all the expansions and the number of sports from which athletes have to choose from. There was no X games, only a fledgling soccer league, no professional track athletes (unless you count the Soviets), while tennis and golf were only available to the elite.

I think its a myth that athletes today are better. Much of it is better equipment and training. I remember watching a story on an Olympic champion swimmer from the '56 Melbourne games. This swimmer was able to swim faster in his 50's than when he was a champion athlete. There was no real science in sports until the 80s. You give a 25 year old Jack Nickolas the same clubs that Tiger uses today and he would have been able to hit it as far. You give a lighter bat to Willie Mays in his prime and he would have hit even more than 660 home runs. I think the only thing that could change this argument is the inclusion of all races in today's sports.

mlyonsd
04-25-2011, 05:19 PM
I voted that I disagreed with the concept.

I see it as apples to oranges. Mainly because the rules of the game and technology are different each year. As an example players are protected much better than they were in previous years. That changes the playing field.

Because of that I think being named all-pro for a particular year is equally impressive no matter the year.

boogblaster
04-25-2011, 06:55 PM
the league has become a speed league ... talent has less to do with it now .. that said earlier players were more run-game players while todays game is air it out see who can run under it ...

ElGringo
04-25-2011, 07:04 PM
I think many people here are missing the point of the OP and the poll....is making all pro in a league of 32 teams easier or harder than making all pro in a league of 16 teams. We are not comparing players of way back when or the style of play from way back when, just strictly number of teams/players.

Rausch
04-25-2011, 07:09 PM
Overall, I think it may tilt slightly toward the 32-team league being tougher, but not by much. This seems counter to the logical conclusion that they should be exactly the same.

What percentage of current NFL players are black?

I'm thinking it might have been difficult for a black player to be named all pro in the 20's, 30's, or 40's...

Rain Man
04-25-2011, 07:11 PM
I think many people here are missing the point of the OP and the poll....is making all pro in a league of 32 teams easier or harder than making all pro in a league of 16 teams. We are not comparing players of way back when or the style of play from way back when, just strictly number of teams/players.


Yeah, I didn't communicate it very well, but this is what I'm trying to get at. Sheer numbers. I glommed it in with history because I was thinking about it in the context of history, but I'm talking sheer numbers.

Rausch
04-25-2011, 07:14 PM
I think many people here are missing the point of the OP and the poll....is making all pro in a league of 32 teams easier or harder than making all pro in a league of 16 teams. We are not comparing players of way back when or the style of play from way back when, just strictly number of teams/players.

There's no way around it - you have to argue the fine points.

Today's game has changed, the rules have changed, and it's more of an offensive league.

Just take the QB's and all the rules changes to protect the modern QB. Modern QB's are bigger, stronger, and faster but if the rules were changed back to what they were in 1970 half of them would miss more than a quarter of the season. They'd be killed...

ElGringo
04-25-2011, 07:16 PM
There's no way around it - you have to argue the fine points.

Today's game has changed, the rules have changed, and it's more of an offensive league.

Just take the QB's and all the rules changes to protect the modern QB. Modern QB's are bigger, stronger, and faster but if the rules were changed back to what they were in 1970 half of them would miss more than a quarter of the season. They'd be killed...

Yes and that is all fine and good....but would Peyton Manning for example have any easier or more difficult road to all pro if the league were contracted to 16 teams.

Rausch
04-25-2011, 07:17 PM
Yeah, I didn't communicate it very well, but this is what I'm trying to get at. Sheer numbers. I glommed it in with history because I was thinking about it in the context of history, but I'm talking sheer numbers.

I still don't see that as fair.

You put Jim Brown on a modern NFL running team with a good line and he might push for 3,000 yards.

His numbers are still top 5 all time and he did it with fewer games each season while retiring early with less rules and equipment to protect the player...

Rausch
04-25-2011, 07:23 PM
Yes and that is all fine and good....but would Peyton Manning for example have any easier or more difficult road to all pro if the league were contracted to 16 teams.

Less difficult.

The rules now protect the QB, favor the passing game, and the equipment/medical care are better.

Now, if you say defensive player I'd say contracting to 16 teams in the modern NFL would make it more difficult...

ElGringo
04-25-2011, 07:28 PM
Less difficult.

The rules now protect the QB, favor the passing game, and the equipment/medical care are better.

Now, if you say defensive player I'd say contracting to 16 teams in the modern NFL would make it more difficult...

Once again, not changing rules, if the league announced tomorrow they were contracting to 16 teams, would the players have an easier or more difficult time making all pro. Do not even think of years past, just think of next year, if the league contracted.

Rausch
04-25-2011, 07:30 PM
Once again, not changing rules, if the league announced tomorrow they were contracting to 16 teams, would the players have an easier or more difficult time making all pro. Do not even think of years past, just think of next year, if the league contracted.

Then it's a fucking stupid question.

Is it easier to finish 2nd out of 16 people or 32?...

Rain Man
04-25-2011, 07:35 PM
Then it's a ****ing stupid question.

Is it easier to finish 2nd out of 16 people or 32?...


But what if those 32 are all talented, and any one of them could have a fluke year? What if one of that bottom 16 is actually really, really good but doesn't have the resume to get into the race?

ElGringo
04-25-2011, 07:36 PM
If you are still the 2nd best in the world it shouldn't matter how many people are in the race, the worst you will finish is second. We are talking about the best football players in the world make it to the NFL, and the best of those make all pro. The number of players shouldn't make a difference, if you are the best, you are the best. When someone better comes along to play better than you, it won't matter how many teams are in the league, they will get drafted, they will play, and they will play better than you.

As I stated earlier, if anything fewer teams may make it more difficult because you have a smaller pack of greats to go against. To use the same example I used earlier, we can't argue who is better between Peyton and Matt Cassle. If the number of teams in the discussion were cut to 2 (Ind. and NE) we only compare Peyton and Brady....which one of the two is the all pro and which isn't?

Rausch
04-25-2011, 07:39 PM
But what if those 32 are all talented, and any one of them could have a fluke year? What if one of that bottom 16 is actually really, really good but doesn't have the resume to get into the race?

ElGringo may not agree with this deviation from the argument.

No comment at this time...

ElGringo
04-25-2011, 07:43 PM
But what if those 32 are all talented, and any one of them could have a fluke year? What if one of that bottom 16 is actually really, really good but doesn't have the resume to get into the race?

In theory I agree with this argument, with the exception being that one of those bottom 16 would have to have a bad year. While I understand it can, does, and will happen, typically the players with the best year (usually the best year before) are the ones going all pro. The hypothetical race your are talking about is 1 race. I understand the argument of being easier to make the all pro easier with a smaller group, and it may be true, but I think it would be silly to say that arguments can't be made for both sides.

RJ
04-25-2011, 07:47 PM
The players 40 years ago weren't as physically gifted as players today but they had to play against the very best, non-watered-down talent of their era. I voted B.

cardken
04-25-2011, 08:02 PM
Depending on the position. A QB back in the day, and passing for over 3000 yards was impressive considering how liberal the defense had it at Defensive Back. He could molest and brow beat a receiver and no flags.