PDA

View Full Version : NFL Network's Top 100 players.


Pages : [1] 2

Ness
09-03-2010, 09:57 PM
It begins. 10 players per episode. Here is the list thus far.

100. Joe Namath
99. Michael Strahan.
98. Lee Roy Selmon.
97. Derrick Brooks.
96. Mel Hein.
95. Larry Allen.
94. Lenny Moore.
93. Sam Huff.
92. Michael Irvin.
91. Fran Tarkenton.

90. Kurt Warner
89. Ernie Nevers
88. Ed Reed
87. Elroy Hirsch
86. Willie Davis
85. Marcus Allen
84. Joe Schmidt
83. Norm Van Brocklin
82. Ted Hendricks
81. Steve Young

80. Troy Aikman
79. Emlen Tunnell
78. Bruce Matthews
77. Tony Dorsett
76. Art Shell
75. Darrell Green
74. Marion Motley
73. Ozzie Newsome
72. Jonathon Ogden
71. Paul Warfield

70. Marshall Faulk
69. Bobby Bell
68. Mike Webster
67. Kellen Winslow
66. Willie Brown
65. Randy Moss
64. Herb Adderley
63. Jim Otto
62. Randy White
61. LaDainian Tomlinson

60. Jack Ham
59. Mike Ditka
58. Steve Van Buren
57. Mike Singletary
56. Gene Upshaw
55. Earl Campbell
54. Forrest Gregg
53. Willie Lanier
52. Eric Dickerson
51. Bart Starr

50. Terry Bradshaw
49. Mike Haynes
48. Red Grange
47. Ray Nitschke
46. Roger Staubach
45. Tony Gonzalez
44. Mel Blount
43. Alan Page
42. John Mackey
41. Rod Woodson

40. O.J. Simpson
39. Gino Marchetti
38. Lance Alworth
37. Jim Thorpe
36. Raymond Berry
35. Chuck Bednarik
34. Deion Sanders
33. Sid Luckman
32. Jim Parker
31. Bruce Smith

30. **** "Night Train" Lane.
29. Jack Lambert
28. Emmitt Smith
27. Merlin Olsen
26. Bob Lilly
25. Dan Marino
24. John Hannah
23. John Elway
22. Gale Sayers
21. Tom Brady

20. Brett Favre
19. Bronko Nagurski
18. Ray Lewis
17. Barry Sanders
16. Otto Graham
15. Deacon Jones
14. Sammy Baugh
13. Joe Greene
12. Anthony Munoz
11. Ronnie Lott

10. Dick Butkus
9. Don Hutson
8. Peyton Manning
7. Reggie White
6. Johnny Unitas
5. Walter Payton
4. Joe Montana
3. Lawrence Taylor
2. Jim Brown
1. Jerry Rice.

katnip
09-03-2010, 10:04 PM
Holy **** at Larry Allen benching 692 pounds. I knew lineman were strong, but damn.

yourfavestoner
09-03-2010, 10:04 PM
****, series like this make me wish I had NFLN so badly.

Complex
09-03-2010, 10:14 PM
I don't like when they name people that played in the 30's(when ever Mel hein played) or people that played before 1967, before the 1st real superbowl

yourfavestoner
09-03-2010, 10:17 PM
I don't like when they name people that played in the 30's(when ever Mel hein played) or people that played before 1967, before the 1st real superbowl

Coming up with a top 100 list is harder than you think. Those early players pioneered the game, and I'd rather see them mentioned than some good-but-not-great guy from a later era just because they're trying to fill spots out.

Ness
09-03-2010, 11:19 PM
****, series like this make me wish I had NFLN so badly.
You can find feeds online. I don't have NFL Network either.

Ness
09-03-2010, 11:19 PM
I don't like when they name people that played in the 30's(when ever Mel hein played) or people that played before 1967, before the 1st real superbowl

Why? They had an impact on the game as well.

V.I.P
09-04-2010, 02:48 AM
You can find feeds online. I don't have NFL Network either.

Do you mind PM-ing me a link?

niel89
09-04-2010, 03:15 AM
Im loving this series. I get to see the awesome of recent players and learn about some of the pioneers of the game. I like how they have a different presenter for each guy.

tjsunstein
09-04-2010, 03:23 AM
Larry Allen literally threw linebackers across the field. It was awesome.

bam bam
09-04-2010, 05:05 AM
LAAARRY ALLEEENN!?!!?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFcWMC9vkZg

bigbluedefense
09-04-2010, 06:17 AM
****, series like this make me wish I had NFLN so badly.

I didn't have it before, having it now, I don't think I can ever go back. It's a god send.

I don't even watch espn anymore. I just turn on the tv and go straight to NFL network.

If you have an android phone, you can stream nfl network on the nfl mobile app.

bigbluedefense
09-04-2010, 06:19 AM
Michael Strahan is awesome. I love the guy. Him and Reggie White played the run better than any DE I've ever seen.

You just didn't run at Michael Strahan. He was the man.

boknows34
09-04-2010, 07:36 AM
Do you mind PM-ing me a link?

I found these links on nfl.com. Hope they do them for all the players.

Somehow I found Dwight Stephenson at 101??
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d819fc5db/NFL-s-Top-100-Players-No-101-Dwight-Stephenson

Joe Namath 100:
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/09000d5d81a41ae0/Top-100-Spike-Lee-reflects-on-Joe-Namath

roscoesdad27
09-05-2010, 10:40 PM
predicting current players on the list
manning, farve, brady (all 3 definites)
tomlinson (maybe)
gonzalez (definite)
hutchinson (doubtful)
moss (definite)
lewis (definite)
baily (definite), woodson (maybe)
dawkins, reed, polumalu (all maybes)

well on their way
peterson, johnson
johnson, fitz
ware, willis
revis

scottyboy
09-05-2010, 10:55 PM
i ******* love and totally miss Strahan

Pit Bull #53
09-05-2010, 11:52 PM
I love how michael strahan's presenter was jon runyan. lmao

Crickett
09-05-2010, 11:55 PM
hutchinson (doubtful)


If Larry Allen is #95, there better not be any guards currently playing on that list. Not even Faneca.

wonderbredd24
09-07-2010, 08:55 PM
ruh roh... Troy Aikman is gonna be higher on the list than Steve Young

Brent
09-07-2010, 08:56 PM
Jerry Rice has to be #1.

wonderbredd24
09-07-2010, 08:58 PM
Jerry Rice has to be #1.
Um, what?

Jim Brown.

I'll listen to an argument for Sammy Baugh, but that's as far as it goes.

terribletowel39
09-07-2010, 09:05 PM
I think Jim Brown will say Barry Sanders. What then??

MasterShake
09-07-2010, 09:13 PM
ruh roh... Troy Aikman is gonna be higher on the list than Steve Young

Steve Young being lower than Troy Aikman causes me to lose faith in this Greatest 100 players...

Ness
09-08-2010, 01:11 AM
ruh roh... Troy Aikman is gonna be higher on the list than Steve Young

And that my friend is ********. Troy Aikman was not a better passer/player than Steve Young.

CJSchneider
09-08-2010, 05:28 AM
Steve Young be lower than Troy Aikman causes me to lose faith in this Greatest 100 players...

Steve Young be lower than Troy Aikman causes me to believe this Greatest 100 players is being selected by Corky from Life goes On.

BmoreBlackByrdz
09-08-2010, 05:35 AM
I think the #1 spot will be given to a QB.(like always) I mean, look at the season MVP awards(mostly all QB's), Super Bowl MVPs are also mostly all QB's. It's a QB driven league and everyone loves to love quarterbacks.

boknows34
09-08-2010, 05:52 AM
I think the #1 spot will be given to a QB.(like always) I mean, look at the season MVP awards(mostly all QB's), Super Bowl MVPs are also mostly all QB's. It's a QB driven league and everyone loves to love quarterbacks.

The Sporting News did a '100 Greatest Players Ever' book about 10 years ago and selected Jim Brown at #1 and Jerry Rice at #2. Montana was the first QB at #3. From memory it went:

1. Brown
2. Rice
3. Montana
4. L.Taylor
5. Unitas
6. Hutson
7. Graham
8. Payton
9. Butkus
10. Lilly
11. Baugh
12. B.Sanders

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71PS7XJR3EL._SS500_.gif

Complex
09-08-2010, 12:13 PM
Kurt Warner is on the list
and
Steve Young is below Troy Aikman WTF

wonderbredd24
09-08-2010, 12:17 PM
Kurt Warner is on the list
and
Steve Young is below Troy Aikman WTF

I have absolutely no problem with Warner being on there... he's a Hall of Famer.

People just do not appreciate how good Warner was.

Shiver
09-08-2010, 12:45 PM
I'm tired of people elevating these players from the 50s and 60s. In basketball and football. Unless you are 60-70 years old then you have no business talking about Jim Brown. Who did he play? How many teams were there? What was the talent level across the league? I have no clue, but if I had to guess he was probably the only real athlete in the whole league at the time. My hatred of old timers isn't limited though, I feel the same way about Wilt, Oscar Robertson and Babe Ruth. Basically all the so-called sacred cows don't mean anything to me. I don't adhere to the unquestioned law that one must rank so and so #1 with no critical thought.

I bet Steven Jackson would have put up 20,000 career yards in the 1960s NFL.

Splat
09-08-2010, 01:27 PM
Elroy "Crazylegs" Hirsch ran like Forrest Gump.

wonderbredd24
09-08-2010, 01:30 PM
I'm tired of people elevating these players from the 50s and 60s. In basketball and football. Unless you are 60-70 years old then you have no business talking about Jim Brown. Who did he play? How many teams were there? What was the talent level across the league? I have no clue, but if I had to guess he was probably the only real athlete in the whole league at the time. My hatred of old timers isn't limited though, I feel the same way about Wilt, Oscar Robertson and Babe Ruth. Basically all the so-called sacred cows don't mean anything to me. I don't adhere to the unquestioned law that one must rank so and so #1 with no critical thought.

I bet Steven Jackson would have put up 20,000 career yards in the 1960s NFL.
You admit you have no clue about anything relating to football in the 50's and 60's, yet are unafraid to make this statement.

Spectacular.

K Train
09-08-2010, 01:38 PM
I'm tired of people elevating these players from the 50s and 60s. In basketball and football. Unless you are 60-70 years old then you have no business talking about Jim Brown. Who did he play? How many teams were there? What was the talent level across the league? I have no clue, but if I had to guess he was probably the only real athlete in the whole league at the time. My hatred of old timers isn't limited though, I feel the same way about Wilt, Oscar Robertson and Babe Ruth. Basically all the so-called sacred cows don't mean anything to me. I don't adhere to the unquestioned law that one must rank so and so #1 with no critical thought.

I bet Steven Jackson would have put up 20,000 career yards in the 1960s NFL.

oh my god....someone like me. rep

yourfavestoner
09-08-2010, 01:43 PM
You admit you have no clue about anything relating to football in the 50's and 60's, yet are unafraid to make this statement.

Spectacular.

Didn't you hear? Human beings have evolved at a faster rate than anything else in the history of the planet in the past 30 years. I can't believe they were even able to play sports in the 60s and 70s considering we had just learned to walk on two feet at that point.

You know what I'm tired of? People elevating guys whose job since 8 years old was to train for football/basketball/whatever. Jim Brown and OJ didn't touch weights for their entire lives; imagine what they would have been like if things like weightlifting hadn't been discouraged.

LonghornsLegend
09-08-2010, 02:01 PM
Larry Allen was a ******* ox out there, it was ridiculous, I remember watching him bench at the pro bowl and throwing up 225 over 40 times. He's maxed out at 700lbs at least before and it was on film. Just think about that when he was on the inside paving holes wide open.

yourfavestoner
09-08-2010, 02:03 PM
DFcWMC9vkZg

Best Larry Allen play ever.

wonderbredd24
09-08-2010, 02:07 PM
There was some stupid ESPN skills challenge where they did the bench press... Larry Allen did 225 like 45 times and Jevon Kearse was unable to do 1.

LonghornsLegend
09-08-2010, 02:08 PM
DFcWMC9vkZg

Best Larry Allen play ever.


AHahahahahahah wooow. I don't remember that play, wtf?? Goes to show he was an all around amazing athlete, he was seriously hauling ass lol.

prock
09-08-2010, 02:09 PM
I cannot get over that play.

Shiver
09-08-2010, 02:16 PM
You admit you have no clue about anything relating to football in the 50's and 60's, yet are unafraid to make this statement.

Spectacular.


Why should I be? It isn't a stretch. This is a completely different game than they played back then. It's like saying that Randy Johnson wasn't as good as Cy Young cause he didn't win as many games. That Oscar Robertson was just as good as LeBron James cause his average was better. That Johnny Unitas could have dominated like Peyton Manning has.

Seriously, the game was in its genesis and the play was archaic. I know Jerry Rice was great. I knew he could dominate in the SUPER BOWL. (which didn't exist in those days, they had barely instituted the forward pass) Let's put Otto Graham at the top of the QB rankings too, Sam Huff at LB, Raymond Berry at WR. Who cares that competition was nil and no one talking ever saw them play. They are on the NFL films highlight reels with Sam Spence's music in the background! They must have been the greatest....

My main point is simple: these "all-time" lists are stupid. To compare a player like Jim Brown, who few have actually seen, to Jerry Rice who we have all seen is stupid. We understand Jerry Rice's game, who he faced off against, what his peers were doing, what the prevalent style of play was. We don't have any kind of appreciation of Jim Brown other than a shallow understanding that he supposedly was the best because old people tell me so.

phlysac
09-08-2010, 03:26 PM
Steve Young being lower than Troy Aikman causes me to lose faith in this Greatest 100 players...

Perhaps Aikman won't make the Top-100

niel89
09-08-2010, 07:34 PM
Wow I'm a little surprised to see Ed Reed on there. I absolutely agree with him being included but its surprising to see a current player from a newer franchise on there.

draftguru151
09-08-2010, 07:53 PM
3 out of the bottom 20 are Canes I'll take it.

Marino is the only Dolphin on the list. :(

Complex
09-08-2010, 08:00 PM
I'm tired of people elevating these players from the 50s and 60s. In basketball and football. Unless you are 60-70 years old then you have no business talking about Jim Brown. Who did he play? How many teams were there? What was the talent level across the league? I have no clue, but if I had to guess he was probably the only real athlete in the whole league at the time. My hatred of old timers isn't limited though, I feel the same way about Wilt, Oscar Robertson and Babe Ruth. Basically all the so-called sacred cows don't mean anything to me. I don't adhere to the unquestioned law that one must rank so and so #1 with no critical thought.

I bet Steven Jackson would have put up 20,000 career yards in the 1960s NFL.

I agree

Babe Ruth had to be doing something because ESPN said he had season where he hit more HRs than every other team.

They should make the list top 100 players from 1967 to now not when they ran around with leather helmets and ut was black & white

Paranoidmoonduck
09-08-2010, 08:05 PM
Why should I be? It isn't a stretch. This is a completely different game than they played back then. It's like saying that Randy Johnson wasn't as good as Cy Young cause he didn't win as many games. That Oscar Robertson was just as good as LeBron James cause his average was better. That Johnny Unitas could have dominated like Peyton Manning has.

Seriously, the game was in its genesis and the play was archaic. I know Jerry Rice was great. I knew he could dominate in the SUPER BOWL. (which didn't exist in those days, they had barely instituted the forward pass) Let's put Otto Graham at the top of the QB rankings too, Sam Huff at LB, Raymond Berry at WR. Who cares that competition was nil and no one talking ever saw them play. They are on the NFL films highlight reels with Sam Spence's music in the background! They must have been the greatest....

My main point is simple: these "all-time" lists are stupid. To compare a player like Jim Brown, who few have actually seen, to Jerry Rice who we have all seen is stupid. We understand Jerry Rice's game, who he faced off against, what his peers were doing, what the prevalent style of play was. We don't have any kind of appreciation of Jim Brown other than a shallow understanding that he supposedly was the best because old people tell me so.

I'm trying to grasp what your point may be, but I truly cannot. Are you saying that historical respect is ******** and that the list of the greatest 100 players in NFL history should be a grab bag of All-Pro players from the last decade or two and just leave it at that?

Or are you maybe failing to grasp that the idea of "greatness" has basically nothing to do some strange idea of comparing skills if all the players were in their prime today and everything to do with paying homage and celebrating the truly large figures in the history of a game? Are you getting bent out of shape over a list that both educates those of us who never got to see these guys (with input from those who either have watched the tapes or were alive to see them live) and immerses us in a rich tradition?

The game of football was archaic in the 40's, 50's, and 60's. So was the athletic standard and the basic understanding of athletic training. Certain guys were able to dominate in that environment, just as certain guys are able to now. That doesn't make the professional football 50-70 years ago any less professional football, it just makes it not our contemporary professional football? Why does such a simple and understandable observation raise such ire from you?

Complex
09-08-2010, 08:08 PM
I have absolutely no problem with Warner being on there... he's a Hall of Famer.

People just do not appreciate how good Warner was.

Joe Montana, Brett Favre,Steve Young, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Dan Marino, Johnny Unitas, Jim Kelly(most likely be on list), Bart Starr,Troy Aikman(most likely), Roger Stabaugh,Warren Moon and 3-4 Qbs from black and white days will be on the list plus the QBs that I missed.

I'm just saying those Kurt Warner really need to be on this list the 20th best QB ....


I know Joe Nameth is on this list too which he shouldn't

draftguru151
09-08-2010, 08:09 PM
That post was made a thousand times better because T-Rex is screaming "Back to the friggin' future!" at me in your sig.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
09-08-2010, 08:19 PM
AHahahahahahah wooow. I don't remember that play, wtf?? Goes to show he was an all around amazing athlete, he was seriously hauling ass lol.

Too bad even he in his prime wouldn't be able to block a cornerback from 30 years in the future. Even a punter is a stretch at this point.

Brown Leader
09-08-2010, 08:39 PM
I'm tired of people elevating these players from the 50s and 60s. In basketball and football. Unless you are 60-70 years old then you have no business talking about Jim Brown. Who did he play? How many teams were there? What was the talent level across the league? I have no clue, but if I had to guess he was probably the only real athlete in the whole league at the time. My hatred of old timers isn't limited though, I feel the same way about Wilt, Oscar Robertson and Babe Ruth. Basically all the so-called sacred cows don't mean anything to me. I don't adhere to the unquestioned law that one must rank so and so #1 with no critical thought.

