Stewart Mandel breaks it down.
I think this is a subject that won’t be fully resolved until season’s end.
I’m of the mind that Tebow will have a case to make for this, but I think that some formulations fail to take into account the shifting styles and rules of different eras (freshman eligibility, single platoon, strict substitution rules, for example).
Regarding the difference:
Most teams played 8 or 9 games a season in the decades preceding World War II, compared to the 11 or 12 games a season played by modern teams. The game of the 1920s and 1930s averaged 110 plays; the modern game averages more than 140. Also, players in the pre-World War II years played both offense and defense, as did those of 1953 to the mid-1960s, sometimes going entire games with no rest on the bench.
I’m not saying the players of back then compare to today’s players, but these are factors to consider when trying to figure out who is the best of all time. I often wonder how some great players would fare if they swapped eras.
How would O.J. Simpson or Roger Staubach do in the Age of the Spread, for instance? Pretty dang well, I think. How would Tebow do if he had to play 40 snaps at linebacker in addition to quarterback? Again, pretty well, but his stats would be far, far different than they are today.
Just something to think about as we begin the discussion on Tebow and his position among the all-time greats.
No comments yet.