|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 26, 2012 1:24:21 GMT -5
Don -- Hutson played in 116 games and Rice played in 303 games.....wow, we all can see how Rice's totals are better than Hutson's.... Rog -- You make a very good point here, Don. You show the importance of knowing there are two ways to evaluate players of different eras. The first is to realize that almost every sport has improved and continues to improve from generation to generation to the point where today's players are on a pure basis better than most players of previous generations. The second is that it is far more intriguing to judge players according to how they performed against their peers. In that manner, we have a reasonable basis for comparing players of different eras. Allen is right when he talks about how Jerry Rice could likely cover Don Hutson even though Rice himself isn't a cornerback. But Don (Kiritzky) is also right to mention that Jerry played about two and a half more games than Don (Hutson) did and thus had much higher totals. He might also have mentioned that even Rice's single-season advantage over Hutson is at the least diluted by his playing in 16-game seasons, whereas Hutson played between 9 and 12 games per year. I believe also that Hutson's advantage over his peers was even greater than the advantage Rice had over his. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1401&page=2#ixzz2G8V1evG3
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Dec 26, 2012 2:18:06 GMT -5
there were many good defensive players who double teamed Don Hutson and couldn't stop him...what gives you the notion that someone who didn't play defense could stop him? Once more, we will never know but the guy was so much better than the other ends of his era that I don't think anyone could cover him just because he a good end....but I wouldn't bet that the defensive experienced Hutson couldn't cover any of todays ends....and I rooted against Hutson ...my Giants had a nice set of ends in Jim Poole and Jim Lee Howell...both good, both tough...they wouldn't run out of bounds on their own and they would get up and run some more if they were knocked down...the whistle didn't blow until all movement stopped....one of the great pass receptions I ever heard on the radio was by Jim Lee Howell...catching the ball and getting up and running three times after the initial knock down...
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 26, 2012 12:14:13 GMT -5
Allen -- The game has improved and evolved. Bigger, stronger, faster makes a huge difference in football.
Rog -- But not much difference at all in baseball. I get it.
allen- Nick Swisher vs. Wily Mo Pena. Which is bigger and stronger? Which is better?
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 26, 2012 12:19:48 GMT -5
there were many good defensive players who double teamed Don Hutson and couldn't stop him...what gives you the notion that someone who didn't play defense could stop him? Allen- Almost infinitely more athletic talent. Bigger, stronger, faster, quicker. Much greater leaping ability, far better closing speed. Any ball thrown where both can make a play, Rice will get it. He can outjump Hutson and outquick him.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 26, 2012 16:05:56 GMT -5
Allen -- The game has improved and evolved. Bigger, stronger, faster makes a huge difference in football. Rog -- But not much difference at all in baseball. I get it. allen- Nick Swisher vs. Wily Mo Pena. Which is bigger and stronger? Which is better? Rog -- You're doing what Don seems to like a lot -- using an isolated example or small sample to prove a broader point. As an aside, Wily Mo was the type of player I have mentioned who hit pretty well in the minors but had a poor K/BB/HR ratio. Marc, God bless his soul, that Pena would become a good player; I did not. I don't think he and I discussed Swisher at that time. The only time back then discussing Nick was when we mentioned that he was dating a Maxim model who had grown up in Martinez. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1401&page=3#ixzz2GC3iIqwv
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Dec 26, 2012 19:58:42 GMT -5
there were many good defensive players who double teamed Don Hutson and couldn't stop him...what gives you the notion that someone who didn't play defense could stop him? Allen- Almost infinitely more athletic talent. Bigger, stronger, faster, quicker. Much greater leaping ability, far better closing speed. Any ball thrown where both can make a play, Rice will get it. He can outjump Hutson and outquick him. dk...and you know this to be true because you saw both of them play in their prime....or you compared their vertical leap, 40 yard times, etc??? You couldn't even compare their stats on an correct basis, how do you compare them??? How can you talk about Rice's strength when he can't play even half of a game?
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 26, 2012 20:16:35 GMT -5
You're absolutely ridiculous with this stuff Don. Are you serious or are you just playing dumb?
