Adam Schefter: "CBA has no chance"

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I think that is demonstrably false. The NFL's potential labor pool has shrunk dramatically over the last 20 years and it's only going to get worse. Yes' date=' dudes from Tiffin are playing in the NFL now, but that's not necessarily a good thing.[/quote']

Not a good thing meaning that you believe these players aren't deserving? I don't think there's any way to really know. You'd have to compare the players in the NFL from the 1960s/1970s to the ones today if you really wanted to determine if these players from smaller schools deserve their shot. I don't know how you do that. Antonio Gates probably never would have been a football player back then (more of a b-ball player) and he's arguably the best TE currently playing. Just because teams are scouting better and more creative, doesn't mean the caliber of player is diminishing.

A friend of mine wrote this article 12 years ago. I've seen nothing to indicate that it is out of date now.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1014576/7/index.htm

I'll give it a read...thanks.

---------- Post added February-14th-2011 at 10:50 AM ----------

I don't want you to think I've ignored your post' date=' but LKB answered perfectly. I can't add anything to that.

~Bang[/quote']

No worries...thanks!

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I don't want you to think I've ignored your post, but LKB answered perfectly. I can't add anything to that.

~Bang

My high school has a rival that was a pretty big football school dating back to the late 40s. Even in the late 90s, it could be counted on to produce one or two D1 players every other year or so. I was home this year and saw a game involving them. There were 15 players on the team.

Granted, it's a town in a steep economic decline. But the school is only down 15 to 20 percent what it was when I was in high school and it traveled with 50 to 55 players. The "athletes" in the school now either play soccer or wait until basketball season.

There is another factor at play here and that is the decline of the three sport high school star. It was practically a dead concept when I graduated in '92; I think there was one guy in my class who played football, basketball and baseball all four years. I have a cousin who is a pretty good high school football player now and the only sport he is even considering playing other than high school is maybe spring track and that is really just to stay in shape for football in the fall.

All these sports are year-round at the high school level now. The next John Riggins might be spending his August on a traveling baseball all-star team and never plays football.

---------- Post added February-14th-2011 at 11:59 AM ----------

Not a good thing meaning that you believe these players aren't deserving? I don't think there's any way to really know. .

No, the guys from Tiffin are deserving to be in the NFL. I'm saying that 25 years ago, there would have been 100 players better than them in the incoming draft class. The modern athlete is far better than the athlete from the 70s. The difference is, there was a much larger pool of NFL-level talent in the 70s and 80s.

Think of it this way: The USFL came into being in 1984 and there was enough talent available that you did not see a dramatic decline in the NFL product while the USFL still had some truly great players. The league has only added three teams since 1984, but if the USFL came into being now, the talent level in it would be laughable.

My argument is about the overall volume of NFL-ready talent coming out of college now. I think it's as low as it has ever been. The top five QBs currently in the league are better than any QB who played in the 70s. The problem is that that the QBs from, say, 15-70 don't compare.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

There is another factor at play here and that is the decline of the three sport high school star. It was practically a dead concept when I graduated in '92; I think there was one guy in my class who played football' date=' basketball and baseball all four years. I have a cousin who is a pretty good high school football player now and the only sport he is even considering playing other than high school is maybe spring track and that is really just to stay in shape for football in the fall.

All these sports are year-round at the high school level now. The next John Riggins might be spending his August on a traveling baseball all-star team and never plays football.[/quote']

That's actually a good point and something I noticed happening around the time you mentioned (early- to mid-90s). Everything does seem to be year-round.

No' date=' the guys from Tiffin are deserving to be in the NFL. I'm saying that 25 years ago, there would have been 100 players better than them in the incoming draft class. The modern athlete is far better than the athlete from the 70s. The difference is, there was a much larger pool of NFL-level talent in the 70s and 80s.[/quote']

I don't think you can paint with a broad brush like that. There are plenty of small-school NFL players who would have done just fine in the older eras. Just because a specific school would not have produced a great athlete 30-40 years ago, doesn't mean that school isn't now producing valid NFL athletes. I don't believe it automatically means that the standards have dropped. You have great athletes going to lesser-known colleges in order to play. I would assume that in the 60s and 70s (and probably even into the 80s), most guys went to a big-time college program and were OK sitting behind older guys until they got their turn.

