2020 Thread

[SpeedFlex27]

2 hours ago, Brandon said:

Comparing apples to oranges....  the quality of players playing now compared to then is night and day better.   I'm sure McLeod Bethel-Thompson would tear up the league if their was a time machine and he could go back.   

Put almost any of the defenses of the league now against the offenses of 1994 and same thing....  Flutie and company wouldn't have nearly the same amount of success. 

MBT tearing it up? In 84? No. He still throws too many interceptions & has too many turnovers. That's like saying defenses were very simplified back then so Jason Boltus would have been an All Star. 

Edited December 5, 2020 by SpeedFlex27

[Eternal optimist]

4 hours ago, Brandon said:

Comparing apples to oranges....  the quality of players playing now compared to then is night and day better.   I'm sure McLeod Bethel-Thompson would tear up the league if their was a time machine and he could go back.   

Put almost any of the defenses of the league now against the offenses of 1994 and same thing....  Flutie and company wouldn't have nearly the same amount of success. 

Well, yeah... I mean, Flutie is 58 now, he has slowed down a bit lol.

[Mark H.]

16 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Dunigan is one of the all time Greats. He was better than Collaros & Mitchell. Although Mitchell could have played in any era. Same with Reilly.

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree - I think Dunigan and Mitchell are quite similar in ability, although Dunigan probably played with a little more moxy. Both of them had/have top notch receiving corps & OL.  

[SpeedFlex27]

32 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree - I think Dunigan and Mitchell are quite similar in ability, although Dunigan probably played with a little more moxy. Both of them had/have top notch receiving corps & OL.  

Dunigan played with no fear. He could run & throw. It did shorten his career. Whereas Mitchell doesn't like to run or get hit. And I believe Dunigan had the respect of the entire locker room on every team he played on. There was no doubt who was in charge when he put on his helmet at practice or Game Day. Whereas Mitchell admits his ego got the best of him after winning the 2014 Grey Cup. He was centred around himself. 

[Brandon]

13 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

MBT tearing it up? In 84? No. He still throws too many interceptions & has too many turnovers. That's like saying defenses were very simplified back then so Jason Boltus would have been an All Star. 

He'd destroy any defenses in 84 or 94.   The skill level in the CFL itself has jumped massively over the years,   Mike Kelly is living way in the past.... considering how outdated his offense was the last time he was with us which has been 11 years already.... the guy is way out of touch.  

I'd put MBT way over Jason Boltus in level of talent and that's a weird comparison.  Boltus was probably the worst QB we have seen on the team to date... so if you are trying to say that that absolute worst present day player in the CFL would of failed back in 1994 then sure I guess?   I'd say in 1994 only a small amount of the league (the elite players only)  would be able to play in todays current game. 

Same goes with almost any team based sports.   Same thing would happen if the 2019- 2020 Winnipeg Jets were to play the dynasty Oilers of the 80's.   The Jets would obliterate them.    The skill level of athletes of today compared to back then is night and day.   Watch old games,  while fun to watch because it's exciting... the skill is absolutely terrible for most of the players. 

[Noeller]

7 minutes ago, Brandon said:

He'd destroy any defenses in 84 or 94.   The skill level in the CFL itself has jumped massively over the years,   Mike Kelly is living way in the past.... considering how outdated his offense was the last time he was with us which has been 11 years already.... the guy is way out of touch.  

I'd put MBT way over Jason Boltus in level of talent and that's a weird comparison.  Boltus was probably the worst QB we have seen on the team to date... so if you are trying to say that that absolute worst present day player in the CFL would of failed back in 1994 then sure I guess?   I'd say in 1994 only a small amount of the league (the elite players only)  would be able to play in todays current game. 

Same goes with almost any team based sports.   Same thing would happen if the 2019- 2020 Winnipeg Jets were to play the dynasty Oilers of the 80's.   The Jets would obliterate them.    The skill level of athletes of today compared to back then is night and day.   Watch old games,  while fun to watch because it's exciting... the skill is absolutely terrible for most of the players. 