I bet Steven Jackson would have put up 20,000 career yards in the 1960s NFL.


So in other words, if you, personally can't prove it, it isn't right? Your assuming there's been no critical thought in evaluating the greatest sports figures? There have been game analysts critiquing the games and it's players from the start. The next generation on down to you have watched and read what's been said and put in an evaluation and still these guys remain at the top for a reason. I'm all for critical thought but your point is nil unless your going to prove why generations of sports analysts are mistaken.

boknows34
09-08-2010, 09:56 PM
Joe Montana, Brett Favre,Steve Young, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Dan Marino, Johnny Unitas, Jim Kelly(most likely be on list), Bart Starr,Troy Aikman(most likely), Roger Stabaugh,Warren Moon and 3-4 Qbs from black and white days will be on the list plus the QBs that I missed.

I'm just saying those Kurt Warner really need to be on this list the 20th best QB ....


I know Joe Nameth is on this list too which he shouldn't


Here is the The Sporting News Top 100 from a decade ago. Baugh, Luckman, Layne were the old school pre 1960s QBs. I'm not sure Kelly, Aikman and Moon are going to make the Top 100. Young was 32 places above Aikman on this list. Kelly and Moon were not listed but Dan Fouts was. Obviously Brett Favre will be much higher and Brady/Peyton are certainties.

1. Jim Brown
2. Jerry Rice
3. Joe Montana
4. Lawrence Taylor
5. Johnny Unitas
6. Don Hutson
7. Otto Graham
8. Walter Payton
9. Dick Butkus
10. Bob Lilly


11. Sammy Baugh
12. Barry Sanders
13. Deacon Jones
14. Joe Greene
15. Gino Marchetti
16. John Elway
17. Anthony Munoz
18. Ray Nitschke
19. Night Train Lane
20. John Hannah


21. Gale Sayers
22. Reggie White
23. Ronnie Lott
24. Jim Parker
25. Merlin Olsen
26. O.J. Simpson
27. Dan Marino
28. Forrest Gregg
29. Roger Staubach
30. Jack Lambert


31. Lance Alworth
32. Marion Motley
33. Earl Campbell
34. Alan Page
35. Bronko Nagurski
36. Mel Blount
37. Deion Sanders
38. Eric Dickerson
39. Sid Luckman
40. Raymond Berry


41. Bart Starr
42. Willie Lanier
43. Larry Wilson
44. Terry Bradshaw
45. Herb Adderley
46. Steve Largent
47. Jack Ham
48. John Mackey
49. Bill George
50. Willie Brown


51. Randy White
52. Bobby Layne
53. Tony Dorsett
54. Chuck Bednarik
55. Art Shell
56. Mike Singletary
57. Roosevelt Brown
58. Bruce Smith
59. Fran Tarkenton
60. Paul Warfield


61. Ken Houston
62. Gene Upshaw
63. Steve Young
64. Ted Hendricks
65. Joe Schmidt
66. Bobby Bell
67. Buck Buchanan
68. Emmitt Smith
69. Willie Davis
70. Emlen Tunnell


71. Lenny Moore
72. Marcus Allen
73. Kellen Winslow
74. Mel Hein
75. Mike Webster
76. Sam Huff
77. Steve Van Buren
78. Jim Otto
79. Larry Little
80. Red Grange


81. Darrell Green
82. Brett Favre
83. Franco Harris
84. Dwight Stephenson
85. Charley Taylor
86. Jack Christiansen
87. Rod Woodson
88. Jim Thorpe
89. Elroy Hirsch
90. Mike Ditka


91. Art Monk
92. Dan Fouts
93. Mike Haynes
94. Fred Biletnikoff
95. Troy Aikman
96. Joe Namath
97. Lem Barney
98. George Blanda
99. Lou Groza
100. Charlie Joiner

scottyboy
09-08-2010, 10:30 PM
Warner and Reed above Strahan?
my lord, 20 players in and it's already utter garbage

Shiver
09-08-2010, 10:35 PM
I'm trying to grasp what your point may be, but I truly cannot. Are you saying that historical respect is ******** Bingo! and that the list of the greatest 100 players in NFL history should be a grab bag of All-Pro players from the last decade or two and just leave it at that? Not at all.

Or are you maybe failing to grasp that the idea of "greatness" has basically nothing to do some strange idea of comparing skills if all the players were in their prime today and everything to do with paying homage and celebrating the truly large figures in the history of a game? Are you getting bent out of shape over a list that both educates those of us who never got to see these guys (with input from those who either have watched the tapes or were alive to see them live) and immerses us in a rich tradition? I would say that someone who was alive to see Jim Brown play, a 60-70 year old man, probably isn't the best source of analysis. Just like you wouldn't want that same man discussing who was the superior band: Metallica or Led Zeppelin.

The game of football was archaic in the 40's, 50's, and 60's. So was the athletic standard and the basic understanding of athletic training. Certain guys were able to dominate in that environment, just as certain guys are able to now. That doesn't make the professional football 50-70 years ago any less professional football, it just makes it not our contemporary professional football? Why does such a simple and understandable observation raise such ire from you?

My main point is simple: these "all-time" lists are stupid.If you want to talk about who was by far the best player from the 1950s, sure go ahead. You think Jim Brown was the most dominant player in the 1960s? Great, let's have that chat. Comparing players across decades is arbitrary, contrived, completely subjective and based on nothing more than conjecture.

It's like the Dead-Ball and pre-African American Baseball years; the no-defense, 120 possessions per game 1960s NBA. At a certain point the difference is so staggering that you cannot make a fair evaluation in comparison to today's game. Technically it may have been "professional football," but it wasn't the NFL (still the AFL/NFL...) and it definitely wasn't this NFL.

wonderbredd24
09-08-2010, 11:43 PM
If you want to talk about who was by far the best player from the 1950s, sure go ahead. You think Jim Brown was the most dominant player in the 1960s? Great, let's have that chat. Comparing players across decades is arbitrary, contrived, completely subjective and based on nothing more than conjecture.

It's like the Dead-Ball and pre-African American Baseball years; the no-defense, 120 possessions per game 1960s NBA. At a certain point the difference is so staggering that you cannot make a fair evaluation in comparison to today's game. Technically it may have been "professional football," but it wasn't the NFL (still the AFL/NFL...) and it definitely wasn't this NFL.
Except you've already admitted you have no clue about football from the 50's and 60's, so you have no way to say what NFL it was or wasn't.

You can't gut any ounce of credibility you might be able to bring to a discussion and then try to make a credible argument and expect anyone to give it the time of day.

You don't like all time lists. Great. I can understand that. But you already made one incredibly idiotic argument based on absolutely nothing. At this point, it would appear prudent to exit the conversation at least as far as it concerns any players from the era you acknowledge you have no clue about. Just because you don't does not mean others don't. There are plenty of experts involved in this list that saw these guys play. You should probably watch... you might learn something.

EVERYTHING about these lists is arbitrary and subjective.

Paranoidmoonduck
09-09-2010, 02:01 AM
If you want to talk about who was by far the best player from the 1950s, sure go ahead. You think Jim Brown was the most dominant player in the 1960s? Great, let's have that chat. Comparing players across decades is arbitrary, contrived, completely subjective and based on nothing more than conjecture.

It's like the Dead-Ball and pre-African American Baseball years; the no-defense, 120 possessions per game 1960s NBA. At a certain point the difference is so staggering that you cannot make a fair evaluation in comparison to today's game. Technically it may have been "professional football," but it wasn't the NFL (still the AFL/NFL...) and it definitely wasn't this NFL.

I'm still not sure I get it. Are you suggesting that the NFL Network is capable of releasing a list of the 100 best players of all time that wouldn't be significantly arbitrary, contrived, and completely subjective? It's a stupid little list and it's very existence is made possible by people's ability to be arbitrary and subjective in the first place. Recognizing that, if it's very existence is stupid to you, then why object? It obviously can't accomplish what you assume it's trying to, so why even invest anger in it? Personally, I enjoy watching old football footage and hearing about old and great football players. It's entertainment, not some sort of sacramental declaration. So is the HOF (at its core) by the way, and this list doesn't even begin to approach the kind of responsibility that Hall places on itself.

I'm also not clear why someone dominating their competition back whenever is less impressive than someone dominating their competition now. You can point to broad spectrum shifts that cause definitive breaks in a sport (or league), but there's a pretty objective way to figure out whether and how by much a player dominated the players he played against. Do we give them less credit simply by our historical distance? Is doing so even remotely fair or logical? Jim Brown's dominance of 1960's NFL football is just as impressive as Barry Sanders dominance of 1990's NFL football. Sanders may be more relevant to the game I watch today, I may be better able to imagine him having success than I can Brown, I may even (subjectively) like his game more because it makes sense to evaluate in regards to the kind of football I have always watched, but none of that makes Jim Brown worse.

To lambaste subjectivity and then rest your whole argument on your temporal location, something that pretty much defines what it is to be subjective, honestly feels really silly and pointless to me. Granted, so does arguing that point, but so be it.

DMWSackMachine
09-09-2010, 02:09 PM
I don't have a problem with including these players on the list. However, I do have a problem with a couple of different elements that go into those rankings:

1) Margin. In the old days of the NFL (and AFL) the margins of the game were much bigger. As the parameters of any given game are formed, and the evolution of the sport commences, with the popularity of said sport dictating the sheer numbers of people who play it and, thus, dictating the talent pool available to the sport and, by extension, the level of play offering at its apex, the margin of play--that is, the difference between the best players and the worst players, the best teams and the worst teams, etc--is very large. For a major American sport, these margins slim down and become minute once the evolutionary process has run itself near to its asymptotical termination. All meaning this: the difference between Jim Brown and Joe Schmoe RB--or Joe Schmoe tackler, for that matter--was much larger because of the times. Because of the limited number of people playing football as compared to today, and because of the lack of medical and technical advancements that allow for players to develop their bodies to peak condition. As a result, Jim Brown dominates on a level that isn't possible in today's NFL, and as such he is over-valued on an All Time basis. Not because of his own skill, not because of the work he did to be great, but because of the wade variance in talent level across the league.

2) Time bias. As time goes on, players that you saw become greater and greater in response to all the modern advancements of today's players. Suddenly a guy that was 6'0" 220lbs becomes 6'2" 240lbs in the retelling of the story. A guy with 4.5 speed now has 4.3 speed, etc etc. People have a tendency to make legends out of historical figures, and this leads to misinformation and the skewing of their abilities and places in the game.


If those two factors could be legitimately mitigated, I would be fine with including old players. Its impossible to do, obviously. I cannot buy that Jim Brown was the best player in NFL history. I cannot buy that he was the greatest. But he certainly dominated his competition more than any other player ever has....so, how do you reconcile all this together and make a coherent list? The John Clayton way: just start writing **** down and submit it to your editors when you're done.

boknows34
09-10-2010, 02:05 AM
Where there any clues on the credits who is on next week's 71-80 programme?

boknows34
09-10-2010, 03:00 AM
80 names still to come:

I'll start who I think will be candidates on offense.

QB: Montana, Marino, Unitas, Graham, Baugh, P.Manning, Brady, Favre, Elway, Staubach, Starr, Bradshaw, Luckman, Layne.

RB: Brown, Payton, Sanders, Sayers, Emmitt, Dickerson, Tomlinson, Faulk, Campbell, Dorsett, Franco, Simpson (will he be penalised though?), Motley, Nagurski, Van Buren, Thorpe, Grange.

WR: Rice, Hutson, Alworth, Moss, Largent, Warfield, Berry.

TE: Mackey, Winslow, Gonzalez, Sharpe, Ditka.

OL: Munoz, Hannah, Matthews, Shell, Upshaw, Otto, Webster, Ogden, Parker, Gregg, R.Brown, Little, W.Jones, Groza, McDaniel.


..and the defense

DL: Reggie White, Deacon Jones, Mean Joe Greene, Olsen, Lilly, B.Smith, Marchetti, Page, Buchanon, Randy White, Sapp.

LB: LT, Butkus, Lambert, Ham, Lewis, Singletary, Lanier, Bell, Nitschke, Bednarik, George, Seau.

DB: Lott, Deion, Night Train Lane, Blount, Woodson, Wilson, Willie Brown, Adderley, Houston, Tunnell, D.Green.

58 on offense
34 on defense

Anyone I've missed? I have a feeling this Top 100 will be harsh on WRs just like Canton. If Cris Carter, Marvin Harrison or Tim Brown were going to make the cut I think they would have been named already. Same for Troy Aikman who I'm praying isn't voted higher than Steve Young.

Ness
09-10-2010, 05:54 AM
Warner and Reed above Strahan?
my lord, 20 players in and it's already utter garbage
Reed shouldn't be on the list in my opinion.

Splat
09-10-2010, 09:25 AM
Reed shouldn't be on the list in my opinion.

WHAT!?!?!?

yourfavestoner
09-10-2010, 10:37 AM
WHAT!?!?!?

Ed Reed's probably the best DB I've ever spent extensive time watching. Not to mention, his playoff performances are absolutely ridiculous.

Seven playoff games, seven picks, two defensive touchdowns. It's really a shame that Baltimore could never get a legitimate quarterback during that defenses heyday...

Shiver
09-10-2010, 10:45 AM
I don't have a problem with including these players on the list. However, I do have a problem with a couple of different elements that go into those rankings:

1) Margin. In the old days of the NFL (and AFL) the margins of the game were much bigger. As the parameters of any given game are formed, and the evolution of the sport commences, with the popularity of said sport dictating the sheer numbers of people who play it and, thus, dictating the talent pool available to the sport and, by extension, the level of play offering at its apex, the margin of play--that is, the difference between the best players and the worst players, the best teams and the worst teams, etc--is very large. For a major American sport, these margins slim down and become minute once the evolutionary process has run itself near to its asymptotical termination. All meaning this: the difference between Jim Brown and Joe Schmoe RB--or Joe Schmoe tackler, for that matter--was much larger because of the times. Because of the limited number of people playing football as compared to today, and because of the lack of medical and technical advancements that allow for players to develop their bodies to peak condition. As a result, Jim Brown dominates on a level that isn't possible in today's NFL, and as such he is over-valued on an All Time basis. Not because of his own skill, not because of the work he did to be great, but because of the wade variance in talent level across the league.

2) Time bias. As time goes on, players that you saw become greater and greater in response to all the modern advancements of today's players. Suddenly a guy that was 6'0" 220lbs becomes 6'2" 240lbs in the retelling of the story. A guy with 4.5 speed now has 4.3 speed, etc etc. People have a tendency to make legends out of historical figures, and this leads to misinformation and the skewing of their abilities and places in the game.


If those two factors could be legitimately mitigated, I would be fine with including old players. Its impossible to do, obviously. I cannot buy that Jim Brown was the best player in NFL history. I cannot buy that he was the greatest. But he certainly dominated his competition more than any other player ever has....so, how do you reconcile all this together and make a coherent list? The John Clayton way: just start writing **** down and submit it to your editors when you're done.

Great post. I agree completely.

wonderbredd24
09-10-2010, 11:38 AM
Where there any clues on the credits who is on next week's 71-80 programme?

Troy Aiman was in there quite a bit

wonderbredd24
09-10-2010, 11:42 AM
My question to all the people who are so intent on downplaying the greatness of older players is this: What year did football begin to count?

boknows34
09-10-2010, 11:43 AM
Troy Aiman was in there quite a bit

**Shudder**

Paranoidmoonduck
09-10-2010, 11:50 AM
DMW and Shiver, I still don't get why the fact that the game has better athletes today changes anything. I'm not trying to be obtuse, nor do I think you guys are wrong in saying the general talent pool is much better now, but I do not get why it matters.

I don't get why you feel that this list is attempting abstracting these guys from history basis; that ranking Jim Brown above Barry Sanders implicates that Brown was the better athlete or would fare better in today's NFL. In fact, I have no idea why it's logical to use today's NFL as any kind of standard for past players or to assume that today's NFL is the pinnacle of quality we'll see from professional football. I'm not even clear that anyone has actually established the right to use "best" and "greatest" are the same term here.

This is a list of historical respect towards the impact and dominance players exhibited in their own era of football. You guys are so quick to point towards today's NFL as some peak of football quality, but if we're trying to pick out which era's were the hardest on their players, shouldn't we recognize 1940's NFL football for not even having solid helmets, much less padded and shock absorbing ones? Should we look at all the dangerous and highly effective defensive techniques that are simply no longer allowed?

It doesn't make any sense to me to define sport greatness as anything other than degree of superiority over your peers. Comparing Jim Brown to Eric Dickerson is pointless. Comparing Jim Brown's relative level of play in his era to Dickerson's isn't.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
09-10-2010, 11:56 AM
Fast forward to the year 2040 where the next generation of sports fans think that the greats of our era would get destroyed in the leagues of the future. Hell, it's already starting. I know tons of kids who think Kobe is better than MJ because MJ allegedly played against worse players. That's right, the 1990s, an era in which basketball was much, much better than it is right now, was full of weak players that MJ dominated. This is something I've actually heard from someone. 30 years from now, we'll tell them what they're saying isn't true and we'll be called old farts overrating past greats because of our delusional nostalgia.

wonderbredd24
09-10-2010, 12:01 PM
And you can't ignore the era of hatchet men in the NFL either. Guys who were literally out there to hurt players on the other team... the NFL finally outlawed their use when they ended the career of Gale Sayers.

People were doing **** after the play and in the pile that would make players in today's NFL blush. Late hits, clubbing the opposing player's head, facemasks on non ballcarriers, etc were all legal.

The medical technology argument works both ways, because while players are slightly bigger, stronger, and faster now, many careers would have also ended much sooner.

One of biggest "What if's?" in NFL History has to be What if Greg Carr never never tore his rotator cuff? The NFL might be a completely different game.

Nalej
09-10-2010, 12:08 PM
Who's Greg Carr?

wonderbredd24
09-10-2010, 12:16 PM
Who's Greg Carr?