Think of it this way: The USFL came into being in 1984 and there was enough talent available that you did not see a dramatic decline in the NFL product while the USFL still had some truly great players. The league has only added three teams since 1984' date=' but if the USFL came into being now, the talent level in it would be laughable.

My argument is about the overall volume of NFL-ready talent coming out of college now. I think it's as low as it has ever been.[/quote']

I understand your argument, but I'm not sure I understand how you're coming to it. Was the USFL really even close to on a par with the NFL? I realize they had "some truly great players" but that doesn't mean that there was enough talent to fill out an entire league that was anywhere approaching the level of the NFL. Some NFL-caliber guys went in that direction to get paid. Some guys from smaller schools got discovered in the USFL. But I don't recall it being filled with NFL talent.

For the sake of argument, let's say that the NFL is filled with as many good players as it possibly could fit...there are no diamonds in the rough out there who are fringe players and just need a shot to stick on a roster (like a Banks or Armstrong). Even if that were the case, which I don't believe, would adding a few additional roster spots really compromise the quality of the game at a noticeable level?

[TimmySmith]

I understand your argument, but I'm not sure I understand how you're coming to it. Was the USFL really even close to on a par with the NFL? I realize they had "some truly great players" but that doesn't mean that there was enough talent to fill out an entire league that was anywhere approaching the level of the NFL. Some NFL-caliber guys went in that direction to get paid. Some guys from smaller schools got discovered in the USFL. But I don't recall it being filled with NFL talent.

Perhaps not "filled", but certainly there was enough talent to outfit 3-4 teams of NFL caliber.

As far as small school players go, there are tons who never even get a look. Think about it, Walter Payton and Jerry Rice had to by 5 times better than some guy from Auburn or USC or they would have never gotten a chance.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Perhaps not "filled", but certainly there was enough talent to outfit 3-4 teams of NFL caliber.

As far as small school players go, there are tons who never even get a look. Think about it, Walter Payton and Jerry Rice had to by 5 times better than some guy from Auburn or USC or they would have never gotten a chance.

Well yeah...that's my point. I believe there are plenty of good players out there and adding a few roster spots per team wouldn't dilute the talent level all that much, if at all.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Perhaps not "filled", but certainly there was enough talent to outfit 3-4 teams of NFL caliber.

As far as small school players go, there are tons who never even get a look. Think about it, Walter Payton and Jerry Rice had to by 5 times better than some guy from Auburn or USC or they would have never gotten a chance.

Well, Walter Payton and Jerry Rice were at small schools for reasons that are not typical. They both went to Historically Black Colleges and until the Mid-70s, the HBCs were filled to the brim with NFL-caliber players. Why? Because most D-1 schools either had a quota system for black players or did not recruit them at all.

I've brought this up before but Barry Switzer is one of the five or six most important people in the history of college football, because he was arguably the first coach at true football power who recruited black players without any fear. As soon as the SWAC, Big 8, and SEC started recruiting black players without any self-imposed limites, the HBCs lost their edge.

Even into the 80s - with Rice - you could look at HBCs and find some big-time talent. That's mostly gone now. Who was the last true star to come out of an HBC school? Maybe Jimmy Smith.

In the 70s, some of the best players in the league were from HBCs - Payton. Mel Blount. Deacon Jones. Art Shell. Bob Hayes. Charlie Joiner. Doug Williams. Jackie Slater. Lem Barney. Too Tall Jones.

I would think that in 1979, an NFL team made up of all HBC players would beat a team made up of SEC players.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Who was the last true star to come out of an HBC school? Maybe Jimmy Smith.

I was sure that TO (Tennessee-Chattanooga) would have fit that category until I bothered to look it up. I noticed that the first "notable alum" listed played Ward Clever. Whoops.

[The Tris]

Green Bay just won a Super Bowl with two players from HBCU: Driver (Alcorn State) and Collins (Bethune-Cookman).

EDIT: Last 1st round draft pick from a HBCU was Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie (Tennessee State).

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Green Bay just won a Super Bowl with two players from HBCU: Driver (Alcorn State) and Collins (Bethune-Cookman).

EDIT: Last 1st round draft pick from a HBCU was Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie (Tennessee State).

Good nuggets.

