Chicago Bears Forum - News and Talk
https://www.bearsfansonline.com/forum/

Pompei & Pierson's "Top 100 Bears in Franchise History"
https://www.bearsfansonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13504
Page 3 of 5

Author:  Umbali [ Fri May 24, 2019 12:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Pompei & Pierson's "Top 100 Bears in Franchise History"

Not only is it subjective due to eras, also its due to the list compilers personal feelings about different people. Obviously Cutler would be lower simply due to his personality, rather than just stats. You also get a ' feel ' for players you watched and grew to like for whatever reason. I thought it was fitting that Forte was 34 simply because 34 is the ultimate RB number :)

Author:  Atkins&Rebel [ Fri May 24, 2019 12:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Pompei & Pierson's "Top 100 Bears in Franchise History"

Mikefive wrote:
Atkins&Rebel wrote:
UOK wrote:
wab wrote:
Lists like this a pretty subjective, but I don't see how Urlacher wasn't in the top 10.


I think if you do lists like this for a franchise this old you have to go by eras. You can't tell me Sid Luckman would be a HoF QB running a modern offense, likewise I imagine some modern players would be confused as hell in playing in the 40's.

Hell, even some of the guys from the '85 team would have issues dominating the game today, namely because of how many rules are in place to protect the QB and neuter physical defenses.


But you also have the argument that these guys would have access to modern training and "supplements" and could have been much better than they were. You can only look at how guys dominated the talent around them and use that as the basic metric.
There's merit to this argument I think. Butkus would've been a maniac today like he was in the '60s. But at the same time, kids are bigger these days (for debatable reasons good and bad, I suppose). Linemen back in the 1930's were like 230-240 sometimes. Maybe less. They wouldn't have a prayer playing today.


230-240 could easily get up into the 290's, and could be over 300 with today's diet and strength program. Cowboys LT Eric Williams went from 300+ down to 220ish after he quit playing. A lot of these guys have to work to stay big enough to play line. I've read that most eat around 5000 calories a day and some have to pack in up around 10,000 a day during camp and heavy training.

Author:  crueltyabc [ Fri May 24, 2019 1:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Pompei & Pierson's "Top 100 Bears in Franchise History"

Urlacher is a top 10 player at his position of all time. Where would you even rank some of these guys above him?

The Ditka positioning is fan service at best.

Also, Sid Luckman's stats are trash so if you're calling him one of the greatest of all time cUz HiS wInS aNd rInGs then I guess you're also an Eli Manning proponent and that means I never want to hear you talk about football again.

Author:  Mikefive [ Fri May 24, 2019 1:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Pompei & Pierson's "Top 100 Bears in Franchise History"

Atkins&Rebel wrote:
Mikefive wrote:
Atkins&Rebel wrote:
UOK wrote:
wab wrote:
Lists like this a pretty subjective, but I don't see how Urlacher wasn't in the top 10.


I think if you do lists like this for a franchise this old you have to go by eras. You can't tell me Sid Luckman would be a HoF QB running a modern offense, likewise I imagine some modern players would be confused as hell in playing in the 40's.

Hell, even some of the guys from the '85 team would have issues dominating the game today, namely because of how many rules are in place to protect the QB and neuter physical defenses.


But you also have the argument that these guys would have access to modern training and "supplements" and could have been much better than they were. You can only look at how guys dominated the talent around them and use that as the basic metric.
There's merit to this argument I think. Butkus would've been a maniac today like he was in the '60s. But at the same time, kids are bigger these days (for debatable reasons good and bad, I suppose). Linemen back in the 1930's were like 230-240 sometimes. Maybe less. They wouldn't have a prayer playing today.


230-240 could easily get up into the 290's, and could be over 300 with today's diet and strength program. Cowboys LT Eric Williams went from 300+ down to 220ish after he quit playing. A lot of these guys have to work to stay big enough to play line. I've read that most eat around 5000 calories a day and some have to pack in up around 10,000 a day during camp and heavy training.
Point well taken. But it's hard to assume that kinda thing. Would a star back then that played at 230 be able to carry the weight and move with 70 more pounds added? Maybe. Maybe not. But I understand your point and there's a lot of reasonableness to it.