Ehhhhhhhh I wouldn't go down that road. Gretzky would be successful in any era because he's smarter than anyone else who's ever played the game. He would ALWAYS find a way to beat you. Same with Flutie.... Flutie in the CFL was like Gretz in the NHL. They would be better than anyone in any era because they're smarter than anyone else. 

Edited December 5, 2020 by Noeller

[Brandon]

11 minutes ago, Noeller said:

Ehhhhhhhh I wouldn't go down that road. Gretzky would be successful in any era because he's smarter than anyone else who's ever played the game. He would ALWAYS find a way to beat you. Same with Flutie.... Flutie in the CFL was like Gretz in the NHL. They would be better than anyone in any era because they're smarter than anyone else. 

But one player does not make a team.    Seriously watch old games from the 80's its hilarious on how poor the goalies form are and how sloppy everyone is.     I love watching it because it is so wide open and frenetic,  but the talent level is far inferior.   

Flutie would not be the best player in the current league,  defenses have changed so much that he's be contained in the pocket and all his underneath stuff would be gone.   Watch back in the 90's when he played... defenses were super basic running basic schemes that rarely took into account dump passes and/or mobile QB's.   Not to mention the DT of current day are monsters in size and speed compared to 1994....   Flutie was not that athletic.  

You have to take off the old man glasses saying "back in my day the players were better bla bla bla"....   in that era they were great.   In todays era they would not be.  

Edited December 5, 2020 by Brandon

[Mr Dee]

And these arguments are precisely why players/teams cannot be compared from one era to another. Especially teams.

 

[rebusrankin]

I tend to think most all times greats would have been great in any era.

I disagree on those Oilers, lots of skills with Gretzky, Coffey and Kurri especially and those three are actually well suited for the modern game.

As for the CFL, I don't see MBT lighting it up in 1994. Mitchell and MR? For sure.

Speaking of comparing eras, know who would do well in the 2020 NFL, Dan Marino.

[Brandon]

If MBT can throw for 300 yards against modern teams .. he'd throw for 400+ against guys like Jayson Dzikowicz and Dave Donaldson.

[SpeedFlex27]

4 minutes ago, rebusrankin said:

I tend to think most all times greats would have been great in any era.

I disagree on those Oilers, lots of skills with Gretzky, Coffey and Kurri especially and those three are actually well suited for the modern game.

As for the CFL, I don't see MBT lighting it up in 1994. Mitchell and MR? For sure.

Speaking of comparing eras, know who would do well in the 2020 NFL, Dan Marino.

Let's look at 1984. MBT would never have beaten out Tom Clements & john Hufnagel in Winnipeg, Dieter Brock in Hamilton, Warren Moon in Edmonton, Roy Dewalt in BC, Condredge Holloway & Joe Barnes in Toronto, JC Watts in Ottawa,  Maybe he could have beaten out a young Danny Barrett in Calgary or  Turner Gill with the Concordes in Montreal. Although both qbs played behind horrible offensive lines & had to scramble for their lives constantly. MBT was a pylon compared to both these guys. The only team he may have been able to play for was the Saskatchewan Roughriders who had a fading Joe Paopao as their qb. But could he tear up the league & just walk into a starting spot on any team in 1984? No, he's not good enough. 

6 minutes ago, Brandon said:

If MBT can throw for 300 yards against modern teams .. he'd throw for 400+ against guys like Jayson Dzikowicz and Dave Donaldson.

Sure with guys like John Helton, Tony Norman & Dave Fennell running down his slow as molasses ass. #pylon

2 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Let's look at 1984. MBT would never have beaten out Tom Clements & john Hufnagel in Winnipeg, Dieter Brock in Hamilton, Warren Moon in Edmonton, Roy Dewalt in BC, Condredge Holloway & Joe Barnes in Toronto, JC Watts in Ottawa,  Maybe he could have beaten out a young Danny Barrett in Calgary or  Turner Gill with the Concordes in Montreal. Although both qbs played behind horrible offensive lines & had to scramble for their lives constantly. MBT was a pylon compared to both these guys. The only team he may have been able to play for was the Saskatchewan Roughriders who had a fading Joe Paopao as their qb. But could he tear up the league & just walk into a starting spot on any team in 1984? No, he's not good enough. 