Greg Carr was the quarterback of the Cincinnati Bengals when Paul Brown was running their offense. According to Walsh, he was the most physically talented quarterback he's ever worked with and felt he was going to be an absolute stud and he was... for one year.

Unfortunately, the guy tore his rotator cuff and in those days, they had no idea what to do about it, so what did they do? Had him throw his arm back in shape, which only served to further destroy his shoulder and end his career.

The result was Bill Walsh forced to try to make a functioning offense around former BYU quarterck, Oliver Carter. Carter was smart, mobile, and relatively accurate, but he had a weak arm and the Bengals couldn't protect him. So, he developed the Walsh offense (he hated the name West Coast) which focused on quick throws, timing, and taking advantage of all 53 1/3 yards of the field's width.

So, if Greg Carr never tears his rotator cuff, does the Walsh offense ever get created? Or would someone else have come up with it? No way to know, but an interesting thing to think about

Shiver
09-10-2010, 01:07 PM
My question to all the people who are so intent on downplaying the greatness of older players is this: What year did football begin to count?


When there was, you know, some event called THE SUPER BOWL. It was THE NFL, not the AFL. Just like Baseball players from the pre-integration, dead ball era shouldn't be ranked with the modern players. Just like it is stupid to judge players like Wilt and the Big O and their stats out of context with the NBA of the 80s, 90s, 00s. Players from the pre-NFL, pre-Super Bowl era should be highlighted. They should be praised and people should know about them. But they shouldn't be ranked together on some arbitrary list.

wonderbredd24
09-10-2010, 01:32 PM
First, you say this.
I'm tired of people elevating these players from the 50s and 60s. In basketball and football.
I bet Steven Jackson would have put up 20,000 career yards in the 1960s NFL.
Then you say this...
When there was, you know, some event called THE SUPER BOWL. It was THE NFL, not the AFL. Just like Baseball players from the pre-integration, dead ball era shouldn't be ranked with the modern players. Just like it is stupid to judge players like Wilt and the Big O and their stats out of context with the NBA of the 80s, 90s, 00s. Players from the pre-NFL, pre-Super Bowl era should be highlighted. They should be praised and people should know about them. But they shouldn't be ranked together on some arbitrary list.
Superbowl I happened in, you know, 1967, which you know, is part of the 60's, which you know, you attempted to disqualify from this discussion based on your admitted vast ignorance on the subject.

You should really just stop at this point. You probably have a lot to offer in other discussions, but in this one, it's frankly becoming sad.

Shiver
09-10-2010, 01:36 PM
First, you say this.


Then you say this...

About the Jackson comment. It's called satire. Learn what that is and get back to me. Because evidently everyone says that about old players like Jim Brown, Johnny Unitas, etc.

Superbowl I happened in, you know, 1967, which you know, is part of the 60's, which you know, you attempted to disqualify from this discussion based on your admitted vast ignorance on the subject.

You should really just stop at this point. You probably have a lot to offer in other discussions, but in this one, it's frankly becoming sad.

Jim Brown's career: 1957-1965

Super Bowl I: 1967

Yeah, completely ignorant.

bigbluedefense
09-10-2010, 01:38 PM
You can't judge players from different eras in a black and white comparison.

What you can measure them on, is how they dominated their era. Obviously, Gino Marchetti can't hold a candle to Julius Peppers in a black and white comparison of athleticism, but when you compare how he was in his era, it was remarkable how much bigger and stronger he was then everyone else. He was a freak athlete of his time. He was a 244 lb DE in an era where most DEs were 210 lbs. He was unblockable in his era.

Emphasis on era. Julius Peppers might be a freak by today's standards, but 30 years from now your kids are gonna tell you he's a scrub (athletically). But you know better than that bc you understand eras when you get older, and understand that its foolish to make a blanket statement that the guys from yesteryear don't count bc they don't carry the same athleticism as the guys of today.

Lawrence Taylor is the greatest defensive player of all time. He would be an average player in today's league. Does that make him a scrub? Of course not.

When you compare players of different eras, you have to observe and measure how they dominated the game at the time they played it. Thats the only way. We can talk hypotheticals all day long. If Jim Brown played today's game blah blah blah.

Well what if Peppers played in Jim Brown's era? He wouldn't have the PEDs he has today, or the equipment, or the workout routines etc. So its an irrelevant point. Imagine how big/strong/etc Jim Brown would be today with the current advancements in medicine and supplements.

To completely ignore an era just bc we don't know much about it is ignorant. It's like somebody telling you 20 years from now that Michael Jordan doesn't count.

Shiver
09-10-2010, 01:41 PM
I don't know if we can't get physically bigger than today's game.* It may end up being like Baseball, when they root out the PED and everyone's size returns to "natural" levels.


* "Mario Williams is a chump, a 290-lbs DE that ran a 4.7, pst.. Steve Jones is 330-lbs and ran a 4.3!"

bigbluedefense
09-10-2010, 01:43 PM
And another point I want to make.

Everyone says "Zomg, Peyton Manning calls his own playez. Best qb everrrzz"

That's such an ignorant statement. In the 60s and 70s, qbs would call the entire game. They were the offensive coordinator.

Johnny Unitas's brilliance wasn't just his ability to throw the football better than anyone before him, but his ability to call a great game as well. I don't care if the game was "simpler" then (it really wasn't, this is a lame statement made by those who don't know any better), calling your own game is bad ass. The preparation that goes into it can't be quantified.

For example, Phillip Rivers has said himself that if he were allowed to call his own plays or make audibles, he'd just call the same 12 plays all game.

Now imagine him in that era. Would he be a successful qb? Obviously not.


Qbs of the old era don't get the credit they deserve. They went against defensive lines that didn't go against the same blocking schemes of today's game, they went against CBs who could absolutely maul their WRs, they had to call their own gameplan, and they generally played in harsher environments.

bigbluedefense
09-10-2010, 01:45 PM
I don't know if we can't get physically bigger than today's game.* It may end up being like Baseball, when they root out the PED and everyone's size returns to "natural" levels.


* "Mario Williams is a chump, a 290-lbs DE that ran a 4.7, pst.. Steve Jones is 330-lbs and ran a 4.3!"

There will always be ways to beat the system. You can't get rid of PEDs. Especially in football.

Guys in the 70s used steroids and they still weren't as big as today's players. So its not just PEDs thats making athletes bigger.

Ness
09-10-2010, 01:55 PM
WHAT!?!?!?

Honestly I think it's hit or miss.

Ness
09-10-2010, 01:57 PM
Greg Carr was the quarterback of the Cincinnati Bengals when Paul Brown was running their offense. According to Walsh, he was the most physically talented quarterback he's ever worked with and felt he was going to be an absolute stud and he was... for one year.

Unfortunately, the guy tore his rotator cuff and in those days, they had no idea what to do about it, so what did they do? Had him throw his arm back in shape, which only served to further destroy his shoulder and end his career.

The result was Bill Walsh forced to try to make a functioning offense around former BYU quarterck, Oliver Carter. Carter was smart, mobile, and relatively accurate, but he had a weak arm and the Bengals couldn't protect him. So, he developed the Walsh offense (he hated the name West Coast) which focused on quick throws, timing, and taking advantage of all 53 1/3 yards of the field's width.

So, if Greg Carr never tears his rotator cuff, does the Walsh offense ever get created? Or would someone else have come up with it? No way to know, but an interesting thing to think about

You mean Greg Cook.

Shiver
09-10-2010, 02:03 PM
There will always be ways to beat the system. You can't get rid of PEDs. Especially in football.

Guys in the 70s used steroids and they still weren't as big as today's players. So its not just PEDs thats making athletes bigger.


Yeah, I know. But it just cannot be biologically possible to get much bigger, faster, stronger than today's game. For example, they said that obesity levels have flat lined because, well we can't get any bigger as humans. LOL

bigbluedefense
09-10-2010, 02:29 PM
Yeah, I know. But it just cannot be biologically possible to get much bigger, faster, stronger than today's game. For example, they said that obesity levels have flat lined because, well we can't get any bigger as humans. LOL

hahaha, good to know we're as fat as possible.

But then again, they just came out with the double down from KFC, so maybe we'll take obesity to new levels in a couple of years.

Shiver
09-10-2010, 02:38 PM
I saw the grilled cheeseburger the other day! It is a cheeseburger with grilled cheese sandwiches instead of buns....


hmmmmmm obesity...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_e7nalH5fvuY/SY0DBG08_SI/AAAAAAAAAQM/VtLnGSDAUS4/s400/drooling_homer.gif

Saints-Tigers
09-10-2010, 02:43 PM
Fast forward to the year 2040 where the next generation of sports fans think that the greats of our era would get destroyed in the leagues of the future. Hell, it's already starting. I know tons of kids who think Kobe is better than MJ because MJ allegedly played against worse players. That's right, the 1990s, an era in which basketball was much, much better than it is right now, was full of weak players that MJ dominated. This is something I've actually heard from someone. 30 years from now, we'll tell them what they're saying isn't true and we'll be called old farts overrating past greats because of our delusional nostalgia.

The funniest part is, we saw Kobe as a bench player in the 90's

Shiver
09-10-2010, 02:44 PM
I don't know which kids you're talking about, but everyone I know from age-7 on up thinks Michael Jordan is some sort of demigod. I haven't talked to anyone who seriously thinks Kobe Bryant is better.

prock
09-10-2010, 02:47 PM
I saw the grilled cheeseburger the other day! It is a cheeseburger with grilled cheese sandwiches instead of buns....


hmmmmmm obesity...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_e7nalH5fvuY/SY0DBG08_SI/AAAAAAAAAQM/VtLnGSDAUS4/s400/drooling_homer.gif

The Chuck Norris burger, two 1 pound patties with a grilled cheese sandwich in the middle.

bigbluedefense
09-10-2010, 02:50 PM
I've heard kids say Kobe is better.

wonderbredd24
09-10-2010, 03:06 PM
You mean Greg Cook.

Brain fart. Thanks for the correction.

Shiver, seriously? You might want to grab a bigger shovel.

Jim Brown retired in his prime. You really don't think he would have dominated for another year, since the Superbowl for the 1966 season was played in January of 1967.

In 1965, he had 289 carries for 1,544 yards (5.3 yards per carry and 110.3 per game), 17 TDs and another 328 yards receiving plus 4 more TDs.

scottyboy
09-10-2010, 03:25 PM
i'm just upset because Strahan would be great in every era. He was quick enough to be an outstanding sack guy, but strong enough to be just as good against the run. I'm still a little peeved he's so low.

wonderbredd24
09-10-2010, 03:32 PM
i'm just upset because Strahan would be great in every era. He was quick enough to be an outstanding sack guy, but strong enough to be just as good against the run. I'm still a little peeved he's so low.
I think Strahan was underappreciated in his time and there are people who wouldn't have been pissed if he wasn't on the list at all.

I think you might feel better if you compare Strahan to the other DEnds on the list... being ahead of a monster like Lee Roy Selmon is impressive.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
09-10-2010, 04:03 PM
I've heard kids say Kobe is better.

Yeah I heard a kid say the exact argument I posted, that the league MJ played in was worse than the one Kobe plays in now. He's a senior in high school. Shiver, you're lucky to not have to put up with that crowd, lol.

yourfavestoner
09-10-2010, 04:26 PM
When Laker fans say Kobe is better, it makes me want to punch them in the face.

There is not a single part of Kobe's game that is better than Michael's. Kobe is basically a poor man's Michael. Kobe developed a dangerous jump shot earlier in his career than Michael did, but the size and strength of MJ's hands allowed him to get to the rim on a more consistent basis than Kobe (in a much more physical, hand-checking, defensive-oriented era no less). MJ also had much more natural athleticism in his prime.

Saints-Tigers
09-10-2010, 04:34 PM
Will Smith reminds me of Mike Strahan right now. He has about 2 more sacks through the same amount of seasons, I hope he continues to build on his game and stay healthy so he can put up some big sack seasons. Love guys that are so strong against the pass and the run.

scottyboy
09-10-2010, 04:58 PM
Will Smith reminds me of Mike Strahan right now. He has about 2 more sacks through the same amount of seasons, I hope he continues to build on his game and stay healthy so he can put up some big sack seasons. Love guys that are so strong against the pass and the run.

please tell me you're just talking in terms of style and you're not comparing will smith to one of the greatest DE's of all time.

Shiver
09-10-2010, 05:04 PM
When Laker fans say Kobe is better, it makes me want to punch them in the face.

There is not a single part of Kobe's game that is better than Michael's. Kobe is basically a poor man's Michael. Kobe developed a dangerous jump shot earlier in his career than Michael did, but the size and strength of MJ's hands allowed him to get to the rim on a more consistent basis than Kobe (in a much more physical, hand-checking, defensive-oriented era no less). MJ also had much more natural athleticism in his prime.


3PT shot, that's literally it. MJ never shot 3s basically and still averaged 30+ PPG... incredible.

Paranoidmoonduck
09-10-2010, 08:26 PM
Yeah, I know. But it just cannot be biologically possible to get much bigger, faster, stronger than today's game.

Biologically, maybe not, but we're just starting to peek under the covers of what chemical sport science is. We're not at any sort of stasis here.

wordofi
09-10-2010, 09:37 PM
DFcWMC9vkZg

Best Larry Allen play ever.

I remember Orlando Pace chased down Champ Bailey on a similar play. Does anybody have a clip of that?

BigBanger
09-11-2010, 04:15 AM
Fast forward to the year 2040 where the next generation of sports fans think that the greats of our era would get destroyed in the leagues of the future. Hell, it's already starting. I know tons of kids who think Kobe is better than MJ because MJ allegedly played against worse players. That's right, the 1990s, an era in which basketball was much, much better than it is right now, was full of weak players that MJ dominated. This is something I've actually heard from someone. 30 years from now, we'll tell them what they're saying isn't true and we'll be called old farts overrating past greats because of our delusional nostalgia.
Michael Jordan himself has said that he wishes he could play with guys today instead of his era. There is no question athletes have become bigger, stronger and faster... over the last decade. Regardless of three or four decades ago. Those little kids that have no clue what they are talking about, are right. I agree that they have no clue what they are talking about, but they are right.

As far as the thread... I was just shocked to see Strahan the second player listed. He was, along with Reggie White, the best LDE in the history of the game. A beast against the run, and the record holder for sacks in a single season. If that does not define a complete player, then I don't know what does. He has a ring. He has the longevity, I thought he would have been much higher. And then to see Kurt Warner, Strahan's own teammate... hold onto the ball, take sack after sack, showed no pocket presence once so ever, and then fumbled every single ******* time a defensive player came near him... and THAT guy is ahead of him. If Warner had at least three or four more years like the 2 he had in St. Louis and his last 2 in Arizona, then I would have no problem with it, but he basically had 5 good to great years. That's it. The rest? He was in QB competitions with guys like Eli Manning, Matt Leinart and Josh McCown or playing like dog ****.

1999 - Warner's best year was his first year. Ridiculous numbers: 41 TDs to 13 INTs. Came in and had his second best post season performance in his first playoff game. He threw for 391 yards and 5 TDs (83% completion percentage). But people forget that this guy played like complete dog **** in the NFC Championship game against Tampa Bay and barely made it to the SB. The greatest show on turf won 11-6. He played like ******* dog ****. He did redeem himself with a great SB performance and a memorable duel with Steve McNair.

The next year, 2000, he played in 11 games and threw 18 INTs. First round loss... 3 more INTs. I don't consider that a very good year to be honest.

Then in 2001, his last good year in St. Louis, he threw for nearly 5,000 yards and 36 TDs. Had a pretty solid Super Bowl performance against NE, but a loss.

Ended up playing like dog **** in 2002 as the Rams started 0-3 thanks to Warner's 7 INTs to just 1 TD. Broke his finger in game 4, came back late in the season and played like **** again. Went 0-5 as a starter.

Got benched in 2003 after he had one of the worst games I have ever seen a QB have. Sacked 6 times, fumbled 6 times. Marc Bulger took over. Warner's career was over with the Rams.

Signed with the Giants in 2004 and played like dog ****. He fumbled 12 times in the first 7 games. Was sacked seemingly 5 to 7 times a game. Somehow the Giants kept winning. Eli took over midway through the season. Warner went to Arizona.

2005 was an injury plagued year and then, he actually had a QB battle with Josh McCown (Not a good player). Warner eventually won the QB job for the 2006 season.

Warner started 5 games in 2006. Lost QB job to NFL bust, Matt Leinart. That marks 5, count them, 5 straight years of doing nothing.

2007 season was Warner's best since 2001. Once again in a QB battle with Leinart, Warner eventually took over the reigns after the two swapped time in back-to-back games. He threw for over 3,400 yards and 27 TDs in just 11 starts (14 games).

2008 was Warner's second best season. A true MVP caliber season (other QBs were better in 2008 though), but he was amazing as he led the Cardinal's to their first SB appearance. He threw for nearly 4,600 yards, 30 TDs to just 14 INTs and had a great post season run. Played a phenomenal game against PHI in the NFC championship game and then played great against PIT in the SB. Another SB loss though.

2009 was another fantastic season and had Warner's single greatest game in the divisional playoffs against Aaron Rodgers and the Packers. Throwing for 379 yards and 5 TDs, 0 INTs and just 4 incompletions in a 51-45 shootout. His greatest game of his career. Finished his career against the eventual SB champs, the Saints, in a 45-17 loss.



Really, 4 Hall of Fame caliber seasons? 1 very good season between that and then mostly **** in between. And this is better than Michael Strahan? The guy had 141 career sacks. 22.5 in 2001 alone. 18.5 in 2003. Are ya kidding me? He's ahead of Larry Allen? Michael Irvin? Derrick Brooks? I don't even get how Brooks is ahead of Strahan.

Ness
09-11-2010, 04:50 AM
Derrick Brooks? I don't even get how Brooks is ahead of Strahan.