[artmonkforHOF]

There is Zero pressure on the owners to get this thing done soon. They got the best insurance policy they could ever ask for going into a possible lockout: the TV money for 2011, has already been paid in full to the NFL. Where is the pressure to negotiate if over 50% of your yearly revenue is already sitting in an account with your name on it?

[Bang]

Perhaps not "filled", but certainly there was enough talent to outfit 3-4 teams of NFL caliber.

As far as small school players go, there are tons who never even get a look. Think about it, Walter Payton and Jerry Rice had to by 5 times better than some guy from Auburn or USC or they would have never gotten a chance.

I somewhat disagree with this.. the USFL was not on par talent-wise. You might be able to take the entire league and field ONE team that could reasonably compete in the NFL.

Most of them were filled up with inferior talent, aged NFL vets, and the occasional big time player.

The USFL had talent, but it was spread so thin.. for every Jim Kelly or Steve Young there were ten Chuck Fusinas.

When the league broke up the NFL got a nice little influx of talent, but overall not too much. Obviously there were some greats,, Kelly, Young, Reggie White, but by and large the best USFL teams were (in my estimation) no better than expansion NFL teams.

~Bang

---------- Post added February-14th-2011 at 06:06 PM ----------

There is Zero pressure on the owners to get this thing done soon. They got the best insurance policy they could ever ask for going into a possible lockout: the TV money for 2011, has already been paid in full to the NFL. Where is the pressure to negotiate if over 50% of your yearly revenue is already sitting in an account with your name on it?

Not to mention the players have limited career spans to begin with. Losing a year HURTS. (I think the average NFL player lasts 4-6 years in the league. Take one year off of that, and wow, that is significant.) I believe they will likely cave as they see their careers starting to slip by. The owners can easily wait them out.

~Bang

[HigSkin]

Ask the majority of fans and they are reasoning 16 games. Every single game means so much in 16 games. Bring it to 18 and it less the importance of each game. winning 10 games in a 18 game season wont mean much. winning 10 games in a 16 game schedule is really tough.

I don't know whether this has been said but my agreement with an 18 game schedule has to do with being a STH. I despise paying for preseason games that mean absolutely nothing.

However, I would be just as happy if they didn't make us pay for those 2 home games and left the 16-game season in tact.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Not to mention the players have limited career spans to begin with. Losing a year HURTS. (I think the average NFL player lasts 4-6 years in the league. Take one year off of that, and wow, that is significant.) I believe they will likely cave as they see their careers starting to slip by. The owners can easily wait them out.

~Bang

The average NFL career is even shorter than that. Granted, you have guys who play for a few games and never get another sniff bringing down the mean, but I thought I read somewhere that the average NFL career lasts 3 years.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I somewhat disagree with this.. the USFL was not on par talent-wise. You might be able to take the entire league and field ONE team that could reasonably compete in the NFL.

Most of them were filled up with inferior talent, aged NFL vets, and the occasional big time player.

The USFL had talent, but it was spread so thin.. for every Jim Kelly or Steve Young there were ten Chuck Fusinas.

When the league broke up the NFL got a nice little influx of talent, but overall not too much. Obviously there were some greats,, Kelly, Young, Reggie White, but by and large the best USFL teams were (in my estimation) no better than expansion NFL teams.

It certainly did not have the talent of, say, the ABA in comparison to the NBA. But it had a respectable level of talent for an upstart league that attempted to directly compete with the NFL.

My point really was, if the USFL started today, the talent level would be truly abysmal. It wouldn't be the home for aging NFL stars at the end of their career, because those guys can still find teams in the NFL.

[Bang]

However, I would be just as happy if they didn't make us pay for those 2 home games and left the 16-game season in tact.

I totally agree, and this is where the problem comes in .. preseason is a cash cow for ownership,, and they don't want to give it up.

I heard Goodell on the radio the other day saying they were exploring ways to make preseason games "closer to regular season action" to give fans their money's worth.

That's all well and good, until injuries decimate the team in a meaningless game, and now the rest of your season is in jeopardy because they think we want "better football" in preseason.

We don't, we just don't want to be forced to pay full price for these games.

The fact that they think we want to see better football tells me they're totally out of touch with we fans, and/ or they're paying lip service by informing us they will not be loosening the price on these practice games.

Honestly, in all of football there's nothing I hate more than preseason injuries. Obviously they can potentially happen in any football game, but when it's just an exhibition game, it's maddening.

