Todd Marinovich back in football

[Flugel]

@the-gipper said:

I don't think RBs are any bigger today. Pruitt was a scatback...and Payton, as tough as he was, was not a big back either. Lots and lots of RBs today are no bigger.

But there were many others: Like I said, JB at 6'2 232 is bigger than most backs today.

Jim Taylor 6'0 215 fits in today.

OJ 6'1 215

Franco Harris 6'2 230

Cookie Gilchrist was 6'3 250

John Henry Johson was 6'2 215

Larry Csonka 6'3 238

his sidekick Jim Kiick was 6'1 215

Mike Pruitt was 6'0 225

So, just like today, you had smaller backs and bigger backs.

And while you mentioned the height of tall receivers today....we had the tall ones back then:

Gary Collins was 6'5

Boyd Dowler 6'5

Max McGee 6'3

Harold Carmichael 6'8

Raymond Berry 6'2

I don't recall a lot of really short receivers back in the 60s/70s. Only Walter, the flea Roberts comes to mind at 5'9..and he really was a kick returner who saw just a bit of time at WR.

Okay, you grabbed a few exceptions to the rule at WR. I'm talking about a larger population of guys than your exceptions to the rule though Gipper. Therefore, I easily listed 33 names probably could have listed about 20 more.

Larry Csonka, Jim Taylor, John Henry Johnson and Cookie Gilchrist were all Fullbacks so you're inflating your RB weights heavily with those guys. I think you'll also find that Mike Pruitt was a fullback at Purdue before Mike Alstott became one there as well. And Franco Harris used to be the blocking back for Lydell Mitchell at Penn State before he was the bigger back than Rocky Blier in Pittsburgh.

Greg Pruitt wasn't just a scat back. He was one of the strongest guys in the NFL pound for pound, which is why his deceptive power caused the league to stop using tear away jerseys. He held the record for the overhead press in the Superstars Competition that didn't get broken until a 250 lb Mark Gastineau was finally able to break it.

There were a lot of lighter RBs back then ranging from 180-195 lbs

Clarence Davis

Mercury Morris

Joe Washington

Terry Metcalf

James Brooks

Walter Payton

Tony Dorsett

Chuck Foreman

Wilbert Montgomery

Otis Armstrong

Preston Pearson

Lydell Mitchell

Mike Thomas

Delvin Williams

etc

Today, most of the starting RBs with a big work load range between 215 and 225 lbs. There's a lot of different NFL Preview Magazines out there that list heights and weights of RBs & WRs heading into the 2017 season.

[The Gipper]

@flugel said:

Okay, you grabbed a few exceptions to the rule at WR. I'm talking about a larger population of guys than your exceptions to the rule though Gipper. Therefore, I easily listed 33 names probably could have listed about 20 more.

And I am sure if I had wanted to I could have given dozens more. The fact is....there are a lot more smaller receivers today than there were then. Bump and run rules in place dictated against the small guys that we have now playing because they could not hold up under the bumping and pushing. The Packers had all big guys...Carrol Dale, McGee, etc.

Like I said...you rarely if ever found the likes of an Andrew Hawkins or Travis Benjamin. Short, smaller guys would get slobberknockered.

Larry Csonka, Jim Taylor, John Henry Johnson and Cookie Gilchrist were all Fullbacks so you're inflating your RB weights heavily with those guys. I think you'll also find that Mike Pruitt was a fullback at Purdue before Mike Alstott became one there as well. And Franco Harris used to be the blocking back for Lydell Mitchell at Penn State before he was the bigger back than Rocky Blier in Pittsburgh.

These guys were fullbacks in name only. They were their teams Running Back. Today they would just be called the Running Back. The guy that runs the ball. Jim Brown was listed as a Fullback. Do you think Jim Brown/TAylor, Csonka/Gilchrist etc. would have been relegated to the role that Dan Vitale plays today? Hardly. If they played in the same parlance, The Crow would be called a fullback..with Duke called the Halfback. Adrian Peterson would have been called a fullback. It was all a matter of nomenclature, not reality in how they were used.

Greg Pruitt wasn't just a scat back. He was one of the strongest guys in the NFL pound for pound, which is why his deceptive power caused the league to stop using tear away jerseys. He held the record for the overhead press in the Superstars Competition that didn't get broken until a 250 lb Mark Gastineau was finally able to break it.

