A lot of people assume that the old school football players are always the greats and that newer players arent as talented, they place these older players on throne and theres no chance of any player ever coming around thats better. I personally think todays athletes are so much more talented then the athletes of long ago and that if todays athletes would completely dominate the game if they played in the in previous decades.

Example: Jim Brown is someone that many people consider the greatest RB of all time but do you really believe that Jim Brown is a better athlete and more gifted player then say LT. If Lt played when Brown did he would have rushed for 2000 yds a season. Take a look at the sizes and speeds of older players as well compared to today. Mean Joe Greene was the biggest player on the steelers in the 70s and he was 275 lbs. Today there are 3 or 4 300lb guys on every team. The athletes of yesterday dont hold a candle to the athletes today. What do you think?

Agreed

When I think about "greatest ever" questions...I think exactly like you.
I answered a question about the greatest team ever by saying "The 72 Dolphins accomplished what no other team has...and that's to win every single game....with that being said, I fully believe that the 07 Dolphins would slaughter the 72 Dolphins"

While I believe that they are in fact the greatest team ever, I recognize that they couldn't compete with teams these days.

The evolution has indeed been great. -to answer your question- and no, the athletes of yesterday don't hold a candle to the athletes of today

technology improves performance (but not talent) in all sports

I think your right in a way but you can't just throw people from one era into another to compare the two. The game evolves just as much as the players do around it which is why it's the way it is...However I'm pretty sure there are already people saying that LT, Peyton, Brady, Chad and Moss and Harrison...are getting noted as some of the best players that every played over ones from the past. You can only compare the players with who they played against in their time period.

I think you are right , the football players of today are talented,but it negative play with them with the drugs and steriods then it was back in the 70s etc.

I agree with what you are saying. It's like comparing apples to oranges. Today's players are bigger, stronger, faster, and more athletic. I remember that ESPN once had a program where they tried to figure out what historical team would beat another if they were to hypothetically match up. The purpose of this was to determine what the greatest team of all time was.

The starting center on the 1956 Oklahoma team was 5'5" and 170 pounds, which is tiny compared to today's players.

I do think that LT when it is all said and done will be the greatest tailback of all time and either Manning or Brady will be the greatest quarterback of all time.

The difference in athletes is better training, diet, and workout regimines. If Jim Brown was around today, he certainly would still be a freak of an athlete because he would training and dieting right along with today's athletes.

The other thing you have to look at is the evolution of the game. You can't compare modern day QB's stats with old school guys - the league has changed the rules too much to really have a fair comparison. Also, the technique that some of the older guys had was ridiculous - if you had a guy that was as big as today's offensive linemen with the technique of some of the old school players, you would have what would easily be the most dominant lineman in history. Nowadays athletes rely more on their physical tools rather than technique, which is why you see so many missed tackles and so much poor blocking.

I think each generation has to be judged in the context of their own time. Clearly many of the former football greats would not be as great today. Nutrition, training and strength training have improved over the years, not to mention anabolic steroids. As records get set, new generations have new and tougher goals to meat. Never the less the current generation is always built on what the generation before them made.

I think when measuring athletes across generations you have to mainatin the context of the generation in which they competed. While it is true the current crop is bigger and better in many ways they have to be to compete against one another. The overall phsyical minimum requirements have increased.

In baseball, the generational divide appears to me to be less pronounced. Have you seen picutres of Hank Aaron in his day? Due to his size he would be steered to be a middle infielder now but he still knocked 755 dingers out of the same size stadiums.

There are some players in the past who I think would still succeed...Jim Brown is one. I also think LT would flourish "back in the day" but that defenses of the past would eventually adapt to his style of play and he too would experience some level of neutralization.

Celebrate them all, man!

You are correct that the great bulk of players from the 60s would be worse than the players of today. The players in the 60s went to college in the 50s before black players were routinely recruited in many schools - so the talent pool was smaller. They did not have strength and fitness programs then as they do now. There was not as much money involved, so not all of the great athletes were drawn to play pro football.

However, some of the greats would be great - even today. Johnny Unitas, Jim Brown, Gale Sayers, Dick Butkus, Deacon Jones, Joe Namath and (I hate to say it) OJ - the very elite players then would start and star for almost any team today.

However, many of the decent work-a-day players of yesteryear would not even be invited to try out today.

I do not believe you can compare generations against each other by throwing players of today back in time to the old days and project what they would have done.

Jim Brown was the biggest, fastest, toughest running back the game had ever seen at the the time he played. Sure, his speed and moves don't look as fast as those of LT. His size is comparable to Larry Johnson, who has come back to Earth this year.

But as you pointed out, Jim Brown was not running dives into a line full of 300 lb. D-lineman and 250 lb. linebackers. Compared to what he had to face in his era, he was dominant. So the only way to really compare is to mark the dominance of players during their era versus the dominance of players during this era.

And in the case of someone like Jim Brown, numbers are difficult to compare because Brown played 14-game regular seasons and retired after 9 years.

You can only judge the talent of an individual on who they are playing against. Take your MJG example. Sure, people were smaller and lighter than, but that was true on both sides of the ball. You had 275 lb guys bashing against other 275 lb guys. Now you have 315 lb guys bashing against other 315lb guys. They tend to cancel each other out in each time period, and you can only look at the numbers.

Similarly, you can only play with the rules you're given, and the rules have changed significantly since then -- even the types of stats have changed. If MJG was playing today, he would probably be 315 lbs. and just as much of a monster as he was back then because the only things that don't change are talent and intelligence.

You also have to remember that Jim Brown also weighed in at the NFL average for linemen at the time. That would be like LT weighing 290+lbs. running a 4.4 forty, and actually be able to move the way he does. There is just no comparison between the two, they are two seperate football players from two different eras.

I just say let LT be LT and Jim Brown be Jim Brown. Neither one is anything like the other.

To a certian point you are right, but there were fierce competitors back in the 60's and 70's that would have found a way to overcome their weaknesses.

We will never the truth because those players ffrom pre-80's football have all since retired.

It depends on the personality, the country, the body's form, the mentality, the response, the agility, ...etc. You cannot have such talents easily and each year.

I due agree to a point, but remember the older players paved the way for these new players. I believe the older players are much tougher than todays hold outs, over paid cry babies..
its like the car, the first car was great, it was a car! But todays cars a much, much better...why? Because the new world took the pioneers design and elevated it, becasuse they have much more resources, and technology.

There is more technology, more people involved in todays sport, back then they didnt have the technology, supplements, or money..back then it was about smash mouth football, and today it is about marketing and popularity..

Football was not as popular then as it is now. Baseball was the national past time then...

Todays players have more resources to become better players, more options and more help...players today are spoiled..but good...

I don't see the point in comparing players I've seen with those I will never see except in a list of stats or on a black and white highlight real. It's tough to argue people out of their oldest favorites even if people are coming up with better numbers - Barry Sanders will probably always be my "best RB ever", even if someone comes along that outperforms him in next few decades.
It's most annoying when someone who is younger than you is arguing for some old-timer that neither of you have seen play.

You're right, but you also have to account for non-evolution things as well. For example, more people play these sports than 50 years ago. So if 50 years ago 10,000 people played football in high school and college and NFL, now there's probably 50,000 and if you have a larger pool to draw from, your top people will be better.
Also a lot of older athletes probably didn't start playing serious football as early as kids do today.

But there is selection for athletes, not for survival, but I'd say athletes tend to have lots of kids. Shawn Kemp had like 9....