@mjp28 said:

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.

@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.

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 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.

@flugel said:

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

@the-gipper said:

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...

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)

@mjp28 said:

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 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 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...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.

@the-gipper 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.

@flugel said:

@the-gipper 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.

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 said:

You are trying to do a dance. That is not what your original post implied. You asserted it for basically every position.

Besides....what would you rather have....a 270 lb. Joe Greene and Merlin Olsen...or some of the 300 pound blobs that play these days.

I would put my money on the old guys to handle things. And, as I said....if those guys had needed to put on and extra 25 pounds to play today, they easily could have done so.

Exactly Gip, those OL blobs put on mass intentionally. Shades of Ghoolie's sumo wrestlers. I've met Doug Dieken a bunch of times @ Browns Backers banquets, and when he stopped playing all that mass went bye bye.

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.

@the-gipper said:

RBs are not the same. Greg Pruitt was 190 lbs and Walter Payton didn't weigh that much more. Dorsett wasn't much different. Now days, if they're only 205 lbs - the concern is they aren't big enough for a full workload. Most of your RBs now range between 215 and 225 lbs and higher. Way different than the 70s and 80s aside from a few exceptions to the rules and/or Pittsburgh Steeroids.

WRs seem bigger overall to me today here's some examples and I'm leaving a bunch of guys out:

Kenny Britt is 6'3"

Julio Jones is 6'3"

Dez Bryant is 6'2"

Kelvin Benjamin is 6'5"

Mike Evans is 6'5"

Cameron Meredith is 6'3"

Brandon Marshall is 6'4"

Larry Fitzgerald is 6'3"

AJ Green is 6'4"

Terrelle Pryor is 6'4"

Martavis Bryant is 6'4"

Damryius Thomas is 6'3"

Allen Robinson is 6'4"

LaQuan Treadwell is 6'2"

Marvin Jones Jr is 6'2"

Jordan Matthews is 6'3"

Cooper Kupp is 6'2"

Josh Reynolds is 6'3"

Adam Thielen is 6'2"

Jordy Nelson is 6'3"

Noah Brown is 6'2"

Bandon Coleman is 6'6"

Michael Thomas is 6'3"

Rueben Randle is 6'2"

Corey Davis is 6'3"

Tajae Sharpe is 6'2"

Eric Decker is 6'3"

Quincy Enunwa is 6'2"

Josh Hunter is 6'4"

Darrius Heward-Bey is 6'2"

Tyler Boyd is 6'2"

DeVante Parker is 6'3"

Calvin Johnson is 6'5" (retired a couple years ago-but considered this era)

@ghoolie 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.

Zombo said:

And Blanda was 6'2 220.

10 starting QBs in the league last year were 6'2 or under. (including Griffin)

This year, if DeShaun Watson and Cody Kessler start that would be 2 others that I can think of off the top of my head that are 6'2.

(and Kessler is only 215 lbs.).

So....if whomever claims that a QB that size can't play the game now.....10-11-12 teams need to start looking for new QBs.

And I guess that means they would advocate for Osweiler over Kessler.

@mjp28 said:

Again.....the point that offensive linemen are fatter now is not disputed. They are the only position besides DTs that have gotten bigger.

DEs are the same. DBs are the same. LBs are the same. RBs are the same. WRs may actually be overall smaller now.

QBs are slightly taller. (but we have 6-0 QBs today...as they had then....and we have 6-4 QBs now that they had then. Now we may just have a few more in the taller range.

@mjp28 said:

Again....maybe 2 defensive players of today are bigger than they were in those days. The DTs. I have demonstrated the fact that the DEs, LBs, DBs are NOT any bigger today than they were then. And I don't agree that today's players are stronger, faster, or deadlier...only a couple of them are bigger (OL and DTs...and that is it).

Do you really think that the likes of Ryan Shazier and Christian Kirksey are deadlier than Dick Butkus and Ray Nitschke were? And you forgot one critical term: tougher.