Preseason has it's value,, players can go full speed against other teams.. get used to beating and getting beat on for real. There's also value in that the team has to function properly for road games, logistics need to be practiced, etc.

But please don't sell it to us like it's a football game with any meaning, and PLEASE don't force teams to treat it like it is because they think fans want to see better football in the preseason.

~Bang

[CaliforniaSkin]

Throw into this the decline in scholarships at the NCAA level' date=' the change in rules allowing players to leave after three years, the dramatic shifts in the college coaching landscape and you get players coming out of college who may be far more athletic than players 30 years ago, but not nearly as polished.

Yes, the American population has increased since then, but it's not like high school football teams are overwhelmed with players with the last name of Ortiz or Nguyen. This year, I attended my first 5A Texas high school football game with a friend of mine. It turned out that his old high school happened to have its best team ever. And - through complete dumb luck - I followed them all through the playoffs to the 5A Title Game in Dallas. Despite the fact that the majority of teams I followed had schools that were in the neighborhood of 20 to 25 percent Hispanic, they were hardly any Hispanic players on the team.

IThe NFL's potential labor pool has shrunk dramatically over the last 20 years and it's only going to get worse. Yes, dudes from Tiffin are playing in the NFL now, but that's not necessarily a good thing.

[/quote']

Actually I believe that the total number of NCAA football scholarships has increased despite the program limits. There are more teams offering scholarships. So despite the decrease from 105 to 85, there are more scholarship opportunities out there (especially when you consider 1AA).

Furthermore, limiting scholarships at individual programs has kept a lot of talented players from languishing on the bench (and thus never getting drafted) at the big programs. We've seen a lot more parity in college football over the past 30 years than previously due to the scholarship limits, but that doesn't mean there's been less talent, quite the contrary.

You can start to see this by looking at the colleges of the All-Pro team. Surely we can agree that All-Pros are top talent and would be great players in any era. You've got players from East Carolina, UAB, Bloomsburg, Fresno State, Kent State, and Drake not to mention traditional non-power schools like Oregon, Cal, UNC, South Carolina, Pitt and Ole Miss. Most of those guys, representing half of the All Pro team, weren't considered good enough coming out of HS to get scholarships at the football powers.

In the old days Woody Hayes might've given James Harrison (Kent State) a schollie just to stash him on the bench his entire career and keep anyone else from having him.

I agree that players leaving early can certainly affect how polished they are, but the flip side is that they can play as freshman. Leaving early isn't nearly the problem for football that it is for basketball. I don't think one year early is THAT big a difference.

In terms of the ethnic differences part of that is related to assimilation. Football simply isn't terribly popular with new immigrants, but give it a generation or two. We're already starting to see more and more impact players of Mexican descent in the pros - Mark Sanchez and Tony Gonzalez among others.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I totally agree, and this is where the problem comes in .. preseason is a cash cow for ownership,, and they don't want to give it up.

I heard Goodell on the radio the other day saying they were exploring ways to make preseason games "closer to regular season action" to give fans their money's worth.

That's all well and good, until injuries decimate the team in a meaningless game, and now the rest of your season is in jeopardy because they think we want "better football" in preseason.

We don't, we just don't want to be forced to pay full price for these games.

The fact that they think we want to see better football tells me they're totally out of touch with we fans, and/ or they're paying lip service by informing us they will not be loosening the price on these practice games.

Honestly, in all of football there's nothing I hate more than preseason injuries. Obviously they can potentially happen in any football game, but when it's just an exhibition game, it's maddening.

Preseason has it's value,, players can go full speed against other teams.. get used to beating and getting beat on for real. There's also value in that the team has to function properly for road games, logistics need to be practiced, etc.

But please don't sell it to us like it's a football game with any meaning, and PLEASE don't force teams to treat it like it is because they think fans want to see better football in the preseason.

~Bang

My big concern with the addition of the 2 extra games is that the level of play over the first month of the season is going to suffer.

If the owners force through the 2 additional games, they are going to have make concessions somewhere, and my guess is that it will be with a truncated training camp and an elimination of inter-squad scrimmages. And that means that teams will be spending a large part of September just working out the kinks in their timing and such. I do think the pre-season games have some value to the teams; it's the fact that the league sells them as the equivalent to a regular season game is the problem.

[CaliforniaSkin]

My big concern with the addition of the 2 extra games is that the level of play over the first month of the season is going to suffer.

