Maynard was 6' and 180 lbs. soaking wet. Marshall is 6'4 about 23o lbs. Show me a clip of Maynard boxing out a pass defender and we'll continue this discussion.
Again we're talking about a different era with different training regimens. Maynard still would perhaps be shorter than ideal, but to compensate, he'd be more heavily muscled than he was in the '60s. He may not have be the homerun threat he was, but would still be a quality WR. We've seen WRs shorter and slower have success. Talent is more than just physical size.
Fine, be an ass. It isn't silly. The only reason he has been able to continue to play and play at such a high level is that he got his emotions and mental state under control. More than likely, that wouldn't have been able to happen back in the '60s. If you think he would have, that just shows how clueless you are about mental illness and how things have improved dramatically in that regard.
It's really hard to compare eras. Maynard may have been a bit taller, much more muscled and faster had he had modern technology and training and nutrition at his disposal. Marshall may have been smaller, slower, less physical. You can't take a guy from 45 years ago and drop him into today or vice versa. Genghis Khan was probably my height and I could likely kick his ass today. And I only reached purple belt. _
It's likely Maynard may have been an inch or 2 taller and Marshall an inch or 2 shorter if you had flip-flopped them based on nutrition alone. _
Vinny threw 29 TDs in 13 games....Fitz season doesn't come close to Vinny who actually beat good teams
Yes, but the real question is could you father as many offspring as he did? I read an article not long ago that stated that some huge percentage of the world's population has his DNA.
You guys are thinking too hard. I'm saying drop each player back/forward into the others era. Brandon would have kicked Jim Browns ass. Maynard would be a place kicker.
