2016 UW vs. 1991 UW

The only reason I voted for 2016 is I think football has evolved so much since then. Our defense would get exposed, and I think 2016 defense would be able to contain our 1991 offense.

azumah said:

The only reason I voted for 2016 is I think football has evolved so much since then. Our defense would get exposed, and I think 2016 defense would be able to contain our 1991 offense.

Stop

azumah said:

The only reason I voted for 2016 is I think football has evolved so much since then. Our defense would get exposed, and I think 2016 defense would be able to contain our 1991 offense.

But then we have to consider when the game would be played. If the game gets played in 1991, then all the players on the 2016 team would be suddenly born in the early 70s and late 60s, and therefore only have access to the training and coaching available during that era. If the game gets played in 2016, then the 1991 team gets to be born later and have access to all the improvements in training, coaching, and equipment.

But then that would mean neither team would resemble the team it was when it played during their respective time. And that would make the entire idea of comparing the 2 teams silly.

I suppose we could always imagine a scenario where time machines are a thing that exist, and that the 2016 team climbs into a time machine and travels back to the year 1991 to challenge them to a game. But come on...imagine if you're a player for the 1991 team, and all of a sudden this strange machine appears out of nowhere, and all these guys wearing futuristic looking Washington Husky football uniforms (that have black in them for reasons you don't understand) start to get out. That would scare the shit out of you, and likely affect your ability to perform at 100% of your athletic capabilities.

That's why the best way to look at this question is to see which team was more dominant in the era they played in, while considering the competition they faced. Once the time machine is invented, then we can explore other ways to answer these questions.

Fenderbender123 said:

azumah said:

The only reason I voted for 2016 is I think football has evolved so much since then. Our defense would get exposed, and I think 2016 defense would be able to contain our 1991 offense.

But then we have to consider when the game would be played. If the game gets played in 1991, then all the players on the 2016 team would be suddenly born in the early 70s and late 60s, and therefore only have access to the training and coaching available during that era. If the game gets played in 2016, then the 1991 team gets to be born later and have access to all the improvements in training, coaching, and equipment.

But then that would mean neither team would resemble the team it was when it played during their respective time. And that would make the entire idea of comparing the 2 teams silly.

I suppose we could always imagine a scenario where time machines are a thing that exist, and that the 2016 team climbs into a time machine and travels back to the year 1991 to challenge them to a game. But come on...imagine if you're a player for the 1991 team, and all of a sudden this strange machine appears out of nowhere, and all these guys wearing futuristic looking Washington Husky football uniforms (that have black in them for reasons you don't understand) start to get out. That would scare the shit out of you, and likely affect your ability to perform at 100% of your athletic capabilities.

That's why the best way to look at this question is to see which team was more dominant in the era they played in, while considering the competition they faced. Once the time machine is invented, then we can explore other ways to answer these questions.

If you put the 2016 team in a time machine they'd be all starstruck by that Stan Emptermann guy