With the "never even look sternly at a wide receiver" rules of today, I estimate that Marino, Duper & Clayton would've put up around 200 Bazillion TDs. Hell, Richard Todd would be throwing 45. It's becoming the Steroid Era of baseball in the NFL.
This is true. But on the flipside if it this is to be used against modern QBs and WRs, it has to be used in favour of modern DBs. E.g. what the likes of Ed Reed, Charles Woodson and Darrelle Revis have spent the last 5 - 9 years (since the rule changes in '04 iirc) must surely then be more impressive than what those in decades past did as they are doing so in far, far more difficult circumstances.
Actually, yes. That slipped my mind as I thought it was something the Cowboys themselves came up for marketing purposes, but after Googling... it actually isn't. That's just pretty shit, in honesty.
I'm wondering who it was that decided we wanted to see more offense, offense, offense? That isn't how the game ought to be played.
I only started watching in 2002, but even I miss the old rules for the limited time I had them. The fact a WR can literally grab a DBs forearm and shake it repeatedly as they run, knowing he has maybe a 70% chance of DEFENSIVE PI call go his way is just pathetic. I actually kind of appreciate receivers who exploit it, because f'k it... take what you're given (and they exploit huge flaws that even the comm's try to ignore as they seem to think it helps ratings).
Who's to say the elite QBs of the past would put up better numbers in the current NFL rules climate than the elite QBs of the present are?
It's not just the QBs. DBs could hit and hack on a WR all the way down the field when the game was real. Surely that affects the completion rate. And if fear/concern for one's safety/inability to withstand hits is a factor, the Golden Era guys would likely have an advantage.
Like you said defensive backs could chuck receivers all the way down field. I was reminded of that this weekend when the Giants played the Chiefs and the Chief db's chucked and grabbed the Giants receivers all the way down field. Emmett Thomas would have been proud. It makes a huge difference to be able to hack guys down the field. Completion percentages are hugely affected by it. Put Joe Montana, Staubach, Jorgenson and others in today's era with the restrictions and touching receivers and you would see similar completion percentages.
I'm guessing the same people who implemented changes in other American sports to increase the scoring (and also their pocketbooks).....Hockey made its goals wider, baseball used the publicity it got from the steroid era (Sosa vs McGuire, Bonds, etc.) until the scrutiny became really bad, defense in the NBA has gone down the drain leading to more scoring (and a little tap is called a foul nowadays), etc...
DBs were able to do more to WRs in the past, but then you had guys like Michael Irvin who would shove off on almost every play and get away with it...
There are still plenty of WRs who do an awful lot of that, and often when they do it and fail to make the catch, they get a DEF P.I. call in their favour these days.
I agree with this post, but I'm pretty sure the hockey goal that Marc-Andre Fleury protects this week is the same six-feet by four-feet that Turk Broda defended in the 30s and 40s. They changed rules regarding goalie padding not long ago.
That's not what I'm saying though. Implying that 'Golden Era' quarterbacks would put up ridiculous stats in today's game implies that they were inherently better than today's elite quarterbacks. How is that so? Would they not (at best) put up similar numbers?
Who knows? It's within the realm of possibility. But being a QB from an era where they got hit, and got back up and called another play definitely would give those elite QBs an advantage over an era where the winningest QB and the guy tied for fourth are averse to even being breathed on.
You are right and I am from the younger generation, I think you can even notice a drastic difference in the rules from when Peyton lost to the patriots after Ty Law dominated .. There is plenty of film on youtube of old games so it is quite obvious to me.
The guy who comes to mind immediately as likely having a much longer and better career is Don Meredith. He was all beat up all the time... Starr would have profited from a group of receivers-- McGee, Dowler, Dale, Fleming-- who would have profited immensely from being allowed to run their routes free after five yards. Plus, with Moore, Taylor, Hornung, Pitts, Mercien, and Anderson he almost never had a two-back set in which both were not legitimate downfield receiving threats. Unitas had an essentially career ending injury the season of super bowl three, but I don't remember how it happened. OTOH, Suh or Watt facing blockers who couldn't even turn their palms outward without being called for holding-- Meredith might end up all busted up all the time anyway.
They've been OK-but-not-great to this point, but if I am right they do get Von Miller back after next week which should be a huge boost. What I love is that, some place, somewhere, there is a Tony Romo hater attempting to pin last night's loss on him and his 5 TDs though. Also, Matt Schaub now has four pick sixes in a row. He's got to be approaching some kind of record at this point?