Originally posted by eastcoast49ersfan:
Originally posted by 21SandersMoss84:
I can't fault you for lacking the depth and breadth required to be objective about your limited perspective. 15 years of watching football isn't enough for you to call Gronk the GOAT, and your overinflation of his attributes in other eras shows that you have limited, to no point of personal reference to speak of. LBs and Safeties in the 70s and 80s weren't slower in game speed compared to to today's players - that's a misconception. There were players in those eras named Ronnie Lott, Andre Watters, Lawrence Taylor, Rod Woodson, Derrick Brooks who would either knock Gronk out, or hold him catchless. Gronk's game is for today's rules, and that goes for any receiving TE today. And as far as blocking goes, players like Derrick Thomas and Rickey Jackson would blow up Gronk on every play. I'm not going to convince your limited perspective on any of these facts, I realize that. But from one football fan to another, I think you should hear it. It's for your own edification.
You're not going to impress anyone here by trying to use eloquent language. It's funny that you turned to that instead of giving a single example of a player who was a better TE than Gronkowski. Kellen Winslow Sr is probably the closest example there is, but I would argue that he stood out because players weren't as big back then. Ronnie Lott wouldn't have done anything to Gronkowski. He was impressive back then because he threw his body around dangerously, but Gronk would have dominated him (Lott was 6'0 205 pounds, Gronk is 6'6 270). Brooks was an impressive linebacker in coverage, but he wasn't a linebacker who lit you up and he'd be giving up 6 inches and a lot of strength to Gronk. Taylor couldn't have covered Gronkowski in his dreams.
Players were slower in the 70's and 80's in track speed and I see no reason to believe that they had better instincts in order to be as fast in game speed. Players today watch way more film so if anything, I would expect there to be a bigger difference in game speed because they can see plays and react faster. Derrick Brooks is the only player you mentioned who match up well with Gronkowski, but he would still need help because he's giving up a lot of size. They're definitely not holding him catchless which is an absurd claim. By no means did I learn anything from your post. At least Quest offered a counter-example that makes some sense even though I believe Kellen Winslow Sr stood out more because the players in his era were less impressive.
It's embarrassing that you thought you proved something by listing a bunch of Hall of Famers who don't even match up well with Gronkowski and claiming they would hold him catchless. Gronkowski is a throwback TE whose game would work in any era. He's not a receiving TE - he's an all-around TE who happens to be great at receiving, but is also great as a blocker. He's one of the strongest TE's to play the game and is bigger and stronger than most offensive linemen who played in the 70's.
I'm surprised you didn't try arguing that players in the 70's and 80's were the same size. It would fit well with the rest of your argument.
Here is an interesting article that shows how the size of NFL players has changed over time.
http://www.businessinsider.com/nfl-50s-tim-tebow-would-have-been-an-offensive-lineman-2011-10
You claimed to have never seen Shannon Sharpe play but give creedence to Winslow, hmmm. And yes, Winslow is better than Gronk. Add to that list Ozzie Newsome, Todd Christensen, Mark Bavaro. Other fans will make arguments for even more players. And please don't claim to know how unimpressive players in Winslow's era was. Just don't. You actually lost your credibility when you said Gronk would've dominated Lott, but I've been humoring you, so that's on me. It was also funny that you called Gronk a "throwback" player. Throwback to what, in your opinion? You seem to be fixated with size and measurables. While that's great surface observation, keep in mind that the NFL rules that you are growing up on are designed to slow the game down on the defensive side of the ball. The game you're watching is much faster on the defensive side of the ball, while it is now faster on the offensive side of the ball. This is by design a la Roger Goodell. More TDs, more lucrative TV product, much less concussions, etc. The football you missed out on was much different, and absolutely more exciting on defense. Game speed on D was much faster than what you're used to. The bodies in today's NFL are specimens to behold in terms of size, but the era you've only read about had players that were able to do more on defense with their bodies. You're in love with what you think you know, that's fine, but when you get a larger sample size in your fan experience, you'll have a broader perspective.