Why is that difficult to understand? Brooks is one of the best outside linebackers to ever play. He's pretty much accomplished everything that Strahan has done, except at a different position. Defensive player of the year, Super Bowl champion. I guess he doesn't have the sack record. But I don't think Brooks has ever missed a single game since becoming a starter. He even has more All-Pro selections and Pro Bowls. I could see Strahan being placed above him, but I wouldn't say it's an obvious decision. Brooks can certainly go ahead of Strahan.

bigbluedefense
09-11-2010, 07:17 AM
Michael Jordan himself has said that he wishes he could play with guys today instead of his era. There is no question athletes have become bigger, stronger and faster... over the last decade. Regardless of three or four decades ago. Those little kids that have no clue what they are talking about, are right. I agree that they have no clue what they are talking about, but they are right.

As far as the thread... I was just shocked to see Strahan the second player listed. He was, along with Reggie White, the best LDE in the history of the game. A beast against the run, and the record holder for sacks in a single season. If that does not define a complete player, then I don't know what does. He has a ring. He has the longevity, I thought he would have been much higher. And then to see Kurt Warner, Strahan's own teammate... hold onto the ball, take sack after sack, showed no pocket presence once so ever, and then fumbled every single ******* time a defensive player came near him... and THAT guy is ahead of him. If Warner had at least three or four more years like the 2 he had in St. Louis and his last 2 in Arizona, then I would have no problem with it, but he basically had 5 good to great years. That's it. The rest? He was in QB competitions with guys like Eli Manning, Matt Leinart and Josh McCown or playing like dog ****.

1999 - Warner's best year was his first year. Ridiculous numbers: 41 TDs to 13 INTs. Came in and had his second best post season performance in his first playoff game. He threw for 391 yards and 5 TDs (83% completion percentage). But people forget that this guy played like complete dog **** in the NFC Championship game against Tampa Bay and barely made it to the SB. The greatest show on turf won 11-6. He played like ******* dog ****. He did redeem himself with a great SB performance and a memorable duel with Steve McNair.

The next year, 2000, he played in 11 games and threw 18 INTs. First round loss... 3 more INTs. I don't consider that a very good year to be honest.

Then in 2001, his last good year in St. Louis, he threw for nearly 5,000 yards and 36 TDs. Had a pretty solid Super Bowl performance against NE, but a loss.

Ended up playing like dog **** in 2002 as the Rams started 0-3 thanks to Warner's 7 INTs to just 1 TD. Broke his finger in game 4, came back late in the season and played like **** again. Went 0-5 as a starter.

Got benched in 2003 after he had one of the worst games I have ever seen a QB have. Sacked 6 times, fumbled 6 times. Marc Bulger took over. Warner's career was over with the Rams.

Signed with the Giants in 2004 and played like dog ****. He fumbled 12 times in the first 7 games. Was sacked seemingly 5 to 7 times a game. Somehow the Giants kept winning. Eli took over midway through the season. Warner went to Arizona.

2005 was an injury plagued year and then, he actually had a QB battle with Josh McCown (Not a good player). Warner eventually won the QB job for the 2006 season.

Warner started 5 games in 2006. Lost QB job to NFL bust, Matt Leinart. That marks 5, count them, 5 straight years of doing nothing.

2007 season was Warner's best since 2001. Once again in a QB battle with Leinart, Warner eventually took over the reigns after the two swapped time in back-to-back games. He threw for over 3,400 yards and 27 TDs in just 11 starts (14 games).

2008 was Warner's second best season. A true MVP caliber season (other QBs were better in 2008 though), but he was amazing as he led the Cardinal's to their first SB appearance. He threw for nearly 4,600 yards, 30 TDs to just 14 INTs and had a great post season run. Played a phenomenal game against PHI in the NFC championship game and then played great against PIT in the SB. Another SB loss though.

2009 was another fantastic season and had Warner's single greatest game in the divisional playoffs against Aaron Rodgers and the Packers. Throwing for 379 yards and 5 TDs, 0 INTs and just 4 incompletions in a 51-45 shootout. His greatest game of his career. Finished his career against the eventual SB champs, the Saints, in a 45-17 loss.



Really, 4 Hall of Fame caliber seasons? 1 very good season between that and then mostly **** in between. And this is better than Michael Strahan? The guy had 141 career sacks. 22.5 in 2001 alone. 18.5 in 2003. Are ya kidding me? He's ahead of Larry Allen? Michael Irvin? Derrick Brooks? I don't even get how Brooks is ahead of Strahan.

It's true, Strahan was the second best LE to ever play the game when you consider how dominant he was as both a pass rusher and run stuffer.

I believe that Strahan and Reggie White are the two best run stuffing pass rushing DEs to ever play the game. (to clarify, I'm not saying Strahan is the 2nd best DE of all time).

Strahan's entire game was basically a carbon copy of Reggie White. He was a less dominant Reggie White. But he's still considered by many a top 10 pass rusher of all time.

How is a guy who's a top 10 pass rusher of all time only 99 on the list? I thought that was way too low for Stray.

Saints-Tigers
09-12-2010, 10:14 AM
please tell me you're just talking in terms of style and you're not comparing will smith to one of the greatest DE's of all time.

Very much in terms of style, but through their first 6 seasons they weren't all that different. Strahan wasn't the 18-20 sack guy he became later just yet.

He just reminds me of the early strahan, and I just hope he can take that next step as he matures :)

wonderbredd24
09-16-2010, 09:49 PM
nice to see the Browns dominate the 70's with Paul Warfield, Ozzie Newsome, and Marion Motley.

Ogden getting his props was pretty cool as well

Ravens1991
09-16-2010, 10:29 PM
Ravens have 3 players(Reed,JO,Ray will be up eventually) on the list and they have only been in the league for 14 years. That is impressive.

katnip
09-23-2010, 08:04 PM
Marshall Faulk is #70

I just hope the late great Reggie White is in the top 10. One of my favorite players to watch when I used to see Packers games.

JonasBlane
09-24-2010, 12:13 PM
Holy **** at Larry Allen benching 692 pounds. I knew lineman were strong, but damn.


They aren't... Just Larry Allen, lol. Dude was a monster!

Ravens1991
09-24-2010, 12:30 PM
My favorite Larry Allen moment was when he grabbed a Kicker by the throat for shanking a real short field goal then bitching at the snapper.

boknows34
10-01-2010, 03:19 AM
60. Jack Ham
59. Mike Ditka
58. Steve Van Buren
57. Mike Singletary
56. Gene Upshaw
55. Earl Campbell
54. Forrest Gregg
53. Willie Lanier
52. Eric Dickerson
51. Bart Starr

boknows34
10-08-2010, 03:35 AM
50. Terry Bradshaw
49. Mike Haynes
48. Red Grange
47. Ray Nitschke
46. Roger Staubach
45. Tony Gonzalez
44. Mel Blount
43. Alan Page
42. John Mackey
41. Rod Woodson

boknows34
10-08-2010, 04:44 AM
40 names still to come:

I'll start who I think will be candidates on offense.

QB: Joe Montana*, Dan Marino, Johnny Unitas*, Otto Graham*, Sammy Baugh*, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Brett Favre, John Elway.

RB: Jim Brown*, Walter Payton*, Barry Sanders, Gale Sayers*, Emmitt Smith, OJ Simpson*, Bronko Nagurski*.

WR: Jerry Rice*, Don Hutson*, Lance Alworth*, Raymond Berry*.

TE: none

OL: Anthony Munoz*, John Hannah*, Jim Parker*, Roosevelt Brown*.


..and the defense

DL: Reggie White*, Deacon Jones*, Mean Joe Greene*, Merlin Olsen*, Bob Lilly*, Gino Marchetti*, Buck Buchanon.

LB: Lawrence Taylor*, Dick Butkus*, Jack Lambert*, Ray Lewis, Chuck Bednarik.

DB: Ronnie Lott*, Deion Sanders, Night Train Lane*, Larry Wilson*, Ken Houston*.

* = the 30 remaining players (offense and defense) from the NFL's 75th Anniversary All-Time Team.

Assuming these 30 make it (though OJ Simpson might be dropped) that leaves 10 spots (11 if OJ gets the boot). Marino, Manning, Brady, Favre, Elway, Sanders, Emmitt, Lewis and Deion make up 9 locks imo.

The last spots I see being a battle between Buchanon, Bednarik or maybe some old-timers like Sid Luckman and Bill George. I thought Steve Largent would make the Top 100 but its looking like he might miss out. Luckman, Largent and George were among the Top 50 of TSN's 100 Greatest Ever list from a decade ago- Bednarik was 54th, Buchanon 67th.

Splat
10-08-2010, 09:14 AM
45. Tony Gonzalez

GOAT!!!!!!

XxXdragonXxX
10-08-2010, 09:21 AM
Can't believe they're seriously gonna leave Steve Largent off the list.

BuddyCHRIST
10-08-2010, 10:12 AM
Gale Sayers over Dickerson? Come on now!

yourfavestoner
10-08-2010, 10:20 AM
Gale Sayers over Dickerson? Come on now!

Are you ******* kidding me?

nhlkdog411
10-08-2010, 10:20 AM
Holy **** at Larry Allen benching 692 pounds. I knew lineman were strong, but damn.

To be fair he really couldn't bench that...if you watch his benching videos he both gets help on his lifts by ferociously incorrect spotting and also bounces the bar off his chest majorly..this is from memory as i haven't watched one in a while but i wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't lock out either...don't take it the wrong way the guy was an absolute BEAST but the strength numbers the media always talks about with him are total BS.

Brothgar
10-08-2010, 11:00 AM
I just really hope that Barry is at least ten spots over Emmitt.

Splat
10-08-2010, 11:14 AM
Emmitt isn't even a top 5 RB all time, ya I said.

terribletowel39
10-08-2010, 01:14 PM
The fact that Bradshaw is ahead of almost all of those people is disheartening. Once I saw he didn't make the 100-91 list, I didn't think he would be on it. Wow.

I just really hope that Barry is at least ten spots over Emmitt.

Emmitt isn't even a top 5 RB all time, ya I said.
Emmitt in the 25-30 range, Barry in the 4-7 range please. Thanks.

Complex
10-08-2010, 01:19 PM
The whole list sucks

LT(RB) over Randy Moss and Marshal Faulk

Terry Bradshaw and Joe Nameth on the list well bradshaw should be somewhere in the 90s maybe

so much more I'll edit this later

boknows34
10-08-2010, 03:17 PM
Emmitt in the 25-30 range, Barry in the 4-7 range please. Thanks.

The preview for next week's show had Michael Irvin and Jerry Jones giving presentations. I have a feeling Emmitt and Deion will be on next week.

I just really hope that Barry is at least ten spots over Emmitt.

TSN's '100 Greatest Ever' from a decade ago had Barry at #12 and Emmitt at #68.

boknows34
10-14-2010, 06:59 PM
I was right. Deion is on tonight's show (9pm EST) and he's furious and 'appalled' at being ranked 34th.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/09000d5d81b54605/Top-100-Prime?module=HP_headlines

He thinks he should be ranked 4th. LOL

terribletowel39
10-14-2010, 07:18 PM
I was right. Deion is on tonight's show (9pm EST) and he's furious and 'appalled' at being ranked 34th.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/09000d5d81b54605/Top-100-Prime?module=HP_headlines

He thinks he should be ranked 4th. LOL
That was actually pretty hilarious. And I agree with him about himself and Rod Woodson. Both of those could be argued as the best CBs to ever play. And then Rod switched to safety and was still an All-Pro. Both of them are too low.

I don't know about #4. BUt there are a lot of complaints I could make about this list already.

boknows34
10-14-2010, 08:14 PM
Bruce Smith is #31. For some reason I had it in my head that Smith was already selected.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/buffalo-bills/09000d5d81b4c7d7/Top-100-Bruce-Smith

SeanTaylorRIP
10-14-2010, 09:12 PM
Of course the majority of the QB's are being overrated.

terribletowel39
10-14-2010, 09:22 PM
What is the list?? I'm not able to watch it.

boknows34
10-14-2010, 09:31 PM
OJ did get picked. Luckman and Bednarik also got the nod as did Jim Thorpe who I mentioned in a previous comment a few weeks ago but I thought his chance had passed once they went into the Top 40.

40. OJ Simpson
39. Gino Marchetti
38. Lance Alworth
37. Jim Thorpe
36. Raymond Berry
35. Chuck Bednarik
34. Deion Sanders
33. Sid Luckman
32. Jim Parker
31. Bruce Smith

boknows34
10-14-2010, 09:43 PM
30 names to come.

Deion during his rant mentioned there are 63 offensive players, 37 defensive and 19 QBs in the Top 100. 44 offensive players have been named already leaving 19 more to come.

10 QBs have been named already so there are 9 QBS in the Top 30.

They will almost certainly be Joe Montana, Dan Marino, Johnny Unitas, Otto Graham, Sammy Baugh, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Brett Favre and John Elway.

That leaves 53 offensive players. This is who I consider will be the other 10.

RB: Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Gale Sayers, Emmitt Smith, Bronko Nagurski.

WR: Jerry Rice, Don Hutson.

OL: Anthony Munoz, John Hannah.


...26 defensive players have been named leaving 11 more to come. I predict:

DL: Reggie White, Deacon Jones, Mean Joe Greene, Merlin Olsen, Bob Lilly.

LB: Lawrence Taylor, Dick Butkus, Jack Lambert, Ray Lewis.

DB: Ronnie Lott, Night Train Lane.

BuddyCHRIST
10-14-2010, 10:01 PM
Are you ******* kidding me?

Are you kidding? Sayers had 4 great years, Dickerson has 50 more TD's in his career. Not to mention he was a freaking workhorse who carried his offenses. Like it or not, Sayers short career happened.

AHungryWalrus
10-14-2010, 11:21 PM
That was actually pretty hilarious. And I agree with him about himself and Rod Woodson. Both of those could be argued as the best CBs to ever play. And then Rod switched to safety and was still an All-Pro. Both of them are too low.

I don't know about #4. BUt there are a lot of complaints I could make about this list already.

Yeah. I accidentally made a thread of this. Absolutely hilarious.

Don Vito
10-14-2010, 11:29 PM
I usually hate when athletes gloat and talk about how great they are/were, but I absolutely love Deion Sanders. He was that good and knows it, plus he showed the respect for other players that deserted it and used plenty of logic (i.e. 19 QB's on the list).

terribletowel39
10-14-2010, 11:52 PM
I usually hate when athletes gloat and talk about how great they are/were, but I absolutely love Deion Sanders. He was that good and knows it, plus he showed the respect for other players that deserted it and used plenty of logic (i.e. 19 QB's on the list).
Exactly, he does make a lot of really good points. Offense always gets more pub than defense for some reason. And as a fan of defense, it is frustrating.

I love it when he asked how long the show was. Because he had more highlights than the entire length of the show, so that right there was enough proof he should be higher up.

LonghornsLegend
10-15-2010, 12:16 AM
Seems like both Woodson and Deion should have been higher. As mentioned Woodson was an All-Pro at both CB and Safety and Deion pretty much revolutionalized the position at Corner into what it is today. The way he was able to shut down his side of the field, get INT's when it was thrown to him, and anytime he got a pick or a punt return it was almost housed every single time.


Since when have we seen any player in the secondary period have that kind of affect on the game? I'm curious to know if there are any other safeties or DB's period on this list honestly.

boknows34
10-15-2010, 12:27 AM
It looks like Lott and Night Train are the only DBs yet to be selected. Deion and Woodson appear to be 3rd and 4th among DBs.

BigBanger
10-15-2010, 12:58 AM
These QBs are vastly overrated. Joe Namath? That is a ******* joke. His media savvy is the only reason why he's on this list. His whole career is all for not. He has one game, and a guarantee, that overrides mediocrity? Oh, and let's not forget him on the bench in a mink coat. Kurt Warner? He played like dog **** for half of his career and looked worse than a backup QB. If he only played about 6 years (and were all 6 of his best years), then I would throw him in the top 100 without hesitation, but half of his ******* career is him playing terrible football and being one of the worst, and I mean worst, starting QBs in the NFL.

Terry Bradshaw's career is defined by one stat... 4-0. That's his SB record. I got another stat or two. How about throwing more INTs than TDs in each of your first 5 seasons? How about a career QB rating of 70.9? How about a career completion percentage of 51.9%? That makes for one of the 50 greatest players? Are ya ******* kidding me?

That's better than Marshall Faulk? LaDainian Tomlinson? Jack Ham? Earl Campbell? Eric Dickerson? Randy Moss? Bruce Matthews? Jonathon Ogden? Ed Reed?

This is supposed to be a list on individual players? Then the number of super bowl rings should not be the be-all-and-end-all of a player (or a QB for that matter) making the top 100. Is Charles Haley going to be in the top 10 because he has 5 rings? He was a better player than a lot of these average ******* QBs. Maybe jacking off in front of teammates and being one of the gayest guys in locker room history has tarnished his reputation similar to Terrell Owens (who probably should be very high on this list) tearing teams apart.

FUNBUNCHER
10-15-2010, 01:08 AM
BigBanger, you need to check out Bradshaw's stats in those SB wins. He played out of his mind.

FUNBUNCHER
10-15-2010, 01:11 AM
That was actually pretty hilarious. And I agree with him about himself and Rod Woodson. Both of those could be argued as the best CBs to ever play. And then Rod switched to safety and was still an All-Pro. Both of them are too low.

I don't know about #4. BUt there are a lot of complaints I could make about this list already.

You take Deion and Rod on your team. I'll man up with Mike Haynes and Mel Blount.

Too bad ESPN wasn't around in the 1970s.

BigBanger
10-15-2010, 02:56 AM
BigBanger, you need to check out Bradshaw's stats in those SB wins. He played out of his mind.
I've watched all of the Super Bowl games he was in and they were some (the two match ups vs the Cowboys) of the best Super Bowl games ever, and Bradshaw was a big part of those wins, but let's not act like his first Super Bowl win had anything to do with him having a great game. He played pretty good in Super Bowls (SB 13 was the only one where he really "played out of his mind"). His career was littered with big plays that complimented a run heavy offense and one of the greatest perennial defenses of all-time. I don't mind him on the list (since he was good in big games), but I think he should be one of those guys in the 80s or 90s. Not 50th overall. After all, he was nearly run out of Pittsburgh during his first several years and got bashed by the media and fans alike as much as any other player in NFL history. It's just hard for me to ignore 5 years of terrible QB play and act like they didn't happen. He was a product of his surroundings. I'll take a guy like Randy White who was dominate, relied on no else and then went ahead and revolutionized the position.