Sure with guys like John Helton, Mike Walker, Dan Kepley, Tony Norman & Dave Fennell running down his slow as molasses ass. #pylon

 

[17to85]

People make overly much of these supposed skill gaps between generations. 

[Brandon]

1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

People make overly much of these supposed skill gaps between generations. 

But their is a massive gap in atheletic ability , training, schemes,  and skills.    How can you not over look how much better athletes are today compared to then?   

It's pure denial in people not wanting to believe that their childhood heroes would not stack up against the athletes of today.   That's why you can't make comparisons between eras because it's simply un fair.   

If skill levels have not changed then why doesn't everyone in baseball hit 50 homers and have a 350 batting average like they did way back in the olden times?   

How come the total amount of goals in the NHL dropped sharply after the the trap era began in the late 90's.   

How come in the CFL it isn't shoot outs like during the Dunigan era... 

The players these days are light years better athletes,  better trained,  better coached... so you can't compare.   The old eras wouldn't stand a chance.  

[Brandon]

4 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Let's look at 1984. MBT would never have beaten out Tom Clements & john Hufnagel in Winnipeg, Dieter Brock in Hamilton, Warren Moon in Edmonton, Roy Dewalt in BC, Condredge Holloway & Joe Barnes in Toronto, JC Watts in Ottawa,  Maybe he could have beaten out a young Danny Barrett in Calgary or  Turner Gill with the Concordes in Montreal. Although both qbs played behind horrible offensive lines & had to scramble for their lives constantly. MBT was a pylon compared to both these guys. The only team he may have been able to play for was the Saskatchewan Roughriders who had a fading Joe Paopao as their qb. But could he tear up the league & just walk into a starting spot on any team in 1984? No, he's not good enough. 

Sure with guys like John Helton, Tony Norman & Dave Fennell running down his slow as molasses ass. #pylon

 

Lol you are nuts.     The only guy better on that list would be Warren Moon and that's it.    The training that MBT and coaching he's had in the NFL and CFL is light years ahead of anything from that era.   The quality of opposition in that era is so far inferior to what he faces now that it would be way easier.    Because the defenses sucked so badly in the 80's and 90's it's much easier for the offense to win the battles by purely chucking the ball in the general direction of the receiver.  See Dunigan's record breaking game that I watched in person where he literally John Madden 1994 for the SNES chucked the ball in the air in the general area of Alfred Jackson meanwhile the slow and incompetent DB's were way out of place and running man to man and being completely loss making it easy for Alfred to catch and rack up the YAC.     MBT would have a field day against those teams.    Even if you hate MBT,   Nichols,  Collaros,  Fajardo ,  Glenn anyone would of had great success.   

If you want any further proof...  watch Mike Kelly coaching the Bombers and not modifying his gameplan to at that time current coaching methods.   His antiquated and shitty old schemes were so terrible and so easily defended against that he had to revert to a really basic offense scheme which worked better.    

[SpeedFlex27]

1 hour ago, Brandon said:

Lol you are nuts.     The only guy better on that list would be Warren Moon and that's it.    The training that MBT and coaching he's had in the NFL and CFL is light years ahead of anything from that era.   The quality of opposition in that era is so far inferior to what he faces now that it would be way easier.    Because the defenses sucked so badly in the 80's and 90's it's much easier for the offense to win the battles by purely chucking the ball in the general direction of the receiver.  See Dunigan's record breaking game that I watched in person where he literally John Madden 1994 for the SNES chucked the ball in the air in the general area of Alfred Jackson meanwhile the slow and incompetent DB's were way out of place and running man to man and being completely loss making it easy for Alfred to catch and rack up the YAC.     MBT would have a field day against those teams.    Even if you hate MBT,   Nichols,  Collaros,  Fajardo ,  Glenn anyone would of had great success.   

If you want any further proof...  watch Mike Kelly coaching the Bombers and not modifying his gameplan to at that time current coaching methods.   His antiquated and shitty old schemes were so terrible and so easily defended against that he had to revert to a really basic offense scheme which worked better.    

MBT better than Brock? Clements?? Dunigan??? The only one nuts here is you pumping the tires of a CFL retread & pro football journeyman like MBT. 