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Dec 26, 2012 20:46:43 GMT -5
You're absolutely ridiculous with this stuff Don. Are you serious or are you just playing dumb? dk....what is ridiculous about lauding Don Hutson who was the greatest end playing the game in his era...not just a little better, but he put up stats twice as good as anyone else....and when comparing him to today's players, you automatically have to account that the old time guys played both ways...and Hutson was almost as good on defense as on offense....and in his spare time he punted and place kicked.....you say Rice was bigger...yes, one whoe inch taller....faster....Hutson ran the 100 in 9.7, I don't know Rice's speed......and by the way, Hutson went to Alabama on a baseball scholarship...pretty good athlete, no? So a panel of guys who watched Rice and never saw Hutson, picked Rice and Moss 1/2...and Hutson third...well, I think I am as qualified as they were...and I'll pick Hutson #!....
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 27, 2012 0:26:30 GMT -5
Allen -- Almost infinitely more athletic talent. Bigger, stronger, faster, quicker. Much greater leaping ability, far better closing speed. Any ball thrown where both can make a play, Rice will get it. He can outjump Hutson and outquick him. dk...and you know this to be true because you saw both of them play in their prime....or you compared their vertical leap, 40 yard times, etc??? Rog -- Virtually all of us would agree with Allen here. If you are able to disprove his comments, please do so. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1401&page=3#ixzz2GE8l0fbs
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 27, 2012 0:28:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 27, 2012 11:32:38 GMT -5
You can certainly see films of Hutson, and I have. You watch films of guys from that era, the game is just so much slower. It looks like a high school game from today. How long do you think a player would survive in today's game playing without a facemask?
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 27, 2012 13:01:19 GMT -5
Allen -- You can certainly see films of Hutson, and I have. You watch films of guys from that era, the game is just so much slower. It looks like a high school game from today. How long do you think a player would survive in today's game playing without a facemask? Rog -- Players would play differently if they didn't have facemasks. I worked with a guy who converted from a college football player to a rugby player. He told me he made a perfect football tackle -- and came to work with a broken nose. But you are right about the speed. In baseball, unfortunately we see Babe Ruth primarily at the end of his career, when he was nowhere near the physical specimen he was when younger (and setting home run records, as well as stealing the plate on occasion). But even in baseball there is no question the game has sped up, as have all games. Don has spoken here about Dolph Schayes, who was a MARVELOUS player in the 50's. Just how well do we think Dolph would fare with his "rainmaker" set shot if he were playing today? He wouldn't have the quickness to get by his defender, so the defender wouldn't have to play off him, making it almost impossible for Dolph to get off the rainmaker. In fairness, Dolph would be able to get his shot off on occasion if another player drove and his player had to help out on the ball. But even then, the defender might be able to get to the low-released shot before it really got going. I think Dolph would do a great job of blocking out, but guys still might be able to leap over him for rebounds. Defensively, his teams would have to play zone to protect his lack of quicks and leaping ability. By the way, as great a shooter as he was considered back then (and he did post an 84.9% free throw percentage), Dolph's career field goal percentage was 38.0%. I don't mean to take away from Dolph; he was a marvelous player and a Hall of Famer. But at 6-foot-7, 195 pounds and with white man's disease, how would he fare against the 6-foot-8, 240 pound Lebron James? The game -- and the athletes -- have changed a ton since our youths. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1401&page=3#8146#ixzz2GH97Hhe9
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Dec 27, 2012 13:35:21 GMT -5
You can certainly see films of Hutson, and I have. You watch films of guys from that era, the game is just so much slower. It looks like a high school game from today. How long do you think a player would survive in today's game playing without a facemask? dk...old time films would make Bolt look like a snail....you can't judge things as the film appears to show them....Hutson ran track and was timed 9.7 in the 100...is that slow??? Why the heck would a Hutson have to play without a face mask??? Again you complete miss the point, we are talking about athletic ability...not equipment.....if Jessie Owens could run on the modern day track, with modern day starting blocks and shoes and using an electronic timer....how fast do you think he would be compared to the modern sprinter....if Don Hutson came back...inn the same athletic body and played today's game....and he only played receiver, could take a rest after a tough down, could run out of bounds to avoid a hit, didn't have to spend practice time playing defense, punting, and kicking ffield goals....how many passes would he catch....why he caught as many as most payers today on a per game basis....