And the only thing more appalling than having Deion Sanders 34 is the little vignette they had for Bruce Smith. "And who is the 31st best player on our list..." cut to a picture of a dead white guy that was a Bills fan. And then the guy that talks about him... is the dead guys son who was a toddler during Smith's prime? What a ******* joke. This is NFLN and they have people presenting these players that have no clue what they're talking about. Everyone of these guys should have opponents or teammates talking about them, not some ******* 25 year old kid that had a dad that was a Bills fan.

Gay Ork Wang
10-15-2010, 05:13 AM
they shouldve put deion on #21, he wouldve been happy

terribletowel39
10-15-2010, 06:47 AM
You take Deion and Rod on your team. I'll man up with Mike Haynes and Mel Blount.

Too bad ESPN wasn't around in the 1970s.

The homer in me would probably take a Rod and Mel led tandem. Both physical and shut down corners.

Monomach
10-15-2010, 07:41 AM
I gotta say, lists giving Namath love make me sick. Unless maybe the list is entitled "media's favorite athletes" or "most overrated athletes." Joe Namath was not a good quarterback. That's all there is to it.

...and Deion came off as a huge douchebag, while Woodson came off as all class.

anytime he got a pick or a punt return it was almost housed every single time.Hyperbolize much? Cribbs has better averages. Does anyone say stupid crap about him like he "almost houses it every single time?" Or Hester? His return numbers are better, too.

Or even Danieal Manning, albeit he's only returned kicks. When someone that non-Bears fans say "who?" to averages more yards per return than you, you don't "almost house it every time."

boknows34
10-15-2010, 09:31 AM
Deion would be around the mid 20s if I was making a list. He's slightly lower than I expected but its not a great injustice. What is far worse is how guys like Larry Wilson, Ken Houston and Steve Largent don't look like making the Top 100 while others are vastly overrated like Terry Bradshaw at #50.

LonghornsLegend
10-15-2010, 09:38 AM
Hyperbolize much? Cribbs has better averages. Does anyone say stupid crap about him like he "almost houses it every single time?" Or Hester? His return numbers are better, too.


Yes I was overreacting dude, figured that much was obvious. And yea, sure, let's talk about Cribbs and Hester because you know, their also elite cover CB's that shut down any and every WR they face and shut down one side of the field.


Great comparison right there. Compare him to return men who are average at best at their actual positions.

Splat
10-15-2010, 10:16 AM
Hey, that one Browns fan thinks Cribbs is going to the HOF...

yourfavestoner
10-15-2010, 10:41 AM
BigBanger, you need to check out Bradshaw's stats in those SB wins. He played out of his mind.

Bradshaw is the most criminally underrated player on this entire message board. The only quarterback from the 1970s who was better was Staubach and guess what? He's regarded as one of the best QBs of all-time, and might be #1 if his career wouldn't have started so late due to fighting in Vietnam.

The 1970s was dominated by Staubach, Bradshaw, and Stabler, and they were all great at what they did. It wasn't the tooty-fruity, fantasy football, basketball on grass era it is today. Passing the football was not an easy proposition.

FUNBUNCHER
10-15-2010, 10:58 AM
Agreed, yourfavestoner.

People around here talk about Bradshaw like he Trent Dilfer-ed his way into the HOF, ( bum QB coasting on the coattails of a stellar D).

yourfavestoner
10-15-2010, 11:02 AM
Agreed, yourfavestoner.

People around here talk about Bradshaw like he Trent Dilfer-ed his way into the HOF, ( bum QB coasting on the coattails of a stellar D).

I remember there being a thread on here a few years back that McNabb was a better qb than Elway because he had better numbers at a similar point in their careers. And they both lost in big games, so the numbers swung the argument in McNabb's favor.

This board is criminally stupid at times.

TACKLE
10-15-2010, 12:00 PM
My prediction for the top 5...

1. Jim Brown
2. Rice
3. Montana
4. LT
5. Unitas

bigbluedefense
10-15-2010, 12:01 PM
I'm hoping LT makes the top 5. He should be the highest ranked defender on this list for sure.

Complex
10-15-2010, 12:54 PM
You take Deion and Rod on your team. I'll man up with Mike Haynes and Mel Blount.

Too bad ESPN wasn't around in the 1970s.

Deion and Rod could play now and back then in 70s, Mel blount can't unless he moves to safety.

IDC anyways this top 100 list favors old players

Bucs_Rule
10-15-2010, 01:16 PM
Deion's rantings about being so low was so funny.

Rice has to be number 1. He was just so much better then anyone else at wr. No one has come close to his numbers despite the league being way more pass friendly now then when he played.

yourfavestoner
10-15-2010, 01:22 PM
Deion and Rod could play now and back then in 70s, Mel blount can't unless he moves to safety.

IDC anyways this top 100 list favors old players

Lol, Deion would get absolutely murdered in a run-dominant era.

bearsfan_51
10-15-2010, 01:25 PM
I'm tired of people elevating these players from the 50s and 60s. In basketball and football. Unless you are 60-70 years old then you have no business talking about Jim Brown. Who did he play? How many teams were there? What was the talent level across the league? I have no clue, but if I had to guess he was probably the only real athlete in the whole league at the time. My hatred of old timers isn't limited though, I feel the same way about Wilt, Oscar Robertson and Babe Ruth. Basically all the so-called sacred cows don't mean anything to me. I don't adhere to the unquestioned law that one must rank so and so #1 with no critical thought.

I bet Steven Jackson would have put up 20,000 career yards in the 1960s NFL.
And I'm better at science than Aristotle. But there's a time and a place for everything.

**** dude, I expect these kind of comments from random posters, not you.

V.I.P
10-15-2010, 03:12 PM
Does anyone have a link to watch NFL Network online? If so, PM me. :)

Monomach
10-15-2010, 06:01 PM
Yes I was overreacting dude, figured that much was obvious. And yea, sure, let's talk about Cribbs and Hester because you know, their also elite cover CB's that shut down any and every WR they face and shut down one side of the field.


Great comparison right there. Compare him to return men who are average at best at their actual positions.

You show me where I compared them to Deion as a CB. I compared them to him for the purpose of refuting your one ridiculously stupid sentence. That should have been painfully obvious to you, seeing as how that's the only sentence I quoted.

Don't take stupid pills and argue with me. I'll demolish you.

BigDawg819
10-16-2010, 02:47 AM
I'm tired of people elevating these players from the 50s and 60s. In basketball and football. Unless you are 60-70 years old then you have no business talking about Jim Brown. Who did he play? How many teams were there? What was the talent level across the league? I have no clue, but if I had to guess he was probably the only real athlete in the whole league at the time. My hatred of old timers isn't limited though, I feel the same way about Wilt, Oscar Robertson and Babe Ruth. Basically all the so-called sacred cows don't mean anything to me. I don't adhere to the unquestioned law that one must rank so and so #1 with no critical thought.

I bet Steven Jackson would have put up 20,000 career yards in the 1960s NFL.

What have you done for me lately mentality much?

Brothgar
10-18-2010, 08:47 PM
Was it 39 - 20 this week? if so can anyone get me the updated list?

Crickett
10-18-2010, 08:51 PM
Can anyone get me a gif of Deion Sanders slapping Mooch in the face b/c of his ranking?

LonghornsLegend
10-18-2010, 10:30 PM
You show me where I compared them to Deion as a CB. I compared them to him for the purpose of refuting your one ridiculously stupid sentence. That should have been painfully obvious to you, seeing as how that's the only sentence I quoted.

Don't take stupid pills and argue with me. I'll demolish you.


I never said you compared them as being a CB, but you brought up a stupid point. You started talking about guys who you could make an argument for that are better return men like that meant something. Every person you listed made a living as a return man, Deion made a living as a CB and shutting down WR's, he doubled as a return man. What was the point of you bringing up guys who were good at doing 1 thing well in a thread talking about the top 100 players of all time?'



But yea, keep being coy and trying to act like a 12 year older since you "demolish people". I'm sure of it. Seeing as how you mentioned the names of Josh Cribbs and Devin Hester in this thread. That's about as stupid as you saying how good of a receiver Emmitt Smith was and me bringing up Patrick Crayton and David Patten because they were better WR's, I mean look at their stats!


I already told you I was exaggerating with the comment, I didn't think it would be took so seriously that you would be talking about taking stupid pills and demolishing people lol.


You've seemed angry since your first post about Deion anyway, didn't know this was a touchy subject for you.

prock
10-18-2010, 11:38 PM
Don't take stupid pills and argue with me. I'll demolish you.

This has sig quote potential. Mine already has a few otherwise I would use it, someone should take advantage.

boknows34
10-19-2010, 03:32 AM
Peter King mentioned in MMQB that Alex Rodriguez is presenting Dan Marino and Derek Jeter has the honours for Tom Brady on the next show - 30-21.

boknows34
10-19-2010, 03:38 AM
8Utwm33Rnu0

boknows34
10-19-2010, 07:01 AM
Peter King mentioned in MMQB that Alex Rodriguez is presenting Dan Marino and Derek Jeter has the honours for Tom Brady on the next show - 30-21.


NFL.com has revealed who gets named at number 21 on this week's show.

Number 21 is...? (http://www.nfl.com/videos/new-england-patriots/09000d5d81b6f161/Top-100-Tom-Brady)

A few clues on the end credits suggest Bob Lilly and a Steeler are also on the 21-30 list.

Ness
10-21-2010, 08:52 PM
List is updated. Tom Brady ahead of Dan Marino and John Elway. Could go either way in my opinion. Peyton Manning ahead of all three of them? I don't agree.

xxxxxxxx
10-21-2010, 08:57 PM
List is updated. Tom Brady ahead of Dan Marino and John Elway. Could go either way in my opinion. Peyton Manning ahead of all three of them? I don't agree.

The NFL world sucks peyton's di*k for I reason I can't fathom. The dude has 1 ring in 11 tries, and is in probably one of the best environments for a QB in NFL History.

Call be a Manning hater, but the dude isn't in my top 50.

Why does he get a pass on his AWFUL playoff record..

Ness
10-21-2010, 09:02 PM
The NFL world sucks peyton's di*k for I reason I can't fathom. The dude has 1 ring in 11 tries, and is in probably one of the best environments for a QB in NFL History.

Call be a Manning hater, but the dude isn't in my top 50.

Why does he get a pass on his AWFUL playoff record..

This is what I think ultimately screws him. His average playoff record. Four MVP honors, but one Super Bowl victory. I believe how the media plays into it as well really effects the perception for others. He shouldn't be ahead of Tom Brady at least in my opinion.

BigDawg819
10-21-2010, 09:03 PM
The NFL world sucks peyton's di*k for I reason I can't fathom. The dude has 1 ring in 11 tries, and is in probably one of the best environments for a QB in NFL History.

Call be a Manning hater, but the dude isn't in my top 50.

Why does he get a pass on his AWFUL playoff record..

A ring, only 4 time MVP, has basically run that entire offense for almost his entire career..........

Ness
10-21-2010, 09:26 PM
A ring, only 4 time MVP, has basically run that entire offense for almost his entire career..........

But you can't dismiss his average playoff record. And he's had a lot of helpful weapons throughout his career...not no-names like David Givens and Deion Branch. Plus he's played in a dome for the majority of his career.

While you have someone like Tom Brady, a two time Super Bowl MVP, won three out of four Super Bowls, has played in Foxborough for his entire career, has a much better postseason record, and has not played with the likes of Harrison, James, Clark, and Wayne on the same team at the same time. The only thing that Manning trumps him in is consecutive games started (Brady has started a ton though) and regular season stats.

boknows34
10-21-2010, 09:49 PM
Postseason numbers:

Manning:
18 games (9-9)
435-692
62.9%
5,164 yds
28 TDs
19 INTs
7.46 ypa
87.6 QB rating
1-1 Super Bowl record (1 MVP)


Brady:
18 games (14-4)
395-637
62.0%
4,108 yds
28 TDs
15 INTs
6.45 ypa
85.5 QB rating
3-1 Super Bowl record (2 MVP)


Favre:
24 games (13-11)
481-791
60.8%
5,855 yds
44 TDs
30 INTs
7.40 ypa
86.3 QB rating
1-1 Super Bowl record (0 MVP)



Regular Season:

Manning:
4 MVPs (1 shared)
1 OPOTY
5 1st team All-Pro
3 2nd team All-Pro
10 4,000 yd seasons
5 30 TD seasons (incl a 49)
7 seasons with 95+ QB rating
3 seasons with 100+ QB rating (incl a 121.1)


Brady:
1 MVPs
1 OPOTY
1 1st team All-Pro
1 2nd team All-Pro
2 4,000 yd seasons
2 30 TD seasons (incl a 50)
2 seasons with 95+ QB rating
1 season with 100+ QB rating (incl a 117.2)


Favre:
3 MVPs (1 shared)
1 OPOTY
3 1st team All-Pro
3 2nd team All-Pro
6 4,000 yd seasons
9 30 TD seasons (incl a 39 and 38 )
4 seasons with 95+ QB rating
1 season with 100+ QB rating (in 2009)

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
10-21-2010, 09:55 PM
Manning only has 5 30 TD seasons? It seems like it would be way higher.

boknows34
10-21-2010, 10:24 PM
Manning only has 5 30 TD seasons? It seems like it would be way higher.

Manning has seasons of 29, 28, two with 27 and three with 26. He has never thrown for less than 26 TDs in a season.

In 2008 Manning had 28 TD passes after 14 games - but only had 14 attempts with 0 TDs in the last 2 games before we had Sorgi time.

boknows34
10-21-2010, 10:25 PM
Predicted Top 20:

QB: Joe Montana, Johnny Unitas, Sammy Baugh, Otto Graham, Peyton Manning, Brett Favre
WR: Jerry Rice, Don Hutson
RB: Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Barry Sanders
FB: Bronko Nagurski
OL: Anthony Munoz

DL: Reggie White, Joe Greene, Deacon Jones
LB: Lawrence Taylor, Ray Lewis, Richard Butkus
DB: Ronnie Lott

wonderbredd24
10-21-2010, 10:28 PM
I'll take Brady and Elway over Peyton Manning all day long and for me it's not close and Brett Favre this high is just ******* stupid. Better than Brady, Elway, Marino? Seriously?

I was also surprised at Sayers being #22. It's not that he wasn't good... fantastic for the 68 games he played and the best rookie season of all time, but I dunno.

xxxxxxxx
10-21-2010, 11:18 PM
I'll take Brady and Elway over Peyton Manning all day long and for me it's not close and Brett Favre this high is just ******* stupid. Better than Brady, Elway, Marino? Seriously?

I was also surprised at Sayers being #22. It's not that he wasn't good... fantastic for the 68 games he played and the best rookie season of all time, but I dunno.

I basically agree with everything said here.

I don't really care about stats at all, late in the 4th quarter of the superbowl I want Brady, not Manning, and it's not even close.

Manning is SO overrated its bad.

niel89
10-22-2010, 01:59 AM
I just can't take Brady over Elway. Favre & Manning that high is too much for me also. End of the game I want Elway to have the ball.

Gale Sayers is just something that I accept that I don't completely understand. I know he was amazing but damn. Even though he had such a short career, the effect that he had can still be seen. He was just something that had never been seen in that time.

Am I the only one that is a little surprised to see Ray Lewis this high? I love it but I thought he would go earlier than this. He is going to be the 2nd best middle LB.

Saints-Tigers
10-22-2010, 02:18 AM
Postseason numbers:

Manning:
18 games (9-9)
435-692
62.9%
5,164 yds
28 TDs
19 INTs
7.46 ypa
87.6 QB rating
1-1 Super Bowl record (1 MVP)


Brady:
18 games (14-4)
395-637
62.0%
4,108 yds
28 TDs
15 INTs
6.45 ypa
85.5 QB rating
3-1 Super Bowl record (2 MVP)




You mean Peyton plays better in the post season, while running laps around Brady in the regular season? The Manning haters sure are gonna hate this post.

BigBanger
10-22-2010, 03:31 AM
Peyton Manning is behind only Jerry Rice and Barry Sanders for me. The last couple years have catapulted him into the greatest QB of all-time in my book. When all is said and done, another ring is still very possible with such parity, he could be #1.

The past 4 years or so, Peyton has been getting it done in the post season.


Brett Favre has no business being ahead of Deion Sanders and many others. Most INTs of any QB, but "OH MY GOD, ITS BRETT FAVRE'S ****!!!!!! I LUV ITTTTTT!!!!!!"

boknows34
10-22-2010, 03:34 AM
Just spent the last half hour LMAO at the Dallas fans getting their panties in a twist on the discussion page at NFL.com because Emmitt was ranked #28 and Barry Sanders is guaranteed to be in the Top 20. Some of the comments are simply hilarious or ridiculous depending on your mood. I know Walter's site ridicules a selection of the NFL's Gamecenter comments on a weekly basis and I'm beginning to think you need to prove you have an IQ lower than Ryan Leaf's QB rating to be allowed to post on nfl.com. Its actually embarrassing and really makes you appreciate the intelligent discussion we have here on Scott's site amongst so many knowledgable fans.

Thankfully the voting panel got that one spot on and I hope Barry can break into the Top 10 overall though I suspect he'll just miss out. Sayers will be ranked 4th at RB with Emmitt 5th, OJ 6th, Dickerson 7th, Campbell 8th, Tomlinson 9th and Faulk 10th.

I know Thorpe and Grange are there in the Top 50 overall but its virtually impossible to compare them with players from post WW2 era. The only surviving footage of Thorpe in the NFL is of him punting. I'd also consider Grange more of a college great than NFL legend. In fact I'm certain their ranking is based on the massive impact they provided to a struggling league in the 1920s and giving it the early credibility it so desperately needed. Without the likes of Thorpe and Grange the NFL might not have survived that difficult first decade which culminated with the Great Depression. Nagurski looks like he'll be a Top 20 selection but again its so difficult to compare and Bronko also played on the Defensive LIne.

Joecool
10-22-2010, 05:53 AM
Is it just me or should cris carter be somewhere on this list.