Edited December 6, 2020 by SpeedFlex27

[TBURGESS]

Yes the players are better today because they have better training and better coaching and better schemes. If the great players of the past had the same training, coaching etc, they'd still be great players in today's game. The same thing goes for today's great QB's if you put them in the past with that level of training etc.

The top 2 or 3 QB's of every era would be top QB's in any era. You can't compare stats from different timeframes because the game was different for everyone in different eras.

[17to85]

The best counter argument to this "old guys would suck in a modern age" nonsense is hockey because you have some guys who played many many years. Gretzky and lemieux played in the dead puck era as old broken down men... Gretzky in New York with a half crippled back was still putting up 90 points. Lemieux check back from cancer and ripped the league a new *******. 

Talent is talent regardless of the era. Sure overall depth has improved, but the beat players are still the best players.

[Mark H.]

37 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

The best counter argument to this "old guys would suck in a modern age" nonsense is hockey because you have some guys who played many many years. Gretzky and lemieux played in the dead puck era as old broken down men... Gretzky in New York with a half crippled back was still putting up 90 points. Lemieux check back from cancer and ripped the league a new *******. 

Talent is talent regardless of the era. Sure overall depth has improved, but the beat players are still the best players.

The best ones, yes.  But in general, today’s players are going to fare better, because of better coaching. The one QB is still plays a style similar to the 80s & 90s would be Mike Reilly.  And he would have ripped up the defenses from that era.  

[SpeedFlex27]

2 hours ago, Mark H. said:

The best ones, yes.  But in general, today’s players are going to fare better, because of better coaching. The one QB is still plays a style similar to the 80s & 90s would be Mike Reilly.  And he would have ripped up the defenses from that era.  

And the guys that played today's style of game in the 80's was Ham, Clements & Wilkie. They'd have torn up the defenses of today as they could spread the ball around to a plethora of different receivers. Especially Clements & Wilkie who didn't have guns for an arm. They were just very, very smart. And they'd be very, very smart today. 

[SpeedFlex27]

The one thing Brandon forgets is that the game 30 years ago was much more physical. Much more intimidating. Hits to the head of qbs was open season. They could be hit late, taken out at the knees. Qbs could be violently slammed to the ground with no penalty. Refs wouldn't whistle a play dead when a qb was swarmed by a number of defensive players. Defensive players could pile on the qb. Spearing was allowed as were clotheslines. It took a courageous qb to stand in there knowing he is going to get rocked with impunity. Something today's qbs don't have to worry about. So much as touch them & a flag is thrown. Intimidated qbs never set their feet & they throw too early as they don't trust their eyes that they have more time. Their accuracy & completion percentage as well as QB Rating suffers. I think a lot of today's star qbs would be nullified with fear playingfootball from the past & wouldn't be as effective as they are today. 

 

Edited December 6, 2020 by SpeedFlex27

[Brandon]

Remember back in the day many atheletes were smoking,  were not taking any "supplements" ,  would walk in off the streets and just play,  they would take the off season off and relax....   these days most of the players are doing year round training ,  working with nutrionists / personal trainers ,  working out smarter and better.... as I said you just can't compare.

I'm sure if the classic players had all the modern day advantages that they would of even been even better but that's not the case.    

Do yourself a favour and watch old sports... it's funny to go back (hockey is the best to watch) and see just how inferior players were.

The best example because the sport is so young is go and watch classic UFC.   Back in 1994 Ken Shamrock and Royce Gracie were the elite fighters....  a middle of the pack welter weight in present day UFC would absolutely destroy anyone in the first many UFC's because fighters now days are so far in advance in fighting knowledge and training.   And no Speedflex... just because the first several UFC's were more physical and brutal... that still wouldn't change the fact that Tyron Woodley would of killed and easily won the early UFC with little to no effort.  

[SpeedFlex27]

20 hours ago, Brandon said:

Remember back in the day many atheletes were smoking,  were not taking any "supplements" ,  would walk in off the streets and just play,  they would take the off season off and relax....   these days most of the players are doing year round training ,  working with nutrionists / personal trainers ,  working out smarter and better.... as I said you just can't compare.