There were a lot of lighter RBs back then ranging from 180-195 lbs

Clarence Davis

Mercury Morris

Joe Washington

Terry Metcalf

James Brooks

Walter Payton

Tony Dorsett

Chuck Foreman

Wilbert Montgomery

Otis Armstrong

Preston Pearson

Lydell Mitchell

Mike Thomas

Delvin Williams

etc

And if these guys were playing today, with the weight training and conditioning and nutrition in vogue today, they would be weighing the 10-12-15 extra pounds that you think they should weigh today.

Today, most of the starting RBs with a big work load range between 215 and 225 lbs. There's a lot of different NFL Preview Magazines out there that list heights and weights of RBs & WRs heading into the 2017 season.

Yes, perhaps....but, again, they are bulked up with weight training and nutrition. All the guy you mention likely...if playing today, would also be in that weight range. Except for 2-3 none of them were really "small RBs". I mean, a lot of those guys were in the 6'2 range. Duke Johnson is ony 5'9.

Our "big Back" The Crow, is 5'11 225. Leroy Kelly was 6'0 202. Today, with his frame, Kelly likely too would be in the 225 range.

Chuck Foreman was 6'2.

Brooks, Morris and Metcalf would have roles the same basically as Duke Johnson...and would have carried the same weight.

[Flugel]

@the-gipper said:

@flugel said:

Okay, you grabbed a few exceptions to the rule at WR. I'm talking about a larger population of guys than your exceptions to the rule though Gipper. Therefore, I easily listed 33 names probably could have listed about 20 more.

And I am sure if I had wanted to I could have given dozens more. The fact is....there are a lot more smaller receivers today than there were then. Bump and run rules in place dictated against the small guys that we have now playing because they could not hold up under the bumping and pushing. The Packers had all big guys...Carrol Dale, McGee, etc.

Like I said...you rarely if ever found the likes of an Andrew Hawkins or Travis Benjamin. Short, smaller guys would get slobberknockered.

Larry Csonka, Jim Taylor, John Henry Johnson and Cookie Gilchrist were all Fullbacks so you're inflating your RB weights heavily with those guys. I think you'll also find that Mike Pruitt was a fullback at Purdue before Mike Alstott became one there as well. And Franco Harris used to be the blocking back for Lydell Mitchell at Penn State before he was the bigger back than Rocky Blier in Pittsburgh.

These guys were fullbacks in name only. They were their teams Running Back. Today they would just be called the Running Back. The guy that runs the ball. Jim Brown was listed as a Fullback. Do you think Jim Brown/TAylor, Csonka/Gilchrist etc. would have been relegated to the role that Dan Vitale plays today? Hardly. If they played in the same parlance, The Crow would be called a fullback..with Duke called the Halfback. Adrian Peterson would have been called a fullback. It was all a matter of nomenclature, not reality in how they were used.

Greg Pruitt wasn't just a scat back. He was one of the strongest guys in the NFL pound for pound, which is why his deceptive power caused the league to stop using tear away jerseys. He held the record for the overhead press in the Superstars Competition that didn't get broken until a 250 lb Mark Gastineau was finally able to break it.

There were a lot of lighter RBs back then ranging from 180-195 lbs

Clarence Davis

Mercury Morris

Joe Washington

Terry Metcalf

James Brooks

Walter Payton

Tony Dorsett

Chuck Foreman

Wilbert Montgomery

Otis Armstrong

Preston Pearson

Lydell Mitchell

Mike Thomas

Delvin Williams

etc

Larry Csonka was a fullback while Mercury Morris was the Halfback/RB. They both gained over 1000 yards in the same season while Jim Kiick rotated in with Morris to add about another 600 yards on the ground. Just like Mack gained over 1000 yards as the FB while Byner went over 1000 yards as the RB in 1985.

You make a good point about all the little slot guys in the last 16 years buffering the size back down from all those taller WR names I mentioned.

[The Gipper]

@flugel said:

Larry Csonka was a fullback while Mercury Morris was the Halfback/RB. They both gained over 1000 yards in the same season while Jim Kiick rotated in with Morris to add about another 600 yards on the ground. Just like Mack gained over 1000 yards as the FB while Byner went over 1000 yards as the RB in 1985.

You make a good point about all the little slot guys in the last 16 years buffering the size back down from all those taller WR names I mentioned.

But my point is simple. A "fullback" then is a quite different animal from a fullback now.

Then....the primary RB of a team was the "fullback". Today they would just be listed as a Running Back.

Today, the fullback is just a blocking guard that lines up behind the line of scrimmage.