If the owners force through the 2 additional games' date=' they are going to have make concessions somewhere, and my guess is that it will be with a truncated training camp and an elimination of inter-squad scrimmages. And that means that teams will be spending a large part of September just working out the kinks in their timing and such. I do think the pre-season games have some value to the teams; it's the fact that the league sells them as the equivalent to a regular season game is the problem.[/quote']

Given that starters don't see much playing time in the two preseason games that would be eliminated do you think there will really be all that much difference? I think the larger concern is that quality players, particularly lower draft picks and free agents, won't get a chance to prove themselves.

I don't think training camps will be much affected but I wouldn't be surprised to see fewer "voluntary" OTAs allowed which would feed into your point about lack of preparation.

[addicted]

I don't know whether this has been said but my agreement with an 18 game schedule has to do with being a STH. I despise paying for preseason games that mean absolutely nothing.

I feel you on that but I'm not a STH. If I were I'd be more behind this then I already am.

After reading all that's been posted and an SI article I've seen the following excuses for less games, not more:

1. Player health

2. Game saturation

3. Lack of interest in the NFL

4. History and records

5. Football is losing its players from highschool and college to fill the league

And all of that still doesn't answer what I was saying before. But in reply to these remarks...

Point 1 - Ask Trent Green if you can get hurt in preseason games or ask Clinton Portis what can happen in those meaningless games to your seasons. The reality is like I said before, this is a dangerous game. No one plays it without knowing they could get hurt. You can get hurt and lose your MVP's in preseason games or regular season games. Why would anyone think otherwise? The question you could ask yourselves is this..if your players going to get hurt no matter what then would you like it to happen in a regular season game or a meaningless preseason one? We all have said in the past the answer is a regular season game. So why would that change now? I'm not hoping anyone gets hurt, I don't want to see that. But it really is that simple. Injuries are a part of the game.

Point 2 - Game saturation. Too much NFL could be a bad thing and I agree with that. I however don't agree we've reach anything close to that point yet. The past superbowl was the most watched ever in history of television or the league. But that's not even my arguement against this. The arguement against this idea is simple...we are playing a 16 game schedule now with 4 preseason games. Total games is 20 per team minus the playoffs. In an 18 game season there would be 18 regular season games and 2 preseason games. Total number of games would be 20. Did I miss a day in class when they explained that 20 didn't equal 20? Why would turning a meaningless game now into one that actually matters saturate the game? The games going to be played if it's called "preseason" or "before season" or "regular season" or something else. This point is meaningless when you look at the game itself.

Point 3: Lack of interest in the NFL. Seriously I don't get this. Fantasy football by the causal fan is bigger then ever before. So is television viewership. So is ad revenue. I don't see the NFL losing interest. And what leagues got the only offseason in any sport where anyone pays attention to it? The NFL. This is a personal thing. You might be losing interest in the NFL but the majority aren't because the results don't back you up.

Point 4: The history of the NFL will be lost with more games. Sorry but I don't get that one either. Who wants to look at records and never see them get broken? Records are meant to be broken. Do you want to be 80 years old one day telling your grandkids how great Joe Montana was? I mean come on. The records of the past don't compare with them today but no ones suggesting that the players who played years ago aren't better or as good as the ones playing today. The point is that the leagues made changes over the years. We are in the modern day age today, not the bronze or copper eras. Each place in time should be judged by it's own place in time. Judging a player in the 1980's against one 30 years later doesn't do either justice. And this isn't a new issue. It's come up before and one of the reasons guys like Chris Carter can't get in the Hall of Fame based on stats alone. And no ones complaining about that now, I think this ones reaching at the least

Point 5 - Highschools and Colleges can't fill up the NFL rosters. I really don't understand that in a job where the minimum player makes 325k a season why there wouldn't be a line out the door to play in this league if it had openings. And there is now. It might be worse because the colleges don't play the game like the NFL does but so what? When did colleges ever play the same game the pros do? I'm not buying that the NFL can't feild teams.

If you were a ticket owner you'd want that extra games because your paying for it anyway. If you look at it those games are already getting played. The difference is that no one cares about them now, and people want to make them meaningful. What is the big deal about this? In the end those 2 games are going to be played. If you were paying for them why wouldn't you want those games to matter? 9 division games is silly. You want to over saturate the league do that. Its a terrible idea.