They have different training techniques now perhaps....that is all.

@mjp28 said:

You are trying to do a dance. That is not what your original post implied. You asserted it for basically every position.

Besides....what would you rather have....a 270 lb. Joe Greene and Merlin Olsen...or some of the 300 pound blobs that play these days.

I would put my money on the old guys to handle things. And, as I said....if those guys had needed to put on and extra 25 pounds to play today, they easily could have done so.

Zombo said:

Not saying the players aren't physically more impressive. I'm saying he could still be a 40 year old 3rd string qb in this era coming off the bench leading comebacks

Brunnell, Moon, Testeverde, Flutie, Deberg ...all played in to their 40s in this era, none of them died.

Zombo

Flutie was the amazing one to me out of that bunch small but a smart gamer. And if you keep yourself in decent shape now and are versatile enough you can always find a job as a backup QB with the rate QBs are going down now even with all the protect the QB rules now.

@the-gipper said:

Point of parlimentary procedure, today's players have greater muscle mass and speed. The impact today is far harder than in Blanda's day. Hence the much shorter NFL career expectancy today.

Players today don't use steroids any longer. Steroids which the liver converted to testosterone in the liver were the first technology to make more muscular, leaner players. Deacon Jones never had the muscle mass and speed that Garrett has, Today, all players take testosterone to get super lean and put on more muscle mass.

They are different Gipper, absolutely. In his day, at 6' 2" and 230 - 235 Jim Brown was a big back. Today, he would be average size. It isn't that today's players are bigger weight wise, as much as they have more muscle mass. If you look at individual size, your argument holds some water, but if you take the entire fraternity of football players? Today's guys would crush the 1964 Browns.Monte Clark at 6' 6" 265 was indeed big, but he was not built like today's guys.

Bigger? I think they are, and for sure collectively as the league. Those old guys were smooth skinned. These kids today are monsters.

@mjp28 said:

But getting hit by today's bigger defensive players would have ended his career earlier.....hypothetically of course because 2000 guys can't play 1960 and 1970 guys. I'll bet anything if you ask them now they would agree that today's players are stronger, faster, bigger, deadlier.

All I've heard comment on it agree.

Not saying the players aren't physically more impressive. I'm saying he could still be a 40 year old 3rd string qb in this era coming off the bench leading comebacks

Brunnell, Moon, Testeverde, Flutie, Deberg ...all played in to their 40s in this era, none of them died.

Zombo

http://www.businessinsider.com/nfl-offensive-lineman-are-big-2011-10/#1920s-pierre-garon-wr-washington-redskins-1

Of course, nowadays, offensive linemen are much bigger than that. The average guard, tackle, or center in the NFL in 2015 is 6-foot-5, 312 pounds.

Of the 159 players who have started at least four games as an offensive lineman since the start of the 2014 season, only 23 weigh less than 300 pounds and 39 weigh at least 320 pounds.

To put the sizes in perspective, let's compare the average size for an offensive lineman through the years to an active player.

In the 1940s, the average offensive lineman was the same size as today's tall running backs, 6-foot-1, 221 pounds.

In the 1950s, the average offensive lineman was the same size as a quarterback today, 6-foot-2, 234 pounds.

In the 1960s, the average offensive lineman was the same size as today's linebackers, 6-foot-3, 251 pounds.

In the 1970s, the average offensive lineman was the same size as today's outside linebackers, 6-foot-3, 255 pounds.

In the 1980s, the average offensive lineman was the same size as today's defensive ends, 6-foot-4, 272 pounds.

In the 1990s, the average offensive lineman was the same size as today's bigger defensive ends, 6-foot-4, 300 pounds.

In the 2000s, the average offensive lineman was the same size as today's centers, 6-foot-4, 313 pounds.

In 2015, the Bryan Bulaga is the average offensive lineman at 6-foot-5, 312 pounds.