Originally posted by 49erRider:Originally posted by denali22:Basically me and this dude were discussing Jim Brown. We both agreed he was a legend, and will always be one. Then I said if he played in todays NFL, he would be average. This is where it started.
My arguement was basically that current NFL players are stronger, bigger and faster than they have ever been. Jim Brown had a great size and speed combination, and was basically a man among boys in his current generation.
His arguement was that back then in the NFL, players hit harder, were more rough and had less rules, so its easier to play right now then it was back then.
I could see how his arguement could be true, but I still stand by mine. What do you guys think? Doesnt have to be about Jim Brown specifically, but in general.
Your buddy's argument is weak. Athletes these days are far superior to the athletes of even 30 years ago. Jim Brown played 50 years ago. He was a far superior athlete to the other guys of his time and, while football had less rules then, it was also less dynamic. Game plans were nowhere near as advanced as they are now. Put a guy like Barry Sanders in a time with inferior athletes and insufficient defensive game plans and the records he would have set would be insurmountable.
I agree that Jim Brown, in today's NFL, would not be considered one of the best athletes to ever play the game. He wouldn't even be in the discussion for best current RB. He was physically superior to his competition 50 years ago. He wouldn't be bigger, stronger or faster than today's defenders - not even if he trained the way they do, because almost all of today's athletes are "thoroughbreds" - and the game plans of today would shut him down.
Dude,wherever you get that good s**t you smokin,ask em can I please get a qp.lol