Cris Carter
Receptions 1,101
Receiving yards 13,899
Touchdowns 130

Michael Irvin
Receptions 750
Receiving yards 11,904
Touchdowns 65

AntoinCD
10-22-2010, 06:58 AM
You mean Peyton plays better in the post season, while running laps around Brady in the regular season? The Manning haters sure are gonna hate this post.

Manning:
18 games (9-9)
435-692
62.9%
5,164 yds
28 TDs
19 INTs
7.46 ypa
87.6 QB rating
1-1 Super Bowl record (1 MVP)


Brady:
18 games (14-4)
395-637
62.0%
4,108 yds
28 TDs
15 INTs
6.45 ypa
85.5 QB rating
3-1 Super Bowl record (2 MVP)

How do you work out that Manning plays better in the postseason than Brady?

It must be the extra .9% completion percentage. It bears no relevance of who he was throwing to all those years or that Brady only had elite weapons for two years in the postseason(4 games). Oh, or it must be the passer rating which is definitely the best way to determine how well a QB plays and is a massive 2.1 points above Brady. Or wait I know it must be all the TDs he's thrown more of than Brady...oh wait, or the fact he's thrown less INTs...oh wait, or it must be he has a better playoff record than Brady...oh wait, or at least he's won more Superbowls than Brady...oh wait, or that he's won more Superbowl MVP awards than Brady...oh wait.

OK you got me. Im stumped, Ive gotta ask. How the hell is Manning better than Brady in the postseason?

Monomach
10-22-2010, 07:45 AM
I never said you compared them as being a CB, but you brought up a stupid point. You started talking about guys who you could make an argument for that are better return men like that meant something. Every person you listed made a living as a return man, Deion made a living as a CB and shutting down WR's, he doubled as a return man. What was the point of you bringing up guys who were good at doing 1 thing well in a thread talking about the top 100 players of all time?'



But yea, keep being coy and trying to act like a 12 year older since you "demolish people". I'm sure of it. Seeing as how you mentioned the names of Josh Cribbs and Devin Hester in this thread. That's about as stupid as you saying how good of a receiver Emmitt Smith was and me bringing up Patrick Crayton and David Patten because they were better WR's, I mean look at their stats!


I already told you I was exaggerating with the comment, I didn't think it would be took so seriously that you would be talking about taking stupid pills and demolishing people lol.


You've seemed angry since your first post about Deion anyway, didn't know this was a touchy subject for you.

Horsecrap.

YOU are the guy who foolishly jumped on his jock as a return guy. I pointed out that he was not really all that special at returning, despite his reputation. I provided evidence, which you dismissed as "stupid."

You look dumber the more you argue about this.

You can't say that he was a great return man and dismiss those who have been better just because he was a good cornerback (albeit one of the worst tacklers ever). That's the pinnacle of dumbassery.


...and let's not try to pretend that my citing Devin Hester or Josh Cribbs = saying that they belong on this list. That's just going full r-tard.

Monomach
10-22-2010, 07:53 AM
You mean Peyton plays better in the post season, while running laps around Brady in the regular season? The Manning haters sure are gonna hate this post.

I brought up those numbers when someone bagged on Manning before the season. I was gangraped by replies of "NUH UH PEYTON SUCK HE SO BAD BIG CHOKER BAD BAD BAD! BRADY BEST EVER MVP BETTER RECORD!"

It must be because Brady was such a great defensive player. If Peyton had just kept the other team from scoring so many points, he wouldn't be a huge choker.

People still ignore statistical evidence in favor of parroting "common knowledge." It's how bad defensive players can win Golden Gloves in baseball year after year.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
10-22-2010, 08:43 AM
If it weren't for Vandershank, Peyton would probably have 2 rings. Brady never had to worry about that. Also, I'm wondering when the "what have you done for me lately?" is finally going to apply to Brady. He won a lot earlier in his career when he had a dominant defense and hasn't been able to get a ring since.

AntoinCD
10-22-2010, 09:00 AM
This is the thing, while the Patriots had a very good defense at the early part of the decade it was not that dominant. Very good, not dominant. It was no 2000 Ravens defense etc but it got the job done. For example in 2004, after a great display against Indy they gave up 27 to Pitt and 21 to Philly. They also gave up 29 to Carolina in the SB in 2003. So while it was way better than what there is now in NE it wasn't as though they were winning games 6-3. Because Brady hasn't won a SB since 2004 everyone assumes he only got by because the defense was awesome. But realistically it was just very good. Indianapolis has, I think, the best statistical season for pass defense in the history of the NFL but yet Peyton Manning is always given the credit for carrying his team.

And as for the point of Manning being a Vanderjagt miss away from having two rings, Brady is a second half defensive meltdown and a miracle catch away from 5 rings

Seamus2602
10-22-2010, 09:46 AM
And as for the point of Manning being a Vanderjagt miss away from having two rings, Brady is a second half defensive meltdown and a miracle catch away from 5 rings

You are forgetting that in the last drive of the game with the "second half defensive meltdown" that Brady choked. Threw a drive ending interception. If people are going to criticise Manning for choking in important games then I believe that Brady should be fair game as well.

Of the 7 times that Tom Brady has been in the Playoffs the Patriots have had a Top 6 scoring defence 6 times. Of the 10 times that Peyton Manning has been in the Playoffs the Colts have had a Top 6 scoring defence twice.

In the 7 times that Tom Brady has been in the Playoffs the Patriots have had an average of the 15th best Rushing attack in the league, while the Colts, in the 10 times that Peyton Manning has been in the Playoffs have an average of the 21st best Rushing attack in the league.

While neither the run game nor the defence for the Patriots was dominant it was better that anything Manning had to work with.

AntoinCD
10-22-2010, 10:00 AM
You are forgetting that in the last drive of the game with the "second half defensive meltdown" that Brady choked. Threw a drive ending interception. If people are going to criticise Manning for choking in important games then I believe that Brady should be fair game as well.

Of the 7 times that Tom Brady has been in the Playoffs the Patriots have had a Top 6 scoring defence 6 times. Of the 10 times that Peyton Manning has been in the Playoffs the Colts have had a Top 6 scoring defence twice.

In the 7 times that Tom Brady has been in the Playoffs the Patriots have had an average of the 15th best Rushing attack in the league, while the Colts, in the 10 times that Peyton Manning has been in the Playoffs have an average of the 21st best Rushing attack in the league.

While neither the run game nor the defence for the Patriots was dominant it was better that anything Manning had to work with.

True but Manning had Harrison, Wayne, Stokley plus a very good offensive line for the early part of the decade while Brady had Branch, Givens, Brown etc. Now Manning has Wayne, Collie, Garcon, Clark, Gonzalez etc while Brady has Welker, Tate, Branch and Edelman. The two years Brady had with Moss they got to the SB once and lost in the playoffs last year. While the Pats defense was better and the running game may have been slightly better, the Colts had much better weapons. Not to take away from Manning's achievements but to say he has been a better playoff QB than Brady is frankly ridiculous.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
10-22-2010, 10:08 AM
We think Manning has better weapons, but the bottom line is, you give him anyone, and he produces. I don't think there's such a thing as a down year for Peyton Manning. He will take guys no one has heard of and make them look so good that people talk about how much better they are than another QBs receivers.

Seamus2602
10-22-2010, 10:09 AM
True but Manning had Harrison, Wayne, Stokley plus a very good offensive line for the early part of the decade while Brady had Branch, Givens, Brown etc. Now Manning has Wayne, Collie, Garcon, Clark, Gonzalez etc while Brady has Welker, Tate, Branch and Edelman. The two years Brady had with Moss they got to the SB once and lost in the playoffs last year. While the Pats defense was better and the running game may have been slightly better, the Colts had much better weapons. Not to take away from Manning's achievements but to say he has been a better playoff QB than Brady is frankly ridiculous.

You make it sound like Brady had nothing in his more successful years. He didn't have the class of Harrison or Wayne but he had good, decent receivers, a far better run game (statistically, maybe not in talent) than Manning ever had and a very good Offensive Line. Brady has had a Pro Bowlers on his Offensive Line for nearly half of his time in the Playoffs, something that can't be said for Manning. I'm not suggesting that Manning has been a better playoff QB than Brady but there isn't the gulf in difference that some people think there is.

Giantsfan1080
10-22-2010, 10:10 AM
We think Manning has better weapons, but the bottom line is, you give him anyone, and he produces. I don't think there's such a thing as a down year for Peyton Manning. He will take guys no one has heard of and make them look so good that people talk about how much better they are than another QBs receivers.

Exactly. The only reason people mention Garcon and Collie as weapons is because Peyton is their QB. If you put those 2 guys with Jake Delhomme you may not even know who they are.

wonderbredd24
10-22-2010, 10:11 AM
You make it sound like Brady had nothing in his more successful years. He didn't have the class of Harrison or Wayne but he had good, decent receivers, a far better run game (statistically, maybe not in talent) than Manning ever had and a very good Offensive Line. Brady has had a Pro Bowlers on his Offensive Line for nearly half of his time in the Playoffs, something that can't be said for Manning. I'm not suggesting that Manning has been a better playoff QB than Brady but there isn't the gulf in difference that some people think there is.
Jeff Saturday has been there for 12 years and Tarik Glenn was there for Manning every year through 2006.

2 Superbowls is a gulf of difference

AntoinCD
10-22-2010, 10:13 AM
We think Manning has better weapons, but the bottom line is, you give him anyone, and he produces. I don't think there's such a thing as a down year for Peyton Manning. He will take guys no one has heard of and make them look so good that people talk about how much better they are than another QBs receivers.

Yeah I can agree with that especially when you look at Stokley, Collie, Garcon etc. But throughout his time in Indy he has also had 4 1st round receiving options, one who is Hall of Fame bound, one who may just be on the outside looking in at the end of his career, one of the top receiving TEs in the game and Gonzalez. All the best QBs make their WRs look better. Look at Drew Brees; Colston, Moore, Henderson etc are all made to look better.

Seamus2602
10-22-2010, 10:17 AM
Jeff Saturday has been there for 12 years and Tarik Glenn was there for Manning every year through 2006.

2 Superbowls is a gulf of difference

2001-2003 Damien Woody
2003-Now Dan Koppen

Both Pro Bowlers

Brady has always had Matt Light, also a Pro Bowler.

What I meant is that half of the time Brady is in the Playoffs he has had a person on his line who was in the Pro Bowl that year.

There are 10 Quarterbacks in NFL history with more Superbowl wins than Peyton Manning. Anyone going to claim that they are all better than him? Superbowl victories are a key statistic but they are not the only key statistic.

AntoinCD
10-22-2010, 10:24 AM
2001-2003 Damien Woody
2003-Now Dan Koppen

Both Pro Bowlers

Brady has always had Matt Light, also a Pro Bowler.

What I meant is that half of the time Brady is in the Playoffs he has had a person on his line who was in the Pro Bowl that year.

There are 10 Quarterbacks in NFL history with more Superbowl wins than Peyton Manning. Anyone going to claim that they are all better than him? Superbowl victories are a key statistic but they are not the only key statistic.

Dan Koppen should not have gone to the pro bowl and was vastly overrated. People are now realising that he is a liability. Matt Light while a very good, steady OT was never in the class of Tarik Glenn. The question wasn't who was the best QB, it was when someone decided to use stats like passer rating etc to say Peyton Manning is a better playoff QB than Tom Brady

wonderbredd24
10-22-2010, 10:24 AM
You said this...
Brady has had a Pro Bowlers on his Offensive Line for nearly half of his time in the Playoffs, something that can't be said for Manning
You're right, it's been 100% of the time. Tarik Glenn was there when Manning was drafted and Saturday arrived the year after Manning.

As for this
There are 10 Quarterbacks in NFL history with more Superbowl wins than Peyton Manning. Anyone going to claim that they are all better than him.
In terms of the playoffs, which is what was being discussed, yes. They are all better in the playoffs than Manning.

Seamus2602
10-22-2010, 10:31 AM
But this thread isn't about who is the better Playoff QB. It is about who is the better between the two. The discussion started when people starting crying that Manning is going to finish ahead of Brady in the Top 100. Someone argued that because Brady's record in the playoffs is better he should be higher. Someone else argued that Manning was, in terms of yards, ypa and passer rating, better than Brady in the Playoffs. The discussion then turned to whether those stats are reliable.

Passer Rating is as reliable to the ability of a Quarterback as Superbowl rings are. If it was all about rings then Terry Bradshaw would be better than John Elway. We all know that isn't true.

Brady has been better in the playoffs than Manning. Not signficantly better but better. I don't believe that Brady's slightly better play in the playoffs offsets Manning's significantly better play in the Regular Season.

Seamus2602
10-22-2010, 10:34 AM
In terms of the playoffs, which is what was being discussed, yes. They are all better in the playoffs than Manning.

That's nonesense. By that idea Trent Dilfer is as good a playoff Quarterback as Peyton Manning. As good as Drew Brees.

wonderbredd24
10-22-2010, 10:34 AM
Brady has been better in the playoffs than Manning. Not signficantly better but better. I don't believe that Brady's slightly better play in the playoffs offsets Manning's significantly better play in the Regular Season.
2 more Superbowls, 5 more wins, and 5 less losses makes Tom Brady significantly better than Manning in the playoffs.

wonderbredd24
10-22-2010, 10:39 AM
That's nonesense. By that idea Trent Dilfer is as good a playoff Quarterback as Peyton Manning. As good as Drew Brees.
You can fluke your way into 1 Super Bowl victory like Trent Dilfer did, but no one has fluked their way into 2+.

Joe Montana, Terry Bradshaw, Troy Aikman, Tom Brady, John Elway, Ben Roethlisberger, Bob Griese, Jim Plunkett, Roger Staubach, and Bart Starr are all better playoff QBs than Peyton Manning.

yourfavestoner
10-22-2010, 10:40 AM
2 more Superbowls, 5 more wins, and 5 less losses makes Tom Brady significantly better than Manning in the playoffs.

I think a really, really understated fact is that you can only lose once per postseason. I'm pretty sure something like 6 or 7 of the Manning's playoff appearances have been one-and-done.

I will admit, though, that Brady's shine from earlier in his career is wearing off a little bit. He needs to win some postseason games this year.

Seamus2602
10-22-2010, 10:54 AM
2 more Superbowls, 5 more wins, and 5 less losses makes Tom Brady significantly better than Manning in the playoffs.

There is more to a player than winning. Is Charles Haley the best playoff player of all time? Other things come into it. There are reasons that Tom Brady has lost only 4 times and Peyton Manning has lost 9 times and not all of those reasons have anything to do with either Tom Brady or Peyton Manning.

AntoinCD
10-22-2010, 11:03 AM
Tom Brady since becoming QB for the Patriots has been one and done once in the playoffs once(last year). He has lost one playoff game at home in that time(last year). His four playoff losses have been the wildcard round at home to Baltimore(2009), the Superbowl against the Giants(2007), the conference championship game at Indianapolis(2006) and the divisonal round game against Denver at Invesco Field(2005). Two of those teams went on to win the Superbowl. In 18 games to lose once at home, once at a neutral site, and twice away is a good record if you ask me. They were only defeated heavily in that period once(last year), beaten relatively solidly once(2005 by Denver) and lost the other two by a combined 7 points. Tom Brady will go down as the best playoff QB of his generation unless Roethelisberger has a strong end to his career and Brady doesn't, and he will be considered in the top 5 all time playoff QBs if not top 3. Manning will not even be considered in the top 10 playoff QBs all time

Ravens1991
10-22-2010, 11:04 AM
Does anyone else wonder if Ray Lewis is going to be left off this list? I mean I would have guessed he would have been in the 30-40 range. I would be a little surprised if he is in the top 20

wonderbredd24
10-22-2010, 11:07 AM
Does anyone else wonder if Ray Lewis is going to be left off this list? I mean I would have guessed he would have been in the 30-40 range. I would be a little surprised if he is in the top 20
He'll be on it... they will just overrate him

Monomach
10-22-2010, 11:10 AM
In this thread, we pretend that when a team loses in the playoffs, it's the quarterback's fault.

So basically, Dan Marino is a piece of under-.500 garbage.

yourfavestoner
10-22-2010, 11:22 AM
In this thread, we pretend that when a team loses in the playoffs, it's the quarterback's fault.

So basically, Dan Marino is a piece of under-.500 garbage.

Does anybody really rate Marino over Montana or Elway? Why or why not? He's a better passer in almost every conceivable category.

FWIW, Montana was considered a game manager earlier in his career and blossomed statistically later. Sounds awfully familiar to me.

AntoinCD
10-22-2010, 11:54 AM
Does anybody really rate Marino over Montana or Elway? Why or why not? He's a better passer in almost every conceivable category.

FWIW, Montana was considered a game manager earlier in his career and blossomed statistically later. Sounds awfully familiar to me.

When it comes to QBs like Marino and i'm throwing Manning in there too, my question is this. You have absolutely killed the opposition throughout the regular season. Regardless of any other thing, weapons, defense, offensive line, playcalling etc, why could you do it in the regular season but struggle in the postseason?

The Colts are the best regular season team of the last decade but came away with one Superbowl. Marino killed all in his path in the 80s but didn't win a Superbowl. Something has to be said for being clutch. I can't remember who said it in another thread but Adam Vinatieri is 70% in his Superbowl career on field goals. But he was clutch at the right moments. Those moments are what seperate the good from the great.

wonderbredd24
10-22-2010, 12:14 PM
Personally, I think Marino had garbage to work with... the Marks brothers were ok, but overrated and who else did he have besides them?

Never had a running game, his receivers were average at best, and he put up all of those ridiculous numbers before the rule changes.

I've got him in the best 5 QBs of all time.

bigbluedefense
10-22-2010, 12:16 PM
I don't particularly like this list so far.

All I'm saying is LT better be in the top 5.

Nalej
10-22-2010, 01:06 PM
Personally, I think Marino had garbage to work with... the Marks brothers were ok, but overrated and who else did he have besides them?

Never had a running game, his receivers were average at best, and he put up all of those ridiculous numbers before the rule changes.

I've got him in the best 5 QBs of all time.

Agreed. I don't see how he can't be anyone's top 5.

J52
10-22-2010, 01:12 PM
The term "clutch" is flawed.

When you have a sample set of one game to decide if a player is "clutch," you can't decide anything.