Then...often the halfback was the blocking back. (Can you say Ernie Green)

Today, both Mack and Byner would be listed as Running Backs.

Look at what's his name...The Bus (senior moment...I can't remember his name. Jerome something...Bettis, that's it). He certainly is built like a fullback....and he may have technically been that. But he was the Rams/Steelers primary running back.

[mjp28]

@the-gipper said:

But my point is simple. A "fullback" then is a quite different animal from a fullback now.

Then....the primary RB of a team was the "fullback". Today they would just be listed as a Running Back.

Today, the fullback is just a blocking guard that lines up behind the line of scrimmage.

Then...often the halfback was the blocking back. (Can you say Ernie Green)

Today, both Mack and Byner would be listed as Running Backs.

Look at what's his name...The Bus (senior moment...I can't remember his name. Jerome something). He certainly is built like a fullback....and he may have technically been that. But he was the Rams/Steelers primary running back.

Thank you Captain Obvious.

Well that is true, I remember in high school later 1960s every backfield had a QB, FB and left and right halfbacks until in time they realied what a waste of talent that was all bottled up in the Woody Hayes style "4 yards and a cloud of dust" boring offense years.

Now you might have one RB and the more exciting flankers and all that stuff to move the ball in chunks.

[Flugel]

@mjp28 said:

Thank you Captain Obvious.

Well that is true, I remember in high school later 1960s every backfield had a QB, FB and left and right halfbacks until in time they realied what a waste of talent that was all bottled up in the Woody Hayes style "4 yards and a cloud of dust" boring offense years.

Now you might have one RB and the more exciting flankers and all that stuff to move the ball in chunks.

I like some of Gips arguments. I'm just clarifying there were some guys that played Fullback even though they compiled rush stats like a RB. For example, Larry Csonka was the FB for Miami while Mercury Morris and Jim Kiick split reps at halfback/RB. I think it was 1972 when Csonka & Morris both rushed for over 1000 yards apiece while Kiick added over 600 yards rushing subbing in for Morris.

If I look at the Green Bay Packers starting line-up in 1965 - it says Paul Hornung was the Halfback and Jimmy Taylor was the Fullback. Didn't Hornung make the NFL Hall of Fame? You could easily tell what guy they looked to help block for the RB or the QB when applicable.

In 1985, Mack rushed for over 1000 yards as a rookie Fullback while Byner also rushed for over 1000 yards as a halfback/RB. Both guys were kick ass blockers and punishing runners that were fun to watch.

In Pitt, it did get a little fuzzier about who was the FB. Franco Harris was the bigger back in a 2 back pro set with Rocky Bleier. I'm not sure either was a true FB or RB per say the year they both rushed for over 1000 yards apiece. If memory serves me right here - I believe Franco Harris used to be the blocking back/Fullback for Lydell Mitchell at Penn State. On top of that, I always used to hear he only ran 4.8 forties (FB speed) coming out of Penn State prior to all that weird science behind closed doors in Pittsburgh. It always seemed strange to see a big back like Franco frequently running out of bounds to avoid contact like Jim Brown used to say. That said, Franco was willing to block for teammates.

Speaking of Jim Brown, good job by Gips for clarifying he was a RB in a FB's body. Like he alluded to - Jim Brown's purpose wasn't to block for lesser backs than himself. He was often called a fullback but I don't think there's very much film of him throwing blocks for the QB, RB or anyone. When he's always considered the greatest RB of all time - he's being called a RB that frequently.

I still think the average weight of starting RBs is higher today than it was back when Greg Pruitt and Walter Payton were heavy enough/strong enough for full workloads. Pruitt's biggest problem was a bad knee challenging his durability.He was not a scat back like Eric Metcalf or Charles White. He was strong enough to run through so many jerseys that the NFL had to do away with tear away jerseys. You could not arm tackle Pruitt like you could Metcalf or White.

[The Gipper]

History has always seen the so called "small" RBs come in a tough package. Some time back I was talking to a friend of mine who was in HS a few years ahead of me who played football. My school played in the Metro League. Included in that league were Stow and Ravenna. Against Stow...he played against Larry Csonka. Against Ravenna he played against a guy named Don Nottingham.

Both played in the NFL. Csonka, of course became a HOF RB. But he was a big guy, 6'3. Nottingham was a short fireplug. In fact, he had a nickname The Human Bowling Ball. This friend of mine said that 10 times out of 10 he would rather go up against Csonka than to go against Nottingham, Nottingham was that tough. And while he was a great runner in HS and at Kent State....he played more blocking back in the pros. So, sometimes it is not the bigger guy that is the better blocker.

