Calling plays today is not the same as it was in the 60s. The playbook is denser now. I'd argue that a QB today probably knows more audibles (if given the responsibility) than a QB in the 60s did plays.
Originally Posted by: porky88
No doubt about this.
But I also have no doubt that Starr could handle those playbooks mentally, and still call the plays. There's nothing mentally that P*yton M*nning could do in regard to keeping that playbook in mind hat Starr couldn't do, and do better.
IMO, there are only two possible things that might limit Starr's ability to excel in today's NFL.
One might be his arm strength. He didn't have today's prototypical "cannon", to be sure. But I"m not knowledgable enough about his arm, his conditioning and strength regimen to know how much his relative "weakness" was a lack of genetic endowment and how much was not having access to today's knowledge and practice base. Personally, I think the mental far outweighs the physical at the position -- I've seen far more "cannons" fail for lack of mental oomph than I've seen mental strength fail to compensate for physical strength. Indeed, IMO, strength/physical ability was more likely to be able to trump mental shortcomings back then than it does now (see, e.g., John Unitas, Fran Tarkenton, to name two Hall of Famers from the era).
I just think the "arm strength" comparison is overdone.
Durability is another matter, however. I doubt he'd have lasted behind the Packers OL the last five years, for example.
On the other hand, what if he had been on the Colts during the Manning years or the 49ers during the Montana years or the Cowboys during the Aikman years or .... IMO, he would have led the team to multiple championships just as he did in the Lombardi years.
I'm not sure there's a player or coach in Packer history (maybe Curly Lambeau?) who had the leadership and fortitude and all-around-mental oomph that Starr had. Maybe Rodgers -- but only time will tell.
I've been lucky as a Packer fan to have seen four great quarterbacks play on the team. I'm convinced Lynn Dickey would have been HoF quality numbers had he had a better team/coach. Rodgers has show himself to be special -- but two greatyears does not "best ever" make. Favre is certainly first ballot HoF in my book, and I'd take him in his prime over any other quarterback but one I've seen in the NFL since Starr, and that includes Montana. (If I had a chance between Favre in his prime and now, I'd take Rodgers.)
But not over Starr. Not then, and not now.
Not a chance.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)