From a statistic stand point, there is a perfect argument that Tom Brady is one of the least clutch QBs of all time. Playing in four games and winning three can be 100% luck or 100% talent. Technically speaking, if he were an absolute C average QB, winning 3/4 isn't that unlikely.

Even if a player is actually absolutely clutch, missing one attempt blows the image. If the most clutch player misses his 1 of 500 attempts while the camera is on, he's 0/1 in the spotlight. Same thing in reverse.

boknows34
10-22-2010, 01:15 PM
The Dolphins defense and running game held back the Dolphins during the Marino era. Troy Stradford, Sammie Smith, Lorenzo Hampton, Karim-Abdul-Jabbar, Mark Higgs, Bernie Parmalee, JJ Johnson, Woody Bennett, Tony Nathan and Andra Franklin all led the Dolphins in rushing during the Marino era. That's 10 RBs and only one (Abdul-Jabbar) ever cracked 1,000 yds in a Dolphins uniform.

From 1984 (Marino's 1st full yr as starter) Miami were ranked in the Top 8 offenses 11 times in the next 12 years. In those same 12 seasons Miami's best rankings on defense was 7th and 10th. The other 10 seasons the Dolphins were ranked in the bottom half of the NFL, including the bottom six 6 times in 7 seasons (85-91).

Their defensive ranking from 1984-94 in a 28 team NFL were as follows:
19th, 23rd, 26th, 26th, 26th, 24th, 7th, 25th, 10th, 20th, 19th.

From 1995-97 in a 30 team NFL the Dolphins D was 16th, 17th and 26th. Miami's Defenses did improve to 3rd and 5th for Dan's last two seasons but it was too little too late. They won their wild card games both years but were then crushed by Denver and Jacksonville in the playoffs 38-3 and 62-7.

Marino's career without a decent RB or Top defense was like Barry Sanders lacking a top D and a decent QB.

Complex
10-22-2010, 08:08 PM
Personally, I think Marino had garbage to work with... the Marks brothers were ok, but overrated and who else did he have besides them?

Never had a running game, his receivers were average at best, and he put up all of those ridiculous numbers before the rule changes.

I've got him in the best 5 QBs of all time.

I know comparing him and manning is dumb, If Marino had these rules and the colts WRs and EJ, he would of won a superbowl or 2.

Complex
10-22-2010, 08:20 PM
Manning:
18 games (9-9)
435-692
62.9%
5,164 yds
28 TDs
19 INTs
7.46 ypa
87.6 QB rating
1-1 Super Bowl record (1 MVP)


Brady:
18 games (14-4)
395-637
62.0%
4,108 yds
28 TDs
15 INTs
6.45 ypa
85.5 QB rating
3-1 Super Bowl record (2 MVP)

How do you work out that Manning plays better in the postseason than Brady?

It must be the extra .9% completion percentage. It bears no relevance of who he was throwing to all those years or that Brady only had elite weapons for two years in the postseason(4 games). Oh, or it must be the passer rating which is definitely the best way to determine how well a QB plays and is a massive 2.1 points above Brady. Or wait I know it must be all the TDs he's thrown more of than Brady...oh wait, or the fact he's thrown less INTs...oh wait, or it must be he has a better playoff record than Brady...oh wait, or at least he's won more Superbowls than Brady...oh wait, or that he's won more Superbowl MVP awards than Brady...oh wait.

OK you got me. Im stumped, Ive gotta ask. How the hell is Manning better than Brady in the postseason?

If you don't count Peyton wins/stats against broncos and chiefs, his stats are below average.

Complex
10-22-2010, 08:23 PM
There is more to a player than winning. Is Charles Haley the best playoff player of all time? Other things come into it. There are reasons that Tom Brady has lost only 4 times and Peyton Manning has lost 9 times and not all of those reasons have anything to do with either Tom Brady or Peyton Manning.

Qb's get the most credit for superbowl wins look at Peyton only superbowl win, he played average at best and was MVP not to mention he played like garbage during their run(in the playoffs). If Charles Haley was QB, he would be a first valot HOF because of his 5 SB wins(He should be in the HOF right now but the media hates him).

Ness
10-22-2010, 10:32 PM
There is more to a player than winning. Is Charles Haley the best playoff player of all time? Other things come into it. There are reasons that Tom Brady has lost only 4 times and Peyton Manning has lost 9 times and not all of those reasons have anything to do with either Tom Brady or Peyton Manning.
How many complete meltdowns did Manning have though? We're talking about the best of all time here. Manning shouldn't be excused from his playoff blunders.

Ness
10-22-2010, 10:34 PM
In this thread, we pretend that when a team loses in the playoffs, it's the quarterback's fault.

So basically, Dan Marino is a piece of under-.500 garbage.

Well the quarterback also gets the glory when the team wins it all in the playoffs a lot of the time. It goes hand and hand.

Joecool
10-22-2010, 11:27 PM
Cris Carter!!!!!!!!

Ness
10-23-2010, 12:38 AM
Cris Carter!!!!!!!!

Looks like he's not going to be on the list. Along with others like Warren Moon and Warren Sapp. Not having Carter is a crime though. Namath makes the list, but Carter doesn't. Hmm...

boknows34
10-23-2010, 01:09 AM
Looks like he's not going to be on the list. Along with others like Warren Moon and Warren Sapp. Not having Carter is a crime though. Namath makes the list, but Carter doesn't. Hmm...


Steve Largent should be there too. He retired #1 all-time for receptions, yards and TD catches and was also a 1st ballot HOFer. Largent was the 1st receiver to 100 TD catches breaking Don Hutson's record which had stood for 50 years. I'd definitely have him there over Crazy Legs Hirsch.

Larry Wilson and Ken Houston were the safetys on the 75th Anniversary All-Time team. How did they not make the Top 100?

Sapp was a guy who I thought would make the Top 100 but its not a massive snub. Warren Moon is outside The Top 100 imo. If Buffalo had won just one of their 4 Super Bowl apperances (Norwood's miss in SB 25 being the obvbious one) I think Jim Kelly would be there.

Ness
10-23-2010, 01:21 AM
Yes Steve Largent should be there as well. Ken Houston too. Yet Ed Reed makes it over Houston.

fenikz
10-23-2010, 02:19 AM
did Warner make the list?

Ed Reed is very arguably the greatest FS ever

Ness
10-23-2010, 02:40 AM
did Warner make the list?

Ed Reed is very arguably the greatest FS ever

Kurt Warner made the list.

Joecool
10-23-2010, 05:34 AM
Looks like he's not going to be on the list. Along with others like Warren Moon and Warren Sapp. Not having Carter is a crime though. Namath makes the list, but Carter doesn't. Hmm...

WOW carter was just stupid good! I would have carter over irvin no question.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
10-23-2010, 09:27 AM
It's not the bottom 100 players, Thumper.

elway=goat
10-23-2010, 09:51 AM
2001-2003 Damien Woody
2003-Now Dan Koppen

Both Pro Bowlers

Brady has always had Matt Light, also a Pro Bowler.

What I meant is that half of the time Brady is in the Playoffs he has had a person on his line who was in the Pro Bowl that year.

There are 10 Quarterbacks in NFL history with more Superbowl wins than Peyton Manning. Anyone going to claim that they are all better than him? Superbowl victories are a key statistic but they are not the only key statistic.

I guess it depends on what game it is, week 6 in the regular season, im probably taking Manning. 1 playoff game to win? Im probably not taking Manning. Im not sure if he makes my top 10.

For as great as Manning is, he shits the bed in the playoffs far to much compared to other hall of fame qb's for me to have confidence in him to get 1 game won. Its not even he plays bad through out the game, it just seems in big games, especially in the 3rd or 4th quarter through out his career he shits the bed.

He is the Wilt Chamberlain of the NFL. Yeah, you can make the case that he is worlds apart of everyone else especially when you look at his regular season work. Then, in the playoffs especially if he has to play outside in the cold or moderate wheather he just turns into something else.

So no, if he does make my top 10, he is toward the bottom for a game that matters. He would probably move up slightly if its indoors. But he probably falls out of my top 10, if its outdoors and probably out of the top 12-15 if its cold outdoors.

Take a look at all the first round picks the Colts picks around Manning throughout his career. I would say 80%+ of the first round picks were offensive players, so please dont act as if Manning turns all these scrubs into allpros. Manning has had elite offensive talent his entire career. You can make the case he has played with 5 hall of famers on offense. Not counting the year he had with Marshal Faulk.

Brady has 1, Moss and he had him for what like 2.3 years or something. Brady was the real player making scrubs look decent TBH. The year they beat Carolina they had one of the worst running games for a team ever to win a Super Bowl statistically. No all pro WR.

In terms of the top 100...

The list is a Joke. I personally believe Elway is one of the few that put teams on his back. A couple of those SB teams that went, didnt even have thousand yard rushers or recievers. To put Brady ahead of his is surprising and sad at the same time.

I cant believe Sayers finished ahead of him either. Wow.

Manning being ahead of all of them is kinda a joke to me. Maybe for the regular season, and indoors. WOW!

Chris Carter being ahead of Elway is a joke as well. WOW. Whatever, this list kinda sucked from the start. Now it really sucks.

boknows34
10-23-2010, 01:27 PM
In terms of the top 100...

The list is a Joke. I personally believe Elway is one of the few that put teams on his back. A couple of those SB teams that went, didnt even have thousand yard rushers or recievers. To put Brady ahead of his is surprising and sad at the same time.

I cant believe Sayers finished ahead of him either. Wow.

Manning being ahead of all of them is kinda a joke to me. Maybe for the regular season, and indoors. WOW!

Chris Carter being ahead of Elway is a joke as well. WOW. Whatever, this list kinda sucked from the start. Now it really sucks.


Cris Carter is not making the Top 20 so he won't be ahead of Elway. The only WRs left will be Rice and Hutson.

boknows34
10-23-2010, 01:32 PM
In Manning's defence the Colts were 3-13 and their offense ranked 20th out of 30 teams the year before he was drafted. Marshall Faulk was a 4th year vet with 1,500 yds from scrimmage and 8 TDs that season. Marvin Harrison didn't turn into Marvin Harrison until his 4th season and Manning's 2nd season.

Harrison in his first two seasons went:
64-836-8
73-866-6

Season 3 with Manning as a rookie:
59-776-7 (in 12 games)

Seasons 4-7
115-1663-12
102-1413-14
109-1524-15
143-1722-11

How much of that improvement was down to Harrison and how much to having Manning take a big leap from his 2nd season onwards?

Even Faulk saw a big jump in his numbers in the one season he had with Manning - which was his 5th in the NFL.

Rushing:
1,282-11 (4.1ypc)
1,078-11 (3.7ypc)
587-11 (3.0 ypc) - 13 games
1,054-7 (4.0 ypc)
1,319-6- Manning's rookie year

Receiving
52-522-1
56-475-3
56-428-0
47-471-1
86-908-4 - Manning's rookie year

tuan33
10-23-2010, 02:10 PM
I know comparing him and manning is dumb, If Marino had these rules and the colts WRs and EJ, he would of won a superbowl or 2.

If you're going to make up some stupid arbitrary number of super bowl wins, why stop at 2? Why not say 15 while you're at it. It's a two way street with WR and a QB. You're acting like the wide receivers made Manning what he is today. Also when did draft position play any role with how great a player is going to become. If that were the case, the raiders would be a playoff team by now with how high they're constantly picking in the draft. Manning does play a role in how productive his wide receivers are. There is no way Collie would become half as productive as he is if he were on the Raiders. Manning played a role in his development and helped him tap into his potential.

With the playoffs, unless Marino has at least a decent defense, he's not getting far in the playoffs. It's not just because the competition is tougher is in the playoffs, it's the weather also. As much as you want to believe that it's easy to chuck a football around, the rain and snow makes it harder.

I really don't understand why people can't understand they're seeing one of the greatest football players ever right now in Manning. It's the same thing with Barry Bonds. Such a high level of consistent excellence and people just don't appreciate what they're seeing.

prock
10-23-2010, 03:55 PM
Brady over Elway is debatable.

wordofi
10-23-2010, 04:01 PM
I though Emmitt Smith was underrated at #28. I think he should have been in the teens at a minimum.

Also, I think Brett Favre goes in the top 10.

boknows34
10-23-2010, 04:41 PM
I though Emmitt Smith was underrated at #28. I think he should have been in the teens at a minimum.

Also, I think Brett Favre goes in the top 10.


28 for Emmitt was about right. For me there's a gap between Brown, Payton, Sanders and everyone else. And no way Favre is Top 10. In fact he's definitely on next week's show with Mooch as his presenter. I think he'll be the lowest of the 6 remaining QBs to be selected.

Montana, Rice, Brown, Hutson, Payton, Unitas, Graham, Baugh, Sanders, Reggie White, Munoz should all be higher.

elway=goat
10-23-2010, 06:28 PM
Does anybody really rate Marino over Montana or Elway? Why or why not? He's a better passer in almost every conceivable category.
FWIW, Montana was considered a game manager earlier in his career and blossomed statistically later. Sounds awfully familiar to me.

Marino had the fastest release ever, and good arm strength and constantly threw the ball, just how he liked it. He wanted to throw the ball so they did, its the main reason why he failed so much in the playoffs. He had too much control, same reason why Manning fails so often too.

But to the bold, as I stated above Marino was a better "passer" but he was missing "it". All he had was his quick release and good arm strength and nothing else, he didnt make plays with his feet, he was a statue. When he played defense that could get to him he was toast.

Montana and Elway especially could improvise in those situations much better than Marino could imo. That is what made them better players.

Marino was as 1 diminsional as the offense he was running.

Ness
10-23-2010, 10:53 PM
Chris Carter being ahead of Elway is a joke as well. WOW. Whatever, this list kinda sucked from the start. Now it really sucks.

Cris Carter might not make the list.

wonderbredd24
10-23-2010, 10:58 PM
Marino had the fastest release ever, and good arm strength and constantly threw the ball, just how he liked it. He wanted to throw the ball so they did, its the main reason why he failed so much in the playoffs. He had too much control, same reason why Manning fails so often too.

But to the bold, as I stated above Marino was a better "passer" but he was missing "it". All he had was his quick release and good arm strength and nothing else, he didnt make plays with his feet, he was a statue. When he played defense that could get to him he was toast.

Montana and Elway especially could improvise in those situations much better than Marino could imo. That is what made them better players.

Marino was as 1 diminsional as the offense he was running.
Isn't Dan Marino 2nd on the all time list for 4th quarter comebacks?

elway=goat
10-24-2010, 12:43 AM
Isn't Dan Marino 2nd on the all time list for 4th quarter comebacks?

What does that have to do with his ability to emprovise when a single play breaks down? Also, if that is your reasoning on why you think he might be more clutch, he finished his career with 2 more, but played in extra year in which he collected an extra 3.

wonderbredd24
10-24-2010, 12:47 AM
What does that have to do with his ability to emprovise when a single play breaks down?
He had no speed to speak of, but Dan Marino was extremely effective at feeling the rush, taking one step and completely evading the pressure. It's rare to see someone with the pocket presence and feel of Marino.

boknows34
10-24-2010, 02:42 AM
He had no speed to speak of, but Dan Marino was extremely effective at feeling the rush, taking one step and completely evading the pressure. It's rare to see someone with the pocket presence and feel of Marino.

Great point and NFL Films did this nice piece on Marino's great pocket awareness and mobility for their Top 10 series - though Fran Tarkenton disagrees!! :)

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d801f9781/Top-Ten-Mobile-QBs-Dan-Marino

In some ways it reminds me of a great quote on Dick Butkus by his Bears teammate Ed O'Bradovich.

''For Dick to run a 100yd dash, it would take him three days. But I wanna tell you something," continued O'Bradovich. "From that middle linebacker, 20 yards this way, 20 yards that way, and 20 yards that way, I mean nobody, nobody was quicker than he was.''

Joecool
10-24-2010, 03:12 AM
Man im still not over cris carter not being on this list. Im just in shock. Im looking at these highlights and im like in pure awe. Cris Carter is tits.

elway=goat
10-24-2010, 04:22 AM
He had no speed to speak of, but Dan Marino was extremely effective at feeling the rush, taking one step and completely evading the pressure. It's rare to see someone with the pocket presence and feel of Marino.

I guess we can agree to disagree. One of the scouts(What he does for a living not some random internet guy) who posts on another website, had a pretty similar view to what I see in Marino, I figured I would share his take.

Dan Marino is easily the most overrated sporting entity in American pro sports history.

Consider this:
The year before Marino, the Dolphins were in the Super Bowl with a career backup named David Woodley, a defense that ranked 5th and featured 4 Pro Bowlers and 3 DROYs over the last 5 years, and Don Shula as coach. Marino got them back to just one other Super Bowl, which they lost--and that was his great season.

Marino simply threw the ball a whole lot more than anyone else, that's why his numbers looked so awesome. He averaged almost 7 attempts per game more than any other QB over the period 1985-90. His QB rating+ (comparative to league average) ranks 20th, though to be fair he's way ahead of most of his contemporaries from the 80s. Brady is 14th. The closest career comparisons in terms of YPA+, QB Rating+, and Completion % to Marino are Jeff Garcia, Jim Zorn, and Daunte Culpepper--not exactly a list of all-time greatness. He actually ranks BELOW Mark Brunell in those combined metrics, and Brunell had a better playoff record (5-5) to boot.

As I've always said about Marino: if I need one guy to throw one pass, he's no lower than 2nd on my list. But there's a hell of a lot more to being a great QB than just being able to throw the ball great--and Marino was not good at much else other than throwing with that awesome release and velocity. He's the Stephon Marbury of the NFL--loads of great numbers but they're amazingly empty.

From Iceness: In a Marino vs Brady thread, I figure its somewhat relevent because him Brady/Manning/Elway/Montana all have been in discussion with this thread.

boknows34
10-24-2010, 05:32 AM
Come on. Marino as a football player is on a different planet to Marbury in the NBA.

And why only look at Miami's defense in 1982 and ignore what the Dolphins D was actually like when Marino was there and in his prime.

Here is what I wrote in an earlier post on this thread.