In fact, it looks like for a while that Nottingham and Csonka, old high school rivals, played together in the pros. Here he is wearing a Dolphins Jersey:

But, he did play more for the Colts:

His pfr stats:

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/N/NottDo00.htm

It says he was 5'10" but I don't think he came close to being that tall.....more like 5-8...at least in HS (maybe he grew some later)

[Flugel]

@the-gipper said:

History has always seen the so called "small" RBs come in a tough package. Some time back I was talking to a friend of mine who was in HS a few years ahead of me who played football. My school played in the Metro League. Included in that league were Stow and Ravenna. Against Stow...he played against Larry Csonka. Against Ravenna he played against a guy named Don Nottingham.

Both played in the NFL. Csonka, of course became a HOF RB. But he was a big guy, 6'3. Nottingham was a short fireplug. In fact, he had a nickname The Human Bowling Ball. This friend of mine said that 10 times out of 10 he would rather go up against Csonka than to go against Nottingham, Nottingham was that tough. And while he was a great runner in HS and at Kent State....he played more blocking back in the pros. So, sometimes it is not the bigger guy that is the better blocker.

In fact, it looks like for a while that Nottingham and Csonka, old high school rivals, played together in the pros.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/N/NottDo00.htm

It says he was 5'10" but I don't think he came close to being that tall.....more like 5-8...at least in HS (maybe he grew some later)

The Bowling Ball - Great memory here!

Actually, leverage favors lower pad heights. Believe it or not, Larry Csonka often ran upright and would drop/dip his shoulder into a defender at the last second. Even when didn't dip his shoulder - he was still remarkably tough to bring down. I also remember Don Nottingham being really fun to watch because of how tough he was to tackle with that compact frame & low center of gravity keeping his pad height favorable. You're right he DID look more like 5'8" than 5'10". And he was only listed at 210 lbs...

[The Gipper]

@flugel said:

Actually, leverage favors lower pad heights. Believe it or not, Larry Csonka often ran upright and would drop/dip his shoulder into a defender at the last second. Even when didn't dip his shoulder - he was still remarkably tough to bring down. I also remember Don Nottingham being really fun to watch because of how tough he was to tackle with that compact frame & low center of gravity keeping his pad height favorable. You're right he DID look more like 5'8" than 5'10". And he was only listed at 210 lbs...

Could not find any highlights of Don Nottingham playing...but here is Csonka featured:'

[Ghoolie]

@the-gipper said:

I was just looking at their height and weight.......and I conceded that today's players have different nutritional advantages....(performance enhancement drug advantages?) and do more weight training. But mjp implied that SIMPLY due to their height/weight that those players would be killed. And of course, that is absurd..because overall except for OL and DTs they are the same height/weight. Given the same weight training/conditioning/nutrition...and drugs? those players would have been able to perform just fine in today's game.

Besides....it seems like there was a suggestion that players in the 60s and 70s didn't know what a fucking bar bell was. They sure as fuck did. For the most part they were lifting dead weights....and didn't have the machines players use today. They knew how to lift and curl a 100 pound dumbell.

We are in agreement. Man has not increased in size over the past 50 years. If JB took drugs and lifted (he did neither) he would have played at 250.

[mjp28]

@ghoolie said:

We are in agreement. Man has not increased in size over the past 50 years. If JB took drugs and lifted (he did neither) he would have played at 250.

I was replying specifically to Joe Greene and Merlin Olson comments.

And we're not talking about man here but football players which have undeniably gotten bigger especially OL and DL. (see any list of players pro or NCAA) And yes kids are bigger than they were 50 years ago, some unfortunately also fatter.

Skilled players have increased percentage wise the least.

[The Gipper]

@mjp28 said:

I was replying specifically to Joe Greene and Merlin Olson comments.

And we're not talking about man here but football players which have undeniably gotten bigger especially OL and DL. (see any list of players pro or NCAA) And yes kids are bigger than they were 50 years ago, some unfortunately also fatter.

Skilled players have increased percentage wise the least.

again....I demonstrated it. ONLY OL have gotten heavier....and Defensive Tackles. And they are bigger because they have been encouraged to eat more calories...and to try to convert those to muscle if they can. (a lot of times though they are just fatter..not stronger, faster)

Not Linebackers, not DBs, not DEs, not WRs, not RBs, ....not sure about TEs.

QBs have gotten a little taller overall.