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Dec 27, 2012 13:53:45 GMT -5
Allen -- Almost infinitely more athletic talent. Bigger, stronger, faster, quicker. Much greater leaping ability, far better closing speed. Any ball thrown where both can make a play, Rice will get it. He can outjump Hutson and outquick him. dk...and you know this to be true because you saw both of them play in their prime....or you compared their vertical leap, 40 yard times, etc??? Rog -- Virtually all of us would agree with Allen here. If you are able to disprove his comments, please do so. dk...and you would be wrong...and how is it you can post an opinion on someone you have never seen, but I would have to prove it with facts that no one could possibly develop....the fact is, Rice is bigger (1 inch) but hardly a game changer....Hutson ran 9.7 hundred, no figures for Rice...but that 9.7 would probably he closer to 9.2 or less with modern conditions....does that make him slower? I think it would be easy to understand that a player who played two way football would be much better if he only had to play on one side of the ball...and it should also be easy even for you to understand the physical strain alone would decrease the ability of a modern player going both way for a full 60 minutes...how long would these 300 pound slobs, with their gut hanging over their belts, last if they had to play for longer than a few plays at a time....and how much could the old timers sharpen their skills for the modern way they play the game if they didn't have to practice all the skills of the game....they pay guys that do nothing but punt or place kick big money today....Hutson did all that as well as break all receiving records and played great defense......has the league broken Sammy Baughs record for punting yet.....and he was one of the best passers and defensive backs of his time....
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 27, 2012 15:38:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 27, 2012 15:39:09 GMT -5
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Dec 27, 2012 15:49:38 GMT -5
Allen -- You can certainly see films of Hutson, and I have. You watch films of guys from that era, the game is just so much slower. It looks like a high school game from today. How long do you think a player would survive in today's game playing without a facemask? dk why would he play without a facemask??? Use your head, when you compare players of different eras, you put them using the same equipment....can you picture todays ballplayers playing in the '30's and not being "allowed" to run out of bounds to avoid contact.... Rog -- Players would play differently if they didn't have facemasks. I worked with a guy who converted from a college football player to a rugby player. He told me he made a perfect football tackle -- and came to work with a broken nose. dk...never played with a mask...and I have the nose to prove it,,,,may be that kick in the eye might not have been all that bad.... But you are right about the speed. In baseball, unfortunately we see Babe Ruth primarily at the end of his career, when he was nowhere near the physical specimen he was when younger (and setting home run records, as well as stealing the plate on occasion). But even in baseball there is no question the game has sped up, as have all games. dk....come on...they used to play games in one and a half hours and the tempo of play was fast...they put the ball in play...fewer K's and more hit and runs... Don has spoken here about Dolph Schayes, who was a MARVELOUS player in the 50's. Just how well do we think Dolph would fare with his "rainmaker" set shot if he were playing today? dk...Dolph was not a set shooter....he was a slasher who charged the basket...his set shot was a some times thing....his slashing cost him 2 broken arms...not to worry, put them in a cast and he kept playing....you don't get 7.9 fouls a game over a long career by shooting set shots....and 12.1 rebounds and 3.1 assists per game is more reflective on his all around game.....the coach of the Nats wanted him to post up more in order to prevent injuries but what does a 19 year old graduate Engineer know about that.... He wouldn't have the quickness to get by his defender, so the defender wouldn't have to play off him, making it almost impossible for Dolph to get off the rainmaker. In fairness, Dolph would be able to get his shot off on occasion if another player drove and his player had to help out on the ball. dk...boy you sure don't know beans about Dolph, he had the quickness to drive ...which he did more than set shoot....what gives you the idea with screens and the fact the defensive player had to play "honest" meant that Dolph coundn't get the shot off....but I know, you saw a film once and every one was so slow.... But even then, the defender might be able to get to the low-released shot before it really got going. I think Dolph would do a great job of blocking out, but guys still might be able to leap over him for rebounds. dk///Dolph shot the set over his head...I shot mine head high..., Defensively, his teams would have to play zone to protect his lack of quicks and leaping ability. dk...lack of quicks my rear....and his team didn't play zone.....and is that why Syracuse U. wins so many games with a zone...and why todays pros go to a zone in many situations... By the way, as great a shooter as he was considered back then (and he did post an 84.9% free throw percentage), Dolph's career field goal percentage was 38.0%. dk..what do you know, teams really played some "D".... I don't mean to take away from Dolph; he was a marvelous player and a Hall of Famer. But at 6-foot-7, 195 pounds and with white man's disease, how would he fare against the 6-foot-8, 240 pound Lebron James? dk...he played at 6'-8"...us older guys shrink a little...Dolph would have a hard time covering James as he keeps shrinking and at 84 he is as slow as you make him out to be.... dk...about the same that all those other guys fare against him....and I wonder how James would like getting pushed around by Vern Mikkelson.... The game -- and the athletes -- have changed a ton since our youths. dk...that it has, but that doesn't mean the atheletes are all that better....they just play a better game......,