I'm sure if the classic players had all the modern day advantages that they would of even been even better but that's not the case.    

Do yourself a favour and watch old sports... it's funny to go back (hockey is the best to watch) and see just how inferior players were.

The best example because the sport is so young is go and watch classic UFC.   Back in 1994 Ken Shamrock and Royce Gracie were the elite fighters....  a middle of the pack welter weight in present day UFC would absolutely destroy anyone in the first many UFC's because fighters now days are so far in advance in fighting knowledge and training.   And no Speedflex... just because the first several UFC's were more physical and brutal... that still wouldn't change the fact that Tyron Woodley would of killed and easily won the early UFC with little to no effort.  

I don't watch UFC much. I don't disagree with your premise but please don't tell us MBT would have been an all time great if he played 40 years ago. He's a journeyman. A career backup who racked up a lot of yards in garbage time when his Argos team had actually lost. If you want to talk about the greats not being able to play today well your argument defeats itself. If Johnny Unitas was born in 2002 he'd have been trained using today's training techniques, nutrition & technology. Chances are he'd be better as a player now than he was in the 50's. The same with Starr, Namath, Baugh, Ploen, Lancaster, Parker, Kapp, Jackson or Staubach. If they were college players, they'd be better today than when they played & now being prepped for pro football. 

Edited December 8, 2020 by SpeedFlex27

[Brandon]

1 hour ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

I don't watch UFC much. I don't disagree with your premise but please don't tell us MBT would have been an all time great if he played 40 years ago. He's a journeyman. A career backup who racked up a lot of yards in garbage time when his Argos team had actually lost. If you want to talk about the greats not being able to play today well your argument defeats itself. If Johnny Unitas was born in 2002 he'd have been trained using today's training techniques, nutrition & technology. Chances are he'd be better as a player now than he was in the 50's. The same with Starr, Namath, Baugh, Ploen, Lancaster, Parker, Kapp, Jackson or Staubach. If they were college players, they'd be better today than when they played & now being prepped for pro football. 

You are thinking with your heart and not with the head.  I'm not saying the greats of the past are bums and were never good,  in the eras they played in they were elite.   

Your argument would be that Johnny Unitas and the all stars of 1960 would be able to hang and possibly beat the NFL all star club of 2020.   It wouldn't even be close the 2020 club would absolutely destroy them and their is nothing wrong with that being the case because over time sports evolve and get better with each year.  

The original post was about Mike Kelly saying that modern CFL QB's couldn't hang in 1994 and he's completely wrong based on the part above in which I highlighted.   If you disagree then that means you and Mike Kelly have the exact same thought pattern and well if you want to be grouped with Mike Kelly in anything about pro football then I really can't say anything else.  In 2009 Kelly was ridiculed for running a dated offense and was completely wrong on how a successful CFL offense works....  11 years later he's still saying the same things and I don't believe anyone (aside from possibly you) would join him on thinking that he knows what he is talking about. 

[SpeedFlex27]

The only position where I will agree with you that the players of today are better than the past are on the offensive line. Guards & Centers were anywhere from 215 lbs in the early 50's to 245 lbs in the 70's. Tackles went from 225 ;bs in that era to 265 lbs in the 70's. Today's OL are all 285 - 300 lbs & are more athletic & can move. The greats of yesterday like Frank Rigney would have a hard time playing today, if at all. On the defensive line players are somewhat bigger where the interior players are 270 lbs or bigger but the DE's are still 245-250 lbs & are very quick. (See Willie Jefferson & Charleston Hughes). However, guys like John Helton, Junior Ah You David Boone or Dave Fennell could still play if they were in the prime. 

Edited December 8, 2020 by SpeedFlex27

[17to85]

I say again, overly much is made of the difference in skills. Yes sports constantly evolve and yes players overall fitness is improving (mostly. It is well documented that Charles roberts didn't put in any work to be at his best and he still did OK against all these players training hard) 

Particularly in a team setting these differences are not as massive as they are being portrayed. 

At a position like qb I don't think there is some magic that has been worked on the athletes. Coaches have simply worked harder to make them look better. The position has become a lot more scripted. In the past there was a lot more flying by the seat of your pants.