From 1984 (Marino's 1st full yr as starter) Miami were ranked in the Top 8 offenses 11 times in the next 12 years. In those same 12 seasons Miami's best rankings on defense was 7th and 10th. The other 10 seasons the Dolphins were ranked in the bottom half of the NFL, including the bottom six 6 times in 7 seasons (85-91).

Their defensive ranking from 1984-94 in a 28 team NFL were as follows:
19th, 23rd, 26th, 26th, 26th, 24th, 7th, 25th, 10th, 20th, 19th.

From 1995-97 in a 30 team NFL the Dolphins D was 16th, 17th and 26th. Miami's Defenses did improve to 3rd and 5th for Dan's last two seasons. They won their wild card games both years but were then crushed by Denver and Jacksonville in the playoffs 38-3 and 62-7.

You can also look at their terrible running game. Troy Stradford, Sammie Smith, Lorenzo Hampton, Karim-Abdul-Jabbar, Mark Higgs, Bernie Parmalee, JJ Johnson, Woody Bennett, Tony Nathan and Andra Franklin all led the Dolphins in rushing during the Marino era. That's 10 RBs and only one (Abdul-Jabbar) ever cracked 1,000 yds in a Dolphins uniform.

boknows34
10-24-2010, 06:01 AM
The '82 Dolphins got to the Super Bowl on the strength of their Killer B's defense which featured 7 defensive starters with a surname beginning with B.

By 1986 the Def had aged and declined to the stage where they were 26th in points conceded and 26th in yardage in a 28 team NFL.

What killed the Dolphins is that they drafted poorly after Marino. They never found him a decent RB and 1st rd picks were spent on Lorenzo Hampton and Sammie Smith, who was taken 9th overall in 1989 just 6 spots after Barry Sanders. Both players finished with less than 2,000 career rushing yards.

The Killer B's got old and were replaced by 1st rd busts Jackie Shipp, John Bosa and Eric Kumerow. Bosa and Kumerow were DEs who finished with 12 career sacks between them. 2nd rd picks were spent on a DE and 3 LBs during the mid to late 80s and John Offerdahl was the only success. The other three players were busts. That's seven defensive picks in the first two rounds on DEs and LBs and 6 were busts. Combine that with the Hampton and Smith disappointments in the 1st rd and Marino was unfortunate the Dolphins drafted like Matt Millen during his prime.

boknows34
10-24-2010, 06:07 AM
Man im still not over cris carter not being on this list. Im just in shock. Im looking at these highlights and im like in pure awe. Cris Carter is tits.

Rice and Moss will end up being the only WRs on this Top 100 list who were drafted since the merger in 1970. No Carter. No Largent.

elway=goat
10-24-2010, 07:07 AM
Come on. Marino as a football player is on a different planet to Marbury in the NBA.

And why only look at Miami's defense in 1982 and ignore what the Dolphins D was actually like when Marino was there and in his prime.

Here is what I wrote in an earlier post on this thread.

From 1984 (Marino's 1st full yr as starter) Miami were ranked in the Top 8 offenses 11 times in the next 12 years. In those same 12 seasons Miami's best rankings on defense was 7th and 10th. The other 10 seasons the Dolphins were ranked in the bottom half of the NFL, including the bottom six 6 times in 7 seasons (85-91).

Their defensive ranking from 1984-94 in a 28 team NFL were as follows:
19th, 23rd, 26th, 26th, 26th, 24th, 7th, 25th, 10th, 20th, 19th.

From 1995-97 in a 30 team NFL the Dolphins D was 16th, 17th and 26th. Miami's Defenses did improve to 3rd and 5th for Dan's last two seasons. They won their wild card games both years but were then crushed by Denver and Jacksonville in the playoffs 38-3 and 62-7.

You can also look at their terrible running game. Troy Stradford, Sammie Smith, Lorenzo Hampton, Karim-Abdul-Jabbar, Mark Higgs, Bernie Parmalee, JJ Johnson, Woody Bennett, Tony Nathan and Andra Franklin all led the Dolphins in rushing during the Marino era. That's 10 RBs and only one (Abdul-Jabbar) ever cracked 1,000 yds in a Dolphins uniform.

While I agree the Marbury comparison is extreme, I stand by what I said above. Marino is overrated and was missing "it". He had too much control of an offense, was allowed to fling it way to much to pad his stats, and he was his own ultimate downfall.

As far as his defense goes..

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_57_The_Marino_mythology.html

Myth: Dan Marino had no defense.

Cold, Hard Football Facts: Marino played 17 seasons in the NFL. Twice, he had the luxury of playing with the league’s No. 1 scoring defense: his rookie year of 1983 (15.6 points per game), and again in 1998 (16.6 points per game). That’s a pretty enviable ratio in a league that had 28 and then 30 teams in Marino’s playing days.

Consider this: Terry Bradshaw played 14 seasons in Pittsburgh and won four Super Bowls. The famed Steel Curtain defense that he played with led the league in scoring just twice in those 14 years. Of Bradshaw's four title teams, only one boasted the league's best scoring defense.

In Marino’s record-setting 1984 season, the Dolphins had the No. 1 scoring offense in football and the No. 6 scoring defense (18.6 points per game). The 1990 Dolphins, meanwhile, boasted the league’s No. 4 scoring defense, surrendering just 15.1 points per game.

There’s no doubt Marino played with some poor defenses in his day, but that’s the price of playing in the league 17 years. But the Cold, Hard Football Facts show that he also played with several defenses more than strong enough to win Super Bowls.


Running game:

Myth: Marino had no running game.

Cold, Hard Football Facts: Marino joined Miami at a time when it had a reputation of being the best ground team in football. In fact, the year before Marino was drafted, the Dolphins made it all the way to the Super Bowl on the strength of a great running game and great defense.

In Marino’s rookie year, 1983, the Dolphins racked up 2,150 yards on the ground. In 1984, Marino set single-season records with 48 touchdowns and 5,084 yards passing. The Dolphins still managed 1,918 rushing yards and averaged 4.0 yards per carry.

It would be disingenuous to say that the Dolphins were a great running team later in Marino’s career. Of course, much of that can be attributed to too few rushing attempts and a misguided faith placed in Marino’s arm.

But consider this: The New England Patriots went 17-2 and won the Super Bowl last year while averaging a woeful 3.4 yards per rushing attempt. The Dolphins averaged more than 3.4 yards per rushing attempt 14 times in Marino’s 17 seasons. In other words, Marino's Dolphins ran the ball more than well enough to win Super Bowls.

He did it himself?

Myth: Marino had to carry the Dolphins himself.

Cold, Hard Football Facts: Few quarterbacks in NFL history have been surrounded by more talent than Marino.

In his 17-year career, Marino played with 55 players named to the Pro Bowl. Marino himself was named a Pro Bowler nine times. That’s a remarkable 64 Pro Bowl players, or nearly four for every season Marino spent in the NFL. Four times in Marino’s career, the Dolphins boasted five or more Pro Bowl players in a single season. Compare that with New England’s two Super Bowl teams, which had a total of just five Pro Bowl players.

Marino also had the rare luxury of joining a team that had played in the Super Bowl the year before he arrived. He also played most of his career for the winningest coach in NFL history, Don Shula.

Shula has quite a resume. Working with quarterbacks Bob Griese, Earl Morrall and Johnny Unitas, he led the Colts and Dolphins to five Super Bowls in 15 years. Over the next 13 seasons, working with Marino, he appeared in just one more Super Bowl. He lost.

If any quarterback in NFL history walked into an ideal situation in which to win a Super Bowl, it was Dan Marino.

Somewhat describes Peyton Manning in this description here..

Myth: Marino was a big-game quarterback.

Cold, Hard Football Facts: Want to know the real reason why Marino never won a Super Bowl? Sadly, the answer sits with Dan Marino himself.

Simply put, Marino did not elevate his game in the playoffs. In fact, his played dropped off quite noticeably. Marino has a career regular season passer rating of 86.4. His postseason passer rating was just 77.1. He played in 18 playoff games, and won just eight of them.

In his one Super Bowl appearance (a 38-16 loss to the 49ers in Super Bowl XIX), Marino completed 29 of 50 passes for 318 yards, 1 TD and 2 INTs. It adds up to a weak 66.9 passer rating. One wonders what might have happened had his two Super Bowl drives that ended in interceptions ended in touchdowns instead.

Remember that 1998 Miami team that had the best defense in football? It made the playoffs, but Marino failed to hold up his end of the bargain. The season ended in the second round of the playoffs, with Marino coughing up two interceptions against Denver and posting a passer rating of just 65.5. Yet another opportunity for Marino to win a Super Bowl tossed into the hands of an opposing defender.


In fact, Marino threw at least one interception in 13 of his 18 career playoff games. He threw two or more interceptions 10 times. The Dolphins went just 1-9 in those 10 Marino multi-interception playoff games.

So, DollFans, if you're looking for a reason why Miami never won a Super Bowl in the 1980s or 90s, look no further than the faded Dan Marino poster still taped to the ceiling over your bed.

I think the coldhardfootballfacts crew, pretty much described Dan Marino to a T.

elway=goat
10-24-2010, 07:43 AM
As far as Elway goes, I know he was bad in the Superbowls, and his passing numbers are nothing to write home about(even though he somehow found his way to many of the top 5-10 statistically in most major catagorys).

However, Elway is the only player I have seen that litterally put a team on his back. A team that would not of made the playoffs without him, and he took 3 of them to the superbowl. Although they were smoked in the games, and had no right being there, on the same field as those teams they faced, especally the stacked 9ers team.. One thing You have to think about..

Elway never played with a hall of famer, through out the 80's and up untill around 95-96(When Sharp started coming on). He never had a Pro Bowl WR, or Offensive linemen untill around 91ish. I think Bobby Humphires made a Pro Bowl in 90 or 91. Those Broncos teams were the least talented teams ever to make a Superbowl, and they made it 3 times.

I dont see anyone, with the kind of talent on those Broncos teams, doing that. One(possibly 2, havent looked the numbers up in awhile) of the Broncos teams didnt have a thousand yard Reciever or Runningback. That should tell you something about the impact that guy had on the team. He was the heart and soul of those teams.

The only other really memerable players from those teams, was Mecklenberg and Atwater(who should be a HOF'er).
He well deserved the MVP in 87 and he should have about 2-3 more.

Addict
10-24-2010, 09:47 AM
one thing I found highly amusing is that the same guys who always say "defense wins championships" get to make a list and offensive guys outnumer the defensive guys 2 to 1.... hypocricy much?

Saints-Tigers
10-24-2010, 11:37 AM
Dan Marino was a lot better than Elway.

wonderbredd24
10-24-2010, 11:42 AM
Who were these 55 Pro Bowlers?

boknows34
10-24-2010, 11:44 AM
I think the coldhardfootballfacts crew, pretty much described Dan Marino to a T.

I think they are cherry picking to suit their argument while ignoring the total picture.

The Dolphins defensive ranking from 1984-94 in a 28 team NFL were as follows: 19th, 23rd, 26th, 26th, 26th, 24th, 7th, 25th, 10th, 20th, 19th.

They were bottom half for 95-97.

Are we really going to compare the Steel Curtain to that? Its like saying Walter Payton and Christian Okoye are comparible because they both led the NFL in rushing just once.

The only thing you could possibly criticise is 1998 and 99 when they had a good young defense under Jimmy Johnson. A defense which then gave up 100 points in two playoff games.

And btw - I'm a big Elway fan but Marino was just better imo. Gary Zimmerman was a HOF left tackle on those Super Bowl teams. Terrell Davis was a 2,000 yd rusher behind an excellent line. Shannon Sharpe - future HOFer. Smith, McCaffrey - very good WRs. The D was pretty good too. Those teams were loaded. Miami had Karim-Abdul-Jabbar and OJ McDuffie as their leading offensive 'stars' besides Dan in 1998-99.

Nalej
10-24-2010, 11:46 AM
I think they are cherry picking to suit their argument whil eignoring the total picture.

The Dolphins defensive ranking from 1984-94 in a 28 team NFL were as follows: 19th, 23rd, 26th, 26th, 26th, 24th, 7th, 25th, 10th, 20th, 19th.

They were bottom half for 95-97.

Are we really going to compare the Steel Curtain to that? Its like saying Walter Payton and Christian Okoye are comparible because they both led the NFL in rushing just once.

The only thing you could possibly criticise is 1998 and 99 when they had a good young defense under Jimmy Johnson. A defense which then gave up 100 points in two playoff games.

My thoughts exactly.
When did a high scoring defense equal a good defense?
They can score 2 TDs a game if they want but if they give up 40 a game- who cares?

Ness
10-24-2010, 07:47 PM
one thing I found highly amusing is that the same guys who always say "defense wins championships" get to make a list and offensive guys outnumer the defensive guys 2 to 1.... hypocricy much?

Perhaps. But I think that phrase applies to a team aspect. Not individual players.

Ness
10-24-2010, 07:49 PM
As far as Elway goes, I know he was bad in the Superbowls, and his passing numbers are nothing to write home about(even though he somehow found his way to many of the top 5-10 statistically in most major catagorys).

However, Elway is the only player I have seen that litterally put a team on his back. A team that would not of made the playoffs without him, and he took 3 of them to the superbowl. Although they were smoked in the games, and had no right being there, on the same field as those teams they faced, especally the stacked 9ers team.. One thing You have to think about..

Elway never played with a hall of famer, through out the 80's and up untill around 95-96(When Sharp started coming on). He never had a Pro Bowl WR, or Offensive linemen untill around 91ish. I think Bobby Humphires made a Pro Bowl in 90 or 91. Those Broncos teams were the least talented teams ever to make a Superbowl, and they made it 3 times.

I dont see anyone, with the kind of talent on those Broncos teams, doing that. One(possibly 2, havent looked the numbers up in awhile) of the Broncos teams didnt have a thousand yard Reciever or Runningback. That should tell you something about the impact that guy had on the team. He was the heart and soul of those teams.

The only other really memerable players from those teams, was Mecklenberg and Atwater(who should be a HOF'er).
He well deserved the MVP in 87 and he should have about 2-3 more.

Don't forget Dennis Smith.

As far as Elway goes, I have a lot of respect for the man and I'm glad he won two rings.

elway=goat
10-24-2010, 09:26 PM
My thoughts exactly.
When did a high scoring defense equal a good defense?
They can score 2 TDs a game if they want but if they give up 40 a game- who cares?

Scoring defense is how much they were giving up, not how much they scored. Which is more important than how many yards you are giving up.

elway=goat
10-24-2010, 09:27 PM
I think they are cherry picking to suit their argument while ignoring the total picture.

The Dolphins defensive ranking from 1984-94 in a 28 team NFL were as follows: 19th, 23rd, 26th, 26th, 26th, 24th, 7th, 25th, 10th, 20th, 19th.

They were bottom half for 95-97.

Are we really going to compare the Steel Curtain to that? Its like saying Walter Payton and Christian Okoye are comparible because they both led the NFL in rushing just once.

The only thing you could possibly criticise is 1998 and 99 when they had a good young defense under Jimmy Johnson. A defense which then gave up 100 points in two playoff games.

And btw - I'm a big Elway fan but Marino was just better imo. Gary Zimmerman was a HOF left tackle on those Super Bowl teams. Terrell Davis was a 2,000 yd rusher behind an excellent line. Shannon Sharpe - future HOFer. Smith, McCaffrey - very good WRs. The D was pretty good too. Those teams were loaded. Miami had Karim-Abdul-Jabbar and OJ McDuffie as their leading offensive 'stars' besides Dan in 1998-99.


Scoring defense is more important, a team can give up 400 yards a game, but if they only allow 2 touchdowns at the end of the day thats more important.

Also you completely ignored is playoff incompetency. The Multie interception stat is huge.

boknows34
10-25-2010, 01:38 AM
Scoring defense is more important, a team can give up 400 yards a game, but if they only allow 2 touchdowns at the end of the day thats more important.

Also you completely ignored is playoff incompetency. The Multie interception stat is huge.

Pittsburgh's scoring D from 1972-79.
2nd, 8th, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 17th, 1st, 5th. (Top 2 5 times in 8 years)

Miami's scoring D in the Marino era.
1st, 7th, 12th, 26th, 16th, 24th, 22nd, 4th, 24th, 11th, 24th, 17th, 10th, 17th, 16th, 1st, 19th.

Now take a deeper look at when Marino was both the full-time starter and the Defense was good in scoring.

In 1984, Marino's first full season as a starter, the D was 7th in scoring and they advanced to the Super Bowl where they lost to the 15-1 49ers at Stanford Stadium. No disgrace there.

In 1990 when the D finished 4th in scoring Miami were 12-4 but Buffalo won the division at 13-3 and beat the Dolphins 44-34 in the divisional playoff. Can't really blame Dan for that one either. Those Bills teams were loaded and won the 1st of 4 straight AFCCG.

In 1998 Miami led the NFL in defensive scoring. However the offense was just 16th in both scoring and total yardage. The running game featuring Abdul-Jabbar and John Avery had a 3.4 ypc. The leading receivers were OJ McDuffie, Orande Gadsden and Lamar Thomas. Now compare that to Denver with Elway's weapons that season - a 2,000 yd RB, an All-Pro TE in Sharpe and two 1,000 yd WRs. Three Broncos OL also went to the Pro Bowl that year. The defense was ranked 8th in scoring and the Broncos went 14-2 on their way to the 2nd consecutive title. Denver beat Miami 38-3 in the playoffs with Davis rushing for 199 yds and 2 TDs. Marino 26-37, 243, 0-2. Elway 14-23, 182, 1-0.

In Denver's Super Bowl victory over Green Bay, Elway was 12-22, 129 yds, 0 TD and 1 INT for a 51.9 rating. His other SB QB ratings were 83.6 vs NYG, 36.8 vs Wash, 19.4 vs SF and 99.2 vs the huge underdog Atlanta Falcons. Marino's QB rating in SB 19 was 66.9.


Career postseason numbers:
Marino
18 games
385-687
56.0%
4,510 yds
32-24 TD/INT ratio
77.1 QB rating (5 games over 100)


Elway
22 games
355-651
54.5%
4,964 yds
27-21 TD/INT ratio
79.7 QB rating (5 games over 100)


Regular season - Marino blows Elway apart.