Which position group today would most dominate the 1940s?

[Rain Man]

We hear a lot how the players of the game today are more evolved than the players of yesteryear. So that begs the question: if you could transport NFL players of today back to the 1940s, which of the following position groups would MOST change the game?

Poll forthcoming.


Two rules:

1. Assume that they must follow the coaching strategies of the 1940s. (I pondered putting coaches as an option, but decided to keep the poll uncomplicated.)

2. Assume that they would not be two-way players, but would play their normal positions.

[KCChiefsMan]

I'm thinking WR's and TE's

[Hammock Parties]

There were white cornerbacks in the 40s.

Just think about that.

[RippedmyFlesh]

"anchored by Nate Newton, a 6-foot-3, 320-pound"
He seemed so huge when he was playing now I'll bet Missouri has lineman that big let alone nfl teams.

[Rain Man]

I voted for d-linemen, but there's still a part of me that wonders if the old-timers would've just adjusted their strategy for them and outmaneuvered them, whereas modern cornerbacks and safeties would outperform the old-timers in every characteristic.

[Rain Man]

The thing I'm trying to put my finger on, and finally figured out, is that I keep wondering if the 11 guys on the field in 1940 may have actually been better athletes than the modern giants.

I was watching Super Bowl I a while back when they showed it on NFL Network, and it struck me that there were 22 really athletic people on the field. The game moved fast. Today, you look at some of the linemen and while I have no doubt that they're athletic, they're these big ol' guys with enormous rear ends and stomachs, and I can see why they rotate in and out. Buck Buchanan never came out of the game for a breather.

[Ebolapox]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

The thing I'm trying to put my finger on, and finally figured out, is that I keep wondering if the 11 guys on the field in 1940 may have actually been better athletes than the modern giants.

I was watching Super Bowl I a while back when they showed it on NFL Network, and it struck me that there were 22 really athletic people on the field. The game moved fast. Today, you look at some of the linemen and while I have no doubt that they're athletic, they're these big ol' guys with enormous rear ends and stomachs, and I can see why they rotate in and out. Buck Buchanan never came out of the game for a breather.

that's actually a VERY good point... almost makes me wish I could change my vote from d-line to the defensive backfield (corners and safeties)--those guys are always in fantastic shape, and effect both the running AND passing games in a profound way... modern d-linemen would tire (there's a ton of rotation among really good d-lines), so while they'd dominate early in the game, they'd tire and be ineffective early in the game. I'd think o-linemen could carry their own a bit more easily, but after reconsidering, the defensive backfield would carry the day for me.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

The thing I'm trying to put my finger on, and finally figured out, is that I keep wondering if the 11 guys on the field in 1940 may have actually been better athletes than the modern giants.

I was watching Super Bowl I a while back when they showed it on NFL Network, and it struck me that there were 22 really athletic people on the field. The game moved fast. Today, you look at some of the linemen and while I have no doubt that they're athletic, they're these big ol' guys with enormous rear ends and stomachs, and I can see why they rotate in and out. Buck Buchanan never came out of the game for a breather.

I don't think this is the case at all. The game is moving much faster today. The lard asses today move their fat freakishly fast.

If it looks slower, that's b/c everyone else is moving faster; it's deceiving. The rotation system is a by-product of teams having far more depth, thus the need for "fresh bodies" at all times.

[Kyle DeLexus]

It's the lines no doubt about it. There are guys like the ones that were considered great back then that wouldn't get drafted today.

[bowener]

Where is "no contest, todays players would destroy and change all"? Sure, the 40's had tough as nails players, but I am pretty sure that Flozell Adams would dominate and maul a DL like a crazed Kodiak bear attacking small children wrapped in bacon.

Think of players like Jim Brown in his day. He was as big and fast as todays RB's in the 60's. Take Brandon Jacobs and run him at a D in the 40's... it would be stupid. He would be bigger than any one on their D. I cant and dont want to imagine players like Demarcus Ware, Jerry Porter, Pat Williams, Mario Williams, Julius Peppers, Ray Lewis, etc, running full speed at a QB without a modern helmet.

