Quote:
Originally Posted by steve B
In other sports, the way the game is played leads to huge changes in individual production.
Fran Tarkenton was great, but because of how the game was played then vs now means you look at his stats and in todays game they appear very average. There are guys being let go that have similar stats to his best year.
Many fans don't look at the over all game, just the raw numbers.
Would guys like Tarkenton and Staubach or the lower passing numbers but more durable/verstaile players from farther back be great today? I think so.
|
Tarkenton would be getting at least half a dozen roughing the passer calls in every game while throwing to receivers who aren't getting constantly bumped off the line of scrimmage, flattened by safeties as they ran across the middle, and hand-checked by cornerbacks as they ran down the sidelines.
Not a critique of the modern game, just an observation of how different things are.
I don't think there's any question QB's like Tarkenton and Staubach were great, no matter what era they were in.
It's when it comes to guys like Joe Namath, people get kind of over-heated with the over-rated talk. Not because they are comparing him to Tom Brady, Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers...but to contemporaries like John Hadl and Daryl Lamonica who never got a sniff at the HOF, but who appear to have been objectively better at playing QB then Namath was.