Do you KNOW BO?

[J-Mike88]

Loved seeing Bo shove Deion away like that!
Sadly, now most DBs would just dive into the runner's ACL, take em down that way, higher percentage of success.

[ChiFan24]

Originally Posted by WCH

Silly ChiFan24, a true Packer homer would have picked Ahman Green. Green was bigger and faster than Ivery; and at one point in time, Green and Bo were the only NFL RBs who had two 90 yard runs.

Considering that this is a Bo Jackson thread, Green is clearly the Packer Homer pick.

I have no idea why that was the first name to stick out to me, guy retired well before I was born. In hindsight I would have gone Samkon Gado or John Kuhn.

[WCH]

Originally Posted by ChiFan24

I have no idea why that was the first name to stick out to me, guy retired well before I was born. In hindsight I would have gone Samkon Gado or John Kuhn.

For some reason, my Jr. High gave us a bunch of 25+ year old Sports Illustrated magazines to read during home room (damn budget cuts!). I think Eddie Lee Ivery made a cover story back in the 70s. I definitely remember them doing a feature article on him.

You're the first person I've seen mention his name in at least 5 years.

[farfromforgotten]

I know Bo.


Always one of my favorite cards to own growing up.

[jth1331]

Bo was a freakish athlete who played well in two sports. In terms of baseball, I'd say looking at the overall metrics of him, he was a good player with good power. He might have continued to progress and become a better player like Sammy Sosa did, but of course we will never know.

As for football, I think he was a better football player and could have been a beast if he played from the getgo and never had his injury.

[Iamcanadian]

I'm 69, so I've seen them all since the 50's and Jimmy Brown was the best I ever saw followed by Bo Jackson and O.J. Simpson. If Peterson didn't have so many injuries, he might rate as well, unfortunately, for Peterson, artifical turf, bigger players and improved tackling technique, make injuries more common today.

[ryno626]

Originally Posted by The Alex

Tecmo Bo created the term OP.

"Biblical beast at this juncture of NES gaming."

[J-Mike88]

Originally Posted by Iamcanadian

I'm 69, so I've seen them all since the 50's and Jimmy Brown was the best I ever saw followed by Bo Jackson and O.J. Simpson. If Peterson didn't have so many injuries, he might rate as well, unfortunately, for Peterson, artifical turf, bigger players and improved tackling technique, make injuries more common today.

Don't forget who Jim Brown was playing against back then. Or not against.

Guys were slower and smaller. You saw no Africans (or very few)on defense back in his day and clearly, that makes a big difference.

Today, no caucasion is qualified to even be a backup as a CB in today's NFL- for whatever reason you want to give including coincidence. It's just a fact.

I think if you threw Willis McGahee, Matt Forte, Michael Turner, or Maurice Jones-Drew back to the 50's and 60's, they'd be thought of as GOATs.

Did u ever see Dupree play? He was special.... molded to be a RB.

[FUNBUNCHER]

The greatness of Jim Brown IMO is if you transported him from the late 1950s and put him in a Browns uni today, he'd still be a pro bowl RB.

Of course most players today if you allowed them to play in the 1950s would have been superstars.
But how many football players from the golden era of the NFL would be stars in today's game??

Very few IMO. And Jim Brown would have been one of them.
Bo Jackson would be too.

[Bulldogs]

[J-Mike88]

Originally Posted by FUNBUNCHER

The greatness of Jim Brown IMO is if you transported him from the late 1950s and put him in a Browns uni today, he'd still be a pro bowl RB.

Of course most players today if you allowed them to play in the 1950s would have been superstars.
But how many football players from the golden era of the NFL would be stars in today's game??

Very few IMO. And Jim Brown would have been one of them.
Bo Jackson would be too.

That's the great thing about comparing greats from different eras.

[J-Mike88]

Who watched it last night?

[Babylon]

Originally Posted by Iamcanadian

I'm 69, so I've seen them all since the 50's and Jimmy Brown was the best I ever saw followed by Bo Jackson and O.J. Simpson. If Peterson didn't have so many injuries, he might rate as well, unfortunately, for Peterson, artifical turf, bigger players and improved tackling technique, make injuries more common today.

You make me feel young IAC.

I'm with you on Jim Brown. He was 6-2 230 back in those days and ran like a 9.5 hundred yard dash.

