(01-10-2012 03:29 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 01:08 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 12:44 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Geez, it's not about pitting 2012 Bama vs 1917 Georgia Tech! It's next to impossible to compare athletes and/or teams across eras because coaching/training/nutrition/etc has improved over time, for all sports.

Plus the infusion of alien DNA into human's genome. It was captured from the Roswell site and then transported north to Colorado Springs for testing on olympic athletes.

I didn't mention that because it's so obvious.

True enough.

(01-10-2012 05:44 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  Babe Ruth would get eaten alive in today's game of left handed specialists, ubiquity of 95 mph fastballs and media that uncovers every little thing about your life.

Because while everyone else can adapt, Ruth can't? Please...

You can only compare to your competition. If you dominate the best you had to go up against, you can't be expected to do more.

(01-10-2012 07:08 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 05:44 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  Babe Ruth would get eaten alive in today's game of left handed specialists, ubiquity of 95 mph fastballs and media that uncovers every little thing about your life.

Because while everyone else can adapt, Ruth can't? Please...

You can only compare to your competition. If you dominate the best you had to go up against, you can't be expected to do more.

who said everyone else could adapt? i was just trying to make the point that the game is so completely different today, that trying to compare is futile. I used Ruth because he's by far the most extreme example. He was not only the best player, but also one of the most scandalous and played in the city with the most oppressive media. To call Ruth a better player than Mays is absurd. But did Ruth dominate his era more than Mays? Probably

Listen, I don't know how bama's D stacks up against other historically great teams, because I don't know much about college football. What i do know, is that you simply can't compare the levels of domination of a 1917 team to one in 2012. there are just so many different eras and a million different variables. It'd be like comparing Unitas to Brady. Let's just call Unitas the greatest QB of the early era and call Brady one of the best of the modern era.

(01-11-2012 08:48 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  It'd be like comparing Unitas to Brady. Let's just call Unitas the greatest QB of the early era and call Brady one of the best of the modern era.

You should have heard all the comments about Brady when he declared for the draft. It's the same thing you're hearing about Tebow now, no arm strength, bad fundamentals, etc., but with Brady, they were saying he wasn't that athletic or fast. He was drafted in the 6th round of the draft. Now he's a hall of fame QB in waiting, and they're saying the same things about Tebow. Some people just won't learn.

(01-11-2012 09:51 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-11-2012 08:48 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  It'd be like comparing Unitas to Brady. Let's just call Unitas the greatest QB of the early era and call Brady one of the best of the modern era.

You should have heard all the comments about Brady when he declared for the draft. It's the same thing you're hearing about Tebow now, no arm strength, bad fundamentals, etc., but with Brady, they were saying he wasn't that athletic or fast. He was drafted in the 6th round of the draft. Now he's a hall of fame QB in waiting, and they're saying the same things about Tebow. Some people just won't learn.

Yeah, but how much do you think Brady has changed as a quarterback since he was drafted in the mechanical aspects of the game? Also, prep and tape study aren't evaluated at the combine. Tebow is also not winning by the measurables that we use to evaluate a true quarterback. Ultimately wins are what count, but when you look for a quarterback in the draft, unless you're planning on specifically tailoring an offense for his skill sets, you still look at him first and foremost as a passer.

(01-11-2012 10:24 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(01-11-2012 09:51 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-11-2012 08:48 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  It'd be like comparing Unitas to Brady. Let's just call Unitas the greatest QB of the early era and call Brady one of the best of the modern era.

You should have heard all the comments about Brady when he declared for the draft. It's the same thing you're hearing about Tebow now, no arm strength, bad fundamentals, etc., but with Brady, they were saying he wasn't that athletic or fast. He was drafted in the 6th round of the draft. Now he's a hall of fame QB in waiting, and they're saying the same things about Tebow. Some people just won't learn.

Yeah, but how much do you think Brady has changed as a quarterback since he was drafted in the mechanical aspects of the game? Also, prep and tape study aren't evaluated at the combine. Tebow is also not winning by the measurables that we use to evaluate a true quarterback. Ultimately wins are what count, but when you look for a quarterback in the draft, unless you're planning on specifically tailoring an offense for his skill sets, you still look at him first and foremost as a passer.

Brady couldn't pass. He can now. They say Tebow can't pass. ...but he can't develop and improve? Can someone tell me the difference? Did someone sprinkle magical pixie dust on Brady or something?

(01-11-2012 10:30 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-11-2012 10:24 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(01-11-2012 09:51 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-11-2012 08:48 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  It'd be like comparing Unitas to Brady. Let's just call Unitas the greatest QB of the early era and call Brady one of the best of the modern era.

You should have heard all the comments about Brady when he declared for the draft. It's the same thing you're hearing about Tebow now, no arm strength, bad fundamentals, etc., but with Brady, they were saying he wasn't that athletic or fast. He was drafted in the 6th round of the draft. Now he's a hall of fame QB in waiting, and they're saying the same things about Tebow. Some people just won't learn.

Yeah, but how much do you think Brady has changed as a quarterback since he was drafted in the mechanical aspects of the game? Also, prep and tape study aren't evaluated at the combine. Tebow is also not winning by the measurables that we use to evaluate a true quarterback. Ultimately wins are what count, but when you look for a quarterback in the draft, unless you're planning on specifically tailoring an offense for his skill sets, you still look at him first and foremost as a passer.

Brady couldn't pass. He can now. They say Tebow can't pass. ...but he can't develop and improve? Can someone tell me the difference? Did someone sprinkle magical pixie dust on Brady or something?

were they really questioning brady's arm strength when he came out (actually asking because i really don't remember)? He has a freakin cannon, how could he not have had it then?

(01-11-2012 10:41 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  were they really questioning brady's arm strength when he came out (actually asking because i really don't remember)? He has a freakin cannon, how could he not have had it then?

Yes. They were questioning everything. There's a show on, IIRC, the NFL Network called "The Brady 6" coming out sometime this week that talks about it. In college, he was no Stafford.

Quote:On the afternoon of Sept. 12, 1998, the 111,012 fans at Michigan Stadium did not know what you know now. Even his closest friends dared not imagine that Brady, a skinny, slow, fourth-year junior, was destined for an NFL career that would include three Super Bowl victories and two MVP awards. Michigan fans just knew that their team was trailing Donovan McNabb and Syracuse in the second quarter 17--0, and that Brady was heading to the bench, replaced by freshman Drew Henson.

...

Brady, by contrast, looked like an ordinary Big Ten QB—average arm strength, limited mobility. He was a California kid who cranked the heat in his Ann Arbor apartment so high all winter that friends didn't even want to walk inside. He had been trapped in depth-chart hell for three years and nearly transferred before attrition finally provided him a chance. In his battle with Brady, Henson appeared to have every advantage. And that is why Brady would succeed.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/a.../index.htm

The Brady 6 came out a while back. I watched it. They weren't questioning everything, they were questioning his arm strength (pro scouts are suckers for strong arms....Jamarcus Russell, anyone?) and mobility. He already had good mechanics, unlike Tebow. Also, Drew Henson came in with Tebowesque hype out of high school, and all the fans wanted Henson to play over Brady. Tebow has always had an offense built around him to suit his strengths, playing in a spread in high school/college, and the zone read now. Brady never had that luxury until the NFL. Not an apples to apples comparison.