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 27, 2012 15:50:22 GMT -5
Rog -- Virtually all of us would agree with Allen here. If you are able to disprove his comments, please do so. dk...and you would be wrong...and how is it you can post an opinion on someone you have never seen, but I would have to prove it with facts that no one could possibly develop.... Rog -- Just do a good job of convincing us. I think you're doing well thus far. Don -- the fact is, Rice is bigger (1 inch) but hardly a game changer.... Rog -- He is also listed as 17 pounds heavier. That doesn't prove he was the better receiver, but both height and weight are in his advantage. He may have had longer arms than Don, as well. Don -- Hutson ran 9.7 hundred, no figures for Rice...but that 9.7 would probably he closer to 9.2 or less with modern conditions....does that make him slower? Rog -- I'm not so sure about your conversion, but little question Don was fast. Don -- I think it would be easy to understand that a player who played two way football would be much better if he only had to play on one side of the ball... Rog -- Yes, even though playing both ways was the style back then. Don -- and it should also be easy even for you to understand the physical strain alone would decrease the ability of a modern player going both way for a full 60 minutes... Rog -- Just as the violence and speed of today's game would decrease that for Don. Don -- how long would these 300 pound slobs, with their gut hanging over their belts, last if they had to play for longer than a few plays at a time.... Rog -- Probably not long. But just as greater use of the bullpen has improved pitching performance, having to go only one way and having occasional relief have made today's player perform much better than if they were playing both ways. Don -- and how much could the old timers sharpen their skills for the modern way they play the game if they didn't have to practice all the skills of the game....they pay guys that do nothing but punt or place kick big money today....Hutson did all that as well as break all receiving records and played great defense......has the league broken Sammy Baughs record for punting yet.....and he was one of the best passers and defensive backs of his time.... Rog -- All VERY impressive (and perhaps illustrative of the higher standard variance of performance early in a sport's history. Sammy's single-season punting average of 51.4 hasn't been broken, and his 45.1 ranks 13th of all time. I do think today's punters are better, since they are punting for net yards and likely have a higher percentage of situations where they are trying to avoid the end zone. Personally, I may like Baugh even more than Hutson. I do thank you, Don, for helping me learn more about Hutson. My eyes were opened further when the NFL Network did their top 100, and further yet with your comments. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1401&page=3#ixzz2GHqo7nbj
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 27, 2012 19:28:31 GMT -5
But even in baseball there is no question the game has sped up, as have all games.
Allen- Tough call there. There are probably more speedy players, but speed isn't as much of a factor on offense as it used to be. There's alot of station to station and waiting for the three run homer. And that's where the percentages lie. With smaller parks, juiced balls, harder bats, poorer pitching, why play for one run?
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 27, 2012 19:31:30 GMT -5
[You're absolutely ridiculous with this stuff Don. Are you serious or are you just playing dumb?[/quote]
dk....what is ridiculous about lauding Don Hutson who was the greatest end playing the game in his era..
Allen- Nothing at all. It's when you start comparing him to Jerry Rice that it gets ridiculous.
.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 27, 2012 19:37:36 GMT -5
dk...old time films would make Bolt look like a snail....you can't judge things as the film appears to show them....Hutson ran track and was timed 9.7 in the 100...is that slow?
Allen- For a WR in today's game, yes. Why would the film make him look slower. They're not in slow motion.
?? Why the heck would a Hutson have to play without a face mask??? Again you complete miss the point, we are talking about athletic ability...not equipment.....if Jessie Owens could run on the modern day track, with modern day starting blocks and shoes and using an electronic timer....how fast do you think he would be compared to the modern sprinter....if Don Hutson came back...inn the same athletic body and played today's game....and he only played receiver, could take a rest after a tough down, could run out of bounds to avoid a hit, didn't have to spend practice time playing defense, punting, and kicking ffield goals....how many passes would he catch....why he caught as many as most payers today on a per game basis.