[unothadeal]

I voted RB's because nobody is going to stop Brandon Jacobs, Larry Johnson, or any other back over 225

[HMc]

Originally Posted by bowener

Think of players like Jim Brown in his day. He was as big and fast as todays RB's in the 60's. Take Brandon Jacobs and run him at a D in the 40's... it would be stupid. He would be bigger than any one on their D. I cant and dont want to imagine players like Demarcus Ware, Jerry Porter, Pat Williams, Mario Williams, Julius Peppers, Ray Lewis, etc, running full speed at a QB without a modern helmet.

Why? Have you never watched a game of international rugby union? American Football isn't the only sport that involves large men running rather rapidly at each other with somewhat homocidal thoughts, but it's the only one that seems to need (hard plastic, at least) helmets.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by HMc

Why? Have you never watched a game of international rugby union? American Football isn't the only sport that involves large men running rather rapidly at each other with somewhat homocidal thoughts, but it's the only one that seems to need (hard plastic, at least) helmets.

Out of curiosity (and because I honestly don't know), do your rugby players often times exceed 300 pounds? Do guys that weigh 200 pounds bench press 400 pounds and do they run 4.3 second 40 yard dashes (or 30 miles an hour?).

I'm sure that all of the Australian and New Zealand rugby players are badasses in the form of UFC fighters, but are they incredibly well-conditioned athletes that engage in weight training, speed training and nutrition from age 14 to 24?

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Out of curiosity (and because I honestly don't know), do your rugby players often times exceed 300 pounds? Do guys that weigh 200 pounds bench press 400 pounds and do they run 4.3 second 40 yard dashes (or 30 miles an hour?).

I'm sure that all of the Australian and New Zealand rugby players are badasses in the form of UFC fighters, but are they incredibly well-conditioned athletes that engage in weight training, speed training and nutrition from age 14 to 24?

dude I met a professional rugby player, worked for him. From my somewhat uneducated observation they are heads and tails tougher than most nfl players today.

[Kyle DeLexus]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

dude I met a professional rugby player, worked for him. From my somewhat uneducated observation they are heads and tails tougher than most nfl players today.

I don't know about this. Just because NFL players are making serious cash and teams and the league wanted to protect their investment and started R&D on better safety equipment doesn't mean they aren't tough. I'd say a good 85-90% of the players in the NFL would still play the game with no pads at all at full speed if they had to go with no/minimal pads like rugby. Still the fact is that there would be serious injuries every single game due to players being as strong and fast as what they are.

[HMc]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Out of curiosity (and because I honestly don't know), do your rugby players often times exceed 300 pounds?

No - 290 is about the limit, really. There's too much endurance required for heavier dudes to cut it.

Do guys that weigh 200 pounds bench press 400 pounds and do they run 4.3 second 40 yard dashes (or 30 miles an hour?).

I have no idea - they don't publicise stats as they're not considered that important. I have seen a youtube video of a new zealander (6-4, 265) box-squatting 480 pounds.

I have little doubt that test rugby players (especially the pacific islanders) would have the gifts and capabilities of NFL players for a given height/weight.

I'm sure that all of the Australian and New Zealand rugby players are badasses in the form of UFC fighters, but are they incredibly well-conditioned athletes that engage in weight training, speed training and nutrition from age 14 to 24?

Yes. Why would you think otherwise? Can you not see the same motivators puhsing kids along that exist in the USA?

In New Zealand in particular, with it's large Maori and PI population, rugby is religion. I mean it's all they're into. There's f8ck all else to do over there that watch, go to, play and talk about rugby.


Here's one of a guy getting pretty hammered. If you think NFL players are routinely getting hit harder than this then I'd love to see the clips.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=rKiM2M...eature=related