Agreed you can break it up in any number of ways, but you can make a case for this break down. I think the last 10 years is a new era unto itself though. cannot hit the QB, cannot hit the receivers, and passing numbers are going through the roof. days of stud workhorse RB's are dwindling, and beastly MLB's like Butkus are being replaced by coverage LB's or pass rushing OLB's. have to say, i miss the days of real grass, actual pads, physical play, and the running game.
so what? he played a majority of the years Namath played. I wouldn't lump 1993 w/ 2014. It's more like 1984-2003 and 2004-current
if it is based strictly on ability and we know the players will be healthy Namath wouldn't be a bad choice but the man wasn't durable, he came into the league banged up and his career was cut short.
Would be interested to see reasons for the way you separated those years. The Ty Law rule emphasis? For me, the start of free agency as we know it was huge and has to be the start of a new era in league history.
yes, the pats rules after the '03 title game. the #s explosion post '03 has been incredible. I kind see your line of thinking as far as FA goes but the real explosion on O happened in the 00s
thinking about it more, could the eras be simplified further? Pre 1950 1950 - 1977 1978 - 1999 2000 - Present The latter portion of each era has an advantage over the beginnings of the same era, and would need to be taken into account. Major rule and league changes also occurred within each of those eras as well. But overall, it's not that far off. Could also get more specific, and break down into decades. So many players would bridge decades though, that it still wouldn't be exact.
Yeah, you could do it with four eras so long as the years make sense. 1950 and 1978 have to be the start of two of the eras, though. It can be easily argued that those two years featured new rules that stylistically altered the sport more than new rules of any other year. 1966 could be the start of a new era just because the start of Super Bowl, but really 1965 was not much different than 1966 otherwise.
but don't you have to separate the AFL & NFL? same era but they played a completely different style of football in the 2 leagues.
I don't combine 1964 NFL and 1964 AFL stats to create 1964 pro football stats or anything like that. When I mentioned league stats last night as it pertained to Namath, I was using 1965-69 AFL stats and 1970-77 NFL stats. The AFL used a slimmer, more aerodynamic ball and the AFL was more wide open with more gunslinger QBs, but the game was not all that different between the leagues. It is not as if Matt Snell had to play offense and defense. It was not as if some big rule like the "Mel Blount Rule" was present in one and not the other.