Allen- I doubt he would do as well. Don was fast for his time. In today's game his speed would be below average. How was his quickness, leaping ability, and ability to get seperation. Would a bigger DB be able to jam him at the line, since he wouldn't have to worry about his speed.
...[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 28, 2012 0:04:14 GMT -5
dk...old time films would make Bolt look like a snail....you can't judge things as the film appears to show them....Hutson ran track and was timed 9.7 in the 100...is that slow? Allen- For a WR in today's game, yes. Rog -- 9.7 in the 100 yard dash would be fairly fast for a wide receiver in today's game. I should not that I have found nothing faster than 9.8 for Don -- not that that makes much difference, and that hand-held times could vary, meaning that a runner's best might actually be a little better than it really is. That said, 9.7, 9.8, heck, ten flat is pretty good speed. Jerry Rice ran the 40-yard dash in 4.6 second IIRC. To run a 9.8 hundred yard dash, he would need to cover the last 60 years in 5.2 seconds. So Jerry likely wasn't much faster than Don -- on the track. What is more important is FIELD speed, and Jerry had a lot more of that. Don Hutson was apparently faster than I thought. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1401&page=3#8161#ixzz2GJskRUPG
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 28, 2012 0:06:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 28, 2012 0:07:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 28, 2012 14:04:59 GMT -5
I believe my point has been proven here, Allen. Like I said I didn't want to claim that Jerry Rice was the best because it would start up a whole new topic completely off the original topic.
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Dec 28, 2012 15:58:33 GMT -5
dk...boy you sure don't know beans about Dolph, he had the quickness to drive Rog -- Sure. But it was quickness for THOSE days. dk...in those days? You mean you didn't have to be quick to get around Wilt and Bill Russell??? Check out their track times....how about Elgin Baylor?? Bob Pettit??? oOscar Robertson?? George Yardley, Mel Hutchins?? So, you are saying that none of these guys from THOSE days belong on the all time teams??? or is it just Schayes, who you really don't know anything about....
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 28, 2012 17:59:57 GMT -5
I believe my point has been proven here, Allen. Like I said I didn't want to claim that Jerry Rice was the best because it would start up a whole new topic completely off the original topic. Allen- Which has given us something to talk about over the last few days. Hey, we could be talking about the fiscal cliff Obama's ready to push us over.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 30, 2012 2:10:15 GMT -5
dk...in those days? You mean you didn't have to be quick to get around Wilt and Bill Russell??? Check out their track times....how about Elgin Baylor?? Bob Pettit??? oOscar Robertson?? George Yardley, Mel Hutchins?? So, you are saying that none of these guys from THOSE days belong on the all time teams??? or is it just Schayes, who you really don't know anything about.... Rog -- How would you know what I know about and don't know about, Don? I'm not an expert on Dolph, by any means, but I did see him play (on TV). You mention George (the Bird) Yardley. He was my very first favorite player, and you would have to go a long way to find another person who listened on radio to his becoming the first 2000 point scorer. I believe I already posted this. As for all-time teams, of the names you mentioned, I would rank Wilt (#1 center), Russ (#2 center), Elgin (maybe #2 small forward) and the Big O (#2 shooting guard, although some rank him as a point). I might have Bob Pettit as my #3 power forward. Please, Don, don't act as if I don't know anything about that era. By the way, you will also have to go a long way to find someone who watched on TV when the Big O win the Indiana State Championship for Crispus Attucks High School in Indianapolis. By the way, the player I think was most underrated from that era was the unfortunate Maurice Stokes. Had he been able to complete his career, I suspect he would be among my top three power forwards, and possibly as high as #1. I've never met Jerry West, but I did have the pleasure of having his two youngest sons discuss me at his dinner table. Anyway, as Boagie mentioned, it's time for us to get back to baseball. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1401&page=3#8171#ixzz2GW49lYxZ
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 30, 2012 12:29:32 GMT -5
Other than some highlights, I've never seen Schayes play. He's listed as 6'7" and 195 pounds. Something tells me he's have to bulk up a bit to play today's game. While we're on basketball, I know there's a few Warrior fans here. What do you make of their start this year? Is Mark Jackson the coach of the century? I've watched a bit, and the biggest differences to me is their confidence level, and their ability to make free throws, a weakness that killed them in the past. It's hard to think they would be better with Bogut.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 30, 2012 13:31:20 GMT -5
DEE-fense.
|
|