Saw something on social media and it got me to thinking what Woopig's thoughts are on taking any "great" team from one era competing against another "great" team from another era and how the teams would fare against each other. For instance:
Football:
1964 team vs. 2006 team
1964 team vs. 2010 team
2006 team vs. 2010 team
Basketball:
1994 team vs. 1990 team
1995 team vs. 2021 team
Baseball:
1979 team vs. 2018 team
You fuckers get the idea. Discuss and or make up your own matchups and discuss.
I don't think you can include the 1964 team in that. They gave up 7 points in their last 6 games while going undefeated.
1964 team vs 1994 team. Champions vs champions. But here's the twist: this is set current day with all athletes at their current age. Weapons of their choice, no guns.
I would include the 1977 football team in the figuring but then I would only include national champions in my discussion so I would eliminate them. If your best team ever was not a national champ it makes your program look like it is on a lower tier.
I don't think the 1064 team could compete with several of the later teams but I never get too involved in these discussions because how they did in their era with what they had to work with is what matters.
Quote from: GeoHogsGeo on Jul 26, 2023, 07:51 PMSaw something on social media and it got me to thinking what Woopig's thoughts are on taking any "great" team from one era competing against another "great" team from another era and how the teams would fare against each other. For instance:
Football:
1964 team vs. 2006 team
1964 team vs. 2010 team
2006 team vs. 2010 team
Basketball:
1994 team vs. 1990 team
1995 team vs. 2021 team
Baseball:
1979 team vs. 2018 team
You fuckers get the idea. Discuss and or make up your own matchups and discuss.
DMac would score 20 touchdowns against any all white team from the 60's.
Quote from: Trigger7672 on Jul 27, 2023, 07:44 AMDMac would score 20 touchdowns against any all white team from the 60's.
You have to look at each in the context of their times. Would DMac score 20 TDs? Nope. His stupid coach would bench him as some kind of trickery against JFB who would have destroyed him. That defense in 64 was like the 85 Bears. Put Steve Atwater and a few others on that 64 team and that D would have been perhaps the greatest college D in history.
1964 defines the team concept of winning football. Leave them off any comparisons. Truly greatness to be revered.
Quote from: Texzilla on Jul 27, 2023, 08:53 AMYou have to look at each in the context of their times. Would DMac score 20 TDs? Nope. His stupid coach would bench him as some kind of trickery against JFB who would have destroyed him. That defense in 64 was like the 85 Bears. Put Steve Atwater and a few others on that 64 team and that D would have been perhaps the greatest college D in history.
1964 defines the team concept of winning football. Leave them off any comparisons. Truly greatness to be revered.
Well if we're adding players from other years, give me Matt Jones with DMac, Jones, and Hillis. Nutt could play the damn wing t and still run them white boys into the dirt.
Difference between best and greatest.
The former is measured, the latter is legacy. It's like comparing Aaron Rogers and Tom Brady.
The 1964 team.
Quote from: piglosopher on Jul 28, 2023, 09:35 AMDifference between best and greatest.
The former is measured, the latter is legacy. It's like comparing Aaron Rogers and Tom Brady.
The 1964 team.
Yeah, but as someone mentioned earlier, the question of greatest is easier (bordering on boring) to answer when it's a list of one. More fun to analyze the best teams and how they would fare against each other if played at their prime. No one is arguing against the greatness of our only championship fb team.
These are always hard without a certain criteria in place. If we're using time machines, the Chad Morris teams would beat the 64 team by 100+ ten out of ten times.
.
IMG_1885.jpeg
Quote from: Son of Spam on Jul 28, 2023, 02:06 PM.
IMG_1885.jpeg
Pretty sure he was saying that if the time travel tech exists at this point, then surely Musk would be finished with his uplink brain chip. And with AI asisistance, maybe even a special case like the Chad could be somewhat competent as a coach.
Rules.
Once legalized holding was introduced, any modern team would be unable to run a play without a penalty being called under pre-holding eras. Every single play would feature enough holding that no Referee or Linesman could resist, even if trying to fuck one team.
Could modern players adapt to not using their hands? Sure. Would they be any good at it? Maybe. The footwork required to run block, and especially pass block without extending and grabbing is unlike anything seen today. I don't think 340 pound OT could do it.
Conversely, under modern rules 1960's teams would be steamrolled.
Modern WR run free through the secondary. They would be manhandled all over the field by a 60's team. The QB would be hit on every pass play, and hit hard.
It is a different game. The rules would determine the winner.
Quote from: Snorts on Jul 29, 2023, 01:37 PMRules.
Once legalized holding was introduced, any modern team would be unable to run a play without a penalty being called under pre-holding eras. Every single play would feature enough holding that no Referee or Linesman could resist, even if trying to fuck one team.
Could modern players adapt to not using their hands? Sure. Would they be any good at it? Maybe. The footwork required to run block, and especially pass block without extending and grabbing is unlike anything seen today. I don't think 340 pound OT could do it.
Conversely, under modern rules 1960's teams would be steamrolled.
Modern WR run free through the secondary. They would be manhandled all over the field by a 60's team. The QB would be hit on every pass play, and hit hard.
It is a different game. The rules would determine the winner.
Modern players are so much bigger, stronger, and faster that this shit wouldn't matter.
Quote from: Trigger7672 on Jul 29, 2023, 02:49 PMModern players are so much bigger, stronger, and faster that this shit wouldn't matter.