Author:  Mikefive [ Fri May 24, 2019 1:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Pompei & Pierson's "Top 100 Bears in Franchise History"

crueltyabc wrote:
Urlacher is a top 10 player at his position of all time. Where would you even rank some of these guys above him?

The Ditka positioning is fan service at best.

Also, Sid Luckman's stats are trash so if you're calling him one of the greatest of all time cUz HiS wInS aNd rInGs then I guess you're also an Eli Manning proponent and that means I never want to hear you talk about football again.
Ditka was a bada$$ on the field. Kinda the Gronk of his time.

But Luckman--along with throwing the ball all over the place--was also kind of a bada$$. QBs in the 1950s were nothing like today's with all the flag for touching the QB rules. There was a different skill set required. In order to put up the numbers he did, you had to be able to survive, because you got more abuse. That's why you couldn't be a skinny QB back then and last 2 games. The required physical body makeup didn't lend itself to being a meticulous thrower and the game didn't generally require that. Plus, you were throwing to guys who were getting mugged all over their routes. Just a different game then.

Author:  The Marshall Plan [ Fri May 24, 2019 2:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Pompei & Pierson's "Top 100 Bears in Franchise History"

Mikefive wrote:
Atkins&Rebel wrote:
Mikefive wrote:
Atkins&Rebel wrote:
UOK wrote:
wab wrote:
Lists like this a pretty subjective, but I don't see how Urlacher wasn't in the top 10.


I think if you do lists like this for a franchise this old you have to go by eras. You can't tell me Sid Luckman would be a HoF QB running a modern offense, likewise I imagine some modern players would be confused as hell in playing in the 40's.

Hell, even some of the guys from the '85 team would have issues dominating the game today, namely because of how many rules are in place to protect the QB and neuter physical defenses.


But you also have the argument that these guys would have access to modern training and "supplements" and could have been much better than they were. You can only look at how guys dominated the talent around them and use that as the basic metric.
There's merit to this argument I think. Butkus would've been a maniac today like he was in the '60s. But at the same time, kids are bigger these days (for debatable reasons good and bad, I suppose). Linemen back in the 1930's were like 230-240 sometimes. Maybe less. They wouldn't have a prayer playing today.


230-240 could easily get up into the 290's, and could be over 300 with today's diet and strength program. Cowboys LT Eric Williams went from 300+ down to 220ish after he quit playing. A lot of these guys have to work to stay big enough to play line. I've read that most eat around 5000 calories a day and some have to pack in up around 10,000 a day during camp and heavy training.
Point well taken. But it's hard to assume that kinda thing. Would a star back then that played at 230 be able to carry the weight and move with 70 more pounds added? Maybe. Maybe not. But I understand your point and there's a lot of reasonableness to it.


There are so many angles this discussion could go. For me it is how the violence in the game has evolved. I can also see the point of how these lists should be separated by era somehow.

Players like Deacon Jones, Butkus and Wilber Marshall dominated in their day but they probably couldn't go consecutive plays in today's NFL without getting a 15 yard personnel foul for looking at the QB the wrong way. What would Lawrence Taylor be like in today's NFL? Or how good would Khalil Mack be if he played 50 years ago when you actually hit people?

Players like Rodgers and Brady probably wouldn't have had the long careers they did today back then because people like Deacon Jones and Dick Butkus were allowed to knock them into next week repeatedly.

Another one is Devin Hester. With the new rules in today's league we don't get a guy like that in the NFL anymore. But then how fun was he to watch every week all those years ago?

Does Randy Moss, and several other WRs, have the careers they have if the safeties were allowed to headhunt? No.

It's one of those things that will forever be subjective.