What isn't is starting up more rivalries. Why not make it a staple every year for cross town teams like the Ravens and Redskins, Chargers and 49ers, Dolphins and Bucs, Texans and Cowboys, why not take these teams and instead of playing stupid meaningless preseason games make them the regular season new game? It would be much more interesting then another preseason game imo and I still don't get the negative reaction to this. This is the NFL, it's not Baseball or Hockey and all of the comparrisons to these are connected only because they are both called "games". Because something happened in Hockey or Baseball doesn't mean it will happen in Football.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I wonder why owners even force season ticket holders to purchase pre-season games. Let me rephrase that...I know WHY they do, but I'd think that they could do almost as well by catering to a different audience. I know the times have changed, but I remember jumping at the chance to go to a pre-season game one year because you just couldn't get to Redskin games at RFK. I was probably 10 or 11, but we made my friend's poor dad stay until the very last play of the game.

Why couldn't they gear those games toward kids and families with a bunch of other fun summertime activities available? You could have boy scout troops, swim teams, etc. attend and not burden STHs with having to buy those tickets.

[addicted]

I wonder why owners even force season ticket holders to purchase pre-season games. Let me rephrase that...I know WHY they do, but I'd think that they could do almost as well by catering to a different audience. I know the times have changed, but I remember jumping at the chance to go to a pre-season game one year because you just couldn't get to Redskin games at RFK. I was probably 10 or 11, but we made my friend's poor dad stay until the very last play of the game.

Why couldn't they gear those games toward kids and families with a bunch of other fun summertime activities available? You could have boy scout troops, swim teams, etc. attend and not burden STHs with having to buy those tickets.

In the same respect, one of the reasons to support moving two of those preseason to regular season games is that the preseason ones don't sell out like a regular one would. That would mean a loss of revenue from the ticket sales, the concessions, the parking gates, etc for everything. Since they are having this silly ***** session about money wouldn't changing those games around generate the revenue these babies (owners and players) are seeking and wanting? I'd love to know what the average gross intake of a regular season game is compared to a preseason one? I bet there is a huge difference there

[bk8]

there's a lot of nfl players that won't ever make a million $ in the league; the average tenure is around 4 years, plus you have to consider all the surgeries that usually accompany their careers. The owners are the ones who opted out of the CBA, and are the ones to blame. They don't really care about the players, just about making $$$.

[HigSkin]

Can someone with knowledge clarify UFA moving to RFA's again this year? Is it because we are still existing under last years rules? Would it mean we could tender an offer to a guy like 'LOS again this year?

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/category/rumor-mill/

RFA tenders could be league’s next big power move

In the near future, players with three, four, and five years of NFL experience are expected to be notified by teams that they’ve been “tendered” as restricted free agents.

In terms of player volume, it’s a major diversion from the norm.

Per traditional collective bargaining rules, only free agents with three accrued seasons are restricted. Adding four- and five-year veterans creates the largest restricted free agent pool in NFL history. Upwards of 300 players are affected.

Restricted free agent tenders are completely non-binding, one-year contract proposals usually in the $1 million to $2 million range. Tenders indicate that clubs intend to keep these players into training camp. But the players are guaranteed nothing.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Hig, I think you'd have to have something like that in place so that every player had a team if there isn't time for FA this year.

[Darth Tater]

Not a good thing meaning that you believe these players aren't deserving? I don't think there's any way to really know. You'd have to compare the players in the NFL from the 1960s/1970s to the ones today if you really wanted to determine if these players from smaller schools deserve their shot. I don't know how you do that. Antonio Gates probably never would have been a football player back then (more of a b-ball player) and he's arguably the best TE currently playing. Just because teams are scouting better and more creative, doesn't mean the caliber of player is diminishing.

In addition, back in the 60s/70s and maybe even into the early 90s, it was often more impressive to be buried on the depth chart of a football power than be a starter on a small school team. Back then, it would be very unlikely that someone like Devlin would transfer from Penn State to Delaware even though you'd get better playing opportunities. NFL $ was not huge (it was bigger than you'd get elsewhere but not by the order of magnitude you see now). Well into the 1970s, it was not uncommon to see a player truly retire or not even play in the NFL because of other opportunities. You still see it today but its rare. Also, scholarship limitations are greater now.