Exactly. Jerry Jones was a starting guard at 6'0" 195 lbs.
I'm in my mid 30s. The top 5 Razorback teams that I have witnessed with my own eyes I rank like this.
1. 2010 Sugar Bowl team
2. 2011 Cotton Bowl winners
3. 2006 SEC West Champions of the World
4. 1998 SEC West Champions of the World (who missed the SECCG)
5. 1999 Cotton Bowl champs
Obviously there are going to be multiple teams from the 60's (64, 69 for sure) 70's and maybe 80's that are better teams than these listed.
For basketball, the '91 team was better than the '94 team. Fight me.
We will disagree that using hands legally or not is irrelevant to the discussion.
Mr. Jones was recruited as a two way player. There just weren't a lot of huge guys playing ball when they had to go both ways. He actually had good size for the day. Another factor to think about.
BTW, the 1964 Razorbacks won the championship in the first year of once and for all unlimited substitution. It had been toyed with for several years, but '64 was the year it was put in for good. The Razorback coaches gambled that the rule would be finalized, and only practiced their players one way. We were the only school in the SWC to do so, giving us a huge advantage. All those guys on the team had been two way players for at least one year (except the frosh, and they weren't eligible back then).
Another factor...I am doing this from memory, but the 15 or so Seniors were all that was left from something like 120 freshmen that were brought onto campus. Texass brought on more than that. Only the strong survived back then.
Modern rules...modern teams do whatever they like to 60's teams. 340 pound OTs reaching out and manhandling 190 pound DE's...not a pretty picture. The passing game, with minimal contact vis a vis the WR and QB, the modern teams do whatever they like. The ridiculous size disparity throttles the 60's offense. Be some big plays on the option probably.
60's rules? Modern teams just aren't built to operate under the old rules. It would be much more interesting.
Quote from: Trigger7672 on Jul 29, 2023, 03:33 PMI'm in my mid 30s. The top 5 Razorback teams that I have witnessed with my own eyes I rank like this.
1. 2010 Sugar Bowl team
2. 2011 Cotton Bowl winners
3. 2006 SEC West Champions of the World
4. 1998 SEC West Champions of the World (who missed the SECCG)
5. 1999 Cotton Bowl champs
Obviously there are going to be multiple teams from the 60's (64, 69 for sure) 70's and maybe 80's that are better teams than these listed.
The 1977 Orange Bowl team was very salty, on both sides of the ball. And we kicked some OU ass with starters not playing.
Quote from: Snorts on Jul 29, 2023, 03:53 PMWe will disagree that using hands legally or not is irrelevant to the discussion.
Mr. Jones was recruited as a two way player. There just weren't a lot of huge guys playing ball when they had to go both ways. He actually had good size for the day. Another factor to think about.
BTW, the 1964 Razorbacks won the championship in the first year of once and for all unlimited substitution. It had been toyed with for several years, but '64 was the year it was put in for good. The Razorback coaches gambled that the rule would be finalized, and only practiced their players one way. We were the only school in the SWC to do so, giving us a huge advantage. All those guys on the team had been two way players for at least one year (except the frosh, and they weren't eligible back then).
Another factor...I am doing this from memory, but the 15 or so Seniors were all that was left from something like 120 freshmen that were brought onto campus. Texass brought on more than that. Only the strong survived back then.
Modern rules...modern teams do whatever they like to 60's teams. 340 pound OTs reaching out and manhandling 190 pound DE's...not a pretty picture. The passing game, with minimal contact vis a vis the WR and QB, the modern teams do whatever they like. The ridiculous size disparity throttles the 60's offense. Be some big plays on the option probably.
60's rules? Modern teams just aren't built to operate under the old rules. It would be much more interesting.
I don't know. We played Georgia in the Sugar Bowl one year and were big underdogs. We were way under sized compared to that Georgia team, but our quickness was something those big guys were too slow to defend. We won 16-2.
Quote from: Trigger7672 on Jul 29, 2023, 02:49 PMModern players are so much bigger, stronger, and faster that this shit wouldn't matter.
They would not be as big in 1964. Humans didn't "evolve" to 100 lbs bigger in 5 years. They are precisely fed and worked out like Tyson chickens now.
Integration was the big difference, more black guys from that era playing would have changed the results depending on where they ended up.
Quote from: egregious on Jul 30, 2023, 12:45 AMThey would not be as big in 1964. Humans didn't "evolve" to 100 lbs bigger in 5 years. They are precisely fed and worked out like Tyson chickens now.
Integration was the big difference, more black guys from that era playing would have changed the results depending on where they ended up.
I'm not sure why players or people in general are getting bigger or taller. Diet would have to have something to do with it but no sure if that's by design? I'm sure it is at the college and pro levels but damn these high school kids are big.
Integration was a Huge difference.
Weight training. Diet. Players today, even at the HS level, get training that is light years ahead of what was done in the 60's and 70's. I wasn't allowed to drink water during practice. It would make you sick, right?
So you have an enormously strong, flexible, quick-for-his-size 6'6" behemoth today, where he would probably be a reed thin BBall player in the 60's.
In 1965 there were 195mm people in this country. Today there are 332mm. That is a lot more tall and bigger sports players.
In basketball the 77 team would be a tough out. With the 3 point line Delph would average +35 points per game.