Author:  Bears Whiskey Nut [ Fri May 24, 2019 6:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Pompei & Pierson's "Top 100 Bears in Franchise History"

Mikefive wrote:
Atkins&Rebel wrote:
UOK wrote:
wab wrote:
Lists like this a pretty subjective, but I don't see how Urlacher wasn't in the top 10.


I think if you do lists like this for a franchise this old you have to go by eras. You can't tell me Sid Luckman would be a HoF QB running a modern offense, likewise I imagine some modern players would be confused as hell in playing in the 40's.

Hell, even some of the guys from the '85 team would have issues dominating the game today, namely because of how many rules are in place to protect the QB and neuter physical defenses.


But you also have the argument that these guys would have access to modern training and "supplements" and could have been much better than they were. You can only look at how guys dominated the talent around them and use that as the basic metric.
There's merit to this argument I think. Butkus would've been a maniac today like he was in the '60s. But at the same time, kids are bigger these days (for debatable reasons good and bad, I suppose). Linemen back in the 1930's were like 230-240 sometimes. Maybe less. They wouldn't have a prayer playing today.


You always have to compare historical players within the context of the era they played in. You can't say, well this player WAS good, but today he would suck. It's not any different than saying, well the Aston Martin DB5 was a good car, but today a VW GTI would run laps around it, so that diminishes how good it was. Doesn't matter. It was a tremendous car for it's time. Same thing with players.

Author:  Umbali [ Fri May 24, 2019 9:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Pompei & Pierson's "Top 100 Bears in Franchise History"

Bears Whiskey Nut wrote:
Mikefive wrote:
Atkins&Rebel wrote:
UOK wrote:
wab wrote:
Lists like this a pretty subjective, but I don't see how Urlacher wasn't in the top 10.


I think if you do lists like this for a franchise this old you have to go by eras. You can't tell me Sid Luckman would be a HoF QB running a modern offense, likewise I imagine some modern players would be confused as hell in playing in the 40's.

Hell, even some of the guys from the '85 team would have issues dominating the game today, namely because of how many rules are in place to protect the QB and neuter physical defenses.


But you also have the argument that these guys would have access to modern training and "supplements" and could have been much better than they were. You can only look at how guys dominated the talent around them and use that as the basic metric.
There's merit to this argument I think. Butkus would've been a maniac today like he was in the '60s. But at the same time, kids are bigger these days (for debatable reasons good and bad, I suppose). Linemen back in the 1930's were like 230-240 sometimes. Maybe less. They wouldn't have a prayer playing today.


You always have to compare historical players within the context of the era they played in. You can't say, well this player WAS good, but today he would suck. It's not any different than saying, well the Aston Martin DB5 was a good car, but today a VW GTI would run laps around it, so that diminishes how good it was. Doesn't matter. It was a tremendous car for it's time. Same thing with players.


good analogy

Author:  UOK [ Sat May 25, 2019 2:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Pompei & Pierson's "Top 100 Bears in Franchise History"

There’s a fascinating book that’s called “Midway Monsters” I believe. Primarily about Nagurski, the biography also recounts the years playing with/for Halas, Red Grange, Beattie Feathers, and many of the names on this list, including Luckman. Well worth reading, especially to get some ideas of how uninvolved the passing game was then. One of the most clutch plays of the era was a partial primitive flea flicker, only where the running back throws the ball forward in the act of carrying.

Almost more like a basketball play we see to TEs in the endzone today, Nagurski would clean up catching touchdowns like this as nearly every play beforehand was a minor variation of running it straight up their ass. Defenses were caught with their pants down time and time again, and the Bears offensive innovations at the time raked championships up, even if they were elementary to Xs & Os fans today, were revelations in the 40’s.

Author:  Richie [ Sun May 26, 2019 7:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Pompei & Pierson's "Top 100 Bears in Franchise History"

Urlacher and Singletary lower than I thought. Especially Singletary.

Page 3 of 5 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/