Deacon Jones versus Bruce Smith

[San Jose Bills Fan]

^^^^^^^^^^^

 

I think that thinking like this really misses the point.

 

IMO, you ask questions like:

 

"If Deacon Jones had the diet, exercise, and medical expertise that players nowadays have and played during the time of Bruce Smith, would he have been as good as Bruce Smith?"

 

or

 

"If Bruce Smith played back then when diet, exercise, and medical expertise were relatively undeveloped, would he have been as good as Deacon Jones?"

 

My theory is for the most part, the greats back then would be just as great today because they had the talent, intelligence, and work ethic to be great in their era. IMO there's no reason to believe that they would be worse in a modern context.

 

If Babe Ruth was cloned and brought into the world on the same day that Barry Bonds or Mark McGwire was and was encouraged to play baseball, I would still fully expect Ruth clone to be one of the greatest players in baseball.

Edited June 5, 2013 by San Jose Bills Fan

[Nitro]

Geez, listening to you young guy...the old NFLers were barely able to walk on to the field and play. I am over 50 and recall seeing George Saimes running wind sprints in a business suit when he work in car sales in the off season. One guy worked at Consumer beverages and we would watch him hoist beer kegs and walk around the parking lot. Off season conditioning was different. Coaches did not want guys to lift weights and get "muscle bound". Sure the guys enjoyed a beer after a game but who doesn't? Deacon Jones was a mean man. That was his edge. He could use the head slap to great effectiveness but also could track and catch runners. He was the best in his day. Bruce excelled and force AFC East teams to draft LTs just to handle him. He forced offensive coordinators to alter their attacks. Edge to Bruce because of his lesser supporting cast and performance.

[Tipster19]

Who really knows, it's unfair to compare athletes from different eras. First off, the athletes themselves are totally different, between the conditioning and training regiments are so far advanced today that the physical builds are apples to oranges. I will say this though, if we were comparing HOF egos Bruce would win hands down. I loved watching him play, hated hearing him talk. In all the years that I followed football I can't remember too many former players that were a bigger @$$hole than him. He was when he was playing and as evidence on the Bills' app interview of comparing himself to Deacon Jones and Reggie White he still is.

 

Btw, as far as Ali vs Tyson I'd like to say this. Ali was pure poetry and he actually wasn't even allowed to box during his best year(s). Ali fought Frazier, who was very comparable as a boxer to Tyson, and they were epic battles but with that being said I don't think that Tyson ever fought anyone who was even remotely close to being the type of boxer that Ali was. Matter of fact the competition that these 2 boxers faced during their careers couldn't be anymore different. During Ali's time there were at least 4 or 5 serious contenders at any given time and Tyson on the other hand probably never faced 4 or 5 serious contenders during his whole career, which isn't his fault but certainly didn't hurt his display of power and knock outs. If I had to bet I'd go all in on Ali, he was that one in a lifetime (century?) boxer/athlete.

[Bill from NYC]

Most people rate Bruce the third best defensive player behind Taylor and Jones. And I still don't think they give Bruce all the credit he deserves.

 

Reggie White absolutely must be included in the above, as well as this entire conversation. Not only was he completely great, he set an example for, and commanded the respect of his teammates.

As for who was the best DE, Bruce, Deacon and Reggie were so fantastic that it's probably just matter of opinion. But make no mistake, Deacon had more than just a head slap. He was unstoppable.

Edited June 6, 2013 by Bill from NYC

[OCinBuffalo]

Reggie White absolutely must be included in the above, as well as this entire conversation. Not only was he completely great, he set an example for, and commanded the respect of his teammates.

As for who was the best DE, Bruce, Deacon nd Reggie were so fantastic that it's probably just matter of opinion. But make no mistake, Deacon had more than just a head slap. He was unstoppable.

I think the best approach to this, is what ESPN/NFL network did, I forget which:

 

Mt. Sackmore

 

With Reggie White, Bruce Smith, Lawrence Taylor, and Deacon Jones's face at each spot.

 

One thing I assume 99% of us can agree on, is that nobody else belongs on that monument. And, just like with Mt. Rushmore, they aren't listed in any real order. Well, I thought it was a smart approach anyway.

Edited June 6, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[Luxy312]

While it's interesting to compare players of different era's, it's impossible to really say who's better when you're talking about the best of the best. You might be able to have constructive conversation if there were even a remote crossover of when they played. Here, we're talking about guys so far apart with rules changes that materially affected how one could play the game that it's virtually impossible to say. As far as the comment about Tyson being like Frazier, that is so far off that it's not even funny. Same size guys? Sure. The comparison stops there. Tyson was blindingly fast (pre-prison Tyson that is) and powerful. Frazier was powerful, but plodding at best.

[thebandit27]

Bruce played in the 3-4 but jones played 190 games and bruce 279.

 

I don't need to read any further than this ^

 

The above statement is ideal in explaining how impossible it is to compare the two players. Both were incredible in their day.

 

Just thinking about how either would be used in today's NFL is so much fun.

 

There's no way I could pick between them as to which I'd rather have.

