Quote:
Originally Posted by smithandrew051
Dominating now (especially on defense) is more impressive than dominating decades ago.
|
Maybe, if you're arguing nuances of positions but I'd argue you're wrong in this assumption.
DTs and ERs that rack up big sack totals now probably wouldn't have done the same 30 years ago when there was a larger focus on running the football. That's what makes what John Randle did in terms of sacks just a tad bit more impressive than what Donald has done, in my mind. If Donald plays as long, he surely passes Randle in sacks but he will have a lot more passing plays against him to have pulled it off. That and I think you look at the type of more complete DT you had to be at that point to stop the rushing attacks. So, the way Donald dominates is not the same and not necessarily equivalent to the past.
I think, when you look at the off-ball linebacker in today's NFL then yes, it's a harder game that requires better coverage skills and more speed/quickness than in the past. The days of thumpers that will damn near kill you over the middle and fire downhill often to attack the run are pretty well a thing of the past. Today's linebackers are dominant in different ways. You don't get to see the big, smashing hits and nasty players going toe-to-toe with offensive guards much but you do get to see a more athletic player do great things in stringing out and stopping outside zone and covering bigger TEs in space and so forth. Is it less impressive at how dominant a player was 30 years ago at the position? I don't think so. I couldn't imagine guys like Fred Warner, Darius Leonard, and Deion Jones having been the players they are now in the 70's and 80's. I certainly doubt they would have made it as linebackers.
The list goes on, right. Just different times, different player types, highly evolved offenses, etc. It's always hard to say "best player of all time" at any position. We don't really know how good player x would be in place of player y if they played in opposite eras.