Given the picture you posted, this is doubly hilarious.
You typically can't compare the actions of someone from one generation to another.
"wpr" wrote:
That is one of the unfortunate aspects of the NFL -- its utter lack of continuity. There's no way to compare from one era to another, and it's almost impossible to even truly compare one decade to another. It makes putting things in context difficult, almost meaningless. As that one person pointed out on NFP (I quoted it in the thread entitled "Rodgers"), baseball enjoys an almost unbroken chain of continuity dating all the way back to the 1800s. Teams these days only play 5 more games per season than they did in the 1880s, and the rules remain largely unchanged. Not surprisingly, the typical statistical output of today is almost identical to what it was back in that era, too: .300 is still considered an excellent season, with .400 almost unheard of; 20 wins is still a hallmark of pitching success.
Hopefully there will come a time when the steady flow of rule changes and scheduling tweaks slows, so that we're finally able to begin placing players, teams, and accomplishments in their proper historical context.