[Iamcanadian]

Originally Posted by FUNBUNCHER

The greatness of Jim Brown IMO is if you transported him from the late 1950s and put him in a Browns uni today, he'd still be a pro bowl RB.

Of course most players today if you allowed them to play in the 1950s would have been superstars.
But how many football players from the golden era of the NFL would be stars in today's game??

Very few IMO. And Jim Brown would have been one of them.
Bo Jackson would be too.

Sorry, but this is total rubbish.

Actually, the reverse it far truer. Many, many of today's player could never have played in the past. Rule changes, playing surfaces and drugs have changed the game so dramatically that any comparison between eras is impossible.
Take OLmen for example, the rules governing where your hands had to be in order to block would eliminate almost every OLmen from today from playing in the past, then there is the head slap, chop blocking, etc. etc. which would completely confuse todays OLmen although I agree that a star is a star is a star whatever the era.
Take WR's, head shots were allowed from the 50's through the 70's and a modern WR would be sh--ting in his pants at the thought of playing against DB's from those eras. Many, many would never survive in previous eras. Throw in the bump and run defense without any 5 yard rule and most WR's today would be useless against the DB's of previous eras', never mind stickum on the hands and gloves of DB's.
Players were expected to play with concussions and if injured took pain killers with 10 inch needles stuck up their groins to kill the pain, they played no matter what.
Jimmy Brown played on a team that was consistently very weak at passing the ball. He faced 8 or even 9 men in the box to stop his runs and he carried the ball practically on every play. At 240lbs. and reported to be the fastest player in the NFL, the size of the defenders certainly didn't scare him or hurt his performance, but you take a linemen from that era into todays game and put him on weight training and drugs and he'd weigh just as much as today's players and be just as good, a star is a star is a star.
People who assume that players from previous eras couldn't play in today's game have an inflated idea about the modern player and as I pointed out, many, many of today's players would never have survived under the old rules and toughness of the game.

[LonghornsLegend]

This Bo Jackson episode was amazing. I don't think there has ever been another athlete of his caliber before, ever. The things he could do, his raw power, speed, strength, size, hand eye coordination, etc were all completely off the charts. Then this was during an era where he wasn't taking all these PED's, supplements, or even working out in general.


It also shined some light on his injury, which was a really freak injury and probably doesn't even happen if he wasn't the incredible athlete that he was. I don't even think I've heard of that injury happening to an athlete before. Your talking about a guy who was making all star games in both sports, all star game MVP in baseball, coming over to football with no training camp(who could do that now and not be out of shape) and taking a HOFers spot in Marcus Allen.


It was just completely unreal. His career may have been short lived, but I don't think we've ever seen a guy that talented before, and it's not hard to imagine what his career would have been like had he primarily played football and done it for 10 years.

[FUNBUNCHER]

Originally Posted by Iamcanadian

Sorry, but this is total rubbish.

Sorry but you're wrong, on almost every point, besides the fact you're contradicting yourself by agreeing with me.

Do you know the average height/weight of a pro football player in the 1950s??
Most current TEs would have been massive Olineman in the era Jim Brown played in.
Hell, most FBs would have been Olineman.
(The avg.. olineman in the 1950s was 6'2, 234#.)

The comment I made was done without exceptions included, you don't get to take football players from the 1950s and put them through a 21st century training regimen.

The best football players from the 1950s, as they were, could not have played in today's game. No argument.


And head shots, clothesline tackles, etc, that's all great except you can't tackle what you can't catch. How many 5'10, 160# corners running a blazing 4.7 could even man up with a modern NFL WR for more than 5 yards??

To deliver a 'dirty hit', the defender has to close on his target faster than the target is moving. The old adage still applies, you can't hit what you can't catch. If I'm running faster than you, it's unlikely you'll be able to deliver an effective head shot that's going to hurt me.


Forget training and technique, the game of football was not the huge money making sports enterprise in the 1950s that it was now. Therefore the sport itself did not draw from a huge pool of potential athletes because the financial compensation wasn't such that a pro football player could be a professional without taking a 2nd job in the offseason.
There are several stories of guys who simply did not consider any future in pro football in the 1940s-1950s because they couldn't support a family on their salary.

Bottom line, there are better athletes period playing the game now than ever before, certainly compared to the 1950s, and that has nothing to do with PEDs or weight training.
As popularity in the sport has grown, more athletes IMO have been drawn to the sport.
But the game of football itself doesn't make one a great athlete.
It's similar to soccer globally compared to the U.S.
Internationally, the United States doesn't have the same caliber of athletes playing soccer compared to a country like Brasil, because in those countries the best athletes pursue a career in soccer.