[hondo in seattle]

Here's what Bruce said in a Chris Brown article...

 

“Deacon is right up there. I think there are about three guys you put in a hat and you just pick a name out and those three guys would certainly be Deacon, Reggie White and myself at the defensive end position,” said Smith. “Certainly the rules were of a different nature when Deacon played. Deacon played with Merlin Olsen and a number of other defensive linemen that were extremely talented. Reggie also had an extremely talented defensive line."

 

“I really believe that you take those three names and put them in a hat and just pick one and feel comfortable with it, and then you can go on with the debate as to who had more help, who had the better defensive line, how many times they were double-teamed and so forth and so on. But he’s an all-time great, he’s a better person and this is certainly a sad day.”

 

http://www.buffalobills.com/news/article-2/Bruce-Smith-reflects-on-passing-of-Deacon-Jones/217ca14e-51db-44ab-b80e-1954daac12c2

[Chandler#81]

Here's what Bruce said in a Chris Brown article...

 

“Deacon is right up there. I think there are about three guys you put in a hat and you just pick a name out and those three guys would certainly be Deacon, Reggie White and myself at the defensive end position,” said Smith. “Certainly the rules were of a different nature when Deacon played. Deacon played with Merlin Olsen and a number of other defensive linemen that were extremely talented. Reggie also had an extremely talented defensive line."

 

“I really believe that you take those three names and put them in a hat and just pick one and feel comfortable with it, and then you can go on with the debate as to who had more help, who had the better defensive line, how many times they were double-teamed and so forth and so on. But he’s an all-time great, he’s a better person and this is certainly a sad day.”

 

http://www.buffalobills.com/news/article-2/Bruce-Smith-reflects-on-passing-of-Deacon-Jones/217ca14e-51db-44ab-b80e-1954daac12c2

 

Well, there ya go. Virtually echoing TBD. We must be where Bruce gets his stuff from..

[truth on hold]

Here's what Bruce said in a Chris Brown article...

 

“Deacon is right up there. I think there are about three guys you put in a hat and you just pick a name out and those three guys would certainly be Deacon, Reggie White and myself at the defensive end position,” said Smith. “Certainly the rules were of a different nature when Deacon played. Deacon played with Merlin Olsen and a number of other defensive linemen that were extremely talented. Reggie also had an extremely talented defensive line."

 

“I really believe that you take those three names and put them in a hat and just pick one and feel comfortable with it, and then you can go on with the debate as to who had more help, who had the better defensive line, how many times they were double-teamed and so forth and so on. But he’s an all-time great, he’s a better person and this is certainly a sad day.”

 

http://www.buffalobi...0e-1954daac12c2

so is this a slight to the other linemen Bruce played with?

[hondo in seattle]

so is this a slight to the other linemen Bruce played with?

 

Sure sounds like it. If I was Phil Hansen, I'd be a little offended.

[Tcali]

Athletes of old ,were for the most part smaller,weaker,slower and not in as good of shape. Smokes,booze ,and sleazy women were their training. Alot worked blue collar jobs in offseason.Bruce would have killed it against these type of players.

players were more skillful back then. the only thing they lacked was offensive line size. you think the fearsome foursome was smaller and weaker than jeff wright,phil Hansen and bruce??

 

On Bruce's behalf----Deacons linemates were far superior so Bruce got a ton of attention.---I would call it a draw--having seen both guys play.

 

^^^^^^^^^^^

 

I think that thinking like this really misses the point.

 

IMO, you ask questions like:

 

"If Deacon Jones had the diet, exercise, and medical expertise that players nowadays have and played during the time of Bruce Smith, would he have been as good as Bruce Smith?"

 

or

 

"If Bruce Smith played back then when diet, exercise, and medical expertise were relatively undeveloped, would he have been as good as Deacon Jones?"

 

My theory is for the most part, the greats back then would be just as great today because they had the talent, intelligence, and work ethic to be great in their era. IMO there's no reason to believe that they would be worse in a modern context.

 

If Babe Ruth was cloned and brought into the world on the same day that Barry Bonds or Mark McGwire was and was encouraged to play baseball, I would still fully expect Ruth clone to be one of the greatest players in baseball.

right on the money.---and another thing to ponder----for those who pretend the players today are so good....would Fitz have even been anywhere near an NFL starter in the 60s??---would leodis have been anything other than a return man back then??---The only huge difference I see in todays players is the mass of the offensive linemen.........-and I think Lombardi etc woulda had a field day exploiting their size/bulk/lack of wind.

[Chandler#81]

 

 

Sure sounds like it. If I was Phil Hansen, I'd be a little offended.

 

Yeah, but ONLY Phil Hansen.. We all know how excelllent Phil's career was for us, but he never made a trip to Hawaii and he's not likely to be considered for the HOVG. All the others Bruce played with?? Pffft..

 

The 'Playing under the shadow of Bruce' line doesn't work here, considering Deacons' teammates and even Reggie @ Philly. I'm ever-wary of Bruce's 'I/Me/My' rhetoric but he's right here, IMO.

[Buffaloed in Pa]

players were more skillful back then. the only thing they lacked was offensive line size. you think the fearsome foursome was smaller and weaker than jeff wright,phil Hansen and bruce??

 

On Bruce's behalf----Deacons linemates were far superior so Bruce got a ton of attention.---I would call it a draw--having seen both guys play.

 

 

right on the money.---and another thing to ponder----for those who pretend the players today are so good....would Fitz have even been anywhere near an NFL starter in the 60s??---would leodis have been anything other than a return man back then??---The only huge difference I see in todays players is the mass of the offensive linemen.........-and I think Lombardi etc woulda had a field day exploiting their size/bulk/lack of wind.

Not buying it.

[K-9]

There isn't a humble bone in Bruce Smith's body.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[hondo in seattle]

In Marv Levy's book "Game Changers," he talks about a game against Indy in December of 1990 when Bruce collected 4 sacks. But Levy highlights a sack by Clifford Hicks who "on a blitz, came flying unimpeded as the Colts assigned three (at least) of their pass protectors to blocking No. 78."

 

Later, Levy writes:

 

"During the Bills' Super Bowl era and even beyond, Smith was the most intimidating defensive player in the NFL. Even Lawrence Taylor, perhaps the greatest linebacker who ever lived and the man who personified intimidation prior to Smith's emergence, conceded as much prior to the Bills-Giants meeting in Super Bowl XXV. Anthony Munoz, the greatest offensive tackle of the era, summed up the prospect of playing Smith in one word: "Scary."

 

 

There isn't a humble bone in Bruce Smith's body.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

I'm sure Bruce would agree with all the praise.

Edited June 8, 2013 by hondo in seattle

[Billsguy]

RIP Deacon Jones. He was a fierce competitor.

 

But was he better than Bruce Smith? Bruce holds the NFL record with 200 career sacks.

 

Back in the Deacon's day, sacks weren't a separate statistics. Nor were tackles. Unofficially, though, Jones has been credited with 173.5 sacks over 14 seasons.

 

Apparently, Bruce produced more career sacks but many old-timers still insist Jones was better.

 

My own opinion is that Deacon was more important historically because he revolutionized the position. Bill Parcels says, "Deacon was the first prototypical outside speed-power rusher in the history of the league."

 

http://sports.yahoo....-193540383.html

 

Deacon even invented the term "sack" when he cheerfully compared tackling QBs in the backfield to hog-tying them in a sack.

 

But as a Buffalo homer, I have to say Bruce was the better DE and sack-master. Bruce produced more sacks despite not playing without the Fearsome Foursome around him and despite being pushed, grabbed and held. Back in Deacon's days, NFL rules didn't allow offensive linemen to use their hands like they do today.

 

Wonder what other opinions are out there?

 

Babe Ruth or Barry Bonds?

 

It's pointless. Who cares?

[San Jose Bills Fan]

There isn't a humble bone in Bruce Smith's body.

 

 

No there isn't but as Chandler and others have said, Bruce is correct.

 

Bruce played in a 3-4 defense as opposed to a 4-3 so generally he was more available to double-team blocking.

 

And there's zero doubt that Bruce's teammates on the D-line were inferior to Deacon Jones' and Reggie White's.

Edited June 8, 2013 by San Jose Bills Fan

[Trader]

RIP Deacon Jones. He was a fierce competitor.

 

But was he better than Bruce Smith? Bruce holds the NFL record with 200 career sacks.

 

Back in the Deacon's day, sacks weren't a separate statistics. Nor were tackles. Unofficially, though, Jones has been credited with 173.5 sacks over 14 seasons.

 

Apparently, Bruce produced more career sacks but many old-timers still insist Jones was better.

 

My own opinion is that Deacon was more important historically because he revolutionized the position. Bill Parcels says, "Deacon was the first prototypical outside speed-power rusher in the history of the league."

 

http://sports.yahoo....-193540383.html

 

Deacon even invented the term "sack" when he cheerfully compared tackling QBs in the backfield to hog-tying them in a sack.

 

But as a Buffalo homer, I have to say Bruce was the better DE and sack-master. Bruce produced more sacks despite not playing without the Fearsome Foursome around him and despite being pushed, grabbed and held. Back in Deacon's days, NFL rules didn't allow offensive linemen to use their hands like they do today.

 

Wonder what other opinions are out there?

The holding and the stuff that O linemen can do now make these not comparable. Certainly the headslap was a huge factor. I do not think it is fair to compare athletes from era to era except to say that if one was born in 1990 versus 1945 he would be possessed of all the advantages of one born later and therefore he would have been just as good among his modern peers as he was among the older ones. A guy who was 6 feet tall and 200 lbs who was born in 1941 would be taller and heavier and better conditioned if he was born in 1991,

[K-9]

No there isn't but as Chandler and others have said, Bruce is correct.

 

Bruce played in a 3-4 defense as opposed to a 4-3 so generally he was more available to double-team blocking.

 

And there's zero doubt that Bruce's teammates on the D-line were inferior to Deacon Jones' and Reggie White's.

 

Oh, and there isn't a secure bone in Bruce's body, either.

 

GO BILLS!!!