The game has evolved over the last 60 years and the same guys aren't playing it.
Sorry but putting Dick Butkus on a modern training regimen isn't going to turn him into Brian Urlacher. Butkus was a downhill between the tackles Mike in the 1960s, and he'd be even more restricted athletically in today's game.

Part of Butkus' dominance was that offensively the game was so run dominant when he played.
If he played now he'd be a spectator.

Still an alltime great player, but he wasn't a transitional type athlete.
Unlike Gale Sayers who would have been a star IMO if he played right today.

[jsagan77]

I agree with this for the most part. There's some guys who could do it, but not too many IMO.

Originally Posted by FUNBUNCHER

Sorry but you're wrong, on almost every point, besides the fact you're contradicting yourself by agreeing with me.

Do you know the average height/weight of a pro football player in the 1950s??
Most current TEs would have been massive Olineman in the era Jim Brown played in.
Hell, most FBs would have been Olineman.
(The avg.. olineman in the 1950s was 6'2, 234#.)

The comment I made was done without exceptions included, you don't get to take football players from the 1950s and put them through a 21st century training regimen.

The best football players from the 1950s, as they were, could not have played in today's game. No argument.


And head shots, clothesline tackles, etc, that's all great except you can't tackle what you can't catch. How many 5'10, 160# corners running a blazing 4.7 could even man up with a modern NFL WR for more than 5 yards??

To deliver a 'dirty hit', the defender has to close on his target faster than the target is moving. The old adage still applies, you can't hit what you can't catch. If I'm running faster than you, it's unlikely you'll be able to deliver an effective head shot that's going to hurt me.


Forget training and technique, the game of football was not the huge money making sports enterprise in the 1950s that it was now. Therefore the sport itself did not draw from a huge pool of potential athletes because the financial compensation wasn't such that a pro football player could be a professional without taking a 2nd job in the offseason.
There are several stories of guys who simply did not consider any future in pro football in the 1940s-1950s because they couldn't support a family on their salary.

Bottom line, there are better athletes period playing the game now than ever before, certainly compared to the 1950s, and that has nothing to do with PEDs or weight training.
As popularity in the sport has grown, more athletes IMO have been drawn to the sport.
But the game of football itself doesn't make one a great athlete.
It's similar to soccer globally compared to the U.S.
Internationally, the United States doesn't have the same caliber of athletes playing soccer compared to a country like Brasil, because in those countries the best athletes pursue a career in soccer.


The game has evolved over the last 60 years and the same guys aren't playing it.
Sorry but putting Dick Butkus on a modern training regimen isn't going to turn him into Brian Urlacher. Butkus was a downhill between the tackles Mike in the 1960s, and he'd be even more restricted athletically in today's game.

Part of Butkus' dominance was that offensively the game was so run dominant when he played.
If he played now he'd be a spectator.

Still an alltime great player, but he wasn't a transitional type athlete.
Unlike Gale Sayers who would have been a star IMO if he played right today.

[Caulibflower]

Apples!

No, Oranges!

APPLES!

ORANGES! YOU DON'T WATCH FOOTBALL!

[Caulibflower]

Sorry. But why do we have to do this again? Triangle numbers have clearly exploded, and when people take that to be the primary measure of how hard it is (was) to play in the NFL from era to era, its no use talking about how the game used to be played compared to how it's played now, because it'll always come down to "Today's players are bigger and stronger," and since it's true, a person who compares the eras based on that criteria will never be persuaded.

[y.f.s.]

The problem with the cross-era argument is people want to evaluate the players in a vacuum. Transport Steven Jackson and make him grow up in the 50s, and he likely doesn't spend his entire life training to be a football player. There are better athletes now, yes, but they also have an exponential amount of advantages growing up today.

I think Bearsfan51 said this a few years ago, and I steal this quote every time this argument comes up: I know more things than Galileo. It doesn't make me smarter than him.

It's all relative.

[nepg]

Originally Posted by nobodyinparticular

YES!!! I was going to post this myself! So glad someone else had this game!

I also had this game. I broke more times than I care to remember on road trips by bunting every single pitch.

Bo was amazing. Best athlete/RB ever.